Monday, March 11th 2024
Intel Core i9-14900KS Pricing Confirmed to be $749
Pricing of Intel's upcoming enthusiast-segment desktop processor, the Core i9-14900KS, has been confirmed to be $749, according to a MicroCenter listing. This price is identical to what the company asked for the previous generation i9-13900KS and i9-12900KS. As a Special Edition SKU, the i9-14900KS may not be available in all markets you'd normally find the i9-14900K in, also the chip is expected to have higher cooling- and power requirements. Based on the "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon, this 8P+16E core processor is expected to come with maximum boost frequencies of 6.20 GHz, and generally better overclocking headroom than the regular i9-14900K. The Core i9-14900KS is expected to go on sale this Thursday, March 14, 2024. Whether it beats the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D at gaming is the $749 question we'll answer soon.
Source:
VideoCardz
103 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900KS Pricing Confirmed to be $749
Links a picture of ST 100% load power consumption -
The chart you're referencing shows that under single core full load, the 14900K and 7950X/X3D have similar power draw, with the Zen chips consuming a bit more.
The "idle" stat I mentioned is related to when the CPU is not working at 100% load, ST or MT. In this case, Zen idles at 30-40 W and Intel is sub 5 W.
If you meant to demonstrate how Intel has superior ST efficiency, then that's certainly true, but Intel also has significantly superior idle consumption, which is actually what most CPUs do most of the time, unless you run 24/7 benchmarks.
You can check this by running some monitoring software and simply observing the total CPU power (not the core power or any of the other breakdown stats), in fact the cores on Zen typically use less than 10 W, often just 3-4 W. Unfortunately the non monolithic architecture means the IO die, which is also made on an older, less efficient process, is always active. Intel has a monolithic design so it's much easier to idle efficiently.
To say that Intel has superior ST efficiency is factually incorrect. It really depends on the CPU models we are comparing.
ST efficiency isn't that important either, most workloads are going to utilize more than a single thread of which Ryzen is vastly more efficient in.
I don't really see the point of your argument, in essence you are saying if you purchase the 24-core 14900K and only use a single thread you'll have slightly better efficiency. That's great unless you ignore the obvious waste of money that is. Who is buying a 24-core CPU to only be running a single thread most of the time? It's nonsense, yes the 14900K is more efficient if you only run a single thread which is precisely the least likely scenario for people buying this CPU. It's actually a 35% difference between the 14900K and 7950X. Mind you that's a generous comparison to Intel, if you compare to the 7950X3D the 14900K consumes 130% more power.
You're talking about cherry picking results, while failing to mention that in the instance where the Intel CPU is using "35%" more power (in 100% all core synthetic load, at a whole 42 W more than it's competitor, the 7950X), it's also doing more work, faster.
Since you misquoting TPU's test of 100% single core load as "idle" power apparently puts the burden of proof on me, as requested, here's a review that compares CPUs at idle/load power.
hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-7600-ryzen-7-7700-and-ryzen-9-7900-65w-review?page=3
As you can see, the 13900K system idles at 67 W, whereas the otherwise identical 7950X system idles at 107 W. Even the six core 7600X still idles at 89 W, with single core load being just 18 W higher, lending further evidence to my statements.
You can also, as I suggested, simply observe your systems power draw to reach the same understanding.
Not only that, but since hothardware.com tests using manufacturer spec settings, the Zen 4 parts used 5200 MT memory while the 13th gen Intel parts used 5600 MT memory, so if you used 6000 MT "sweetspot" RAM in the same Zen 4 build, the powerdraw would be yet higher, since IF/IO die would be consuming more power.
More evidence if you still don't want to believe me. Identical systems other than CPU, and mobo/RAM, for obvious reasons, since you can't plop a 13900K into an X670 motherboard.
Here's the image in a better format, they use .webp for some reason.
Nuanced? Nuanced? As in a two generation old 12600K is more efficient than the entire Zen 4 lineup besides the 7800X3D?
Doesn't seem very nuanced to me.
That 7800X3D (an undervolted 7700X with some cache on top) is still beaten by a last generation 13400 by the way (an undervolted 12600K)
By 154.8 to 106.2 too, a significant lead.
