Review Intel Core i5-14400 review: Intel's value gaming chip falls behind AMD

[rluker5]

APO got updated to include all hybrid CPUs from 12th gen up, you do need a bios update that will unlock all the CPUs and the newest version of dynamic tuning tech installed.

I also finally got APO working with my 13900kf as well just a couple days ago. I already had the latest bios and drivers, but what got it to work for me was Asus Armory Crate- which is all fixed now with no ram latency penalty. Maybe Asus lets Armory Crate get the good DTT+APO driver for my motherboard? I don't see a new one on their site and I already tried them both previously. Maybe APO got updated so it wouldn't give us the server unavailable error message? Whatever happened it is working for me now as well.

 

[SunMaster]

What a tremendous success the 5800x3d is. I wonder how many AMD has sold.

 

[Pierce2623]

Using PBO for your overclocked 7600x configuration is kind of ridiculous when virtually any sample is easily capable of locking in at 5.6 all core.

 

[TheHerald]

For new builds, the only platform that anyone should be looking at is AM5. Both AM4 and LGA1700 are dead-ends and are just bad values no matter how you look at it unless you're upgrading from a previous CPU. Even then, the performance "uplift" (if you want to call it that) of the Intel CPUs is nothing worth writing home about.

That's not really true. The 14700f costs 400 euros. The only amd cpu that can compete with it in both gaming and MT performance costs 249 euros more. With that money discrepancy you might as well buy a new motherboard if and when you decide to upgrade.

Mobo upgradability is nice but you are already paying for it since amds cpus are usually kinda pricy (5800x 3d launched at 450, lol).

 

[Avro Arrow]

That's not really true. The 14700f costs 400 euros. The only amd cpu that can compete with it in both gaming and MT performance costs 249 euros more. With that money discrepancy you might as well buy a new motherboard if and when you decide to upgrade.

Mobo upgradability is nice but you are already paying for it since amds cpus are usually kinda pricy (5800x 3d launched at 450, lol).

Yes, you're right and I didn't word it correctly. I meant for gaming builds. This is because users who care about having both top-tier gaming performance AND top-tier MT performance at the same time are few and far between. There's no doubt that they exist but they're the exception, not the rule.

For the vast majority of people, AM5 is the way to go because, for most home computers, gaming is the most strenuous thing that they do. This is why gaming CPUs outsell heavy MT CPUs by an order of magnitude. That is not something that can be debated.

If MT productivity was one of my reasons for owning a PC, I would be looking at a Threadripper anyway.

 

[35below0]

Yes, you're right and I didn't word it correctly. I meant for gaming builds.

For the vast majority of people, AM5 is the way to go because, for most home computers, gaming is the most strenuous thing that they do.

I won't disagree with the value and longevity of AM5, but i think you're overlooking how much value there is in LGA1700. The next gen isn't even out yet. 1700 is as current as it gets. And the value is there for many different budgets. From the lowliest i3 12100 and the aforementioned i5 12400F, all the way to the i7 14700 or even the stupidly top tier i9KS

Motherboard specs are all over the place but there are some great performers that are dying out, like the z690 Riptide and Extreme from AsRock. And there's tippy top z790 boards that cost a lot, and i would argue aren't as good because of M.2 gen 5 lane sharing and high prices in general.

AMD is an option, and AM5 is a good option, but it's not leading the charge. The 13/14 intels are really good CPUs, and they are not going to become obsolete 30 minutes ago as you seem to insist. They're let down somewhat by the B760 motherboards honestly. Getting the right motherboard for a fair price isn't easy. That's a much bigger deal when building an intel gaming PC today, rather than AMD being competitive (which it is, fair is fair).

 

[TerryLaze]

This is why gaming CPUs outsell heavy MT CPUs by an order of magnitude. That is not something that can be debated.

Without giving any other qualifiers?! Yeah it can be debated to death.
The smallest x3d that is available everywhere is a 8/16 CPU, that already is heavy MT since it's as fast as the 5950x.

 

[TheHerald]

If MT productivity was one of my reasons for owning a PC, I would be looking at a Threadripper anyway.

So I assume one of the reasons for owning a PC is gaming, why don't you have a 4090?

Anyways, the point is AMD right now has a single CPU that is considered high end in all regards, the 7950x 3d, the others all severely lack in some areas.

