Intel Core i7-14700K

[P4-630]

How come temperatures are higher than the 14900k? is this an error?

Tweakers had a different result:

For cooling using Alphacool Core Ocean T38 AIO.

A 15 minutes Cinebench R23 multithreaded loop.

Max Temperature:

Max package power:

I know, it was cooled by AIO but still, the i7 was here the coolest running CPU.

Intel Core i5 14600K, Core i7 14700K en Core i9 14900K

In deze review testen we de Intel Core i5 14600K, Core i7 14700K en Core i9 14900K. Weet de veertiende generatie met codenaam Raptor Lake Refresh te overtuigen?

tweakers.net

 

[W1zzard]

Max package power

Looks like they tested unlocked CPUs without power limit, otherwise all those CPUs would be identical because they all have PL1=PL2=253 W and sitting in power limit?

 

[kraiggers]

Any thoughts on how the new chips — but specifically the 14700 — might perform running under-powered at PL1=75 W and PL2=125 W?

I have a SFF pc with an i7 12700k, and it is power-limited to stay cool and quiet. At those values, my cpu temps under load test stay below 90 for 30s and thereafter mostly around 80. I’m getting 2450 single-core and 14000 multi-core on geekbench 6.


I’m wondering if there is any value to upgrading to the 14700 in such a power-limited environment? Having 8 more (!) efficiency cores at + 0.2 base ghz would, I think, be meaningful? And the L2 increase 12->28mb, and L3 increase 25->33 mb might be useful as well?

 

[THU31]

@W1zzard

Could you please try to answer my question from my previous post?

Is the voltage on the i7 much higher than the i5? Why does it draw so much more power while gaming?

 

[Noreng]

Why is this drawing twice as much power as the 14600K in gaming???

The performance gain is less than 10%. Is the extra 200-300 MHz causing the voltage to skyrocket? It can't be the extra cores, as they're not even utilized.

This is some utter nonsense. Either the voltage curve is extremely steep, or there's some other technical issue. Only a crazy person would consider using this CPU at such high power consumption.

The V/F curve for Raptor Lake starts to climb rather steeply beyond 5 GHz, every 100 MHz added increases power draw by 20% or so.
The additional cores will also consume some amount of power, even if they're barely utilized.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This looks like a nice drop-in upgrade for my 12700KF, or anything lesser from gen 12. Not much improvement if coming from 13th gen but I never expected that. Actually never expected another upgrade past 13th gen for this socket.

So this is going to be the last, and best, monolithic die from Intel.

 

[P4-630]

This looks like a nice drop-in upgrade for my 12700KF

I was thinking the same, that i7 my last upgrade for my i7 12700K.

 

[cartman-2000]

Looks like they tested unlocked CPUs without power limit, otherwise all those CPUs would be identical because they all have PL1=PL2=253 W and sitting in power limit?

Intel spec for pl1 and 2 is 125w and 253w I believe, but some mobos don't use intel's limits when pl1&2 is set to auto.

I feel that it's pretty much a requirement to fine tune an undervolt for these cpu's if you want somewhat manageable power usage(and tempuratures) for their clockrates, with an unlimited power limit.

@kraiggers derbauer did do a power limited test at around 80w for the 14900k, it cut the performance by nearly half.

 

[W1zzard]

Intel spec for pl1 and 2 is 125w and 253w I believe, but some mobos don't use intel's limits when pl1&2 is set to auto.

I mention it in every review, it's PL1=PL2=253 W for both 14900K and 14700K. Yeah some mobos override the setting, that's why I test at both stock and with power limits removed, so people can get an idea what to expect.

 

[FrostWolf]

I mention it in every review, it's PL1=PL2=253 W for both 14900K and 14700K. Yeah some mobos override the setting, that's why I test at both stock and with power limits removed, so people can get an idea what to expect.

As the i7-13700 (non-K) has a PL2 of 219w, I’d love to see what performance and power usage the 14700k got there. It should tell us (most likely) what the 14700 non-k will be like.

I have yet to see a benchmark where I thought the extra four e-cores were that relevant, and the 13700k is $365 and will probably drop further (I haven’t checked 13700 non-k).

 

[BoggledBeagle]

I got a 14700K to see if it could a be a meaningful upgrade from my 13600K.

Under a small air cooler, it throttled during Cinebench R24 run to 230W, max. temp 103°C and scored 1886.
When limited to 180W, which my air cooler can handle, max. temp fell to 85°C and scored 1830.

My 13600K did 1382 at around 160W.

I checked and only 7950X, 13900K, 14900K and Apple M2 ultra can score better, possibly at higher power draw than 180W.

I really have nothing bad to say about these CPUs, once they are limited to sane power draw.

 

[W1zzard]

When limited to 180W, which my air cooler can handle, max. temp fell to 85°C

Great testing and feedback. 85°C seems quite conservative though. These CPUs are designed to operate at 100°C 24/7 for multiple years.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Great testing and feedback. 85°C seems quite conservative though. These CPUs are designed to operate at 100°C 24/7 for multiple years.

Well, the cooler could probably handle 200W, but not far after that it starts failing. I have no plan of getting AIO water cooler of hanging some huge heavy air cooler on the motherboard.

EDIT: I think my CPU is broken, it just sits at 5500 MHz and refuses to boost to 5600 with single thread workload. Cinebench R23 1 thread score is 2100.
Or is my Gigabyte motherboard broken? I have GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX with the latest F9 bios.

