14900KS coming with new boards same 1700 socket TechYES video

chameleoneel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's someone that did the math on that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/xxcej4/proof_ryzen_7000_series_ihs_is_not_too_thick/
According to them it's not much of a difference even if they had a thinner IHS. While some people replied with "Yeah but delidding dropped temps by 20C!", someone in the thread correctly noted that delidding is a lot different from having just a thinner IHS vs a thicker one. The biggest difference seems to be if it's there at all. Direct die cooling is a different beast. I'm kind of surprised you're having any loudness with your 7800X3D's cooler. I'm using a Noctua U14S, which only has a single fan and I can only hear the thing if I'm doing a benchmark. Even then it's not exactly pronounced. Less watts is less watts. It's less energy to dissipate, so you don't need as large of a cooler, even if that cooler is being less efficient due to the IHS.

That said, I can think of another big issue with AM5, as I noted in another topic:
https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...utter-on-games.2030731/page-2#post-1045777822

IMO, the barrier of entry into AM5 is actually surprisingly high, considering the minimum CPU you can get is the 7600, which is ~$200 minimum. Intel meanwhile has some lower tier DDR5 motherboards and CPUs that will run a lot cheaper and be just fine for budget gaming. Until AMD makes a 7600X3D and/or 7500(X), I think this is gonna be an issue.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Here's someone that did the math on that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/xxcej4/proof_ryzen_7000_series_ihs_is_not_too_thick/
According to them it's not much of a difference even if they had a thinner IHS. While some people replied with "Yeah but delidding dropped temps by 20C!", someone in the thread correctly noted that delidding is a lot different from having just a thinner IHS vs a thicker one. The biggest difference seems to be if it's there at all. Direct die cooling is a different beast. I'm kind of surprised you're having any loudness with your 7800X3D's cooler. I'm using a Noctua U14S, which only has a single fan and I can only hear the thing if I'm doing a benchmark. Even then it's not exactly pronounced. Less watts is less watts. It's less energy to dissipate, so you don't need as large of a cooler, even if that cooler is being less efficient due to the IHS.

That said, I can think of another big issue with AM5, as I noted in another topic:
https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...utter-on-games.2030731/page-2#post-1045777822

IMO, the barrier of entry into AM5 is actually surprisingly high, considering the minimum CPU you can get is the 7600, which is ~$200 minimum. Intel meanwhile has some lower tier DDR5 motherboards and CPUs that will run a lot cheaper and be just fine for budget gaming. Until AMD makes a 7600X3D and/or 7500(X), I think this is gonna be an issue.
Click to expand...
Hmm, well....

...First of all, they say that the thicker IHS could lead to about a +5c difference in temps. And from a consumer standpoint, 5C is actually a pretty notable amount. To get 5C less, that could be a significantly better heatsink. Or a combination of expensive thermal material, expensive fans, and an alternative mounting bracket, etc.
It was great for marketing. But, I'm starting to regret that AMD kept AM5 compatible with AM4 coolers. I think in the long run, I would rather have had them make it as easy to cool as possible. They also still idle warm.

Anyway, I dunno. There is something going on. MY NH-C14S actually wasn't even able to cool a 7700x well enough, for it to get full performance in cinibench R23 multicore. And that was with a -30 curve optimizer offset.

The 7800X3D is easier to cool. But it does also have that cache layer, insulating it.

I've also heard there is something about AMD's CCD design, where 8 active cores is particularly dense on heat. I guess, relative to Intel's designs? I dunno, but 12700k and 13600k were able to cool as well or better, while running a lot more power.


Maybe my Noctua is a dud? I dunno. But it seems common for CPU cooler reviews, to show relatively less cooling performance, on Zen 4 Vs. Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xar
like this
chameleoneel said:
Hmm, well....

...First of all, they say that the thicker IHS could lead to about a +5c difference in temps. And from a consumer standpoint, 5C is actually a pretty notable amount. To get 5C less, that could be a significantly better heatsink. Or a combination of expensive thermal material, expensive fans, and an alternative mounting bracket, etc.
It was great for marketing. But, I'm starting to regret that AMD kept AM5 compatible with AM4 coolers. I think in the long run, I would rather have had them make it as easy to cool as possible. They also still idle warm.