 

[Unolocogringo]

I say go for what works for you individually.
Budget, performance in certain programs etc.... should be your deciding factor.
My rig games fine for me.
Does folding 90% of it time so it was built as a folding machine first and gaming /browsing secondary.
All computers eventually become obsolete so what is fastest today will be mid range in a few years.
The cycle continues.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

As someone who bought into a B450 and 2600X and 16GB 3200MT/s memory I disagree. I swapped the CPU for a 5700X and 32GB of 3600MT/s memory. Added years to its life.

Buying into a dead end platform today would be monumentally shortsighted.

Definitely a good point. AM4 was a great platform but can’t recommend buying am4 today. When I built my most recent pc I went with an Intel build with ddr4.. First Intel build. But when I got a 12600kf, board and ram for around 250 give or take, plus a 35 dollar cooler it was a great deal and I can still upgrade to 14th gen i7.

I agree with what someone above said, get the 12600k/kf a cooler and you basically have an i5 14400.

 

[cyrusfox]

APO got updated to include all hybrid CPUs from 12th gen up, you do need a bios update that will unlock all the CPUs and the newest version of dynamic tuning tech installed.

You're right, I got it working on Windows 10 even, but none of the games I play are on it. My board had a beta bios, driver and was able to get the software install.

 

[TerryLaze]

You're right, I got it working on Windows 10 even, but none of the games I play are on it. My board had a beta bios, driver and was able to get the software install.

Yeah, it kinda sucks that it's a locked list, I hoped that the advanced setting would allow you to just pick a game and see if it does anything.
They really should make it less restrictive and allow the community to come up with settings.

 

[wwenze1]

Alder Lake was supposed to be the counterattack...

Instead, 3 gens later and I'm still waiting for AMD to sell 7640U in laptops but even AMD is trolling us by selling 7520U

 

[Avro Arrow]

Strongly disagree here

For the vast majority of users, a 12th-14th gen at a great price point would be an excellent build(Same for AM4 build). Just because the platform is "dead end" is of little value importance to the majority. I Personally ran a Ivy bridge from 2012 till 2019 until I upgraded to a 9900KF(Grateful I skipped8th gen...). I went through many GPUs but the platform was more than serviceable and still is living on as a plex server out in the wild.

I would concede that the existence of the R7-5700X3D does make AM4 an interesting option but not LGA1700. Just look at how LGA1700 gets left in the proverbial dust when it comes to an i5-14400 build:

LGA1700 (DDR5):
CPU: i5-14400 - $230
Motherboard: ASRock B760M-H/M.2 - $90
RAM: Team Group T-CREATE EXPERT 32GB (2×16GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 - $98
TOTAL = $418

AM5:
CPU: R5-7600 - $189
Motherboard: ASRock B650M-H/M.2+ - $100
RAM: Team Group T-CREATE EXPERT 32GB (2×16GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 - $98
TOTAL = $387

LGA1700 (DDR4):
CPU: i5-14400 - $230
Motherboard: Asrock H610M-HVS - $70
RAM: Silicon Power GAMING 32 GB DDR4-3200 CL16 - $54
TOTAL = $354

AM4:
CPU: R7-5700X3D - $230
Motherboard: ASRock B450M-HDV R4.0 - $60
RAM: Silicon Power GAMING 32 GB DDR4-3200 CL16 - $54
TOTAL = $344

LGA1700 DDR5 Situation:
The i5-14400 would be in about a dead heat with the R5-7600 in gaming because it's slightly slower than the R5-7600X, just like the R5-7600. However, the power consumption would be starkly different and not in Intel's favour. The R5-7600 also comes with a usable cooler as well so that's another $30 you don't have to spend in addition to the fact that the AM5 platform is already $30 less expensive. Then of course, there's the upgrade path which may not be advantageous today, but five years down the road.... it will be. Remember that AM4 is in its eighth year and even if AM5 doesn't last as long (it probably will though), it's pretty much guaranteed that the next upgrade many years down the road will be another AM5 CPU.

LGA1700 DDR4 Situation:
The AM4 setup here just destroys the LGA1700 combination because the i5-14400 can't hang with the R7-5700X3D when it comes to gaming and it's not even close. The 1080p Geomean in Tom's R7-5700X3D review shows that the i5-14400 averages 125-130FPS while the R7-5700X3D just clobbers it with an average frame rate of 159. The AM4 setup will also use less power (X3D CPUs are NOT power-hungry) and costs $10 less.

Building a new LGA1700 PC from scratch would be a bad idea no matter how you look at it whether you strongly disagree or not. If you have numbers to back up your position, I'm willing to read them but I just don't see it happening because I already tried.

