Intel Core i7-14700K has an 8P+12E Core Configuration

[R0H1T]

whereas the R7 uses most of its higher power headroom for more voltage after a certain point

That's because the R7 is tapped out around 65-100W depending on the task. Beyond that no amount of power draw is scaling with any workload linearly, you'd need 4/8 more cores to make sense above those levels. This also why ADL or RPL can scale beyond 150W in some cases ~ because they have the extra cores that can be fed. With the R7 you're just pumping juice without getting much in return, if anything at all. It's probably already tapped out to max core clocks as well.

 

[fevgatos]

That's because the R7 is tapped out around 65-100W depending on the task. Beyond that no amount of power draw is scaling with any workload linearly, you'd need 4/8 more cores to make sense above those levels. This also why ADL or RPL can scale beyond 150W in some cases ~ because they have the extra cores that can be fed. With the R7 you're just pumping juice without getting much in return, if anything at all. It's probably already tapped out to max core clocks as well.

Which is why I keep saying it's dumb to test Intel CPUS at 300-350 watts. Exactly cause they don't scale, nobody will be running them at that wattage. It's pointless. My 13900k at 260w scores 41.200, and then at 330w 42k. Why would I ever run it at 300+ like some reviewers are doing?

 

[wheresmycar]

Then it's obvious you haven't tried them.

Here is a video review, just take a look

I don't try/buy anything without first checking reliable reviews and user input.

For me, the upgrade revolves primarily around gaming and theres the odd/occasional video rendering and plex transcoding. So its a specific use-case seeking specific test/benched desirable outcomes/solutions. At the moment AM5's X3D seems like the better fit although i'm in no rush to depart from my current 9700K (1440p) setup.

For day to day not-so-intensive productivity, single threaded work applications, office suite, browsing, you know the usual stuff... i have a second machine carrying a 5Ghz OC'd quad~MT 7700K (basically my daily driver). Not looking to upgrade this machine - its already an absolute blast!

 

[R0H1T]

Did you miss the one graph I showed from TPU, or this?

The numbers are measured through AIDA64.

Which is why I keep saying it's dumb to test Intel CPUS at 300-350 watts. Exactly cause they don't scale, nobody will be running them at that wattage. It's pointless. My 13900k at 260w scores 41.200, and then at 330w 42k. Why would I ever run it at 300+ like some reviewers are doing?

You keep deflecting the ones I post & keep bringing up this non sequitur!

 

[fevgatos]

Did you miss the one graph I showed from TPU, or this?

Please, go ahead and do the efficiency calculations on these. Youll realize that the difference between the 7950x and the 13900k is 10%.


At same "power" the 7950x draws much more than the Intel part. Dunno why, but that's what the review shows

Random example, POVray

7950x @ 145w = 12064
13900k @ 143w = 11365

Actual difference in efficiency, 6%.

But how is this relevant to the 7700x?

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

I'll chime in.

13900k @ 84W PL1/PL2

Simulated 13700k (8P+8E) @84W:

 

[R0H1T]

I was responding to your rant that no one tests them at sane TDP levels, that's clearly false! Now if you don't want them to be tested at 253W TDP may be you should complain to Intel because they're allowing this, for years now.

Please, go ahead and do the efficiency calculations on these. Youll realize that the difference between the 7950x and the 13900k is 10%.


At same "power" the 7950x draws much more than the Intel part. Dunno why, but that's what the review shows

Random example, POVray

7950x @ 145w = 12064
13900k @ 143w = 11365

Actual difference in efficiency, 6%.

But how is this relevant to the 7700x?

Here we go again

 

[A Computer Guy]

Yes, the 12900k is an i9, but it's basically the same configuration as the i7 13700k. 8p+8e cores. In fact the 13700k is both faster and more efficient.

But 12th gen cores aren't 13th gen cores so isn't that comparing apples to oranges using pears?

 

[fevgatos]

But 12th gen cores aren't 13th gen cores so isn't that comparing apples to oranges using pears?

No. 12th is worse than 13th gen in every metric, both performance and efficiency. So you could argue im doing the ryzen part a favor by comparing it to 12th gen, but doesn't matter, the difference in efficiency is so vast that I don't even need to test 13th gen, 12th gen beats it handily as well. See above, the guy tested 13th gen, at 84w he scored 24.5k.

