14900KS coming with new boards same 1700 socket TechYES video

Comixbooks said:
This is the biggest breakthough for Z790
Click to expand...
I have one of those on my Asus Z690 board and honestly it doesn't work all that well. The spring is weak and it doesn't 100% release the latch, so I usually still have to futz around with a screwdriver.
 
chameleoneel said:
Not a huge boost? Techpowerup says a 14700k averages out to a 30% increase in gaming over a 10900k. That's huge for an averaged increase.
Click to expand...
IIRC, that's all at 1080P - which I dont' play at. I run at 1440P ultra/maxed, 4k, or 5160x1440. In those ranges, it's a few percentage points - not enough to justify a jump from a 10900K on my gaming system, and doesn't have enough cores to compete with my 3960X/3970X/10980XE systems. It COULD replace my VR system (x570/3950X) and offer a boost, but it's a core drop (8c vs 16c - remember I can't use E cores) and VR is only a small part of what that box does.

If anything, it'd be a replacement for my wife's system (VR on Rift 1, 6700K + GTX 1080), but she doesn't use it enough to justify it.
 
Is this even worth upgrading to? I'm using a 13900K, looks like marginal frequency improvement, higher power draw, some under the hood tweaks. Intel mentioning in the disclaimers they can't protect against vulnerabilities (thought that was cute, likely means a shitload of microcode patches en route to plug holes)... 4% Faster?

I know it's the last upgrade for the platform. But I think I may just sit this one out and wait a couple generations (and that's exactly what I said when I was sitting pretty on my 5900X and moved to this after a botched 7700X upgrade).
 
lopoetve said:
IIRC, that's all at 1080P - which I dont' play at. I run at 1440P ultra/maxed, 4k, or 5160x1440. In those ranges, it's a few percentage points - not enough to justify a jump from a 10900K on my gaming system, and doesn't have enough cores to compete with my 3960X/3970X/10980XE systems. It COULD replace my VR system (x570/3950X) and offer a boost, but it's a core drop (8c vs 16c - remember I can't use E cores) and VR is only a small part of what that box does.

If anything, it'd be a replacement for my wife's system (VR on Rift 1, 6700K + GTX 1080), but she doesn't use it enough to justify it.
Click to expand...
27% at 1440p and 15% at 4K
 
1_rick said:
E cores are great for the 200 background tasks on a modern Windows system even if they don't help foreground tasks.
Click to expand...
You don’t follow - I can’t use them. :(. The software I run doesn’t know about them and doesn’t understand how to schedule against them, if it doesn’t outright crash. My only consumer systems are gaming boxes - the one 12900 I have I have to either thread lasso the workloads entirely to P cores - or on some of it disable E entirely.
 
chameleoneel said:
10900k to 13700k/14700k.
Click to expand...
Meh. $1500+ for 27% on a gaming box isn’t really justified to me. I was wrong on the amount for sure - but I still crank over 100FPS in most of my games - and it lacks enough other features to replace one of my workstations.
 
I've said this before, around Zen 4 launch: But I would like to see Intel segment their CPUs better.

With Ryzen, you can buy a 7700x or 7800x3D, and have their two best levels of gaming performance, for under $400. With deals last week, you could get a 7800x3D for the same money as a 14600k. And 7800x3D is the best gaming CPU you can get.

And hell, 7600 and 7600x give 12900k/13600k/14600k a run for their money. Again, for way less money.

If you need lots of cores for productivity, you can go ahead and pay for that. But with Ryzen, gamers aren't forced to buy the whole thing, to game the best.
 
Last edited:
Just updated my BIOS to 1402 the Stock Bios on my Asus board was 1010 or something which was planted back in May 2023.
If you want your blood pressure to drop a few points crossing your fingers I would do this. It rebooted about 4 times installed some other Intel ME stuff.

I might upgrade a 14700k over my vacation I haven't decided yet I know Meteor Lake is going to be pretty far off yet you might not be able to cool that off with a fan
the node is going to be so small.
 
Last edited:
OIC.jpg


If it's that HOT this guy is using a 360 AIO even
 
Last edited:
I decided I am going to wait on RYZEN 8000X3D CPUs, unless the 14700k gets a price drop REALLY soon. I will sell off my 12700k CPU and motherboard, replace it with my 7800X3D CPU in a B650E board.
 
ive got a 14700k it does run a bit toasty, max on mine after running cinebench was 91c , that's with stock power limits and a slight undervolt. did get 34520 in cinebench r23 though and is boosting to 5.6 ghz on two of the cores from time to time. ive got a msi z690 carbon wifi motherboard, doesnt seem to support apo at the minute. cooler is an aio arctic freezer 360.
 
dangerouseddy said:
ive got a 14700k it does run a bit toasty, max on mine after running cinebench was 91c , that's with stock power limits and a slight undervolt. did get 34520 in cinebench r23 though and is boosting to 5.6 ghz on two of the cores from time to time. ive got a msi z690 carbon wifi motherboard, doesnt seem to support apo at the minute. cooler is an aio arctic freezer 360.
Click to expand...
Damn you try dusting off your Radiator and Fan?
 