 

[35below0]

Building a new LGA1700 PC from scratch would be a bad idea no matter how you look at it whether you strongly disagree or not. If you have numbers to back up your position, I'm willing to read them but I just don't see it happening because I already tried.

With a 14400, no. Maybe the 14400 is the problem.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i5-12600K 3.7 GHz 10-Core Processor ($149.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 36 CPU Cooler ($32.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z690 Extreme ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($67.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $379.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2024-05-06 21:43 EDT-0400

Similar price.
Similar 10 core CPU (actually much higher clocks on the 12600K).
K model needs cooler.
K model can draw twice the power.

The 14400 vs 12600K is not a like for like comparison, but if this is about the LGA1700 DDR4 being a dead end, it isn't.
This machine could last 6-7 years comfortably, and even longer depending on OS/games/software bloat.
Keep in mind that many Sandy Bridge and Haswell machines are still running along nicely, only running into problems because of Win 11 hw requirements. And of course newest games but considering the age, that's only expected.

6-7 years from now is a new era of CPU gens, GPUs, DDR, etc. So it's enough wouldn't you agree? Esp. given the price is comparable to your choices.

One more thing, even though i started with an outdated CPU, it's not obsolete or gutless. And the final build can be upgraded to a 14700K once that CPU drops in price (or even 14900K but i'm not sure that's part of what we're talking about).

I think the CPU is the problem. Budget it ain't, and it hasn't got long legs either.
LGA1700 is a perfectly viable platform to build a computer that will be relevant at least 6-7 years, but could be a decade. That's really difficult to speculate about because i don't know what is coming.

AM5 superior? Yes. Ish. LGA1700 ded? Why? Why abandon what is brand new? Just because intel will roll out a new socket and generation of CPUs? They always do. By the time LGA1851 matures, it will be time to abandon it as dead. It doesn't make sense.

 

[35below0]

This is the bigger problem for LGA 1700. DDR5.

Depending on choice of motherboard, costs can really add up.
(Mind you, this CPU is much more powerfull than before, so strike some $40 - 120 off the price if you like)

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i5-13600K 3.5 GHz 14-Core Processor ($268.98 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 36 CPU Cooler ($32.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z790 Riptide WiFi ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Mushkin Redline ST 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $606.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2024-05-06 22:02 EDT-0400

I'm sure a more optimal build can be found, but it will cost more than AM5, which i think was the point.

EDIT - Come to think of it, the existance of the 13600K which costs only $40 more than the 14400 makes the 14400 a terrible choice for any budget build. The 13600K beats it easily, and there are better and cheaper intels to choose for a budget build. Like the 12100 or 12600K.

If you're really limited by money, don't consider the 14400. And if you can afford it, consider stretching your budget to the i5 13600K instead. You get a helluva lot more for your money.

 

[Avro Arrow]

With a 14400, no. Maybe the 14400 is the problem.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i5-12600K 3.7 GHz 10-Core Processor ($149.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: ARCTIC Freezer 36 CPU Cooler ($32.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z690 Extreme ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($67.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $379.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2024-05-06 21:43 EDT-0400

Similar price.
Similar 10 core CPU (actually much higher clocks on the 12600K).
K model needs cooler.
K model can draw twice the power.

The 14400 vs 12600K is not a like for like comparison, but if this is about the LGA1700 DDR4 being a dead end, it isn't.

Wow, you did a good job and I agree, from what you're showing me, the i5-12600K is a much better option than the i5-14400. However, the i5-12600K's lowest price is now $175 with Newegg at $185. No matter though, because the i5-12600KF is $150 and that still qualifies. That CPU can definitely hang with the R7-5700X3D in gaming and it does have a much better price than the i5-14400. You've done about as well as could be done with LGA1700 and I tip my hat to you for that. At the same time though... as you mentioned yourself... the power draw...

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally never cared about power draw until it got stratospheric, at least, on CPUs. I remember the first time I actually was shocked at the power draw of a CPU and that was the AMD FX-9590. I remember shaking my head and thinking "I'll never buy a CPU that REQUIRES an AIO." and while the i5-12600K doesn't require an AIO (it's better than the 13th and 14th-gen CPUs that way), it still draws a good deal more than the R7-5700X3D. Here in Canada, that's pretty meaningless because Canada is a hydroelectric superpower and our hydro rates are dirt-cheap compared to most of the rest of the world.

