Intel Core i9-14900KS

[dgianstefani]

Sometimes I am shocked that you are a staff member when you have such a biased opinion. There is no CPU that is slow in what we are offered today. Everyone does not use their PC in the exact same way and the main thing is are THEY enjoying it. Your thoughts have no influence on the performance of my PC.

"biased"

 

[kapone32]

I'll agree that it's worth buying from AMD, but only on the merit of their products. Not because I have a religious, civic or moral duty to support this corporation. I couldn't care less about what AMD had to endure 25 years ago or how their competitors play dirty. It's business and business is ruthless, this doesn't earn them any sympathy from me.

You are definitely in the Bill Gates camp. Nobody is saying anything like that. You are acting like PC parts are a necessity to everyone. If I am a supporter of morality, fairness and community that does not mean that I should disregard all of that when making choices for my hobby. Nvidia don't get my money because of something they did to me with a software update. Intel don't get my money until they can prove that they can overcome that Corporate philosophy that you promote that gives consumers 10 years of 4 core CPUs. Now they have chips that can draw more power than high end GPUs but get beat by CPUs that cost half in the most important thing Intel used the narrative to create Gaming. Every AMD part that I have bought has been supported with no pay from me. I did not ask for AMD software but when I bought a Gaming laptop instead of a trip for my 50th (Covid) I certainly missed it with my 3060 laptop.

I am sorry to break the thread further but we all know that when the next AM5 chip launches it will make the 14900k moot anyway. When I do a CPU upgrade and you have to do a MB and CPU upgrade with their response remember that.

"biased"

You think your 7800X3D is just better than my 7900X3D because you think there is a serious penalty for Dual CCD when Intel did the exact same thing with Big/little. You have said that the 7900X3D should be 8+4 cores in your opinion. You have not personally used a 7900X3D to make that assumption so yes it is biased. You also think that the 7600X3D is a better choice even though the chip does not exist. Sorry it's Friday and DABs are flowing into my body.

 

[dgianstefani]

You are definitely in the Bill Gates camp. Nobody is saying anything like that. You are acting like PC parts are a necessity to everyone. If I am a supporter of morality, fairness and community that does not mean that I should disregard all of that when making choices for my hobby. Nvidia don't get my money because of something they did to me with a software update. Intel don't get my money until they can prove that they can overcome that Corporate philosophy that you promote that gives consumers 10 years of 4 core CPUs. Now they have chips that can draw more power than high end GPUs but get beat by CPUs that cost half in the most important thing Intel used the narrative to create Gaming. Every AMD part that I have bought has been supported with no pay from me. I did not ask for AMD software but when I bought a Gaming laptop instead of a trip for my 50th (Covid) I certainly missed it with my 3060 laptop.

I am sorry to break the thread further but we all know that when the next AM5 chip launches it will make the 14900k moot anyway. When I do a CPU upgrade and you have to do a MB and CPU upgrade with their response remember that.

At least this hypothetical future Intel platform likely won't literally melt the socket and CPU at stock settings, and will most likely be stable from release, rather than 6 months on, or longer.

You think your 7800X3D is just better than my 7900X3D because you think there is a serious penalty for Dual CCD when Intel did the exact same thing with Big/little. You have said that the 7900X3D should be 8+4 cores in your opinion. You have not personally used a 7900X3D to make that assumption so yes it is biased. You also think that the 7600X3D is a better choice even though the chip does not exist. Sorry it's Friday and DABs are flowing into my body.

It's not an opinion. The 7800X3D is faster.

Here you are with the tired "but you don't own a 7900" while talking about Intel (do you own Raptor Lake?).

Difference is, Intel architectures have a hardware scheduler, they're monolithic so there's no inter CCD latency penalty, and the higher tier models are (testably) faster in everything compared to products lower in their stack. Including gaming. Unlike AMD where you can choose best productivity model or best gaming model.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You think your 7800X3D is just better than my 7900X3D because you think there is a serious penalty for Dual CCD when Intel did the exact same thing with Big/little. You have said that the 7900X3D should be 8+4 cores in your opinion. You have not personally used a 7900X3D to make that assumption so yes it is biased. You also think that the 7600X3D is a better choice even though the chip does not exist. Sorry it's Friday and DABs are flowing into my body.

It's inconsequential, LGA 1700 is in its third "generation" (even though it's just straight re-releases of the second), it's been around since 2020. AM5 came out only recently and only has one generation released on it. Of course it's going to last longer, provided that AMD doesn't pull the same stunt they did with AM4 to upsell motherboards again.

I never said that the 7900X3D should be 8+4, I said it and the 7950X3D should have 3D V-cache on both dies. Either way, with the newest generation of DDR5 memory, it's a great place to start when planning your future upgrade.

 

[dgianstefani]

It's inconsequential, LGA 1700 is in its third "generation" (even though it's just straight re-releases of the second), it's been around since 2020. AM5 came out only recently and only has one generation released on it. Of course it's going to last longer, provided that AMD doesn't pull the same stunt they did with AM4 to upsell motherboards again.

I never said that the 7900X3D should be 8+4, I said it and the 7950X3D should have 3D V-cache on both dies. Either way, with the newest generation of DDR5 memory, it's a great place to start when planning your future upgrade.

He's talking to me.

I said that. But again, the 6+6 chips and the other combos, including the 4+4 and 3+3 models AMD snuck into identically branded 5600/5800X, with worse performance, are to get rid of defect dies with broken cores, not to put the consumers first.