Anyway, I dunno. There is something going on. MY NH-C14S actually wasn't even able to cool a 7700x well enough, for it to get full performance in cinibench R23 multicore. And that was with a -30 curve optimizer offset.

The 7800X3D is easier to cool. But it does also have that cache layer, insulating it.

I've also heard there is something about AMD's CCD design, where 8 active cores is particularly dense on heat. I guess, relative to Intel's designs? I dunno, but 12700k and 13600k were able to cool as well or better, while running a lot more power.


Maybe my Noctua is a dud? I dunno. But it seems common for CPU cooler reviews, to show relatively less cooling performance, on Zen 4 Vs. Intel.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Zen4's big 'issue' was that if you cooled them really well, they'd just pump more power and try to maintain 95°c until they reached dangerous voltage levels, so no matter what cooler you put on them, they'd just go to 95°, only the shitty cooler would limit the performance.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
IMO, the barrier of entry into AM5 is actually surprisingly high, considering the minimum CPU you can get is the 7600, which is ~$200 minimum. Intel meanwhile has some lower tier DDR5 motherboards and CPUs that will run a lot cheaper and be just fine for budget gaming. Until AMD makes a 7600X3D and/or 7500(X), I think this is gonna be an issue.
Click to expand...
Well they do have the 7500f. Its a tray processor/OEM only. But you can get them on Ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2664309267...HJ7Z+31bu+ZWFUmUJ8CUvyDmWF|tkp:Bk9SR7KRm7z_Yg

Its essentially a slightly downclocked 7600 non-x, with no integrated graphics.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
chameleoneel said:
Anyway, I dunno. There is something going on. MY NH-C14S actually wasn't even able to cool a 7700x well enough, for it to get full performance in cinibench R23 multicore. And that was with a -30 curve optimizer offset.
Click to expand...

Isn't a 7700X actually higher wattage than a 7800X3D? I think the non-X3D chips just sort of eat as much cooling as you give them. On the other hand, they also scale back from max clocks pretty gracefully even if cooling is insufficient. The 7800X3D, while easy to cool, does stay sort of toasty temperature wise (while stress testing anyway), so I can see what you're saying. The fans will be at high RPM a lot if it's doing something like Cinebench, so you need nice fans (or a custom fan curve). But while gaming, my 7800X3D on Cyberpunk (but not the expansion because I don't have it) is probably around 55C or less on either the U14S or the Phantom Spirit.

Also my Kraken X73 is apparently defective and I only just now realized, so yeah coolers can just very well be defective. I guess bad finish on the contact area?

Also not sure if the cooling capacity on yours is actually as good as the U14S.

chameleoneel said:
Well they do have the 7500f. Its a tray processor/OEM only. But you can get them on Ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/266430926789?hash=item3e08854fc5:g:BBgAAOSw1fJlQGJo&amdata=enc:AQAIAAAA4OgpCFw7U+bMFfdNc9UZYzbso02jRxtf9KAkX9KWdNTQYvOXYUNzrhOL76g0I8vY+5jbAH5DU9novLQgsecGP9+q7n0osQBFInNO1TNvD8orPC3iUMGww0w3Cm/c48UQ1haoe8rco0d+Qh/IQrE4rkc1OmXMUVfa+k2p0urOZzQI6y1Qwxxc31tEUNtL8bbdvqFr6Hiv6j10tSwO0q8iGrJR5g5CS3GRLTpja4wDS/h9ZEModW53F03apBeeJMazkvmY2HraFlHMQva55PHJ7Z+31bu+ZWFUmUJ8CUvyDmWF|tkp:Bk9SR7KRm7z_Yg

Its essentially a slightly downclocked 7600 non-x, with no integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

That's not really much savings. Intel's low end will run you ~90$ for the CPU and you can even get a matching motherboard that's on DDR5 for about the same, maybe a bit more. AM5 has nothing to compete with in the actual budget build space, unfortunately. Its minimum option is basically 100$ higher, and who wants a no warranty OEM chip for a tiny bit of savings over retail 7600?
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
AORUS and ASROCK's B650e and X670e MBs are cheap compare to other brands and perform well out of the box according to TechPowerUP reviews. That would be my go to switching to AM5 with Zen5.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Isn't a 7700X actually higher wattage than a 7800X3D? I think the non-X3D chips just sort of eat as much cooling as you give them. On the other hand, they also scale back from max clocks pretty gracefully even if cooling is insufficient. The 7800X3D, while easy to cool, does stay sort of toasty temperature wise (while stress testing anyway), so I can see what you're saying. The fans will be at high RPM a lot if it's doing something like Cinebench, so you need nice fans (or a custom fan curve). But while gaming, my 7800X3D on Cyberpunk (but not the expansion because I don't have it) is probably around 55C or less on either the U14S or the Phantom Spirit.