 

[P4-630]

It sucks if you just jumped in LGA1700 when you just bought an 13th gen intel CPU.....

 

[AusWolf]

Which is why I keep saying it's dumb to test Intel CPUS at 300-350 watts. Exactly cause they don't scale, nobody will be running them at that wattage. It's pointless. My 13900k at 260w scores 41.200, and then at 330w 42k. Why would I ever run it at 300+ like some reviewers are doing?

Equally, no one should be running the 7700X at stock TDP and/or maxing out the 95 °C temperature limit.

Testing is a different story, that has always been done at bone stock settings, which is kind of the order of the world, imo. Not unlocked, not 65 or 125 W limited, just stock.

Another thing is that a bigger, more complex chip with more components can run more efficiently at the same wattage. That's never been in question, imo. That's why my 6750 XT consumes less power than a 6500 XT in Kingdom Come: Deliverance at 1080p with a 60 fps limit.

 

[A Computer Guy]

No. 12th is worse than 13th gen in every metric, both performance and efficiency. So you could argue im doing the ryzen part a favor by comparing it to 12th gen, but doesn't matter, the difference in efficiency is so vast that I don't even need to test 13th gen, 12th gen beats it handily as well. See above, the guy tested 13th gen, at 84w he scored 24.5k.

I kinda feel like clarity is being lost in the conversation. To compare we should clearly understand which cores are being compared, at what core count, what max power limits are being used, and what usage actually occurred for tests with a fixed time period. As icing on the cake maybe including max temps for and idea of efficiency losses though heat.

At the moment my head is spinning and I have to bow out of the conversation. To make matters more confusing I'll just say my stock 5950x is doing 25176 in CB23. I'd be willing to do some CB23 testing at various max power levels (PPT) with various core counts if that might help the conversation.

 

[fevgatos]

Equally, no one should be running the 7700X at stock TDP and/or maxing out the 95 °C temperature limit.

Yes, but id argue the 7700x even pulling like 120w is closer to it's sweetspot than lets say a 13700k pulling 300. I kid you not, going from 150 to 300 watts gives you like 5-6% performance.

 

[AusWolf]

Yes, but id argue the 7700x even pulling like 120w is closer to it's sweetspot than lets say a 13700k pulling 300. I kid you not, going from 150 to 300 watts gives you like 5-6% performance.

I'd say that the 7700X sweet spot is around 80-100 W, while the 13700K sweet spot is closer to 150 W.

Here is the car equivalent of this conversation:

 

[Gica]

Ryzen 2xxx also brough slightly better memory, better cache & marginally higher IPC ~ it's what zen was originally supposed to be launched as but they couldn't wait anymore!


It's good for Intel, good for competition, good for existing Intel users blah blah blah ~ wake me up when you have to change mobos next year

Let's leave the nonsense. You can use a processor for 10 years as a home user. Or you can keep the motherboard and change 10 processors.
Ryzen 2000 was a much weaker update than the transition from 12th to 13th. If the rumors are correct, the 14th brings a huge boost to the i3 and i5. What does AMD sell like ryzen 3 currently?

The last two are i3, not i5. It's a writing mistake.
With 14600 8P+8E and i3 6P/12T, AMD really has a problem. He had it anyway, but now it's getting worse. Good luck canning motherboards.

 

[chaoshusky]

This is similar to the 8th and 9th gen Coffee Lake transition where Intel was stuck with nothing new and just enabled hyper threading throughout the range.

So Intel is stuck again and just enabling more E cores on lower SKUs. Its the exact same chip as Raptor Lake. That means no change to IPC and Core i9 parts will only have slight core and memory clock speed increases.

The only change from past behavior is maintaining pin compatibility of the socket unlike the skylake/kaby lake to coffee lake/coffee lake refresh 1151 debacle.

The EXACT same thing could be accomplished if Intel just lowered 13th gen prices and made the 13900KS more widely available. But nope they want yearly model number changes to push/trick people into upgrading.

And AMD don't do that either? X3D? They ain't stuck, you want more P-Cores you go to Enthusiast level like AMD's Threadripper...

 

[chrcoluk]

It sucks if you just jumped in LGA1700 when you just bought an 13th gen intel CPU.....