One thing that would give me pause though is the fact that it's still $35 more expensive. That's an extra 10% on the entire platform which to you and I, probably seems like a joke but we're not the target market for a PC like this. The target market for a PC with these kinds of specs would probably care about those $35. Also, those are US Dollars which means that it's an extra $50 in Canada, an extra $55 in Australia and who-knows how much more in countries where the cost of electricity might be a factor. Then add sales tax to that and it becomes quite unattractive to someone looking to spend less than $400USD on an entire gaming platform.

From a technical standpoint, I think that if the i5-12600KF was the same price as the R7-5700X3D, then a user could go either way because while it does draw more power, it tends to do better in productivity workloads. Now, for most gamers, that's meaningless because nobody's going to buy an i5 for productivity. Productivity is the realm of i9, Ryzen 9, Threadripper and Xeon which is why these chips exist. Still, some might appreciate this extra boost and for them, it's worth the trade-off, especially if electricity is cheap. Both of these CPUs can be properly cooled by an air cooler so there's no difference there either.

This machine could last 6-7 years comfortably, and even longer depending on OS/games/software bloat.
Keep in mind that many Sandy Bridge and Haswell machines are still running along nicely, only running into problems because of Win 11 hw requirements. And of course newest games but considering the age, that's only expected.

That's very true. The CPUs from that era like Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Vishera are still mostly usable today. By the same token though, the exact same thing could be said about the R7-5700X3D. The question is whether games in the future will be more cache-sensitive or clock-sensitive. The big advantage that cache offers is that it pretty much nullifies the need for faster (and thus more expensive) RAM.

6-7 years from now is a new era of CPU gens, GPUs, DDR, etc. So it's enough wouldn't you agree? Esp. given the price is comparable to your choices.

Well that's just it... While these parts are more than enough for games of today, there's no way to know if they'll be able to handle the games of tomorrow. Now, certainly, there is a huge library of games made in the last ten years that could keep a gamer happy for a long time and online games are a joke with regard to hardware requirements so it really depends on what they want to do. These things are really hard to predict. Just look at the number of people who bought the RTX 3080. They were unable to predict that in 2-3 years time, that small VRAM buffer would cripple it in new games run at above 1080p.

One more thing, even though i started with an outdated CPU, it's not obsolete or gutless. And the final build can be upgraded to a 14700K once that CPU drops in price (or even 14900K but i'm not sure that's part of what we're talking about).

Nothing is outdated if it still works and works well. It outperforms the i5-14400 so as far as I'm concerned, the i5-14400 is more outdated than the i5-12600KF. You chose well.

I think the CPU is the problem. Budget it ain't, and it hasn't got long legs either.
LGA1700 is a perfectly viable platform to build a computer that will be relevant at least 6-7 years, but could be a decade. That's really difficult to speculate about because i don't know what is coming.

Sure, but the same thing can be said about AM4. When someone says "dead platform", it means that there won't be anything new coming out for it and any upgrade of a core component will require the upgrade of the entire platform. AM4 has been called a dead platform for over a year now (but AMD hilariously keeps releasing new CPUs for it). I'm going to see just how long my AM4 platform is viable for because I have an R7-5800X3D, 64GB of DDR4-3600, an X570 motherboard and an RX 7900 XTX. So, you could say that I'm "living the experiment".

AM5 superior? Yes. Ish. LGA1700 ded? Why? Why abandon what is brand new? Just because intel will roll out a new socket and generation of CPUs? They always do. By the time LGA1851 matures, it will be time to abandon it as dead. It doesn't make sense.

Well, the thing is that if you're going to spend the money, for most users (not budget but not high-end either), AM5 does make the most sense. It's not much more expensive, it's going to make future CPU upgrades a lot easier and it has some of the most performant CPUs on the market today. Having said that, if I were to do an AM5 build from scratch, it wouldn't be with an R7-7800X3D, it would be with an R7-7700 because I'd want the 8 cores, the lower price and the included AMD Wraith Prism cooler (which is a fantastic cooler, especially considering that it costs $0). By the time I feel the need to upgrade, I might be looking at AM6, but I'm not really sure because here we are, 7 years after the introduction of the AM4 platform and there are people who are literally running an R7-5800X3D on an old X370 or B350 motherboard from 2017. If AM5 is anything like AM4, it'll probably still be a going concern when I decide to upgrade my platform. The way I see it, at least all of the bugs and kinks will have been ironed out of it by then. I'm really thankful that I've been on AM4 since 2017 but I don't think that I'd be so quick to recommend it to someone else.