Also my Kraken X73 is apparently defective and I only just now realized, so yeah coolers can just very well be defective. I guess bad finish on the contact area?

Also not sure if the cooling capacity on yours is actually as good as the U14S.



That's not really much savings. Intel's low end will run you ~90$ for the CPU and you can even get a matching motherboard that's on DDR5 for about the same, maybe a bit more. AM5 has nothing to compete with in the actual budget build space, unfortunately. Its minimum option is basically 100$ higher, and who wants a no warranty OEM chip for a tiny bit of savings over retail 7600?
Click to expand...
7700x does boost higher and uses higher voltage. But, it also doesn't have a layer of V-Cache insulating heat dissipation.

I couldn't replicate Techpowerup's Cinibench R23 multicore score, even with a -30 curve optimizer offset (which the CPU handled with complete and total stability). I could only get around 17,000 (not less than).

Anyway, the overall point is that Zen 4 has a heat dissipation issue. For a CPU which uses a lot less power than a 13600K: My 7800X3D With the same CPU cooler and thermal paste, the system is at least as loud. And overall, a bit more annoying. As the CPU more frequently causes the fans to become louder than ambient, than the 13600k did.
 
chameleoneel said:
7700x does boost higher and uses higher voltage. But, it also doesn't have a layer of V-Cache insulating heat dissipation.

I couldn't replicate Techpowerup's Cinibench R23 multicore score, even with a -30 curve optimizer offset (which the CPU handled with complete and total stability). I could only get around 17,000 (not less than).

Anyway, the overall point is that Zen 4 has a heat dissipation issue. For a CPU which uses a lot less power than a 13600K: My 7800X3D With the same CPU cooler and thermal paste, the system is at least as loud. And overall, a bit more annoying. As the CPU more frequently causes the fans to become louder than ambient, than the 13600k did.
Click to expand...
Your cooling solution is not enough I suppose.
Here is my with just water cooling.
21315 cb

But 14900k has a bit more temp headroom and achieves a bit more performance than 13900k, so technically is fine as an upgrade for those that run benchmarks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xar
like this
chameleoneel said:
Anyway, the overall point is that Zen 4 has a heat dissipation issue. For a CPU which uses a lot less power than a 13600K: My 7800X3D With the same CPU cooler and thermal paste, the system is at least as loud. And overall, a bit more annoying. As the CPU more frequently causes the fans to become louder than ambient, than the 13600k did.
Click to expand...

Have you tried just setting a fan curve to limit the max RPM it gets to? This is just my rationale, but I don't think the 7800X3D actually needs your fans blaring all the time on pretty much any cooler, to keep its max performance. It's just like you said, the dissipation is a bit slower so it stays kind of a certain temperature. If you don't believe me here's Cinebench R24 from that other News topic, where I had my 7800X3D cooled by the Noctua U14S:
1700858154808.png


I'm pretty sure this is about average for this CPU, so I don't think it was throttling. Temps were around 78C or so during the whole test. Again, though, the U14S while sounding similar in name to the one you've got, has a lot more heatpipes. You mentioned NH-C14S. That has about 7 heatpipes total from the looks of it. The U14S has 12. I swapped my U14S to a Thermalright Phantom Spirit and it seems to be running slightly cooler now, but maybe only by 1-2C (if that, even), so increasing heatsink capacity doesn't do much for it (as I suspected).

I agree with you that it is sort of annoying that it seems to transfer heat a bit slowly, though. Unless you either make a custom fan curve or get high end fans, looks like you might be right about the insulation. I guess that's one point in the Intel camp if they don't have this problem (along with them having an i3-level chip, cost wise... and lower).
 
If you're committed to a Z790 platform on a older 12th gen (like me) and you want the best CPU you can install in the socket, this is it. I've been patiently waiting and it's finally coming.
 
