Intel Core i9-14900K

[W1zzard]

And where does APO come from? Windows Update, extra software, directly integrated in games, drivers?

BIOS need DTT enabled, then mobo vendor will give you a download for APO, which is a software that gets installed in your OS

 

[Shatun_Bear]

'Editor's Choice'

Come on you'd have to be mentally a bit short to buy one of these over an old 13900K/KS.

 

[sLowEnd]

'Editor's Choice'

Come on you'd have to be mentally a bit short to buy one of these over an old 13900K/KS.

It'd be questionable to "upgrade" from a 13900KS to a 14900K, but if building a new system or upgrading from a lower end chip there's good reason to buy the 14900K over the 13900KS. That is, the 13900KS is a lot more expensive than the 14900K.

 

[firejohn]

BIOS need DTT enabled, then mobo vendor will give you a download for APO, which is a software that gets installed in your OS

mmm i recently read about DTT, its default off at my MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4.

 

[lexluthermiester]

For god's sake, it doesn't. At this point this is considered trolling.

You are citing HardwareUnboxed. THAT is trolling. Especially when you're on TPU.

 

[tommys]

how well perform AMD vs. Intel when you simultaneously have a all-core cpu in the background and you want to play in the foreground

I heavily agree. Too many benchmarkers and reviewers use clean setups and zero background activity, when the reality is people who pay big money for these multitasking CPUs want to utilize their computers to its maximum potential. If I'm running vapoursynth in the background, I'm not going to wait for a couple days until I can game again.

 

[95Viper]

Enough of the bickering back and forth... it is not productive and is ruining the thread.
Move on.

 

[ratirt]

But I did not call the 14900k the fastest. All I'm saying is at similar power limits it offers same performance and efficiency with amds best in Mt workloads. It is not the fastest in MT workloads, it loses to the 7950x, but not by 2-3 times like the guy above me argued. The difference is 5 to 20% depending on what exactly you are testing.

It is the fastest in the Intel stack and that is what I said. I think we should constrain CPUs in a manner these draw same power.
5%-20% you are talking about performance? If that is the case yes but in order for 14900k to be 5% behind 7950x it has to draw 500w and AMD's 7950x being faster draw 350w. That is substantial. Obviously it depends on the test performed but I think you understand my point. Is 14900k bad CPU? not at all but the efficiency is sketchy at best and lead to a lot of twists and turns.

Come on you'd have to be mentally a bit short to buy one of these over an old 13900K/KS.

I agree with that. Not to mention as always there is no upgrade path for the 13900K/KS. I would not call the 14900K an upgrade.
I watched the HWUB video yesterday about the 14900K IPC down to 12900K. Steve mentioned that it would have been absolutely fabulous to have the 10th and 11th gen in the same socket as 12th 13th and 14th gen. The upgrade from a 10th gen to 12th or 13th would have been massive and you would not need to change boards. I totally agree with him on that matter. That would have been the biggest pro Intel could have offered to customers. The refreshes do not bring anything substantial.

 

[JustBenching]

5%-20% you are talking about performance?

Yes, when both the 13900k and the 7950x draw the same power, the intel part is 5 to 20% behind in MT workloads, depending on what exactly you are testing. On average the difference is 10%, so the 7950x is 10% more efficient. That is true from 65 all the way up to 200 watts. 10% is a decent margin but I wouldn't call that "generational".

 

[ratirt]

Yes, when both the 13900k and the 7950x draw the same power, the intel part is 5 to 20% behind in MT workloads, depending on what exactly you are testing. On average the difference is 10%, so the 7950x is 10% more efficient. That is true from 65 all the way up to 200 watts. 10% is a decent margin but I wouldn't call that "generational".

Have you noticed a pattern in Intel's gen to gen upgrades? Every time there is a substantial performance increase, platform changes. Whenever there's new CPUs release on the same platform the performance increase is few % if any. I'm pretty sure the 15th gen upgrade will be noticeably faster than 14th gen and I think this way, since the platform is changing as well. We will see how it goes but that's my bet.

 

[W1zzard]

mmm i recently read about DTT, its default off at my MSI Z690 Tomahawk DDR4.

Until this release it was useless for desktop, so they defaulted it to off. Now it supports two old games, still not that useful, maybe once Intel gets more game support added.