You know... now that I think about it. There IS a way that I would recommend AM4 or LGA1700 to someone building a new system and that's if they're going to buy used parts. In that case, AM4 or LGA1700 could be an incredible value and definitely worth recommending.

...and I was wrong. The i5-12600KF is actually more expensive for a used one on eBay (when shipping is taken into account). What an absolute joke that is. I honestly don't know what these nimrodic eBay sellers are thinking.

 

[35below0]

At the same time though... as you mentioned yourself... the power draw...

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally never cared about power draw until it got stratospheric, at least, on CPUs. I remember the first time I actually was shocked at the power draw of a CPU and that was the AMD FX-9590. I remember shaking my head and thinking "I'll never buy a CPU that REQUIRES an AIO." and while the i5-12600K doesn't require an AIO (it's better than the 13th and 14th-gen CPUs that way), it still draws a good deal more than the R7-5700X3D.

The maximum peak power draw is higher for the 13th gen, that's true. But for 12600K and 13600K base power is the same, 125w. The CPU doesn't always draw a brutal amount either.
Looking at my i5 13600K in HW monitor, it mostly draws around ~20w when doing nothing special such as right now as i type this, or playing a video in VLC. Of course waving the mouse cursor around draws 45w because of course it does.
(Win11. Though maybe it's the custom mouse software by steelseries that is to blame. I use it for finer sensitivity adjustmets than Win can offer. steelseries GG software is bloated and mostly awful imo.
Or maybe we live in an age where it takes 6 CPUs running 4Ghz to move a mouse cursor around *sigh*)

I'm not going to try and stress the CPU now, even if it would be useful to know the average draw. But most of the time it is a completely reasonable 20-50w. Hops to 65w during a Steam update. Hovers around 55-70w during gaming. This is just a brief check, nothing thorough.
Still, a CPU that did the same work but drew less would over time result in savings.

It doesn't reach AIO territory, and it doesn't reach 125w or anything that would be considered shocking.
Not a scientific test, but power draw isn't shockingly bad.
Also, the 12th gen is inferior in efficiency to the 13th, not the other way around. 13th has a higer peak power not average.

How it compares to R7-5700X3D is another matter. Add the cost of the 600/700 platform, and i would not try to argue the LGA1700 is better. Only that it's not out of the running.
Since Intel has moved on, only price drops can improve things, and some late components if they show up. DDR5 RAM is one part of a LGA1700 DDR5 build that will improve. But that's minor.
AMD has free reign with the AM5 platform and that is it's biggest advantage. That and the gaming oriented performance of the X3D CPUs.

CPUs from that era like Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Vishera are still mostly usable today. By the same token though, the exact same thing could be said about the R7-5700X3D. The question is whether games in the future will be more cache-sensitive or clock-sensitive. The big advantage that cache offers is that it pretty much nullifies the need for faster (and thus more expensive) RAM.

No argument here. A hidden advantage of not needing faster RAM is that it avoids long boot times due to memory training. Bonus for the X3D.

there is a huge library of games made in the last ten years that could keep a gamer happy for a long time and online games are a joke with regard to hardware requirements so it really depends on what they want to do. These things are really hard to predict.

Again, agreed fully.

When someone says "dead platform", it means that there won't be anything new coming out for it and any upgrade of a core component will require the upgrade of the entire platform. AM4 has been called a dead platform for over a year now (but AMD hilariously keeps releasing new CPUs for it). I'm going to see just how long my AM4 platform is viable for because I have an R7-5800X3D, 64GB of DDR4-3600, an X570 motherboard and an RX 7900 XTX. So, you could say that I'm "living the experiment".

I haven't really read the AM4 is a dead platform. As you say, AMD not only supports it but releases new CPUs~! for it. It's pretty ignorant to call AM4 dead.
LGA1700 is more "dead", but that is partly Intel's fault. Because they change sockets so much. The LGA1700 is also cutting edge. Funny that.

Part of the problem is also that tech moves on after 1-2 years on Intel's side, which is too fast for consumers. Maybe. Maybe not, because most upgrade after several generations, not gen to gen.
But you know all this.
Also, you're sitting pretty with your setup. That PC won't be knocked off it's perch for a long time i think. 2030? Who knows what will be out then.