14900KS can you beat my 14900KF

Copy and Paste from old post I did
Opps 14900KF Forgot I had LLC 6 on Asus Board 475 Watts before downclock and no crash lol.
Had Temperature set to 115℃ and was seeing how many watts these 14900's can use.Just using AIO 360MM maybe need chiller or phase change .
1708045325251.png
 
xDiVolatilX said:
Actually last year I got mine for 699.

This article is talking about 799. That's a big leap up if it's true.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean the listed (probably placeholder) price in particular, but rather the KS SKU being too much for what you get. An extra $100-150 for what amounts to 3-5% in frequency and a shit-ton in extra power. Bragging rights, sure, but it really isn't worth waiting for or spending over the existing i9 K.
 
Grebuloner said:
I didn't mean the listed (probably placeholder) price in particular, but rather the KS SKU being too much for what you get. An extra $100-150 for what amounts to 3-5% in frequency and a shit-ton in extra power. Bragging rights, sure, but it really isn't worth waiting for or spending over the existing i9 K.
Click to expand...
150 more for top of the line silicone is worth it to me. I'm coming from a 12700kf and have a full blown Z790 ecosystem on 2 rigs so I might as well get the best if I waited this long. I don't upgrade platforms often, I tend to go for the long haul like 5 years so the extra 200MHz is welcome.
 
Didn't the last KS release at MSRP of $700? I paid $680 for mine from B&H in early February. We'll see what the street says in the next month or two.

13900K $590 to 13900KS $700

14900K $590 to 14900KS - ($800)? Maybe if there is very tight supply and good demand.

The article showed Euro 640 which is about $700 US minus taxes either side. So, I'm going with $700 US. I'm in for a penny, these days. Not a good price/performance ratio, but that's true for racing, or life, really.
 
According to PC-Canada, the Core i9-14900KS will be released on March 13, the week after next.


So, the consensus seems to be the chip will be about 15% more expensive, and given that the 13900KS was 17% more costly than the 13900K in the US going by the launch MSRP, this seems a pretty fair bet. Scatter seasoning liberally, as ever, but it looks like the 14900KS will follow the same pricing pattern as the last-gen family from Intel, Raptor Lake.


Rumors have previously floated the idea of a March launch, and so the mentioned March 13 date again backs up chatter on the grapevine. Mind you, the suggestion was more of a later in March release, but that could still happen – whatever the case, the overall vibe is that we’re getting the 14900KS soon enough.
 
So this chip should be releasing in the next coming week potentially.

I've been thinking about it long and hard. I might actually decide not to buy it.

My reasoning if I decide against buying it is because I was originally going to direct die cool it and have it running at 6HGz all core. I've always been uncertain about running direct die because of the lack of options and criticism of the kits available.

If you're not going to run direct die cooling this chip isn't going to work to it's full potential.

I have triple 360 rads in my case and I can't even keep a 13900KS under 80C. There's just no way I could cool a 14900KS. It would be pointless. (Also my 13900KS does 7600MHz RAM stable so it would be a gamble changing chips even though the 14900KS would absolutely run it also there's a small chance the IMC wouldn't be as good even if it's unlikely. ,)

Now if you want to have fun with direct die, then go for it should be a hoot.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Here's someone that did the math on that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/xxcej4/proof_ryzen_7000_series_ihs_is_not_too_thick/
According to them it's not much of a difference even if they had a thinner IHS. While some people replied with "Yeah but delidding dropped temps by 20C!", someone in the thread correctly noted that delidding is a lot different from having just a thinner IHS vs a thicker one. The biggest difference seems to be if it's there at all. Direct die cooling is a different beast. I'm kind of surprised you're having any loudness with your 7800X3D's cooler. I'm using a Noctua U14S, which only has a single fan and I can only hear the thing if I'm doing a benchmark. Even then it's not exactly pronounced. Less watts is less watts. It's less energy to dissipate, so you don't need as large of a cooler, even if that cooler is being less efficient due to the IHS.

That said, I can think of another big issue with AM5, as I noted in another topic:
https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...utter-on-games.2030731/page-2#post-1045777822

IMO, the barrier of entry into AM5 is actually surprisingly high, considering the minimum CPU you can get is the 7600, which is ~$200 minimum. Intel meanwhile has some lower tier DDR5 motherboards and CPUs that will run a lot cheaper and be just fine for budget gaming. Until AMD makes a 7600X3D and/or 7500(X), I think this is gonna be an issue.
Click to expand...