 

[firejohn]

Intel has an automatic response in reddit (i don‘t know if its official r/intel), when the bot catches „temperature“ it says that its totally normal to reach 100°C and its intended or like so. When i set 253W limit, the CPU reaches 212W or so in Cinebench 2024. The temps are really cool in the 70s 80s and the P-cores only clocks to 5,1-5,3Ghz.

At 288W limit it reaches 100°C or even 105°C,thermal throttle, uses the full 288W and the P-core clocks are around 5,5-5,7Ghz.

Which route would you go?

 

[W1zzard]

Which route would you go?

Depends on your preferences.
If you want maximum performance, then let it go to thermal throttle.
If you want lower temps just so you can see a lower number in monitoring, adjust the thermal limit or the power limit.
If you want to reduce power consumption, at the cost of performance, lower the power limit, also look into undervolting.

I never hard of Intel denying an RMA due to temperatures (well unless you have burn marks), it would also result in huge drama for them

 

[firejohn]

I think i switch back to „Tower Cooler“ that is set to 288W limit at MSI boards. Anyway, its cold now in germany ^^

Another interesting point i caught in r/noctua is the convex bottom of Noctua coolers. This time the 14th are flat. I sent Noctua an eMail, also if the NH-D15, that i have, is convex. In their FAQs they say its compatible, but i think they referred to just the 1700 socket.

Greetings

Edit: @W1zzard
I tried undervolting with adaptive + offset -0,1V like i always did (4770k, 12900k) and it is not stable also at -40mV. Sometimes only CB2024 crashes. But i don‘t know what my powerlimit was when i tested UV.

Someone uses just offset and was successful, does it mean the CPU runs always in higher voltages compared to additional adaptive?

 

[chrcoluk]

Intel has an automatic response in reddit (i don‘t know if its official r/intel), when the bot catches „temperature“ it says that its totally normal to reach 100°C and its intended or like so. When i set 253W limit, the CPU reaches 212W or so in Cinebench 2024. The temps are really cool in the 70s 80s and the P-cores only clocks to 5,1-5,3Ghz.

At 288W limit it reaches 100°C or even 105°C,thermal throttle, uses the full 288W and the P-core clocks are around 5,5-5,7Ghz.

Which route would you go?

Not an answer to your question, and I know it wasnt aimed at me anyway, but an obbservation on what you have reported.

So your CPU seems to be power throttling at 40W below the limit set, never seen that on my 13700k. I was also monitoring package power (the highest reading of the lot) so its interesting the behaviour you have on your chip.

 

[firejohn]

Not an answer to your question, and I know it wasnt aimed at me anyway, but an obbservation on what you have reported.

So your CPU seems to be power throttling at 40W below the limit set, never seen that on my 13700k. I was also monitoring package power (the highest reading of the lot) so its interesting the behaviour you have on your chip.

No problem you are welcome, der8auer had the same observation at 253W limit. He has also english versions of his Youtube videos.

 

[mahirzukic2]

I think i switch back to „Tower Cooler“ that is set to 288W limit at MSI boards. Anyway, its cold now in germany ^^

Another interesting point i caught in r/noctua is the convex bottom of Noctua coolers. This time the 14th are flat. I sent Noctua an eMail, also if the NH-D15, that i have, is convex. In their FAQs they say its compatible, but i think they referred to just the 1700 socket.

Greetings

Edit: @W1zzard
I tried undervolting with adaptive + offset -0,1V like i always did (4770k, 12900k) and it is not stable also at -40mV. Sometimes only CB2024 crashes. But i don‘t know what my powerlimit was when i tested UV.

Someone uses just offset and was successful, does it mean the CPU runs always in higher voltages compared to additional adaptive?

Look at my sig for the results on 13700kf (not that F matters).
To be quite frank, that -0.15v was not rock stable during the summer, and I have been lowering it to -0.11 or -0.12v for stability and even more so because I am running very long financial simulation, so I don't want crashes on my PC. That is no bueno. In games or something else without 100% MT utilization, the -0.15v is perfectly fine.

 

[JustBenching]

Look at my sig for the results on 13700kf (not that F matters).
To be quite frank, that -0.15v was not rock stable during the summer, and I have been lowering it to -0.11 or -0.12v for stability and even more so because I am running very long financial simulation, so I don't want crashes on my PC. That is no bueno. In games or something else without 100% MT utilization, the -0.15v is perfectly fine.