Well, the thing is that if you're going to spend the money, for most users (not budget but not high-end either), AM5 does make the most sense. It's not much more expensive, it's going to make future CPU upgrades a lot easier and it has some of the most performant CPUs on the market today. Having said that, if I were to do an AM5 build from scratch, it wouldn't be with an R7-7800X3D, it would be with an R7-7700 because I'd want the 8 cores, the lower price and the included AMD Wraith Prism cooler (which is a fantastic cooler, especially considering that it costs $0).

Agreed. The final factor is the price. An Intel build may be competitive or even superior depending on pricing. AM5 will have the advantage of upgradeability which is hard to put a price on.

Good point about the R7-7700, and the cooler.

As for the prices, they can be annoying when they move up and down suddenly.
On the intel side, it's also annoying that non-K versions dry up very quickly and can be difficult to buy AND they cost more. They shouldn't, but the MSRP/RRP flies out the window very quickly.

This in turn changes what an "optimal" build should look like. As does availability outside the US.
That sweet AsRock z690 Extreme that sells for $130 would cost =>210€ in Europe. Not anywhere near the same value.

Finally, not sure i'd trust used parts. Drives, GPUs, PSUs all seem risky. Maybe not GPUs if it's one that 's unlikely to be used for mining. A CPU though, is probably a safe bet.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I won't disagree with the value and longevity of AM5, but i think you're overlooking how much value there is in LGA1700. The next gen isn't even out yet. 1700 is as current as it gets. And the value is there for many different budgets. From the lowliest i3 12100 and the aforementioned i5 12400F, all the way to the i7 14700 or even the stupidly top tier i9KS

Motherboard specs are all over the place but there are some great performers that are dying out, like the z690 Riptide and Extreme from AsRock. And there's tippy top z790 boards that cost a lot, and i would argue aren't as good because of M.2 gen 5 lane sharing and high prices in general.

AMD is an option, and AM5 is a good option, but it's not leading the charge. The 13/14 intels are really good CPUs, and they are not going to become obsolete 30 minutes ago as you seem to insist.

Is this your definition of "really good CPUs"?:

I only ask because CPUs that draw 42W more than their closest competitor aren't what I call "Good". Sure, they work and if they were priced correctly I would have no problem recommending them, but they're not. Somehow, Intel has managed to still price their CPUs higher than AMD's, despite being objectively inferior (and if you won't admit that, then there's no reason for me to continue talking to you).

At least back when AMD's CPUs were inferior (and boy were they ever), they could be had for a song. I paid less for my entire AM3+ platform (FX-8350, 990FX motherboard, 16GB DDR3-1333) than I would have paid for a single i7-3770K ($450CAD). I got my FX-8350 for (get this) $170CAD. That price made even the i5-3570K at $300CAD completely unpalatable to me.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that the FX-8350 was completely outclassed by both the i5-3570K and the i7-3770K in both performance and efficiency. There is no debate there because I'm a gamer and all of the great multi-thread performance that the FX-8350 was capable of (and it was VERY capable in that regard) was useless to me. If price wasn't such a huge factor in my decision, I would've definitely bought at least an i5-3570K. It was the same thing when I bought my first Radeon, an HD 4870 1GB. I initially wanted to get a GeForce GTX 260 768MB but it was $650-$700CAD (depending on the model) while the HD 4870 was only $450 despite being neck-and-neck with the GTX 260 in performance.

That's how you have to price your products if they've been underperforming or deficient in some way compared to your competition. Intel had refused to do that and to paraphrase Steve Walton "There's no such thing as bad products, only bad prices." so why would anyone buy Intel? How many people are still gaming away happily with an R7-5800X3D on an X370 or B350 motherboard from 2017? The answer is "A CRAP-TONNE".

For several years now, AMD has dominated the Amazon best-selling CPUs list. At this moment, here are the top-10:
1) R5-5600X
2) R5-5800X
3) R7-7800X3D
4) i7-12700KF
5) R5-7600X
6) R7-5700G
7) i7-14700K
8) i9-14900K
9) R5-7600
10) R9-7900X3D

Final Score:
AMD - 7
Intel - 3

It has been only seven years since AMD was at the brink of bankruptcy with almost no brand recognition (not positive brand recognition anyway) to speak of and Intel was the undisputed king of CPUs. Intel held a lead over AMD that was even greater than GeForce's lead over Radeon. I honestly didn't expect AMD to survive and figured that we were doomed to have an Intel monopoly in CPUs. If you were to tell me that AMD would become the market leader in desktops and stand almost completely unopposed in the HEDT and data centre spaces back in 2017, I would've asked for some of whatever drugs you were on.