I agree with much of that point. AMD charges as if they are superior in all spaces. Reality is even 12th Gen clock normalized has a slight IPC edge over Zen 4 by like maybe 3%. But Intel does have higher power draw and max 8 P cores. But AMD also only has 8 P cores om one die, though you can get up to 16 total on the dual CCD parts.

AMD's platform is more advanced on PCIe front too. But Intel 12th Gen like the 12600K is much cheaper than 7600X and even if you turn off e-cores both chips are 6/12 CPUs and Intel's P cores match or even win against AMDs so that pricing is out of whack in that regard


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_9RiC-oSw0&t=815s

The 12400 at 5GHz beats the Ryzen 7500F which is running also 5GHz/ With an eCLK motherboard, you can overlock 12400 and it wins and much cheaper and you get slight better IPC.

But for other segments that is not whole story as AMD 3D cache chips win or tie in most gaming benchmarks compared to Intel ones. But at the 6 core segment, Intel is easily the choice unless you care about potential new socket upgrades if AMD allows Zen 5 and such on it without requiring new mobo chipsets.

There are pros and cons to each. At the lower end not factoring in potential platform upgradability Intel is an easy win. At mid tier and higher end, it so depends on use case and preferences. If you want less heat dumped into the case, than AMD, If you want best performance for both productivity and gaming and not concerned with power draw and heat dumped into case, than Intel.

If you want more PCIe lanes and do mot care about slight worse IPC, than AMD.

And so many more pros and cons than I could count for each platform.
 
So this chip might release tomorrow according to all the leaks.

My question is, how are we going to cool it?

No seriously?

I have a velocity ² block with triple 360 rads and I don't think it's enough?

Unless some of us are ok with it being over 90*C during gaming? That is if you want to have it running at the stock all core 5.9GHz or even overclock it 100MHz up to 6GHz all core?

Maybe without the E Cores it can do it easily at 5.9 or 6GHz but with even 4 E cores or 8 E cores on it should be well into the 90C territory right?

I've considered direct die but there isn't that many good kits out there.

I've also considered delid+liquid metal job but I'm not certain about the longevity of this practice. I surely don't want to reapply liquid metal once a year.

This is a pretty massive jump from a standard 13900k or even my 13900KS. 13900KS does 5.6 all core this new KS will do 5.9 all core stock, that's 300MHz, sheesh!

What are we gonna do boys? Other than skip it because we don't need it, how are we going to cool this monster? 💀
 
xDiVolatilX said:
So this chip might release tomorrow according to all the leaks.

My question is, how are we going to cool it?

No seriously?

I have a velocity ² block with triple 360 rads and I don't think it's enough?

Unless some of us are ok with it being over 90*C during gaming? That is if you want to have it running at the stock all core 5.9GHz or even overclock it 100MHz up to 6GHz all core?

Maybe without the E Cores it can do it easily at 5.9 or 6GHz but with even 4 E cores or 8 E cores on it should be well into the 90C territory right?

I've considered direct die but there isn't that many good kits out there.

I've also considered delid+liquid metal job but I'm not certain about the longevity of this practice. I surely don't want to reapply liquid metal once a year.

This is a pretty massive jump from a standard 13900k or even my 13900KS. 13900KS does 5.6 all core this new KS will do 5.9 all core stock, that's 300MHz, sheesh!

What are we gonna do boys? Other than skip it because we don't need it, how are we going to cool this monster? 💀
Click to expand...
Wattage and voltage isn't the problem, although it won't hurt to see if you can turn down the voltage and turn off whatever that motherboard "enhancement" thing that actually isn't (see recent Jayz2c video). You have more than enough radiator as it is. 13900KS and 14900KS are the same silicon, so the challenge is the same for both. The 14900KS voltage might be a little lower, but how much headroom do you think you currently have? Are you concerned about running the full 400-something W for more than a few seconds at a time?

The real challenge is the amount of heat for such a small die area. Getting the heat out of the little die and into the cooler is where the problem lies. You can cool 700W off a Xeon 3495X with a Noctua U14, and even 800+W from a Threadripper 7995X with a 360mm AIO, both with surprisingly normal temperatures. My 10980XE at 350W is under 70C with my 420mm AIO. They have big dies to spread out the load, desktop chips don't.

