Intel Core i9-14900KS Reportedly Launches Next Week

[Dr. Dro]

Just buy a 14900KF change the multiplier to 62 and call it a day. or 65 with water cooling 6.5 GHZ. I'm still running a 9900KF at 50 or 5 GHZ all cores.

Except they're not capable of doing that.

This a joke? Intel SKUs are - in general - faster and more efficient than AMD ones. Only the 7950x / 7950x 3d has a small single digit lead over Intel. The rest of the lineup isn't even competitive in terms of perf / watt. Put everything at the same power limit. AMD's latest is barely competitive with 3 gen olds Intel

Hey fev, nice to see you back. You planning on getting one of these? Having the 13900KS on my rig I just don't see it as worth it this time around

 

[Prima.Vera]

Can I runz 2xRTX 4090 Ti on SLI with this 14900KS unlocked and loaded? My 2KW PSU is crying for help though...

 

[fevgatos]

Hey fev, nice to see you back. You planning on getting one of these? Having the 13900KS on my rig I just don't see it as worth it this time around

Since last time I regretted not getting the 13900ks, I probably will. My plan is locking it to the 13900k clocks, I fully expect a much lower power draw at same performance. Something like 70-100 watts.

I hope someone actually tests this but its' highly unlikely, remove power limits and loop cinebench is the usual testing that goes around.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Since last time I regretted not getting the 13900ks, I probably will. My plan is locking it to the 13900k clocks, I fully expect a much lower power draw at same performance. Something like 70-100 watts.

I hope someone actually tests this but its' highly unlikely, remove power limits and loop cinebench is the usual testing that goes around.

I honestly never believed Intel would bother with a 14900KS, but sounds like they're going to be some of the choicest chips around. Might be worth looking at.

 

[fevgatos]

I honestly never believed Intel would bother with a 14900KS, but sounds like they're going to be some of the choicest chips around. Might be worth looking at.

Yeah me neither, turns out they can squeeze some extra goodies.

I wish I still had my 13900k just to compare with the 14ks, I think the efficiency gains would be insane. A generational jump even

 

[Minus Infinity]

What does "designed" mean. This is going to be the most efficient Intel cpu that currently exists (I left amd out of this). I fully expect this CPU, clocked to the same speeds as a 13900k (5.5 ghz across all pcores) to drop power draw by around 70-100w. That's absolutely huge, no? Now of course, you can if you want to run this with no power or amp limits and make it draw 400+ watts or however much you can cool. So what? Don't like it, don't do it.


This a joke? Intel SKUs are - in general - faster and more efficient than AMD ones. Only the 7950x / 7950x 3d has a small single digit lead over Intel. The rest of the lineup isn't even competitive in terms of perf / watt. Put everything at the same power limit. AMD's latest is barely competitive with 3 gen olds Intel.

Test • AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Après avoir testé des références peu onéreuses sur plateforme LGA 1700, au tour de l'AM5 et d'un Ryzen 5 au tarif très doux. Tout d'un grand sauf le prix ?

hardwareand.co

Nice review, tested a non k intel cpu amongst other stuff, a 13700. Topped the entire chart, lol. And im not even touching the idle power draw, 40w more from the wall for the zen 4 cpus, OUCH.

LOL

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k

Winner: AMD

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. Not only do they suck less peak power, but they also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in an overall win in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you'll end up with a cooler and quieter system.

 

[Dr. Dro]

LOL

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k

Winner: AMD

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. Not only do they suck less peak power, but they also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in an overall win in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you'll end up with a cooler and quieter system.

I mean, no wonder. It's a fancy 10 nm processor vs. another on optimized TSMC N5. It's surprising Intel has pushed these CPUs as far as they did.

 

[fevgatos]

LOL

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-vs-intel-core-i9-13900k

Winner: AMD

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. Not only do they suck less peak power, but they also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in an overall win in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you'll end up with a cooler and quieter system.

Nope. Efficiency is measured at iso watts. If you don't normalize then the results are useless. What other device do you compare like that? Do you max fans at 100% and measure noise to performance? Of course not, that would be idiotic. You normalize for noise and then check the performance.

If you strictly want to compare out of the box, then got some news for you, intel has non k and t cpus that demolish everything amd has in efficiency out of the box. Just don't go there.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Nope. Efficiency is measured at iso watts. If you don't normalize then the results are useless. What other device do you compare like that? Do you max fans at 100% and measure noise to performance? Of course not, that would be idiotic. You normalize for noise and then check the performance.

If you strictly want to compare out of the box, then got some news for you, intel has non k and t cpus that demolish everything amd has in efficiency out of the box. Just don't go there.