Yeah, if you want to test undervolt stability you should always do so with the CPU running at 90 to 95c. Turn down the CPU fans completely or whatever. That way your stability won't be impacted by an ambient increase in temperatures during the summer.

 

[KLMR]

You're not understanding the concept, and I'm not sure why I have to explain this to you. The "Editor's Choice" is an industry standard thing that applies ONLY AT THE TIME OF REVIEW. There is, of course, discretion of the award by "The Editor", in this case W1zzard, but the timeframe for which the award is relevant is consistent across all journalists, and across all market sectors.

So, let me make this super, objectively, unambiguously clear to you:

At the time of this review, the 14900K is the fastest consumer CPU for rendering, encoding, productivity, simulation, compiling, browsing or emulating on the market.

It doesn't matter what came before it.
It doesn't matter what comes after it.
Right now, it's the best you can buy for those workloads I listed above (and more).

There are Editor's Choice awards for products from 1993 that you shouldn't buy today because they're obsolete.
There are going to be Editor's Choice awards for products released decades from now that you can't buy today because they don't exist yet.

Right now, and ONLY right now, the 14900K gets an Editor's choice award for being the best CPU at all the things it wins at, which happens to be quite a lot of what most people want a CPU to do.

Would I personally buy a 14900K?
No; It's too hot, too power-hungry, and unnecessary for me - but that doesn't change the fact that the 14900K is, for many people, the best and fastest CPU they'll have access to right now, at a price that is (relative to inflation, platform costs, and competitor prices) more reasonable than both it's 13900K predecessor, as well as the 7950X3D competition.

I see your point and I understand it.

But then I check i7 and i5 14th reviews (performed at the same time) and they also have editors choice award.
Then I click on the link bellow the award called: Our awards explained

• This is our most valuable award
• It is given to a product that truly stands out from the competition, something that does a lot of things better than alternatives
• The reviewer would buy this product with their own money
• This award does not mean "Must Buy" or "Must Have," no product exists that everybody must buy or have
• Cannot be combined with "Recommended"

So what differenciates i5, i7 and i9 awards from each other when reviews were performed at the same time?
If it was BEST PERFORMACE for i9, BEST VALUE for i7, BEST EFFICIENCY for i5. Well no point of discussion, each one has its strengths. You're saying, if you want intel, get that.

In terms of processors its marginally the fastest, yes. But trully stands out from the competition? If so, all 3 lines of intel trully stands out from the competition?
If raw performance is the only criteria, how come all the lines have editor's choice if by defintion are 3 lines of different computing power?
Wouldn't be Highly Recommended a better choice?
Again I'm missing something.

 

[mahirzukic2]

Yeah, if you want to test undervolt stability you should always do so with the CPU running at 90 to 95c. Turn down the CPU fans completely or whatever. That way your stability won't be impacted by an ambient increase in temperatures during the summer.

What I have found is kind of profound (at least to me). The thing is, I have already done so, as it is kind of obvious. Run at the same temp 90-95 and check for stability. So I was controlling for temperature for sure, but another thing popped out to me during the testing. Having higher ambient temperatures lowered the overall stability of the clocks at the same negative Voltage offset (in my case 0.15v), usually it might have meant that my clocks would be a little lower compared to having lower ambient temperature, but in my case it wasn't just slightly lowered clocks but rather much more unstable system at the same settings.
This has led me to lower the voltage offset a little bit during the higher ambient temperature times (summer that is), and bring it back after the summer is gone.
Another thing which is also very influential is the type of workload in the financial simulation I am running compared to Cinebench R23. This application is more taxing than the Cinebench, crazy I know.
And is therefore more sensitive than Cinebench to the overall stability of the system.
This lead me to use it instead of Cinebench for stability testing and verification especially for my use cases with the PC.

