Intel Core i9-14900KS

[Octopuss]

lol what clown product from (by now) a clown company. I just don't understand what are the people in Intel thinking (or more like what have they been thinking for the past ten? years).

 

[sLowEnd]

Even netburst wasn't this bad, this is a holy isht earth destroyer

I disagree. At least this thing (Raptor Lake) performs well.

Netburst was a disappointment both in performance and power consumption.

 

[fevgatos]

you don't need to look far, anandtech tested the 7950x at 35w/65w/90w and it beats the 14900ks in efficiency at every point by at least 60%, yes even at 35w.

https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17641/130507.png

oops sorry that was meant as a reply to the but intel 14900ks most efficient cpu sorry

Now go check the 4th page of that review, the reviewer clearly says that the amd CPU draws a lot more power than shown on the graph. At 65w it was actually drawing 90. Stop with the fake news propaganda guys, if AMD cpus are indeed more efficient you don't need to post fake graphs. If you think the 7950x @ 65w scores 31200 in CBR23 I have a bridge to sell you. In reality it barely hits 22k...

I'm quoting the review

"restricting the socket and 7950X to 125 W yielded a measured power consumption that was still a whopping 33% higher"
"the Ryzen 9 7950X, but it's drawing more power than it should be. It's also running hotter despite using a premium 360mm AIO CPU cooler"

 

[Cooe]

"The one CCD also has access to the full L3 cache, which is another advantage over the 7900X3D and 7950X3D, which have 3DV Cache only on one CCD."

Come on W1zzard!!! AMD putting 3D V Cache on BOTH CCD's of a Ryzen 9 X3D part would NOT HELP GAMING PERFORMANCE or make them better parts! It would actually make it WORSE due to the cross-CCD I/O die out & back latency penalty, which almost always negates any & all advantages of running a game on >8-cores.

And the ONLY performance reason to put X3D on a Ryzen CCD is for better gaming performance, meaning you'd still only ever be using one CCD at a time anyways, as running games cross-CCD kills latency & performance.

The only legitimate advantage that putting X3D on both CCD's would have is easier thread scheduling management for the OS (aka it can put apps & games on either CCD instead of having to specifically schedule threads to two different CCD types), but at the cost of a SIGNIFICANT clock-speed and productivity performance reduction.

And considering Ryzen 9 X3D's asymmetrical thread scheduling is very much a solvable problem that has already gotten significantly better since launch, IMO that would be a really, REALLY freaking stupid trade-off! ESPECIALLY this far into working on the asymmetric design. AMD's chosen design just has way, WAAAAAAAAY more long-term upside than a symmetrical approach. Figuring the asymmetric thread scheduling out is also critically important work for the practically inevitable addition of Zen #c CCD's to the Ryzen lineup at some point in the future.

 

[Chrispy_]

Isn't that the fault of the motherboard manufacturer?

No I'm talking AMD's "stock" TDP of 170W and a corresponding max PPT of 230W for AM5. That's much more than AM4's old 105W TDP and 142W PPT defaults, and those old AMD defaults are now called eco mode in most AM5 BIOSes.

Motherboard manufacturers playing fast and loose with those stock settings doesn't happen so much any more, although some of the more enthusiast-class boards will enable PBO by default, which isn't stock.

 

[gridracedriver]

If AMD had created such a terrifying CPU in terms of performance/watt where there are scenarios in which efficiency is exceeded by 4 times, +300%, we would have read the international press with headlines like "FLOP FLOP FLOP".

Intel Core i9-14900KS Review - The Last of its Kind

The Intel Core i9-14900KS reaches impressive clock frequencies up to 6.2 GHz, which yields remarkable performance in applications and gaming. However, this comes at the cost of serious power consumption, especially if you go beyond stock, where we saw over 500 W during testing.

www.techpowerup.com

While Intel does it and therefore...

 

[Chrispy_]

I have the opposite experience. AWS is scalable, on-demand and without a heavy initial investment. I honestly don't know anyone you could trick into buying more hardware than strictly necessary for a project or ongoing operation which is even less needed because it's going to sit unused for long periods of time.

Uploading a 32 GB scene to render takes 5 min on a 1 Gbps connection so I don't get that either.

YMMV - it all depends on your industry and dataset size. I'm in the AEC industry and we're rendering whole cities. A render might pull from ~1TB of data but that data isn't neatly collated in one place, it's spread out over 25 years of assets that sometimes also need their own conversions. AWS is great if you're talking relatively small amounts of data, if all the data is already in AWS to start off with, or if you do occasional final renders. Renting at $5/hour you can rapidly end up spending a lot of money and the break-even point for even $9000 workstations is usually months not years.

If AMD had created such a terrifying CPU in terms of performance/watt where there are scenarios in which efficiency is exceeded by 4 times, +300%, we would have read the international press with headlines like "FLOP FLOP FLOP".

Intel Core i9-14900KS Review - The Last of its Kind

The Intel Core i9-14900KS reaches impressive clock frequencies up to 6.2 GHz, which yields remarkable performance in applications and gaming. However, this comes at the cost of serious power consumption, especially if you go beyond stock, where we saw over 500 W during testing.

www.techpowerup.com

While Intel does it and therefore...

