• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

14th Gen "Raptor Lake Refresh"

humbug said:
Right, its why mainstream reviewers should be taken with a grain of salt.

Steve (HUB) talks about how he's been talking about this for years many times over..... does anyone who watches his channel regular remember talking about this even once? He talks about Intel's power consumption often enough but never in the context of it being out of norms let alone unhealthy for the CPU, never, and in a way still doesn't, even here he talks about 253 watts for the primary power state of the CPU as being perfectly reasonable if not even a little low, he does that purely because he can see the reduction in performance and his ONLY concern is AMD dominating the CPU bar charts and that's why he's been happy to go along with it over the years instead of actually questioning it.

And that's the mentality of these people, they DO have an agenda, they believe that agenda is for the right reasons, so its ok, and they may be for the right reasons but its a bias none the less and it has nothing to do with "being on the side of consumers"

These people have an activists mindset, there is nothing neutral about them.
Click to expand...

Both companies push the silicon to gain an advantage. AMD pushed hard for everyone to use 6000MT memory with review kits. If you weren't aware, 6000MT isn't within spec on AM5. Moreover, it would have gone some way to establishing guidelines for SV13TFN - look how that turned out.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys, I asked this on a previous page and separate group but can't seem to quite get my head around it:

Sorry for the lengthy repost!

I have managed (with limited skill level) to overclock my 14900K (poor/average 94 bin) to 5900MHz on all cores, keeping the 6000MHz boost on 2 cores.

I have just used auto voltage (yes I know this is a bit of a no no) that gives me around 1.475V max vcore (observed in HWInfo64.)

I have used LLC level 6 (basic setting, no messing with IA AC/DC load lines.) +1 boost is used with TVB Overclocking and I added a temperature offset of +20 to try and get it to boost to 6000MHz on all cores (under gaming load.)

This setup seems stable after testing in a few benchmarks and loading games with shader installs (Hogwarts Legacy, COD, The Last of Us 2), as those games were crashing/giving WHEA errors with unstable settings.

I get instability if I go above +20 on the TVB temperature offset, so I am trying to get a higher setting (such as +30) to try and get that 6000MHz in gaming.

My current TVB setting gives 6000MHz all core under 64C, but different loads, games and temp spikes reduce the clocks to 5900MHz sometimes.

I have tested +30 and that seems to pretty much do the job, with temps usually staying under the 70s in games anyway.

I tried to get a 'regular' 6000MHz all core overclock, but Cinebench R23 won't even open with auto voltages and I think I need a hell of a lot more voltage to use that approach.

I have been reading this guide:https://www.overclock.net/threads/a...00k-an-overclocking-and-tuning-guide.1801569/

I was looking at the P-core overclocking section fairly early in the guide where we uses OCTVB and then seems to just change this:

If you experience any instability with the transients generated by GeekBench and 3DMark, you will need to make a correction to the VF curve at point #10.
Start with a positive displacement of 10mv and increase until the instability disappears.

I am not sure exactly where my instability arises, other than with +30 temp offset I usually get crash to desktops or lock ups, rather than WHEAs.

I see he changes 8/9/10 VF points further in the guide where it seems to get a little more complicated. And those points seem to relate to changing other points (i.e. change point 10, and point 8 and 9 also get affected.)

I am fairly confident with using adaptive offset voltage (as used with undervolting) that I believe changes the turbo boost voltage (what exactly is this? 6000MHz all core?) rather than individual points.

TLDR: My question is. I want to try and aim for stabilising an increased OCTVB temperature offset to try and get it to boost to 6000MHz on all cores (under gaming load.) What is the best approach to do this, as I have read a few different theories, as I imagine there are multiple approaches?

Please see my CPU vid table below.

Edit: @Jay-G25 you were spot on with changing V/F points 8,9 and 10. As soon as I added voltage to all those points the overclock stabilised. Thanks!

Thanks!


kUVzbUT.jpeg
 
Last edited:
jonnylaris said:
8th gen 8700k here... guessing the upgrade to a 14th gen would be massive for me?
Click to expand...

Yes but not sure it would be as noticeable within a £400-500 budget, I highly recommend the 14700K personally but that would be most of your budget gone on the CPU alone never mind the motherboard, DDR5 RAM and potential new cooler.
 