Comixbooks said:
Damn you try dusting off your Radiator and Fan?
Click to expand...


i think they're pretty clean, the 13700k i had in before was a bit hot too. could be the case, a lian li 011d evo but i think there's plenty of airflow with all those fans. did see some reports the 14900k runs cooler, could be the 14700ks are just worse silicon.

have noticed bitdefender doesn't peg my ecores at 100% anymore when doing a system scan like it did with the 12700k and the 13700k, dunno if its the fixed thread director or an software update though that's fixed it. pegging the ecores at 100% made windows sluggish for me.

it does idle in the 30's for me.
 
Last edited:
Would a i7 12700k to a i9 14900k or i7 14700k be much of a upgrade overall? Mostly in the latest games though.

Guessing it is better to wait but wanted to see.
 
ng4ever said:
Would a i7 12700k to a i9 14900k or i7 14700k be much of a upgrade overall? Mostly in the latest games though.

Guessing it is better to wait but wanted to see.
Click to expand...
Userbenchmark.com, FWIW, calls the 14900K about a 15% increase over the 12700K. Now, if you consider ~$600 (minus whatever you can get for the 12700K) worth a 15% bump in perf, maybe. I've got a 12600K and personally I'm going to wait for Meteor, Arrow, or Lunar Lake, I'm not sure which.
 
1_rick said:
Userbenchmark.com, FWIW, calls the 14900K about a 15% increase over the 12700K. Now, if you consider ~$600 (minus whatever you can get for the 12700K) worth a 15% bump in perf, maybe. I've got a 12600K and personally I'm going to wait for Meteor, Arrow, or Lunar Lake, I'm not sure which.
Click to expand...


Thank you.
 
ng4ever said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...
not to take anything away from the other fellas sources (i've seen less than stellar reviews of them as of late)

If you can get a decent return or re-home value for your 12700k, i would consider it.

The new tech that can assist the E-cores be more productive is only available on 14th gen, there are MORE cores per chip than our 12th gen chips (fellow 12600k owner here) and the IPC improvements.

If you got the cash, you wont miss it, and you have ANY need for improvement in performance you really have nothing to lose. Its people that just upgrade and throw things away that annoy me. Hopefully that helped, there should be enough direct comparisons now that if you do a search on youtube you can find some nice graphs to see specific use cases for your personal use.
 
Whiffle Boy said:
not to take anything away from the other fellas sources (i've seen less than stellar reviews of them as of late)

If you can get a decent return or re-home value for your 12700k, i would consider it.

The new tech that can assist the E-cores be more productive is only available on 14th gen, there are MORE cores per chip than our 12th gen chips (fellow 12600k owner here) and the IPC improvements.

If you got the cash, you wont miss it, and you have ANY need for improvement in performance you really have nothing to lose. Its people that just upgrade and throw things away that annoy me. Hopefully that helped, there should be enough direct comparisons now that if you do a search on youtube you can find some nice graphs to see specific use cases for your personal use.
Click to expand...

Good info!

Greatly appreciated.
 
One last question if you had to decide between a 14700k or 13700k which would you take ?

I know seems easy.
 
ng4ever said:
One last question if you had to decide between a 14700k or 13700k which would you take ?

I know seems easy.
Click to expand...
14700k without a second thought... but that's me and I have a obsession with "value" and also FOMO issues... (ie, buying a last gen chip when the new one is available)

14700k does have more cores than the 13700k and like I said (still cant remember the feature... APO, thats it) it has APO which is supposed to help the cores focus on what they should be working on.

If you have the money and there isn't a huge sale in between the two, I feel the decision is obvious... but then again I've never understood who purchases these chips for 100 bucks less, cuz its never me... If inflation hadn't hit me so hard id be running a 14700k currently most likely. the i5 has served me well but I COULD make use of the extra cores and my whole system is setup to handle a i7 readily. (PLEASE update your motherboard bios first if you are just doing the processor, lol. would hate to see ya offline with a brick.)
 
ng4ever said:
One last question if you had to decide between a 14700k or 13700k which would you take ?

I know seems easy.
Click to expand...
14700k was only $50 more than 13700k at MC, and I needed one for a new build. The reviews shit on 14th gen as being "not even an upgrade" so I had low expectations, but I've been A/B testing a 13700k and 14700k on the same system, same BIOS settings, amount and method of thrrmal paste and cooler mounting, and the differences are noticeable in benches. With 14700k the same DDR5 sticks OC higher, and it hits higher sustained P-core frequencies at the same temps.

