• 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"

Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,598
Ignore the 14900ks, the real news is that a dozen new APO profiles were released improving game performance by 11% in those games
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Aug 2017
Posts
2,787
Location
United Kingdom
Saw der8auer's video earlier and was taken back by the 393w run in cinebench, gaming too is a eye opener, not any faster than the k but around 30-40% more power, will be fun to hear from ks owners if we get another 40c summer scorcher :cry:
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,442
Location
Sussex
200mhz faster (sometimes), thermo nuclear grade cooling not included.
Well, two things to note:
  1. Intel really has trouble keeping this thing cool.
  2. Apparently Intel have generously extended their warranty to cover de-lidding provided it is done by an OEMs.
Now, point #1 and point #2 are in no way related to each others as the #2 purely due to their own generosity!
TPU managed to beat that with their overclocked results:
1eyOJsa.png

The overclock gains the 14900KS about 4.7%:
FOgw0tB.png

That was also one of the test where the 7950X's power was the highest but still nearly twice as efficient at Blender!
 
Associate
Joined
30 Mar 2017
Posts
857
Is it my imagination or does this CPU seem much worse out of the box? It probably has to be heavily tuned and better have amazing SP scores otherwise it’s not worth it. If it is amazingly binned and you can undervolt it well, and maybe power limit it, then it may be worth it for a ‘regular’ use case. Otherwise a decent 14900K probably has stock voltages more in line with what that CPU should run at. They really red lined it this time!
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,662
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Well, two things to note:
  1. Intel really has trouble keeping this thing cool.
  2. Apparently Intel have generously extended their warranty to cover de-lidding provided it is done by an OEMs.
Now, point #1 and point #2 are in no way related to each others as the #2 purely due to their own generosity!

TPU managed to beat that with their overclocked results:
1eyOJsa.png

The overclock gains the 14900KS about 4.7%:
FOgw0tB.png

That was also one of the test where the 7950X's power was the highest but still nearly twice as efficient at Blender!

Not only has Intel beaten AMD, crushed them in fact by multiples of 3, but they have now also beaten Nvidia.

Impressive stuff...

Take that Greta!
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,168
These 2 make me go hmmm especially as if you are using this kind of kit you are almost certainly playing at 4K or 1440p unless an ultra competitive gamer doing 1080p at 200+ FPS/Hz.

LRkYZ4D.png


Keeping in mind the price difference on some of those CPUs it is kind of silly.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,598
Efficiency while gaming

14900KS overclocked = 1fps per watt
7950X3D overclocked = 4fps per watt

Surprised no has mentioned this yet
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,168
Efficiency while gaming

14900KS overclocked = 1fps per watt
7950X3D overclocked = 4fps per watt

Surprised no has mentioned this yet

I don't think a lot of people really care as to power use. Performance and upfront affordability are far higher on most people's radars.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2003
Posts
14,778
Location
Chengdu
I thought the previous KS chips were pointless, but this one is an embarrassment.
I'm usually pretty open-minded on Intel chips, and at some price-points they are a good option. How much crack are you smoking to be choosing this though? (Apologies to RSR, I'm sure you're not smoking crack :D )

Is it purely for the hardcore OC crowd, or is this meant to be bought by "normal" customers?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2005
Posts
5,864
Location
Earth, for now
I don't think a lot of people really care as to power use. Performance and upfront affordability are far higher on most people's radars.


Agree....

Those who are likely to actually buy one of these do not care enough about their power usage, apart from how it might implicate cooling, de-lidding, maybe another motherboard etc, to not buy one. For some they might even see it is a challenge to "tame the beast".



My 14700k, reducing the vcore and making sure the 253w max power draw is applied by the BIOS, by default they are not, it will typically pull around 65w in the game that I regularly play, whilst the GPU is pulling over 200w.

usage.png
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Aug 2018
Posts
3,393
My 14700k, reducing the vcore and making sure the 253w max power draw is applied by the BIOS, by default they are not, it will typically pull around 65w in the game that I regularly play, whilst the GPU is pulling over 200w.

usage.png
What game and resolution is that?

Can you run the benchmark in CPU-Z please. I'm curious as to how a power limited 14700k fares.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
30 Mar 2017
Posts
857
Agree....

Those who are likely to actually buy one of these do not care enough about their power usage, apart from how it might implicate cooling, de-lidding, maybe another motherboard etc, to not buy one. For some they might even see it is a challenge to "tame the beast".



My 14700k, reducing the vcore and making sure the 253w max power draw is applied by the BIOS, by default they are not, it will typically pull around 65w in the game that I regularly play, whilst the GPU is pulling over 200w.

usage.png
Yes, these CPUs definitely require being power limited.

I undervolted my 14900K -0.0900v and tested stability and it is like 15c cooler using intel power limits.

I get similar power usage in games (perhaps a tiny bit more) than my Ryzen 7900X, but the idle power usage is so much better, around 10W! whereas the 7900X idled more like 30W, or so.

I'd say that's more efficient in some ways!
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2005
Posts
5,864
Location
Earth, for now
The game shown above is called WRSR, Workers and Resources Soviet Republic, city building type game. It is core dependant, perhaps around 3 cores, not really utilising the CPU as a whole.
I run at 4k and the GPU is a 4080.
For now it is running with 0.08v negative offset.
A Z690 board and DDR4.

@MartinPrince I guess you would want to see more than just this....?

CPU.png


believe it or not, I can't remember running the benchmark in CPU-Z, lol...!

@0121danwilliams84 - yes in games that I would play I am often pleasantly surprised at how little the CPU uses in watts, perhaps more so when compared to the GPU. I understand the headline will all be about the maximum possible wattage under the most extreme of conditions, but that does not reflect my use.

Thanks for posting what your 7900X typically will use, I didn't think that there would be much in it. Idle / low power usage accounts for a lot of what my PC seems to do these days. The Avatar game seems more multi core dependant, including the e-cores, so that will demand more power.

The Avatar game having the potential to be more demanding.....

Avatar-Frontiers-of-Pandora-2024-3-15-9-58-37.jpg


Direct link for a bigger zoom....


Frame Rate lows not toggled for that screenshot.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom