12700K vs 245K

[Onyx Turbine]

As a 12700K user i wonder would changing into a 245K be a significant upgrade? When taking in account attached picture,
the idle power consumption figure of the 245k is 15 vs 6 Watt to the 12700k. Idle is not static, what does it really mean in reality?

 

[Dr. Dro]

It means absolutely nothing. Ryzens for example all have high idle power (20 to 30 W) due to the IOD, and it still means nothing. Desktop cooling is more than enough to continuously manage that without soaking, and power supply efficiency concerns make it so it doesn't matter whether you are drawing 10 or 50 W, if anything being a slightly higher draw tends to help the efficiency curve, unless you have a Titanium unit that is 90% efficient at 10% load.

That said... the Ultra 5 245K would be a sidegrade at best and require a platform replacement, you should look at buying a Core i7 14700K instead.

 

[dirtyferret]

As a 12700K user i wonder would changing into a 245K be a significant upgrade?

not really unless there was one specific area you only used your PC for that the 245k shined in. You will spend more money in CPU & Mobo than in energy savings and for a performance that will in most areas be at or below the 12700k.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

It means absolutely nothing. Ryzens for example all have high idle power (20 to 30 W) due to the IOD, and it still means nothing. Desktop cooling is more than enough to continuously manage that without soaking, and power supply efficiency concerns make it so it doesn't matter whether you are drawing 10 or 50 W, if anything being a slightly higher draw tends to help the efficiency curve, unless you have a Titanium unit that is 90% efficient at 10% load.

That said... the Ultra 5 245K would be a sidegrade at best and require a platform replacement, you should look at buying a Core i7 14700K instead.

I get that idle means nothing still annoying when now writing something, reading office work and a pc consumes on idle already 20watts more.
Ok see following two attachments, why is the 245k ranked so high in top passmark gaming score?
Why the 14700K and not the 14900KS?

I would perform such upgrade only for a slight improvement of system response and in gaming performance where cpu heavy tasks are needed.
Why you argue a 245 k would be a sidegrade at best as at first attachment it has 20% better score as a 12700K.
Please come with data that is backed up

Besides that lets say i would buy a 14700k now, are the now completely free from degredation issues?

 

[dirtyferret]

Why you argue a 245 k would be a sidegrade at best as at first attachment it has 20% better score as a 12700K

may want to look at w1zzards review for office performance

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the company's most affordable Arrow Lake release today. While its 6+8 core config without Hyper-Threading might make it appear weak at first, it actually punches well above its weight, especially in applications. Unfortunately gaming isn't working so well.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Onyx Turbine]

may want to look at w1zzards review for office performance

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the company's most affordable Arrow Lake release today. While its 6+8 core config without Hyper-Threading might make it appear weak at first, it actually punches well above its weight, especially in applications. Unfortunately gaming isn't working so well.

www.techpowerup.com

yes but this review is done before bios cpu update

 

[wNotyarD]

yes but this review is done before bios cpu update

The update for Arrow Lake? Not much changed, not with a 285K, at least.

Arrow Lake Retested with Latest 24H2 Updates and 0x114 Microcode

Yesterday, Intel announced that they had root-caused the majority of Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200 performance problems, and that OS updates are already available. We tested Windows 11 24H2 with the new patches, and also compare results with 23H2 and a new motherboard BIOS.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Onyx Turbine]

The update for Arrow Lake? Not much changed, not with a 285K, at least.

Arrow Lake Retested with Latest 24H2 Updates and 0x114 Microcode

Yesterday, Intel announced that they had root-caused the majority of Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200 performance problems, and that OS updates are already available. We tested Windows 11 24H2 with the new patches, and also compare results with 23H2 and a new motherboard BIOS.

www.techpowerup.com

Missed that one, wow that aint looking good, makes the 12700k look better as i refrained from 13-14 because of degredation etc. issues.
In 1440p differences are even more minimised..

And the one who read my passmark attachments, apparently not a good source.. but they have such a nice gui and ease of use

 

[rv8000]

I get that idle means nothing still annoying when now writing something, reading office work and a pc consumes on idle already 20watts more.
Ok see following two attachments, why is the 245k ranked so high in top passmark gaming score?
Why the 14700K and not the 14900KS?

I would perform such upgrade only for a slight improvement of system response and in gaming performance where cpu heavy tasks are needed.
Why you argue a 245 k would be a sidegrade at best as at first attachment it has 20% better score as a 12700K.
Please come with data that is backed up

Besides that lets say i would buy a 14700k now, are the now completely free from degredation issues?

The 245k and 14700k are almost the same price atm, while the 14700k on avg is 15% faster in applications, and ~8% faster in gaming dependent on the resolution.

The 14700k uses more power, but even in 4-5 years you’re not gonna make up the cost difference from power usage against a platform change AND a worse processor overall.

No guarantee stability problems are 100% fixed but the mitigations via bios and microcode updates more than likely mean you’ll never have an issue. I had a 14700k for a year plus and never ran into any stability issues before the fixes intel deployed.

14700k would be better if for some reason you need more performance. Otherwise side grades for power reasons aren’t going to help much at all.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

The 245k and 14700k are almost the same price atm, while the 14700k on avg is 15% faster in applications, and ~8% faster in gaming dependent on the resolution.

The 14700k uses more power, but even in 4-5 years you’re not gonna make up the cost difference from power usage against a platform change AND a worse processor overall.

No guarantee stability problems are 100% fixed but the mitigations via bios and microcode updates more than likely mean you’ll never have an issue. I had a 14700k for a year plus and never ran into any stability issues before the fixes intel deployed.

14700k would be better if for some reason you need more performance. Otherwise side grades for power reasons aren’t going to help much at all.

Ok get your reasoning, why not a 14900KS to immediately max out the platform?

 

[wNotyarD]

Ok get your reasoning, why not a 14900KS to immediately max out the platform?

Apart from the obvious "money" answer, the 14900K(S) requires substantial cooling to perform at its best and possibly some V/F curve tuning to avoid degradation. But it's an absolute beast.
Would it be an upgrade you could actually FEEL over using a 12700K, though?

 

[Onyx Turbine]

Apart from the obvious "money" answer, the 14900K(S) requires substantial cooling to perform at its best and possibly some V/F curve tuning to avoid degradation. But it's an absolute beast.
Would it be an upgrade you could actually FEEL over using a 12700K, though?

Agree did recheck its specs

 

[Dr. Dro]

Besides that lets say i would buy a 14700k now, are the now completely free from degredation issues?

Yes, and all 13th and 14th Gen parts now have 5 years warranty.

Ok get your reasoning, why not a 14900KS to immediately max out the platform?

Take it from someone who does own a KS chip: it's a beast with beastly requirements. You'll only get the best of it if you have the best of gear, and I exclude myself from that pool, even with a ROG Apex board.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

Yes, and all 13th and 14th Gen parts now have 5 years warranty.



Take it from someone who does own a KS chip: it's a beast with beastly requirements. You'll only get the best of it if you have the best of gear, and I exclude myself from that pool, even with a ROG Apex board.

good to hear from someone with such a mobo they say its tough beast to tame : ) maybe after all in retrospect a 12600k would have sufficed in my used case and provided slight power savings..

 

[Dr. Dro]

good to hear from someone with such a mobo they say its tough beast to tame : ) maybe after all in retrospect a 12600k would have sufficed in my used case and provided slight power savings..

If power savings are even remotely a concern, the KS processor is definitely not what you're after, regardless of generation. My suggestion would perhaps get a i9-13900 (with no suffix). It is a locked CPU but should be 8+16, has GPU and also power efficient. May be able to find one for an ok price.

 

[Onasi]

@Dr. Dro
He CAN technically buy a KS and just power limit it to the 13/14900 levels. Like, it’s not a GOOD move, but it is something one can do.

For maximum out of the box energy savings there are T and TE models which I have used in work builds previously and they are excellent performers while running extremely cool. Should be noted they are definitely probably not the best choice for gaming, but if one’s goal is good MT performance while staying in a small-ish power envelope or building a very SFF machine for work I can wholeheartedly recommend.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

If power savings are even remotely a concern, the KS processor is definitely not what you're after, regardless of generation. My suggestion would perhaps get a i9-13900 (with no suffix). It is a locked CPU but should be 8+16, has GPU and also power efficient. May be able to find one for an ok price.

interesting model what makes you assume its power efficient because of a 65 tdp? Also see the attachment, its score is lower than a 14700k, but is it the more cache you
attribute to a better gaming performance or?