I just jumped on with my 13700k, but end of the day, new SKUs come out so often now, the days of owning the latest kit for a long time are gone, I got my 1080ti when 2000 nvidia series was round the corner and didnt regret that. Also the 13th gen bios was really bad on my board until they fixed it a few updates later, if I was on it when it first came out, I would have been stuck on that bios for a while. So benefits of jumping in late, the kinks are ironed out, and usually prices are lower as well. I was watching amazons 13700k price for a while trickling down until took the bait.

 

[R0H1T]

Let's leave the nonsense. You can use a processor for 10 years as a home user. Or you can keep the motherboard and change 10 processors.
Ryzen 2000 was a much weaker update than the transition from 12th to 13th. If the rumors are correct, the 14th brings a huge boost to the i3 and i5. What does AMD sell like ryzen 3 currently?

You don't & I won't advocate upgrading every gen either but you don't have the ability to upgrade as often on the same socket as AMD which is a big net negative! Why do you need to change boards so often when you have virtually the same platform, memory & PCIe gen ~ going from say Intel 6xxx gen to 11th gen? The answer is you didn't, there was no technical reason, okay 1 forced upgrade was fine but we didn't need 3-4 except for greed. The same goes for 12th gen to 14th, you also shouldn't need to upgrade if you're moving to gen 15 because it's the same memory(ddr5) & PCIe gen (5.0) but that's likely not gonna happen!

 

[Gica]

You don't & I won't advocate upgrading every gen either but you don't have the ability to upgrade as often on the same socket as AMD which is a big net negative! Why do you need to change boards so often when you have virtually the same platform, memory & PCIe gen ~ going from say Intel 6xxx gen to 11th gen? The answer is you didn't, there was no technical reason, okay 1 forced upgrade was fine but we didn't need 3-4 except for greed. The same goes for 12th gen to 14th, you also shouldn't need to upgrade if you're moving to gen 15 because it's the same memory(ddr5) & PCIe gen (5.0) but that's likely not gonna happen!

I bought the motherboard on June 7, 2022. It entered its second year.
Why would I change it now?
Why would I change the processor (12500)?
You always cling to extremes. Most people don't buy i9/r9 initially, but they can upgrade years later to them at a much lower price.
Example:
8600K in 2018 at ~$225
9900K in 2023 for under $200 (SH). I think you can find it for around $150 if you insist on keeping a motherboard with an expired life expectancy.

But you can keep that base plate as long as you want.
Do I really need to remind you what mess AMD made with processors and compatibility on AM4? Those who wanted Ryzen 5000 at launch (very expensive) had to upgrade their motherboard as well, because the old models received compatibility a year later, and not from AMD but from the manufacturers.

 

[R0H1T]

You're giving BS examples, someone with a 6700k couldn't upgrade to a 9700k 3 years down the line even though they were the exact same uarch! Who said anything about i9 or whatever?

9900K in 2023 for under $200 (SH). I think you can find it for around $150 if you insist on keeping a motherboard with an expired life expectancy.

Yeah good luck getting a board for 9xxx cheap today! What does 3xx or 4xx AM4 board cost these days, brand new or old?

Admittedly the earliest Zen chips weren't exactly great but the platform has been solid overall. And don't need to remind you AM4 was released before 8xxx gen chips came out

 

[Hugis]

Stop bickering guys...or take it to PM

 

[fevgatos]

You're giving BS examples, someone with a 6700k couldn't upgrade to a 9700k 3 years down the line even though they were the exact same uarch! Who said anything about i9 or whatever?

Well, I couldn't upgrade by R5 1600 either. I wanted a zen 3, had to wait for 2 years after zen 3 was released.. Basically, a total of 5 years. By that time I had already changed my whole platform.

 

[R0H1T]

Good for you.

 

[fevgatos]

Good for you.

Not that great, since I bought amd for the "upgradability" and got nothing so..

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Likely because they don’t want to make a die that big. Isn’t that why Arrow Lake might only be 6 P cores? Intel did one generation of 10c (before e-cores anyway), and it didn’t last before they dropped back to 8C. I really wonder if AMD knew what Intel’s max die size target was, and they made Ryzen what it was to put even more pressure on Intel at the high end. We pretty much jumped from 4C/8T at the high end to 8/16, just like that. Intel had to go to e-cores just to keep desktop die sizes economical. They are making it work to some degree.

AMD's zen cores are much smaller than Intel's P core, maybe Intel should work on making their core smaller and stop using the e-cores, or make use of the e-cores to make their CPUs more efficient, because AMD crushes Intel in battery life.