I initially chalked this up to variance in binning because I know 14700k isn't objectively supposed to be much faster (meaning I assumed I simply got a good bin on the 14700k). However if anyone is familiar with "SP" rating on newer ASUS motherboards (a score that makes an inference on the quality of the silicon) my 14700k's SP rating is actually lower than my 13700k's. Nevertheless take this n=1 sample with a grain of salt since there are so many variables. But I'm pleased.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
14700k was only $50 more than 13700k at MC, and I needed one for a new build. The reviews shit on 14th gen as being "not even an upgrade" so I had low expectations, but I've been A/B testing a 13700k and 14700k on the same system, same BIOS settings, amount and method of thrrmal paste and cooler mounting, and the differences are noticeable in benches. With 14700k the same DDR5 sticks OC higher, and it hits higher sustained P-core frequencies at the same temps.

I initially chalked this up to variance in binning because I know 14700k isn't objectively supposed to be much faster (meaning I assumed I simply got a good bin on the 14700k). However if anyone is familiar with "SP" rating on newer ASUS motherboards (a score that makes an inference on the quality of the silicon) my 14700k's SP rating is actually lower than my 13700k's. Nevertheless take this n=1 sample with a grain of salt since there are so many variables. But I'm pleased.
Click to expand...
Oh it was definitely going to be faster, more cores as well sealed its fate there, so long as things were setup properly and no issues arose.

So glad to hear of your positive results, enjoy the new silicon.
 
Whiffle Boy said:
Oh it was definitely going to be faster, more cores as well sealed its fate there, so long as things were setup properly and no issues arose.

So glad to hear of your positive results, enjoy the new silicon.
Click to expand...
Yeah my first Cinebench run was distinctly faster, which I expected with 4 extra E-cores, so I disabled E-Cores 9-12 in BIOS so I was comparing each CPU in 8+8 config, and 14700k was still faster in cinebench, 3dmark, etc.

Not a huge diff, but my biggest interest was in seeing any improved IMC performance anyway, since that's still what sets Intel apart from Ryzen, and 14700k managed to squeeze out +400MHz on my A-Die DDR5 (8200, whereas 13700k couldnt even complete memory training at 8000).
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Yeah my first Cinebench run was distinctly faster, which I expected with 4 extra E-cores, so I disabled E-Cores 9-12 in BIOS so I was comparing each CPU in 8+8 config, and 14700k was still faster in cinebench, 3dmark, etc.

Not a huge diff, but my biggest interest was in seeing any improved IMC performance anyway, since that's still what sets Intel apart from Ryzen, and 14700k managed to squeeze out +400MHz on my A-Die DDR5 (8200, whereas 13700k couldnt even complete memory training at 8000).
Click to expand...
Which ram kit? And setting XMP? Or what are the magical settings to push them up so high?
I'm considering getting a 48GB kit 2x24GB with XMP 8000 or XMP 8200 to see how high I push my 13900KS on my Z790 Aorus Master?
 
fastgeek said:
Suspect Intel dropping the ball on shrinking their processes might have a little to do with this. AMD, or TSMC really, cleaned their clocks in that regards.

I upgrade every ~5 years and am definitely due as my i7-8700K is a little long-in-the-tooth. Now engaged in the classic "Intel vs AMD" struggle. Realize this is the Intel sub; but am considering going with the Ryzen 7 79003DX just to do something different after a decade+ with Intel. Will have to look into this 14xxx series to decide if I can hold off scratching the upgrade itch.
Click to expand...
Intel is still the holding the performance crown in most 0.1 and 1% Low benches though. Insane clocks + bus speed + proper timings + still the most effective way of boosting Intel chips, 14900KS with DDR5 9000 can dethrone 7800-7950X3D in pretty much all tasks including cache sensitive ones.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=SO87YBTnYU0
 
Xar said:
Intel is still the holding the performance crown in most 0.1 and 1% Low benches though. Insane clocks + bus speed + proper timings + still the most effective way of boosting Intel chips, 14900KS with DDR5 9000 can dethrone 7800-7950X3D in pretty much all tasks including cache sensitive ones.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=SO87YBTnYU0
Click to expand...

While costing essentially double and using up to 3x the power while gaming----to sometimes have a win.

chameleoneel said:
I've said this before, around Zen 4 launch: But I would like to see Intel segment their CPUs better.

With Ryzen, you can buy a 7700x or 7800x3D, and have their two best levels of gaming performance, for under $400. With deals last week, you could get a 7800x3D for the same money as a 14600k. And 7800x3D is the best gaming CPU you can get.