 

[wNotyarD]

@Dr. Dro
For maximum out of the box energy savings there are T and TE models which I have used in work builds previously and they are excellent performers while running extremely cool. Should be noted they are definitely probably not the best choice for gaming, but if one’s goal is good MT performance while staying in a small-ish power envelope or building a very SFF machine for work I can wholeheartedly recommend.

I'd love to find a 9900T to slap in my laptop just for the heck of it, but it's very much unobtainium.

 

[Onasi]

interesting model what makes you assume its power efficient because of a 65 tdp?

It has a lower power limit out of the box. Theoretically. Motherboard vendor fuckery might apply.

attachment, its score is lower than a 14700k, but is it the more cache you
attribute to a better gaming performance or?

Those scores look absolutely random. What are those?
As for the gaming performance, being absolutely straight with you - unless you are planning on running a 4090 or 5090 you are unlikely to actually notice any meaningful difference between those four CPUs.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

It has a lower power limit out of the box. Theoretically. Motherboard vendor fuckery might apply.


Those scores look absolutely random. What are those?
As for the gaming performance, being absolutely straight with you - unless you are planning on running a 4090 or 5090 you are unlikely to actually notice any meaningful difference between those four CPUs.

They stem from PassMark Software - CPU Benchmark Charts there is also the number of samples visible
Could it be that actually the best value chip to performance on the lga 1700 is the 12600K as it slightly outperforms the bread and butter 12400f and 13400f while
still attain good fps

 

[Onasi]

Could it be that actually the best value chip to performance on the lga 1700 is the 12600K as it slightly outperforms the bread and butter 12400f and 13400f while
still attain good fps

Yeah, the 12600K is an extremely good chip in terms of bang for buck. Still very potent even several gens later. Being honest, all the recent i5 x600K were. The usual sanity recommendation for Intel is still, if your primary interest is gaming, is to go for i5 for value and i7 for last drops of performance. i9 offers very little for a lot more.
Course, AMD chips do muddy the waters here, but strictly speaking Intel that would be my thought process.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

Yeah, the 12600K is an extremely good chip in terms of bang for buck. Still very potent even several gens later. Being honest, all the recent i5 x600K were. The usual sanity recommendation for Intel is still, if your primary interest is gaming, is to go for i5 for value and i7 for last drops of performance. i9 offers very little for a lot more.
Course, AMD chips do muddy the waters here, but strictly speaking Intel that would be my thought process.

Interesting, you should do marketing for intel
When describing valuing the 12600k vs 12700k what is the added value of 12700K in my used case?

 

[Dr. Dro]

interesting model what makes you assume its power efficient because of a 65 tdp? Also see the attachment, its score is lower than a 14700k, but is it the more cache you
attribute to a better gaming performance or?

14700k has a higher power budget therefore it runs at faster clocks. The no suffix (65W base) and T (35W base) trade clock speeds and raw performance for power savings.

I'd love to find a 9900T to slap in my laptop just for the heck of it, but it's very much unobtainium.

It's one of the only T chips that are widely available on Aliexpress, the bad thing is the taxes...

 

[Onasi]

@Onyx Turbine
Marginal improvements to gaming performance in CPU limited scenarios. Note that I say “marginal” - unlikely to be worth the price difference. Hypothetically, can run into a situation where 6 P-cores is not enough for a given game, but I would not say that it’s likely. Maybe some simulation games? OS responsiveness is likely to be virtually the same. Of course, major performance gains can be had in heavily MT tasks like rendering or video rendering, but if that’s not something you do, well, it doesn’t really matter.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

@Onyx Turbine
Marginal improvements to gaming performance in CPU limited scenarios. Note that I say “marginal” - unlikely to be worth the price difference. Hypothetically, can run into a situation where 6 P-cores is not enough for a given game, but I would not say that it’s likely. Maybe some simulation games? OS responsiveness is likely to be virtually the same. Of course, major performance gains can be had in heavily MT tasks like rendering or video rendering, but if that’s not something you do, well, it doesn’t really matter.

Excellent again, it reminds me that the 8p where chosen in case several years down the line the 6p would cause issues