Weren't some of the last FX processors from the Bulldozer era basically that?
(...and yes, they were panned by critics)

Arguably they were far worse than 14th Gen vs Zen4

 

[fevgatos]

Weren't some of the last FX processors from the Bulldozer era basically that?
(...and yes, they were panned by critics)

Arguably they were far worse than 14th Gen vs Zen4

No. Bulldozer was way slower in st while consuming more power. Intel is much faster while consuming less power.

Bulldozer wasn't efficient even when you power limit them. Intel is incredibly efficient when you power limit them. It's not comparable at all.

 

[Imouto]

YMMV - it all depends on your industry and dataset size. I'm in the AEC industry and we're rendering whole cities. A render might pull from ~1TB of data but that data isn't neatly collated in one place, it's spread out over 25 years of assets that sometimes also need their own conversions. AWS is great if you're talking relatively small amounts of data, if all the data is already in AWS to start off with, or if you do occasional final renders. Renting at $5/hour you can rapidly end up spending a lot of money and the break-even point for even $9000 workstations is usually months not years.

Then we are laser focusing it to your niche usage. For mainstream AEC rendering the data is nowhere near 1TB and nowhere near needing that much CPU compute. I'd argue it would reach 1GB and it couldn't be done on a GPU.

I'll say it again: It's the first time I even hear about building a render farm out of desktop parts for at least the last 10 years. Most, if not all, render work has moved to AWS and similar services because owning a render farm is pointless for, again, nearly all use cases.

 

[The Shield]

Intel being so poorly competitive is a very bad thing, even for AMD supporters.

 

[Denver]

No. Bulldozer was way slower in st while consuming more power. Intel is much faster while consuming less power.

Bulldozer wasn't efficient even when you power limit them. Intel is incredibly efficient when you power limit them. It's not comparable at all.

This is poorly done, and If @W1zzard had included software that utilizes AVX512, the performance gap would likely have been even more pronounced. It appears that you're the only one in this entire discussion defending this refresh³.

It's time to face the reality that this isn't beneficial for anyone. Intel essentially took a refresh model, slightly bumped up the clock speed and TDP, then introduced it as a "new product" with a higher price tag. LoL

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Well on a good note 14700k dropped below 400.us
So people that waited saved money

Early buyers got hosed but probably got better SP rated chips.

 

[fevgatos]

View attachment 339107
This is poorly done, and If @W1zzard had included software that utilizes AVX512, the performance gap would likely have been even more pronounced. It appears that you're the only one in this entire discussion defending this refresh³.

It's time to face the reality that this isn't beneficial for anyone. Intel essentially took a refresh model, slightly bumped up the clock speed and TDP, then introduced it as a "new product" with a higher price tag. LoL

Every single intel cpu is above the 7950x and the 7950x 3d in st efficiency and performance. Your own graph shows it. What are you even saying man?

 

[Tek-Check]

Yawn, another beating for already horse carcasses. For one of a kind, I bet this CPU will sell like hot cakes, literally and figuratively.

Not necessarily. One can still find cheaper past KS models, and this one uses the most power of them all, so systems for any serious MT workloads will be challenged to find an effective cooling solution.

With this halo CPU, Intel has crossed all boundaries of silliness.

 

[kapone32]

Not necessarily. One can still find cheaper past KS models, and this obe uses the most power of them all, so systems for any serious MT workloads will be challenged to find an effective cooling solution.

With this halo CPU, Intel has crossed all boundaries of silliness.

I mean 500W. I cannot imagine how you would cool that well in such a small package.

 

[kapone32]

You wouldn't. But why would you want to do that. Nobody, absolutely nobody besides reviewers are running blender on a loop at 500 watt. At some point this nonsense has to stop.

Then what is the point of this chip? Is it not that this is marketed as being turned up to 11? That is not my opinion either. It is the KS that makes that claim from Intel themselves. Then if you are going to "tune it" you wasted your money in not buying a 14700K in the first place. As I stated before, 160 Watts in Gaming is already too much to have your fans run quiet so I hope you have some Noctua DH15 fans.

 

[sKam]

the only word who come to me is : Ridicule

 

[demonicmaniac]

Now go check the 4th page of that review, the reviewer clearly says that the amd CPU draws a lot more power than shown on the graph. At 65w it was actually drawing 90. Stop with the fake news propaganda guys, if AMD cpus are indeed more efficient you don't need to post fake graphs. If you think the 7950x @ 65w scores 31200 in CBR23 I have a bridge to sell you. In reality it barely hits 22k...

I'm quoting the review

"restricting the socket and 7950X to 125 W yielded a measured power consumption that was still a whopping 33% higher"
"the Ryzen 9 7950X, but it's drawing more power than it should be. It's also running hotter despite using a premium 360mm AIO CPU cooler"

which also clearly shows that for 35w the 7950x draws a peak of 45w whereas the 13900k draws a peak of 39w and using those with the scores has the 7950x at 422 cb23/watt and the 13900k at 317 cb23/watt which is still 30% more efficient. not 50% or 60% but considerably significant.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Only weird item on the review setup is using mx-5 and not mx-6 ?
Guess it was used on other reviews so keeps using the EOL mx-5 paste.