However, here we are and how did AMD do it? Initially it was by making products that were competitive with (but slightly inferior) to Intel performance-wise for a much more attractive price (Ryzen 1000 and 2000). When Zen2 (Ryzen 3000) came out, AMD had Intel beat in almost every metric except single-core IPC and, therefore, gaming performance. Then Zen3 came out and for the first time ever, one of the two CPU brands was superior to the other in every possible metric. AMD had better multi-core performance, a superior implementation of SMT, better value, better power efficiency and, for the first time since the Athlon 64, better IPC and single-core performance. This meant that Intel lost their one remaining crown, that of the gaming king. Hell, the paradigm shift was so abrupt and unexpected that even nVidia (of all companies...) congratulated AMD on the achievement with a little cartoon of an nVidia logo and an AMD logo high-fiving. I can't find it to show you but it definitely happened.

They're let down somewhat by the B760 motherboards honestly. Getting the right motherboard for a fair price isn't easy. That's a much bigger deal when building an intel gaming PC today, rather than AMD being competitive (which it is, fair is fair).

Yeah, but that's also true about X670 and X670E boards so it's not fair to single out Intel for that. Having said that, if the AM5 platform lasts for 2.5x as long as LGA1851, only then does Intel deserve to be singled-out. If you're paying once for something that will last twice as long, then the added cost is worth it and AM5 gets a pass. If Intel smartens up and has LGA1851 last as long as AM5, then they also get a pass. If we get shocked and AM5 doesn't last nearly as long as AM4, then I'll be dumping on AMD the way I ripped them a new one for releasing those absurd R9 X3D CPUs instead of what would've been a far more useful R5-7600X3D.

I like AMD better than Intel and nVidia because of the past transgressions of the latter two but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit quietly when AMD does something as cynical as the R9 X3D abominations. The lack of an R5-7600X3D seriously reduced the number of users that upgraded to AM5 however and it serves them right. That's why the top-2 best-selling CPUs on Amazon are Ryzen 5000 CPUs. AMD didn't make it AM5 attractive enough compared to just upgrading to another AM4 CPU. It was stupid, it was cynical and I was shocked that they did it.

 

[35below0]

I only ask because CPUs that draw 42W more than their closest competitor aren't what I call "Good". Sure, they work and if they were priced correctly I would have no problem recommending them, but they're not. Somehow, Intel has managed to still price their CPUs higher than AMD's, despite being objectively inferior (and if you won't admit that, then there's no reason for me to continue talking to you).

The 14900K and 7950X are neck and neck in most tests. Intel has a slight advantage. The fairer comparison would be the 13900K but it's not the main point.

The 42w average across different applications refers (and correct me if i'm wrong) to power draw under full load. Efficiency under full load is where the 7950X has an advantage. In variable load conditions, that advantage doesn't exist. They're both similar, though Intel isn't as efficient in some gaming scenarios. Likewise, it is also superior (only slightly) in performance, in SOME gaming scenarios.

Pretty much neck and neck with no clear advantage for either.
7950X is not so much slower (it's sometimes faster), and the 14900K is not that much hotter or power hungrier.

Right? Wrong?

As for objectively inferior. That's a ...strange comment. Let's say i don't know what you're refering to. The entire intel lineup? Inferior? Or inferior value at price points? Not sure here.

 

[TerryLaze]

Is this your definition of "really good CPUs"?:

I only ask because CPUs that draw 42W more than their closest competitor aren't what I call "Good".

If you don't like the default 253W setting you can choose one that better fits your needs, at 200W limit it uses 141W in average which is only 13W more than the 7950x but it's still a few percent faster, if you don't like that you can go to 125W limit where the average is 91 and 37W below the 7950x while still only being a few percent slower than the 7950x.

Or you can choose to go full hog with the 14900k which you can't even choose to do with the 7950x no matter how much you want to.
Having choices is a good thing, ignoring choices just to avoid loosing a discussion is a bad thing.
link

 

[Avro Arrow]

The 14900K and 7950X are neck and neck in most tests. Intel has a slight advantage. The fairer comparison would be the 13900K but it's not the main point.

You didn't actually look at the chart did you? Look again and tell me the difference in power consumption between the i9-13900K and the i9-14900K. I mean, if it makes you feel better, sure, let's use the i9-13900K instead.