 

[JustBenching]

What I have found is kind of profound (at least to me). The thing is, I have already done so, as it is kind of obvious. Run at the same temp 90-95 and check for stability. So I was controlling for temperature for sure, but another thing popped out to me during the testing. Having higher ambient temperatures lowered the overall stability of the clocks at the same negative Voltage offset (in my case 0.15v), usually it might have meant that my clocks would be a little lower compared to having lower ambient temperature, but in my case it wasn't just slightly lowered clocks but rather much more unstable system at the same settings.
This has led me to lower the voltage offset a little bit during the higher ambient temperature times (summer that is), and bring it back after the summer is gone.
Another thing which is also very influential is the type of workload in the financial simulation I am running compared to Cinebench R23. This application is more taxing than the Cinebench, crazy I know.
And is therefore more sensitive than Cinebench to the overall stability of the system.
This lead me to use it instead of Cinebench for stability testing and verification especially for my use cases with the PC.

Cinebench in general is not a good stability test. If you really wanna make sure, run a 30 minutes ycruncher. It's one of / the heaviest thing you can run on your PC.

There are people that argue that unless you run 24/48 hours of something like prime95 or ycruncher you are not stable, but I digress. Unless 24/7/365 stability is of paramount importance, a 30 minute ycruncher is enough.

 

[Chrispy_]

Again I'm missing something.

I suspect it's context that you're missing.

You said yourself, "BEST PERFORMACE for i9, BEST VALUE for i7, BEST EFFICIENCY for i5"

The context matters. The i9 is a flagship, it's never going to be the best value or most efficient CPU, so in context, the editor would choose it because it was the fastest option.

Perhaps Highly Recommended would be a better choice, but I'm not the editor. There's also the problem that we're in a CPU duopoly with only two competitors for two awards. If Intel is faster/better/whatever than the competition, why should it get the silver medal instead of the gold? In a two-man race, the silver medal is for the loser and I guess the loser only really deserves a medal at all if it was close enough to the gold-medal winner.

Cinebench in general is not a good stability test. If you really wanna make sure, run a 30 minutes ycruncher. It's one of / the heaviest thing you can run on your PC.

There are people that argue that unless you run 24/48 hours of something like prime95 or ycruncher you are not stable, but I digress. Unless 24/7/365 stability is of paramount importance, a 30 minute ycruncher is enough.

If you're not production rendering for income-related reasons, there's no point chasing the last microscopic fraction of stability, because "30-minutes ycruncher stable" is already "five-nines".

Software bugs, memory leaks, unexpected power outages, reboots for driver updates and other nonsense are already a larger contributor to downtime than the one or two bluescreens a year you might get with a system that is only 99.999% stable.

 

[JustBenching]

If you're not production rendering for income-related reasons, there's no point chasing the last microscopic fraction of stability, because "30-minutes ycruncher stable" is already "five-nines".

Software bugs, memory leaks, unexpected power outages, reboots for driver updates and other nonsense are already a larger contributor to downtime than the one or two bluescreens a year you might get with a system that is only 99.999% stable.

Yeah, im going a step further, im doing 3 runs (which is, what, 3 minutes or something) of ycruncher at 90-95c forced temperature. If that passes, I never have encountered errors cause the CPU never reaches 95c normally

 

[mahirzukic2]

Cinebench in general is not a good stability test. If you really wanna make sure, run a 30 minutes ycruncher. It's one of / the heaviest thing you can run on your PC.

There are people that argue that unless you run 24/48 hours of something like prime95 or ycruncher you are not stable, but I digress. Unless 24/7/365 stability is of paramount importance, a 30 minute ycruncher is enough.

Thank you for the suggestion. I may give the ycruncher a run, 30 minutes sounds short enough.

The thing is, in my use case I limit the power to 180w and the temperature stays around 90-91 with occasional jump to 93 before it returns to equilibrium.
This gives me 5.3 on P cores and 4.4 on E cores. I settled on 180 specifically because it is a nice balance of power consumption, temperatures and stability.

 

[oiawshboiwsahnoidaws]

yep y-cruncher is great for detecting instability in cpu (and also memory), first thing i do after any overclock/undervolt/tweaking is to run y-cruncher.exe bench 5b -od:0 once or twice, which only takes few minutes at best and with that im quite confident system is stable already or at least i never had it be unstable in then further longer stress-testing with y-cruncher or other programs
edit: oh the option "5b" uses a lot of memory, for systems with just 32gb maybe better to use 2.5b or even 1b and just do more runs with that
y-cruncher also a stress-test feature where different algorithms will be used that stress components differently (tho i just use the benchmark seems enough to find errors)