To cool this monstrosity, you need a good block combined with a contact frame, and the temps are still going to suck without some kind of sub-ambient attachment. Direct die blocks are possibly one of the few real options.

And to answer your rhetorical question I've answered before: is the 300MHz (5.36%) worth all the extra investments you think you need to make? You balked at an $800 price tag and said $700 is acceptable. Rumors are currently at $750, plus you are interested in $hundreds in cooling upgrades.

Wait until Arrow Lake.
 
Grebuloner said:
Wattage and voltage isn't the problem, although it won't hurt to see if you can turn down the voltage and turn off whatever that motherboard "enhancement" thing that actually isn't (see recent Jayz2c video). You have more than enough radiator as it is. 13900KS and 14900KS are the same silicon, so the challenge is the same for both. The 14900KS voltage might be a little lower, but how much headroom do you think you currently have? Are you concerned about running the full 400-something W for more than a few seconds at a time?

The real challenge is the amount of heat for such a small die area. Getting the heat out of the little die and into the cooler is where the problem lies. You can cool 700W off a Xeon 3495X with a Noctua U14, and even 800+W from a Threadripper 7995X with a 360mm AIO, both with surprisingly normal temperatures. My 10980XE at 350W is under 70C with my 420mm AIO. They have big dies to spread out the load, desktop chips don't.

To cool this monstrosity, you need a good block combined with a contact frame, and the temps are still going to suck without some kind of sub-ambient attachment. Direct die blocks are possibly one of the few real options.

And to answer your rhetorical question I've answered before: is the 300MHz (5.36%) worth all the extra investments you think you need to make? You balked at an $800 price tag and said $700 is acceptable. Rumors are currently at $750, plus you are interested in $hundreds in cooling upgrades.

Wait until Arrow Lake.
Click to expand...
Hey Grebuloner,

Yea so I play competitive FPS shooters at 600fps @4k so the CPU usage stays pretty high not 400w but when the clock speeds are high the temperature is high 🌡️

I already have a contact frame and a velocity ² block with 3 rads and tons of cool air flow.

I have considered direct die but the reviews about the EK version are mixed. Seems mounting it is not easy and has to be perfect or so it seems from what I've read.

Why do you think my question is rhetorical? I'm curious what others in the community are going to do about not only the 14900KS but also the 14900K which is closer to it then my 13900KS.

Well yea I am sort of balking at the idea of dealing with this CPU because of the cooling it might necessitate. I'm half hearted about it. I want to delid it once, but I don't want to do it once a year. Direct die options are very limited. Like a couple or a few that I know of.

Are you on a 14900K that has a small die area size? Or are you speculating?
 
xDiVolatilX said:
Hey Grebuloner,

Yea so I play competitive FPS shooters at 600fps @4k so the CPU usage stays pretty high not 400w but when the clock speeds are high the temperature is high 🌡️

I already have a contact frame and a velocity ² block with 3 rads and tons of cool air flow.

I have considered direct die but the reviews about the EK version are mixed. Seems mounting it is not easy and has to be perfect or so it seems from what I've read.

Why do you think my question is rhetorical? I'm curious what others in the community are going to do about not only the 14900KS but also the 14900K which is closer to it then my 13900KS.

Well yea I am sort of balking at the idea of dealing with this CPU because of the cooling it might necessitate. I'm half hearted about it. I want to delid it once, but I don't want to do it once a year. Direct die options are very limited. Like a couple or a few that I know of.

Are you on a 14900K that has a small die area size? Or are you speculating?
Click to expand...
I'm not speculating about the small die size. It's a relative term, to be sure. Only 2/3 of the chip at most is CPU cores, the GPU doesn't matter and the SA isn't much, either. The majority of power is crammed into that central area. But I say "small" as compared to the big chips. HEDT, big server CPUs that are 2-3x the area with peak power consumptions that are the same as the i9s and R9s, but comparatively trivial to keep cool (you have tons of rads and still get worried about your KS, while my single 420 AIO keeps even more power at bay below 70C while still being quiet). It's a materials limitation that's been discussed by the serious reviewers and industry types since Coffee Lake/TR1000 days.