And hell, 7600 and 7600x give 12900k/13600k/14600k a run for their money. Again, for way less money.

If you need lots of cores for productivity, you can go ahead and pay for that. But with Ryzen, gamers aren't forced to buy the whole thing, to game the best.
Click to expand...
 
Xar said:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys4trYBzzy0
7800X3D is an animal, but the 0.1 and 1% can't be denied and it matters a lot for extremely competitive and E-Sport type of gamers.
14700K-14900KS also beat the X3D in pretty much all productivity tasks.
Click to expand...

Your video shows exactly what I said, to a T.

The 14900k sometimes wins. Sometimes it doesn't. For almost double the price and way more power usage. Techpowerup compared the gaming power usage of 13 games, between 14900k and 7800X3D. 8 of them were over 3x more power usage. Only 2 of them were less than 2x more power usage. (Page 23 of their 14900k review).

1700640013924.png


Additionally in that eTeknix video you posted, most of the wins for either side, usually aren't big, meaningful wins. At such high framerates, probably more correctly cited as technical wins.

In that video, the only meaningful win They actually show full charts for, is by the 7800X3D in Baldur's Gate 3. Where it totally creams the 14900k.

Pretty much everything else are technical wins. Where performance is so close, nearly no one would actually notice the difference.

That said, if you look at the chart which shows relative performance across 42 games, the 7800X3D wins a lot more in average FPS. Most of the time, in fact.
In 1% lows, they both win/lose about the same amount of times.

And as for 1% lows----its still the same. Sometimes AMD wins. Sometimes Intel Wins. And most of the wins aren't more than 10fps difference, for the 1% lows. Which you can't actually feel. Intel did have two 1% lows wins at 1080p, which were over 20fps; Starfield and Spider-Man 1. And that may be approaching noticeable for Starfield, because the average performance is lower. But for Spider-Man, I bet the majority of people wouldn't be able to tell at all. And even those who maybe could, might have a tough time reliably choosing correclty, in a blind test. That said, I would call ~20fps a solid win.--------However, that win flips to AMD, when RT is turned on. For a technical win, at that point. Hardware Unboxed showed the same thing, that AMD wins in SpiderMan RT.

Its all pretty much very close. So, for someone looking for a general recommendation, I recommend the much lower cost 7800X3D. Which can also be run at full performance, on a bottom barrel motherboard. You can't do that with a 14900k, because a bottom barrel motherboard won't allow enough wattage, to protect the low cost VRM configuration. Based on Techpowerup's chart I posted: 14900k in a bottom barrel motherboard, would throttle in Doom, Cyberpunk, Bannerlord, and Spider-Man. BF5 and Forza would be real close and probably would throttle, over time.

7800X3D uses 2-3 times less power while gaming. In the U.S., that may not be as important, especially in certain states (lower power costs). But in other countries, the power usage difference can mean hundreds, over 4 or 5 years.

If you want productivity + gaming from AMD, that's what the 7950X3D is for.
A big win for AMD, is that CPU segmentation is pretty excellent. If you wanna game the best, you don't have to buy their most expensive CPU.
You also don't have to buy their most expensive CPU, if you want to do productivity the best.
You only have to buy AMD's most expensive CPU, if you want to do both, the best.

**I'm saying this as someone whom had a 12700k system at launch. Also bought a 7700x system at launch-----and then returned the motherboard and eventually sold the CPU. Because AM5 was super buggy at launch (I also had quality issues with two different boards).
So then I picked up a 13600k, which was an excellent system, for months.

But I recently tried again with AM5. Got a 7800X3D and....AM5 is in a good place, now. So I sold the 13600k CPU and motherboard.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
So then I picked up a 13600k, which was an excellent system, for months.

But I recently tried again with AM5. Got a 7800X3D and....AM5 is in a good place, now. So I sold the 13600k CPU and motherboard.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with my 13600K system as well. I downgraded from a 13900K just because I wanted the less power draw/heat and had no noticeable frame hits playing at 4k with the 13600K. I have been thinking about trying an AMD system again (last time I used them was the Athlon 64 days.) Depends on what gift cards I get for Christmas as to whether I'll try a different build or not.
 
Niner said:
I'm happy with my 13600K system as well. I downgraded from a 13900K just because I wanted the less power draw/heat and had no noticeable frame hits playing at 4k with the 13600K. I have been thinking about trying an AMD system again (last time I used them was the Athlon 64 days.) Depends on what gift cards I get for Christmas as to whether I'll try a different build or not.
Click to expand...
My only issue so far, with my second try of Zen 4:

The thickness of the IHS greatly nullifies the fact that they use less power, as far as cooling is concerned. 7800X3D can often use about half the power of a 13600k in gaming, but the noise generated by the same exact heatsink and fan, is about the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top