You are the only one claiming this. We have the proof it's the polar opposite of your reality. Anandtech, Techspot, this site, Tom's hardware.

AMD has non X cpus too. At lower power AMD demolishes Raptor Lake. Power limit your 14900 to 35W and do the same for 7950X and the AMD is 2x as fast!

 

[chrcoluk]

Just buy a 14900KF change the multiplier to 62 and call it a day. or 65 with water cooling 6.5 GHZ. I'm still running a 9900KF at 50 or 5 GHZ all cores.

Would a 14900KF not binned for 6.2ghz be stable at 6.2ghz though? I think if it could do 6.2ghz it would be sold as a 14900KS.

 

[fevgatos]

Power limit your 14900 to 35W and do the same for 7950X and the AMD is 2x as fast!

Nope. Even my 12900k at 35w is faster than the 7950x at 35w.

There is a thread somehwere in the forum, we tested it. Intel > everything in efficiency.

 

[rv8000]

Nope. Even my 12900k at 35w is faster than the 7950x at 35w.

There is a thread somehwere in the forum, we tested it. Intel > everything in efficiency.

Absolutely wrong, but keep dreaming. Nothing wrong with using an Intel CPU, but they're not power efficient period.

 

[fevgatos]

Absolutely wrong, but keep dreaming. Nothing wrong with using an Intel CPU, but they're not power efficient period.

View attachment 338123

Those are eco modes, not power draw. The 7950x does not score 30k at 65w, lol. Im sure you know that already, so no idea why you are even posting that graph. Are you trying to fool someone that doesn't know or what is the point?

These are the actual numbers, and as you can see, the performance / watt difference is within single digits - and that's on the only segment that AMD actually leads. In every other segment it's a disaster

We also have TPUs own review which shows that a 14900k @ 200w is more efficient than the 7950x, and at 125w it's more efficient than the 7950x 3d. You want me to link it or you know it already and you pretend otherwise?


EG1. Ok, your numbers are from this review. https://pokde.net/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review

Right under the graph you pulled the reviewer himself says that the AMD part was drawing a ton more power, namely at the 105w mode it was drawing 142 watts!!! But you decided to hide that information. Very dishonest behavior, you need to stop it, you might lead someone into buying the wrong product with your misinformation. It's not nice dude, STOP it.

 

[rv8000]

Those are eco modes, not power draw. The 7950x does not score 30k at 65w, lol. Im sure you know that already, so no idea why you are even posting that graph. Are you trying to fool someone that doesn't know or what is the point?

These are the actual numbers, and as you can see, the performance / watt difference is within single digits - and that's on the only segment that AMD actually leads. In every other segment it's a disaster

We also have TPUs own review which shows that a 14900k @ 200w is more efficient than the 7950x, and at 125w it's more efficient than the 7950x 3d. You want me to link it or you know it already and you pretend otherwise?


EG1. Ok, your numbers are from this review. https://pokde.net/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review

Right under the graph you pulled the reviewer himself says that the AMD part was drawing a ton more power, namely at the 105w mode it was drawing 142 watts!!! But you decided to hide that information. Very dishonest behavior, you need to stop it, you might lead someone into buying the wrong product with your misinformation. It's not nice dude, STOP it.

Sorry, it’s hard to find reputable reviews that actually scale down power; most just flat out admit newer gen Intel CPUs are poor on the efficiency front.

The fact still remains, the Intel CPU is less efficient, as again proven by the graph you provided. Not even reviewers on prominent websites are as deluded as you, and are honest enough to admit, Intel does not offer the most efficient CPUs in the PC consumer space.

We get you have some weird fetish for intel, but spending all the time and energy in the world to move goal posts (14900KS, the original discussion, is not made, binned, designed or whatever weird justification you want to make, to run at 10w and 2ghz for the sake of “efficiency”) will not change the objective fact.

 

[fevgatos]

The fact still remains, the Intel CPU is less efficient, as again proven by the graph you provided

I never disputed that, in fact I've said it multiple times that in that particular segment amd has the lead in MT efficiency (in most wattages), but the lead is really small. But that's the only segment they do have a lead, in every other segment it's a massacre. The difference in core count alone is enough to skyrocket Intel way up in the efficiency department compared to the amd products.

We get you have some weird fetish for intel, but spending all the time and energy in the world to move goal posts (14900KS, the original discussion, is not made, binned, designed or whatever weird justification you want to make, to run at 10w and 2ghz for the sake of “efficiency”) will not change the objective fact.

The only fetish I have is with reality. I was and amd fanatic back when they were offering better products (zen 1, zen 2), i'm an intel fanatic after ALD since now they offer the better products.

Efficiency has to be measured at ISO power. That doesn't just apply to CPUs, it applies to EVERY product. You cannot compare 2 products without normalizing for something. Think about fan reviews. If they just put every fan at 100% and then compare performance then their results would be just useless. In fact, the Phanteks T30, the best fans currently in existence would be at the bottom if they tested fans like that. But instead reviewers test fans at ISO db. Same with cars, yes X car running at 50kmh is more efficient than Y car running at 200kmh, that's some captain obvious stuff, the question is which one is more efficient when both are running at the same speed.

Saying that X cpu at 50w is more efficient than Y cpu at 300 watts is useless information, cause no matter what CPU I buy i'm going to be running it at the same power. And when you do run cpus at same power Intel is vastly more efficient in most segments. That's just a fact.

Now if your argument is that the K series of CPUs are inefficient compared to amd with both out of the box, I'm fully in agreement with you. But that's just a useless metric to be winning at, cause the K lineup aren't even made to be efficient out of the box. If you care about efficiency and want to run out of the box, non K and T lineup from Intel is lightyears (and im not even exaggerating) ahead of whatever amd has to offer.

 

[trsttte]

Saying that X cpu at 50w is more efficient than Y cpu at 300 watts is useless information, cause no matter what CPU I buy i'm going to be running it at the same power

No you won't be running at the same power because one of them doesn't scale that far unless you run some crazy overclock, while the other comes like that from the factory.

And when you do run cpus at same power Intel is vastly more efficient in most segments. That's just a fact

Your own graph show an Intel cpu being less efficient than an AMD cpu, and "vastly more" in "most segments" are not facts at all, it's just someone trying to grandstand the discussion with a very broad statement.

I never disputed that, in fact I've said it multiple times that in that particular segment amd has the lead in MT efficiency (in most wattages), but the lead is really small.

That's you isn't it?

If you strictly want to compare out of the box, then got some news for you, intel has non k and t cpus that demolish everything amd has in efficiency out of the box. Just don't go there.

Nope. Even my 12900k at 35w is faster than the 7950x at 35w.

There is a thread somehwere in the forum, we tested it. Intel > everything in efficiency.

This discussion is seriously boring. Intel is being forced to "refresh" a cpu that was already running insanely hot with an even worse one because AMD has them against the wall. You can cherry pick benchmarks all day but it won't change this, and that's the discussion topic.

 

[fevgatos]

No you won't be running at the same power because one of them doesn't scale that far unless you run some crazy overclock, while the other comes like that from the factory.

I don't think there is a single device that I use with the settings it came out of the box. My AC came with Turbo 16c out of the box, my TV came with 100% volume, my fridge came with -20c on the freezer. I changed all of those settings the same way I change my CPU settings.

Your own graph show an Intel cpu being less efficient than an AMD cpu, and "vastly more" in "most segments" are not facts at all, it's just someone trying to grandstand the discussion with a very broad statement.


That's you isn't it?

Intel IS more efficient at 35w because of the io die. There are multiple reviews that are done at iso wattage that show Intel leading by a big margin in most segments at iso wattage. Computerbasede is the most known one I guess, you can go check it out. It's really not a competition, intel is lightyears ahead.

This discussion is seriously boring. Intel is being forced to "refresh" a cpu that was already running insanely hot with an even worse one because AMD has them against the wall. You can cherry pick benchmarks all day but it won't change this, and that's the discussion topic.

That's your version of "facts". The facts im seeing is, going from TPU's review, Intel is leading in every area. In application performance, 8 out of the top 12 cpus are Intel!! In gaming performance, 8 out of the top 10 cpus are Intel. Those are the facts. Wanna move to out of the box efficiency? Not even a single amd cpu will make it to the top 10. So what are you even talking about?

 

[trsttte]

I don't think there is a single device that I use with the settings it came out of the box. My AC came with Turbo 16c out of the box, my TV came with 100% volume, my fridge came with -20c on the freezer. I changed all of those settings the same way I change my CPU settings.


Intel IS more efficient at 35w because of the io die.


That's your version of "facts". The facts im seeing is, going from TPU's review, Intel is leading in every area. In application performance, 8 out of the top 12 cpus are Intel!! In gaming performance, 8 out of the top 10 cpus are Intel. Those are the facts. Wanna move to out of the box efficiency? Not even a single amd cpu will make it to the top 10. So what are you even talking about?