 

[FrostWolf]

I got a 14700K to see if it could a be a meaningful upgrade from my 13600K.

Under a small air cooler, it throttled during Cinebench R24 run to 230W, max. temp 103°C and scored 1886.
When limited to 180W, which my air cooler can handle, max. temp fell to 85°C and scored 1830.

My 13600K did 1382 at around 160W.

I checked and only 7950X, 13900K, 14900K and Apple M2 ultra can score better, possibly at higher power draw than 180W.

I really have nothing bad to say about these CPUs, once they are limited to sane power draw.

View attachment 318393

Nice job and thanks for that. I have a 13600k so this is useful data for me.

My latest build has an AIO for the first time, so not much risk for f throttling under sane power limits. What remains is for me to decide whether a 13700k at possibly even greater discounts in the near future is the better choice, or the 14700k.

Or, whether getting a non-K variant of either, which has a lower PL1/2 makes even more sense.

 

[THU31]

I got a 14700K to see if it could a be a meaningful upgrade from my 13600K.

I wonder if you could do a small test for me if you find a bit of spare time.

What I would like to see:
- E-cores disabled, 8 P-cores enabled, HT on
- PL1=PL2=125 W
- quick Prime95 load, Small FFTs, AVX disabled (both boxes checked)

I'm interested in the frequency you can achieve in these conditions. I'd appreciate it.

 

[P4-630]

What I would like to see: E-cores disabled

You should definitely spend your money elsewhere, this CPU clearly isn't for you....

 

[FrostWolf]

I wonder if you could do a small test for me if you find a bit of spare time.

What I would like to see:
- E-cores disabled, 8 P-cores enabled, HT on
- PL1=PL2=125 W
- quick Prime95 load, Small FFTs, AVX disabled (both boxes checked)

I'm interested in the frequency you can achieve in these conditions. I'd appreciate it.

If that’s what you’re after, you should buy a discounted i7-13700k. Same number of P-cores for less.

 

[THU31]

You should definitely spend your money elsewhere, this CPU clearly isn't for you....

I'd love to, but there's no SKU with 8 P-cores but no E-cores.

And that's exactly why all reviews of Intel CPUs are useless to me. I have no idea what I can expect from the CPU in my usage. Even power limiting with E-cores enabled is not useful, because E-cores will steal power from P-cores.

If that’s what you’re after, you should buy a discounted i7-13700k. Same number of P-cores for less.

The 14600K is able to achieve 200 MHz more at lower power consumption, which makes makes me hopeful the 14700K could also do that compared to its predecessor.

My 13600KF hits 5.1 GHz at 125 W in Prime95 (uncore only at 4 GHz, though).

 

[FrostWolf]

I'd love to, but there's no SKU with 8 P-cores but no E-cores.

And that's exactly why all reviews of Intel CPUs are useless to me. I have no idea what I can expect from the CPU in my usage. Even power limiting with E-cores enabled is not useful, because E-cores will steal power from P-cores.



The 14600K is able to achieve 200 MHz more at lower power consumption, which makes makes me hopeful the 14700K could also do that compared to its predecessor.

My 13600KF hits 5.1 GHz at 125 W in Prime95 (uncore only at 4 GHz, though).

I would find it highly likely that you could hit the same target with the 13700k under the same conditions; you just need to up the multiplier.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

... What I would like to see: E-cores disabled, 8 P-cores enabled, HT on, PL1=PL2=125 W, quick Prime95 load, Small FFTs, AVX disabled (both boxes checked)

I'm interested in the frequency you can achieve in these conditions. I'd appreciate it.

It sounds to me that you are after a high quality silicone, keep in mind that 14700K has 400 MHz lower max frequency than 14900K or 13900KS, and therefore can be notably worse quality than these chips. If you want the best silicone, I am afraid that you need to invest in one these two chips.

 

[lexluthermiester]

These CPUs are designed to operate at 100°C 24/7 for multiple years.

I know you're somewhat serious, but I get very irritated if the temps on anything get about 75C. To me, 100C 24/7 is completely unacceptable.

 

[Gica]

For @kapone32

 

[W1zzard]

I know you're somewhat serious, but I get very irritated if the temps on anything get about 75C. To me, 100C 24/7 is completely unacceptable.

and that's perfectly fine, at least we're not killing each other around similar edicts and their interpretations

 

[Lew Zealand]

I know you're somewhat serious, but I get very irritated if the temps on anything get about 75C. To me, 100C 24/7 is completely unacceptable.

100% agreed. What's fun is running a CPU that way at ~50% duty cycle for years in ignorance and then learning much later that just maybe it's not a good idea. This is why I now have major issues with AMD's 95°C "is acceptable" stance and Intel's recent power settings resulting in 100°C being unavoidable in i7s and i9s even with a 360mm AIO.

Did video conversions for 2-3 years with 2012 Mac Mini 2.6 GHz Core i7-3720QM at that 50% duty cycle with it pegged at 100°C and throttling most of the year. After 3 years the demand waned a bit so I turned off turbo so it ran at 2.6GHz ~80°C as awareness dawned that 100°C might not be great. A couple years later built an i5-8400 w/Hyper 212 at 65°C ACT 3.8 GHz, an actually sane way to do conversions having learned the error of my ways.

The 2012 Mini still works great somehow but I have little need to do demanding things with it any more.

 

[W1zzard]

What's fun is running a CPU that way at ~50% duty cycle for years in ignorance

Yeah that's not good and there should be some kind of alerting mechanism if there's thermal throttling that's causing a significant performance loss