 

[Taraquin]

Nice swansong for monolithic.

View attachment 338997


That was referencing when tuned.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/...ke-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/8.html TPU testing shows tuned 14900K indeed being the most efficient. Note this is a simple tune, power limit only. More involved tuning together with a per core overclock and specified voltages will offer good frequencies and in many cases better than stock performance, while also improving efficiency. View attachment 338998

All cpus get more efficient with powerlimit, undervolt etc. Try doing the same on a 7950X, except for at 35W (due to IO-die pulling 20-30W) I bet it would beat the 14900K easy at all orher powerlevels. I tried limiting my 7800X3D at -30CO to 56W. Still getting 17100 in CB23 vs 18600 WO limit at 85W. That 8s about 50% more efficient. I look forward to intel getting on smaller nodes than 10nm

Hi,
Only weird item on the review setup is using mx-5 and not mx-6 ?
Guess it was used on other reviews so keeps using the EOL mx-5 paste.

MX-6 is not that much better, maybe 1-2C. I use MX-4 and MX-6 exclusively and 6 is 2-3C better usually.

 

[N/A]

I don't agree that's the last of a king. Intel will keep making ridiculously overcooked KS chips when pushed to the wall. last of it's naming scheme and monolithic design probably but still unproven. As far as we know only the mobile version has tiles.

 

[dgianstefani]

All cpus get more efficient with powerlimit, undervolt etc. Try doing the same on a 7950X, except for at 35W (due to IO-die pulling 20-30W) I bet it would beat the 14900K easy at all orher powerlevels. I tried limiting my 7800X3D at -30CO to 56W. Still getting 17100 in CB23 vs 18600 WO limit at 85W. That 8s about 50% more efficient. I look forward to intel getting on smaller nodes than 10nm


MX-6 is not that much better, maybe 1-2C. I use MX-4 and MX-6 exclusively and 6 is 2-3C better usually.

56 W is standard/stock usage for 7800X3D, 85 W isn't really reached in normal usage in my experience, so what you really did is undervolt/overclock your chip, i.e. change the voltage curve. Which is also possible on any other CPU, as you've said. For example my own 7800X3D has a non stock voltage curve, but I've kept stock voltages and instead modified the frequency through BCLK OC.

Regardless, as others have said, there's the non-K series chips to use if you care about efficiency. What this model does is offer choice. People who want to reach for the best performance have the option to buy a prebinned CPU that meets their needs. This is something I think Intel does better than AMD, offer choices for more than one mindset.

Cooling/wattage is a non issue if you have the appropriate hardware. Besides, under a 360 mm standard AIO the KS can draw almost 400 W at 85 C, whereas the 7950X hits 95 C just using PBO at around 100-150 W. This isn't an argument for or against either CPU, it's just an observation for the benefit of those who think high wattage means impossible to cool, or that VRMs that have the hardware to deliver ampage/wattage far in excess of ~500 W would somehow burn down if you overclocked a KS.

Unreleased Intel Core i9-14900KS Already De-lidded, 10°C Temperature Drop On Offer

Intel may be launching its enthusiast-segment desktop processor, the Core i9-14900KS Special Edition next week, but the chip is already in the hands of several elite overclockers, such as Pakhtunov from OCN. Once he got his hands on one of these, Pakhtunov wasted little time in de-lidding the...

www.techpowerup.com

85 C stock, 75 C delidded.

 

[gridracedriver]

YMMV - it all depends on your industry and dataset size. I'm in the AEC industry and we're rendering whole cities. A render might pull from ~1TB of data but that data isn't neatly collated in one place, it's spread out over 25 years of assets that sometimes also need their own conversions. AWS is great if you're talking relatively small amounts of data, if all the data is already in AWS to start off with, or if you do occasional final renders. Renting at $5/hour you can rapidly end up spending a lot of money and the break-even point for even $9000 workstations is usually months not years.


Weren't some of the last FX processors from the Bulldozer era basically that?
(...and yes, they were panned by critics)

Arguably they were far worse than 14th Gen vs Zen4

Intel has spent the last 5 years just increasing the clock by 300mhz every generation on the same architecture and today it has desktop processors that are the same as Ryzen but consume in some cases 4x, not +40%, but +300% to do the same job, embarassing they have practically disappeared in Servers, no one wants to build supercomputers with Intel anymore.
But the quarterly with the OEMs is going well and therefore everyone is happy, but from an engineering point of view they are stuck at 10 years ago.
AMD with a bulldozer had no money and was developing Zen, with the wizard Keller, between 2012 and 2015, then exiting in 2017 and continuing to develop the project until today and the next Zen5.
Intel is a giant, they need to wake up, they're comical.

 

[FeelinFroggy]

Great review! The gaming stats for this review should be used as marketing material for AMD. That 7800x3d is looking pretty good at half the price.

 

[Dr_b_]

I disagree. At least this thing (Raptor Lake) performs well.

Netburst was a disappointment both in performance and power consumption.

Netburst used 400Watts?