Who's running a desktop cpu at 35W !? That's a ridiculous example. And are you seriously comparing setting your TV volume to setting the CPU power level?

Maybe wizzard needs to do a comprehensive comparison to shut this silly discussion up with good data, here's a silly example though:

The 14900k @35W is more efficient than a stock 7800x3d, raise the power to just 65W and it looses. And that's with the 7800x3d at stock. The 7950x3d is bellow both of them, but again at stock, you could easily limit it's power (and disable half the cpu) for class leading efficiency. But again why would you? Did you spend more than 600$ on a top CPU to run it at 35W?

But seriously, I don't care about this, whatever some Intel cpus are more efficient, doesn't change the 14900ks being a stupid product that's being run way past diminishing returns to fight back AMD.

 

[fevgatos]

Who's running a desktop cpu at 35W !? That's a ridiculous example.

Wasn't me that brought it up, I was responding to it. @Minus Infinity brought it up.

And are you seriously comparing setting your TV volume to setting the CPU power level?

Yes, of course I am. It takes less time and button presses to put a power limit to a CPU then it takes to change my AC from hot to cold and alter the temperature. Same with my PC's fan curves. I spent 15 minutes fixing those, didn't run them out of the box. Do you?

Maybe wizzard needs to do a comprehensive comparison to shut this silly discussion up with good data, here's a silly example though:


The 14900k @35W is more efficient than a stock 7800x3d, raise the power to just 65W and it looses. And that's with the 7800x3d at stock. The 7950x3d is bellow both of them, but again at stock, you could easily limit it's power (and disable half the cpu) for class leading efficiency. But again why would you?

Was never talking about gaming efficiency though. But still, yes, according to TPU the 14900k is the king in that as well.

Did you spend more than 600$ on a top CPU to run it at 35W?

See that's a very biased question cause im pretty sure you are not asking the same about other cpus. The 7950x 3d was both more expensive and slower than the 7950x exactly because it was limited to 140 watts. Did you ever question who buys the most expensive cpu on the planet to run it at just 140w? The same applies to the 7800x 3d which is slower than the 7700x etc.

And to answer your question yes, 99% of the time my CPU is running below 35w because it's an Intel, and thank the gods it doesn't need up to 45 watts just to browse the web like the competing products.

But seriously, I don't care about this, whatever some Intel cpus are more efficient, doesn't change the 14900ks being a stupid product that's being run way past diminishing returns to fight back AMD.

The only reason it's stupid is the price. Obviously it's not worth 150€ over the normal 14900k. But nobody is looking for value at such high end products anyways, for my personal usecase it's worth the extra money for the efficiency increase. I like to run as quietly as possible with as low power draw as possible. The 14900ks due to excellent binning is going to achieve that

 

[trsttte]

Was never talking about gaming efficiency though. But still, yes, according to TPU the 14900k is the king in that as well.

How can you say that when it looses against a stock 7950x3d above 100W (less than half it's default power settings)? It only wins at ridiculous settings that no one sane would use, even the 7800x3d is almost as efficient as the 14900k at 125W, and this is with stock number on the AMD side. Put the 14900k on a more reasonable power setting (and close to what AMD is running at stock) and it's drops like a stone in the chart, how is that an efficiency king!?

It's not a bad chip, but it's not an efficiency king by any reasonable metric

Yes, of course I am. It takes less time and button presses to put a power limit to a CPU then it takes to change my AC from hot to cold and alter the temperature. Same with my PC's fan curves. I spent 15 minutes fixing those, didn't run them out of the box. Do you?

Most people don't even know there's a setting for that, but ok you're just delusional, got it.

 

[fevgatos]

How can you say that when it looses against a stock 7950x3d above 100W (less than half it's default power settings)? It only wins at ridiculous settings that no one sane would use, even the 7800x3d is almost as efficient as the 14900k at 125W, and this is with stock number on the AMD side. Put the 14900k on a more reasonable power setting (and close to what AMD is running at stock) and it's drops like a stone in the chart, how is that an efficiency king!?

Are you saying that 125w is a ridiculous setting that no one sane would use? Cause the 3d is running at 105eco (140w) as well. Isn't that a ridiculous setting?

Most people don't even know there's a setting for that, but ok you're just delusional, got it.

Most people that buy a K should. If they don't - and assuming they care about efficiency in the first place - Intel has special lines of cpus for them, the non k and t version that top the efficiency charts. By a huge margin btw. I can link you a review of a 13700 (non k), it tops the entire chart in efficiency in every workload. But let's hide that under the rug to pretend amd is efficient and intel isn't

 

[Hugis]

Keep it on topic people !