So what exactly is "factually incorrect" about the statement that Intel has superior ST efficiency?
Trust me, they're out there.
Regarding idle / browsing the web etc. my experience from a 7950x is that even just browsing youtube comments power draw hits 45w average and it peaks as high as 65 (!!!!). A 12900k browsing the web while watching 2 videos (youtube and twitch) draws 7 watts. The difference is pretty insane.
1) An utter lack of evidence to support your sub 5w claim. There's nothing on here that isolates specifically to CPU power only nor is any figure alluding to 5w provided. I can safely assume you pulled that one out of your rear as usual.
2) You couldn't be bothered to get a chart with 14900K, which is the CPU in question. The chart is also missing the 7950X3D / 7800X3D, which as we are all aware are the more efficient CPUs of AMD's current lineup.
3) You can pretty clearly see Intel and AMD trading on Idle power consumption in that graph. The 5800X3D is in fact the most efficient of the bunch at idle.
4) You provided a chart with total system power consumption without addressing the fact that such a chart includes variables like fans, motherboard, ect. A high end motherboard can significantly add to idle power consumption for example, especially a 2-chip solution like the X670E chipset. I have a 7800X3D with a X670 motherboard with 4 NVMe drives, 2 of which are 15.36TB 10w enterprise drives (these drives do not enter sleed states), one of which is the power hungry T700 4TB (7w), and the last of which is a renegade fury 4TB (3.5w). My watt meter measures total idle power consumption at 89w. If I were to eliminate power hungry SSDs that brings my system idle power down to 59.5w, which is coincidentally close to the 5800X3D and better than the Intel systems. I bet I can shave off even more by removing some fans and doing to a single chip motherboard like B class. Suffice it to say, point to this chart as if it only indicates CPU power consumption is highly misleading.
He's saying that because I used a 13900K (physically the same silicon as a 14900K) it doesn't matter.
Cute how suddenly you're comparing it against the X3D chip, since that supports your argument more (big power number is bigger) which is slower than the 7950X in applications as a trade off for being faster in gaming.
Lmao. Gonna end it here, pointless showing evidence and simple facts to people with their heads in the sand.
Chatted to W1z and next CPU test bench will have idle power measurements. Guess we'll know then who's "pulling that out of their rear, as usual".
BTW, here is a chart including 14th gen, system power at idle from the wall
Hence why I'm using other reviews (as requested) to compare full system power draw, since the only differences in those test systems are the CPUs, this is appropriate.
How much transistors inside?
CPU only:
Whole system:
What I've found it most/all non-K Intel CPUs can idle lower than 5W but different circumstances in the OS can change that to 15-20W at idle.
For example: Dell Optiplex 9020 i7-4790.
Intel iGPU drivers: 15W idle
Nvidia drivers: 15W idle
AMD drivers: 4W idle
These are GPU drivers so WTF?
Meanwhile virtually everyone's PC spends a lot of time at or near idle.
That said, AMDs chipsets / motherboards are one of the bigger culprits behind their system idle power draws.
Vortez.net is the only site I've seen incorporate this into their motherboard reviews, but they are a small site with a limited sample. From their data though, it's clear that AMD mobo/cpu combination idle is notably higher.
Specifically, Z690 idle power draws ranged from a low of 72W to a high of 80W.
X670E power draws ranged from a low of 88W to a high of 102W.
From their data, AMDs idle power draw is ranging from a low of +10% (highest idle intel vs lowest idle AMD) to +41.7% (lowest idle Intel vs highest idle AMD) vs Intel.
X670E (idle is the gray bar) :
Z690:
@Lew Zealand The above is why they are all over the board. It depends on what motherboard they used. However the overall pattern of high idle power usage is pretty clear.
(not being sarcastic).
It's true that the chipset/motherboard influences things, but I'd say the chiplet architecture with a separate IO die on a less efficent older process is more influential.
That is 45%-58% more power draw, doing what PCs do (nothing) 95% of the time.
You have to go back to Zen 1+ and X470 to see AMD match up vs Intel on idle power draw. From what data they have a Zen 1+ (2XXX series) on an X470 had around 10% less idle power draw than equivalent Intel.
IIRC those were the last monolithic AMD desktop CPUs.