I don't need to speculate about the 14900KS chip. 14th gen is the same silicon as 13th gen, just improved through the natural evolution of binning and increased experience and reliability of manufacturing that has occurred in decades of refreshes and respins. There's already plenty of 14900ks leaks with apparently real retail parts showing off up to 430W of power fully loaded at stock settings.

The other thing new to Intel and AMD desktop parts is their power and thermal behaviors of intentionally ramping up frequency/power until the chips hit 100C (Intel) or 95C (AMD) unless a power limit is defined (MB makers are defaulting to no limits) or there is no more frequency to achieve (harder to do because of cooling limitations). Your chip being hot despite the rads is by design. There's no substantive need for you to add anything more if you were to swap out for the new part unless you delid, which is a questionable and risky option (I've considered it once or twice myself and said nah).

I said rhetorical because I've suggested it's a waste of a part (and I stand by that) and you were trying to dissuade us naysayers on your upgrade, but I couldn't resist a reply. I'll respect your views on your gaming, but IMO, 600FPS/4k is dumb. Are you making a shit-ton of money doing this? Doesn't sound like it if you aren't sure about spending an extra few bucks for a part. Some of those pros are pretty spend-happy.
 
Grebuloner said:
I'm not speculating about the small die size. It's a relative term, to be sure. Only 2/3 of the chip at most is CPU cores, the GPU doesn't matter and the SA isn't much, either. The majority of power is crammed into that central area. But I say "small" as compared to the big chips. HEDT, big server CPUs that are 2-3x the area with peak power consumptions that are the same as the i9s and R9s, but comparatively trivial to keep cool (you have tons of rads and still get worried about your KS, while my single 420 AIO keeps even more power at bay below 70C while still being quiet). It's a materials limitation that's been discussed by the serious reviewers and industry types since Coffee Lake/TR1000 days.

I don't need to speculate about the 14900KS chip. 14th gen is the same silicon as 13th gen, just improved through the natural evolution of binning and increased experience and reliability of manufacturing that has occurred in decades of refreshes and respins. There's already plenty of 14900ks leaks with apparently real retail parts showing off up to 430W of power fully loaded at stock settings.

The other thing new to Intel and AMD desktop parts is their power and thermal behaviors of intentionally ramping up frequency/power until the chips hit 100C (Intel) or 95C (AMD) unless a power limit is defined (MB makers are defaulting to no limits) or there is no more frequency to achieve (harder to do because of cooling limitations). Your chip being hot despite the rads is by design. There's no substantive need for you to add anything more if you were to swap out for the new part unless you delid, which is a questionable and risky option (I've considered it once or twice myself and said nah).

I said rhetorical because I've suggested it's a waste of a part (and I stand by that) and you were trying to dissuade us naysayers on your upgrade, but I couldn't resist a reply. I'll respect your views on your gaming, but IMO, 600FPS/4k is dumb. Are you making a shit-ton of money doing this? Doesn't sound like it if you aren't sure about spending an extra few bucks for a part. Some of those pros are pretty spend-happy.
Click to expand...
The only reason I am considering the 14900KS is because I have a 12700KF in my 2nd rig and I wanted to upgrade to the best CPU I can get for the platform entirely. I have two 4090s and the 12700KF isn't taking as much of an advantage as the 13900KS (or 14900KS) would. I'm probably losing at least 10-15% with the CPU not having enough steam to push the 4090 as hard as the platform could potentially.
I like having 2 rigs, one is on water and the other on air. That's just the way I roll. So that is why I am considering upgrading the 12700KF rig. I don't upgrade my PC platform often. My last PC platform was a 6900K HEDT. So, I waited over 6 generations of CPUs to convert. That's why I like getting the best CPU I can get at the time. Back then the 6900K was $1100 and it lasted me and incredibly long time. I have the same plan with the 13900/14900 systems and I'm sure they will last me just as long.
That's why I want best I can get, not for bragging or making money just because It's one of my favorite hobbies and I like my system to last me a long time as I'll likely be skipping the next 6 generations. So having really high clock speeds should last me in the long run as I even turn off half or most of the E cores because most games don't use them (but are there if i need them if they start to utilize more).
Either way I'm still undecided. I don't like the high price tag, but I also don't love the 12700K because It's underpowered for the 4090. Tough decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top