Rroff said:
Yes but not sure it would be as noticeable within a £400-500 budget, I highly recommend the 14700K personally but that would be most of your budget gone on the CPU alone never mind the motherboard, DDR5 RAM and potential new cooler.
Click to expand...

That's just for the CPU, total rig budget will be much higher, prob in the region of 3k~ but that would need to include a graphics card
 
Last edited:
jonnylaris said:
That's just for the CPU, total rig budget will be much higher, prob in the region of 3k~ but that would need to include a graphics card
Click to expand...

Leave a choice of 14900K, 14700K or on the AMD side 7950X3D

Image I posted recently IMO gives a good overview:

9ZrIWtw.png


For 1440p gaming or above with high/ultra quality settings there isn't much between any of the top CPUs, bigger gains at 1080p with some. However some specific games can perform vastly different on some CPUs so may be worth checking that if you play some games specifically.

I'm a bit leery of recommending the 14900K at the moment with all the shenanigans going on with the BIOS and power limits.
 
Last edited:
jonnylaris said:
Yea that looks perfect, anything from AMD I should consider or is intel back on top these days?
Click to expand...
For productivity they are about equal, the 14700K is about equal to a Ryzen 7900X.
www.overclockers.co.uk

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X Twelve Core 5.60GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail

Order AMD Ryzen 9 7900X Twelve Core 5.60GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail now online and benefit from fast delivery.
www.overclockers.co.uk www.overclockers.co.uk

The Intel CPU's use more power, tho the 14700K isn't as bad as the 14900K, its just stupid.

If you just want a gaming CPU this is the best gaming CPU there is.

www.overclockers.co.uk

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Eight Core 5.00GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail

Order AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Eight Core 5.00GHz (Socket AM5) Processor - Retail now online and benefit from fast delivery.
www.overclockers.co.uk www.overclockers.co.uk

Again for gaming the 14700K and Ryzen 7900X are about the same.

I would say no, AMD are still on top but that mainly because of the power consumption difference, in performance there isn't a lot of difference between them.

@Rroff Using 4K results is a bit of a cheat, you're not benchmarking the CPU at 4K its all on the GPU.

lXq0nry.png


www.techpowerup.com

Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown

Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com
 
Last edited:
I'd also say I lean away from the 14900K due to the heat/power use which is considerable more than the 14700K despite only being around 10% faster. 14700K is just about tameable with good air cooling, the 14900 you really want an AIO.

I'd also recommend spending a bit more on a Z790 board than less if you go that direction - can get some nice features on the more expensive boards like ez/q latch to unlock the GPU socket without having to mess about trying to squeeze your fingers in down under the GPU, faster LAN, better support for stuff like USB-C/USB4/TB3/4, etc. and better power delivery which IMO makes it worth spending a little more, though I probably went a little overboard with the Aorus Master - but wasn't many other boards other than Asus, which I won't buy, with all the features I wanted on one board, or would have cost just as much by the time I'd also purchased the add-in boards for 10GB LAN, etc.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
I'd also say I lean away from the 14900K due to the heat/power use which is considerable more than the 14700K despite only being around 10% faster. 14700K is just about tameable with good air cooling, the 14900 you really want an AIO.
Click to expand...

Would be running an AIO anyway as I prefer keeping my temps as low as possible without going full custom water cooling again (too much faff). 14700k sounds perfect tbh. Just need to decide on ram and mobo next...
 
jonnylaris said:
Would be running an AIO anyway as I prefer keeping my temps as low as possible without going full custom water cooling again (too much faff). 14700k sounds perfect tbh. Just need to decide on ram and mobo next...
Click to expand...

The sweet spot is 6000MT CL30-32 DDR5, though if you go for loads of RAM like 64+ you might find you can't quite hit 6000MT (depending on how good the memory controller is on the CPU and BIOS support). No harm going a little higher like 6400-6600 but vastly into diminishing returns on performance especially if there is a trade off with latency.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
The sweet spot is 6000MT CL30-32 DDR5, though if you go for loads of RAM like 64+ you might find you can't quite hit 6000MT (depending on how good the memory controller is on the CPU and BIOS support). No harm going a little higher like 6400-6600 but vastly into diminishing returns on performance especially if there is a trade off with latency.
Click to expand...

Great thanks, yea I'm running 32gb now and don't really think I need to go 64 any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom