Intel Core i9-14900K Tested in Geekbench & CPU-Z

[RandallFlagg]

Um, what benchmarks were you looking at?

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

And when we look the following, the 7800X3D is king of the hill.

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

The point is, AGAIN, that for someone who already has a 7800X3D, the 14900k is NOT a compelling offering.

For anyone to say otherwise is picking at nits...or fanboying..

Still working on those (poor) critical thinking skills Lex? Let me help you.

Step 1 would be to actually look at the benchmarks in the articles you link to.

You're welcome.

13900K - more than twice as fast, 13600K 50% faster :

MySQL - 13900K is 40% faster, 13700K is 24% faster :

Java: 13900K is 75% faster, a 13600K is 22% faster.

.Net web hosting - pretty important for someone making\debugging\testing MVC web apps on their PC
13900K is 87.4% faster, 13600K is 21.7% faster :

7-Zip decompress, 13900K is 68.2% faster, 13700K is 27% faster. This one favors AMD, it's even worse with WinRAR.

AES, used almost everywhere, 13900K is 84.4% faster, 13600K is 11% faster :

 

[yannus1]

Well, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.

Hardcore gamers do productivity ? 1% ? They sometimes watch movies, though and I don't think they need extra cores for that.

Well, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.

Average users don't feel a Java pain while using their PC, nor SQL pain, nor Blender rendering pain and the like. Some rare users fit in this niche scenario and its fine.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Still working on those (poor) critical thinking skills Lex? Let me help you.

Oh, please will you? I mean, go slow...

Step 1 would be to actually look at the benchmarks in the articles you link to.

You're welcome.

13900K - more than twice as fast, 13600K 50% faster :

MySQL - 13900K is 40% faster, 13700K is 24% faster :

Java: 13900K is 75% faster, a 13600K is 22% faster.

.Net web hosting - pretty important for someone making\debugging\testing MVC web apps on their PC
13900K is 87.4% faster, 13600K is 21.7% faster :

7-Zip decompress, 13900K is 68.2% faster, 13700K is 27% faster. This one favors AMD, it's even worse with WinRAR.

AES, used almost everywhere, 13900K is 84.4% faster, 13600K is 11% faster :

Oh... Ok... So what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. It's misleading, narrowminded and disingenuous. Such is the trappings of small thinking. It is of benefit to no-one.

Now look at all of the OTHER benchmark results in that review. Yes, yes.

Go on, we'll wait...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, please will you? I mean, go slow...


Oh... Ok... So what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. It's misleading, narrowminded and disingenuous. Such is the trappings of small thinking. It is of benefit to no-one.

Now look at all of the OTHER benchmark results in that review. Yes, yes.

Go on, we'll wait...

I have obviously already looked. I know you're a troll Lex, but do try a little harder.

 

[MarsM4N]

Well, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.

Pretty sure there are way more G4M3R's out there than those who do "hardcore productivity" all day. And it's not like a 7800X3D can't do productivity stuff. It might take a few seconds longer to complete. Just get a cup of tea.

Games that can make use of the X3D get a massive boost:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/20.html
Power consumption / gaming. 7800X3D (49W) vs. 13900K (143W):
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/23.html

 

[JustBenching]

Pretty sure there are way more G4M3R's out there than those who do "hardcore productivity" all day. And it's not like a 7800X3D can't do productivity stuff. It might take a few seconds longer to complete. Just get a cup of tea.

Games that can make use of the X3D get a massive boost:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/20.html
Power consumption / gaming. 7800X3D (49W) vs. 13900K (143W):
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/23.html

A few seconds longer? I mean come on, a 13900k is twice as fast in anything that scales with cores.

The 7800x 3d is a good gaming CPU, but pretty terrible on anything else. I mean it's mostly slower than an i5 13600k. I mainly game on my PC but i'd never buy something that underwhelming. The 7950x 3d looks much more appealing to me.

 

[MarsM4N]

The 7950x 3d looks much more appealing to me.

Surely a 7950X3D is the better "allrounder". You get what you pay. But only if you actually need it.

 

[JustBenching]

Surely a 7950X3D is the better "allrounder". You get what you pay. But only if you actually need it.

Yes but currently if I'm spending 450 the 13700k is a no brainer. I'll lose 6% gaming performance at 320p with a 4090, but I get a much faster cpu with way better longevity.

 

[MarsM4N]

Yes but currently if I'm spending 450 the 13700k is a no brainer. I'll lose 6% gaming performance at 320p with a 4090, but I get a much faster cpu with way better longevity.

If gaming is not your priority, sure. So you're buying a 4090 to play at "320p"?

 

[JustBenching]

If gaming is not your priority, sure. So you're buying a 4090 to play at "320p"?

Exactly, I'm not. The 7800x 3d is as fast as the 13600k in normal resolutions, much lower in everything else and almost 50% more expensive. Sounds like a horrible deal to me

 

[lexluthermiester]

The 7800x 3d is as fast as the 13600k in normal resolutions

The 7800X3D handily beats the 13600k in ALL resolutions.

much lower in everything else

No it isn't. You need to read that review again and pay careful attention to the following;

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

You're either deliberately spewing misinformation or you are not contextually comprehending the information presented in reviews. Regardless, just stop.

 

[JustBenching]

The 7800X3D handily beats the 13600k in ALL resolutions.

No it isn't. You need to read that review again and pay careful attention to the following;

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

You're either deliberately spewing misinformation or you are not contextually comprehending the information presented in reviews. Regardless, just stop.

Handily beats? There is a 2.4% difference between a 13600k and a 7800x 3d at 4k. Yeap incredible, I'll pay 50% extra for that while being slower in everything else. Where do I sign?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Handily beats? There is a 2.4% difference between a 13600k and a 7800x 3d at 4k. Yeap incredible, I'll pay 50% extra for that while being slower in everything else. Where do I sign?

Seriously?
720p 100%-84.9%=15.1%
1080p 100%-85.9%=14.1%
1440p 100%-89.9%=10.1%
2160p 100%-97.3%=2.7%
Those are the numbers CLEARLY shown. Where is your 2.4% coming from eh? Or do you not know how to math?

 

[JustBenching]

Seriously?
720p 100%-84.9%=15.1%
1080p 100%-85.9%=14.1%
1440p 100%-89.9%=10.1%
2160p 100%-97.3%=2.7%
Those are the numbers CLEARLY shown. Where is your 2.4% coming from eh? Or do you not know how to math?

Ah, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k. I'll buy a slower cpu for 50% extra money for 2.7% gaming performance with a 4090. Lol, are you serious? I can't tell.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Ah, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k.

Such a number is NOT an indication of a CPU limitation. 720p performances show such a metric. 2160p(4k) is a GPU bottlenecking situation. So quoting 4k gaming performance as a qualification for the basis of CPU overall value is not only cherry-picking at it's worst, but it seems like deliberate dishonestly..

Lol, are you serious? I can't tell.

Look in a mirror when you say that.

 

[MarsM4N]

Ah, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k. I'll buy a slower cpu for 50% extra money for 2.7% gaming performance with a 4090. Lol, are you serious? I can't tell.

Obviously the performance differences are getting smaller at higher resolutions where you're running into the GPU bottleneck. What's next? Are you coming around the corner with 8k benchmarks to further cement your baseless claims? You're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.

Right? I can't tell which one.

 

[JustBenching]

Obviously the performance differences are getting smaller at higher resolutions where you're running into the GPU bottleneck. What's next? Are you coming around the corner with 8k benchmarks to further cement your baseless claims? You're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.

A moment ago you asked me if I'm playing on 320p... Now you are flipping the script again. Dude... The 7800x 3d is great, but it should cost half of what it currently does. At the current prices the 13600k or the 13700k is a no brainer.

Such a number is NOT an indication of a CPU limitation. 720p performances show such a metric. 2160p(4k) is a GPU bottlenecking situation. So quoting 4k gaming performance as a qualification for the basis of CPU overall value is not only cherry-picking at it's worst, but it seems like deliberate dishonestly..

Look in a mirror when you say that.

I was using 320p numbers 3 posts ago and marsman told me I shouldn't cause you don't game on 320p with a 4090. Now we are changing the argument again... Guys make up your mind?

 

[MarsM4N]

A moment ago you asked me if I'm playing on 320p... Now you are flipping the script again. Dude... The 7800x 3d is great, but it should cost half of what it currently does. At the current prices the 13600k or the 13700k is a no brainer.

You said you're gaming at 320p with a 4090, wasn't me. Also nobody said the 13600K and 13700K are a bad deal, but they just stink in gaming compared to the 7800X3D. As well as the 13900K. Fact.

I guess it's time for bed, mate. Take a nap.

 

[JustBenching]

You said you're gaming at 320p with a 4090, wasn't me. Also nobody said the 13600K and 13700K are a bad deal, but they just stink in gaming compared to the 7800X3D. As well as the 13900K. Fact.

I guess it's time for bed, mate. Take a nap.

No, I said that even at 320p the difference between a 13700K and a 7800x 3d is negligible.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No, I said that even at 320p the difference between a 13700K and a 7800x 3d is negligible.

Ok, so you are being a troll. Fair enough.

 

[JustBenching]

Ok, so you are being a troll. Fair enough.

Yes, I'm the troll for suggesting a cpu that's slower in everything bar 320p gaming and costs 50% more isn't a great value. Rofl

 

[chrcoluk]

No matter how much Intel squeezes out of their chips with extra power & clocks, AMD's X3D chips will still wipe the floor with them in gaming. And for half the price & a fraction of power consumption.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/19.html
Btw. is 1.385 volts a stock voltage for Intel chips?

The stock is based on binning quality of chip, I dont know what the median value is.

The inconsistencies on bios quality makes it hard as well as some bios's seem to apply an offset to the SVID.

Based on reports I seen, if you have a RL with a 1.385 stock, thats an indicator of a lottery loser, pretty high.