Dual-CCD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X In the Wild

Certain AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X processors are physically based on a dual-CCD design, according to an investigative report by Igor's Lab and Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy. The 5600X and 5800X are normally meant to be single-CCD processors owing to their core-counts. Based on the "Vermeer"...

www.techpowerup.com

Same reason Zen isn't built on an interposer instead of two CCDs. It's cheaper. Zen 6 may fix this if rumours are true. But that may or may not be on AM5. Intel waited till Foveros worked well with equivalent latency to monolithic before going disaggregated. But apparently that's not a good thing according to forumites.

 

[kapone32]

At least this hypothetical future Intel platform likely won't literally melt the socket and CPU at stock settings, and will most likely be stable from release, rather than 6 months on, or longer.


It's not an opinion. The 7800X3D is faster.

Here you are with the tired "but you don't own a 7900" while talking about Intel (do you own Raptor Lake?).

Difference is, Intel architectures have a hardware scheduler, they're monolithic so there's no inter CCD latency penalty, and the higher tier models are (testably) faster in everything compared to products lower in their stack. Including gaming. Unlike AMD where you can choose best productivity model or best gaming model.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Chrispy_]

Oh no, I think we got a misunderstanding between us here. I got what you meant, 100%. I just meant to put my thoughts into it after quoting you and it became a bit of a convoluted mess. Wrote that reply on my phone early in the morning

I've learned to triple-check what I do pre-coffee in the morning, and even then sometimes I come back to it and have no clue what I'm looking at.

 

[A Computer Guy]

He's talking to me.

I said that. But again, the 6+6 chips and the other combos, including the 4+4 and 3+3 models AMD snuck into identically branded 5600/5800X, with worse performance, are to get rid of defect dies with broken cores, not to put the consumers first.

Dual-CCD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X In the Wild

Certain AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X processors are physically based on a dual-CCD design, according to an investigative report by Igor's Lab and Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy. The 5600X and 5800X are normally meant to be single-CCD processors owing to their core-counts. Based on the "Vermeer"...

www.techpowerup.com

Per the article. Was worse performance actually proven in 5600x/5800x dual ccd cpu's? Wasn't it the case only one CCD was enabled thus one would not get the dual ccd latency effect? I can imagine in the case of CCD0 being disabled you might get a tad less performance with the weaker CCD1 but if such CPU was not outside of the normal CPU to CPU variance does it matter?

 

[dgianstefani]

Per the article. Was worse performance actually proven in 5600x/5800x dual ccd cpu's? Wasn't it the case only one CCD was enabled thus one would not get the dual ccd latency effect? I can imagine in the case of CCD0 being disabled you might get a tad less performance with the weaker CCD1 but if such CPU was not outside of the normal CPU to CPU variance does it matter?

As Igor outlined, “We suspect that this is a Ryzen 9 that was sorted out after the fact, with the Ryzen 5 5600X pictured here suggesting a faulty Ryzen 9 5900X that may not have passed quality testing. That’s not a bad thing per se, because the demand for all current Ryzen CPUs is extremely high and you can also use supposed rejects.

However, it is suspected that the overclocking margins might be a bit smaller.

TLDR worse OC (PBO?), probably some slightly higher power draw as CCD isn't fused off, just in low power mode/sleep.

Igor was the guy who found out about these dual CCD chips.

Yeah, like you said some worse performance due to the faster CCD not being enabled, but it's likely CCD1 is still within the base clock specs of the CPU it's being sold as so that's relatively minor.

Some redditors were talking about how their tune wasn't within expected performance too.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Well, I for sure wouldn't risk a whole lot of money for something that might not work properly.

https://wccftech.com/intel-13th-14t...y-investigated-chips-being-returned-in-korea/

Now I don't know if this problem have been found outside of Korea so far though.

But hopefully (for the Intel buyers), this is more a Motherboard issue and not an issue with the CPUs itself. Because if this is an actual CPU issue, then you got screwed by Intel.

 

[dgianstefani]

Well, I for sure wouldn't risk a whole lot of money for something that might not work properly.

https://wccftech.com/intel-13th-14t...y-investigated-chips-being-returned-in-korea/

Now I don't know if this problem have been found outside of Korea so far though.

But hopefully (for the Intel buyers), this is more a Motherboard issue and not an issue with the CPUs itself. Because if this is an actual CPU issue, then you got screwed by Intel.

It's motherboards messing with power delivery so out of the box benchmarks done by YouTubers favour them.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

It's motherboards messing with power delivery so out of the box benchmarks done by YouTubers favour them.

Kinda weird that the stability issue while gaming have been known since 2022 where nothing have been done to fix it by now.

I would guess that if this had been a motherboard issue, it would have been fixed fully out a long time ago, don't you think?

 

[Chrispy_]

Kinda weird that the stability issue while gaming have been known since 2022 where nothing have been done to fix it by now.

I would guess that if this had been a motherboard issue, it would have been fixed fully out a long time ago, don't you think?

Motherboard manufacturers can no longer be trusted to pick sensible values for "AUTO".

First thing I do on most AMD builds is go into the AGESA-Standard AMD overclocking options and set PBO manually to a lower PPT than bone-stock. Yes, I'm giving up 3% of the performance but I'm using 20% less power and I don't have to listen the fans sing me the song of their people any more.

AM4 "105W" stock TDP (142W PPT) I set to 115W PPT
AM5 "120W" stock TDP (162W PPT) I set to 125W PPT
AM5 "170W" stock TDP (230W PPT) I set to 165W PPT

I've seen MSI boards throw almost 200W at a Rzyen 5950X and over 200W at a 7700X. Neither of those chips should be anywhere near that level of power draw, all for the sake of getting 50 extra MHz.