The 42w average across different applications refers (and correct me if i'm wrong) to power draw under full load.

Yeah, I do have to correct you because it's not full load, they run a suite of applications (not all at the same time) to see what real-world power use would be. The full load numbers are... not even close to the application averages.

For me to present full-load numbers would've been dishonest of me and that's not how I roll. I don't care about being right, I care about what the truth is and if I say something wrong, then so much the better as it means I'll have learnt something new. That attitude is why I have the level of knowledge that I do (building PCs since 1988 helps too).

FULL DISCLOSURE: The reason I used the i9-14900KS review is because it's the most recent and therefore has the most up-to-date list of CPUs involved, not because it's the most power-hungry CPU that I've ever seen (although it is that...). I look at the Intel KS models the same way I looked at the AMD FX-9590... technically a real product but not the least bit indicative of the product line as a whole so I ignore them.

Here are the full-load numbers. I tend to ignore them because they're not really indicative of anything except situations that don't really exist, like someone running software encoding with Blender instead of a GPU:

Full load single-thread

Multi-Thread

As you can see, full load is ridiculous which makes the fact that almost nobody does this to be a good thing. They're just trying to show a worst-case scenario and that's why I ignore it. It's like when I'm looking at. What's really bad for Intel is that they actually do worse in the real-world application averages than they do in the unrealistic full-load test. The i9-14900K uses 42W more (I'm just playing) The i9-13900K uses 41W more than the R9-7950X in the application averages but only 25W more at full multi-thread load.

Efficiency under full load is where the 7950X has an advantage. In variable load conditions, that advantage doesn't exist. They're both similar, though Intel isn't as efficient in some gaming scenarios. Likewise, it is also superior (only slightly) in performance, in SOME gaming scenarios.

Look at the charts. What you just said is the opposite of true because the power draw delta on the application average chart between the R9-7950X and the i9-13900K is significantly greater than the delta on the multi-thread full-load chart.

Pretty much neck and neck with no clear advantage for either.
7950X is not so much slower (it's sometimes faster), and the 14900K is not that much hotter or power hungrier.


Right? Wrong?

It's not really that cut and dry with performance. I looked at the productivity and gaming benchmarks on TPU (because they're easier to read than Tom's and have relative performance charts). The i9-13900K appears to be ahead in most applications by 3-5% overall. I say appears because there are so many different applications. It led in most of them by margin of error, a couple by a measurable difference and it also trailed in a couple. The overall feel I got was that it was ever so slightly faster in most applications. There are some oddities in these applications. For instance, file compression and encryption makes me scratch my head.

In WinRar file compression, the 7950X is 11% slower I'm saying slower because it's a "lower is better" timed chart and so the math is easier to say who is slower as opposed to who is faster. The end result is the same though. Then, in 7-Zip file compression, the 13900X is good for 188428 MIPS while the 7950X is good for 186147 MIPS which is within margin of error as it's only a 1% difference. However, in decompression, things change dramatically as the 13900K is good for 231512 MIPS while the 7950X is good for 275816 MIPS which is a big difference of 19% (MIPS = Millions of Instructions per Second).

The 13900K is also decently ahead in gaming by 12% on average. That doesn't surprise me because the R9-5950X always gamed more like an i7-13700K. AMD CPUs seem to have become more use-case specific ever since the X3D CPUs came out. The Ryzen 9s aren't great for gaming without the 3D V-Cache because they have two separate CCX modules and it can screw up the scheduling in Windows sometimes.

As for temperatures, the Intel CPUs are hotter than their AMD counterparts but it's not terrible:

As for objectively inferior. That's a ...strange comment. Let's say i don't know what you're refering to. The entire intel lineup? Inferior? Or inferior value at price points? Not sure here.

I mean inferior from a technical standpoint. I'll let Steve Walton explain it because he's a good deal more knowledgeable and eloquent than I am. I'll give you a brief introduction to each video.

Video #1 - Intel's refusal to set more than vague power limits causes CPU crashes during gaming:

Video #2 - Now that Intel has implemented more exacting power limits, the R9-14900K and R7-7800X3D go head-to-head in gaming. Spoiler -> Check out the difference in the power draw at 7:20.

When you see the amount of juice that Intel has to pump through the i9-14900K to keep up with the 7800X3D to the point that the X3D chip only wins by 4%, you'll understand that their tech isn't up to AMD's level because if it were, this wouldn't be happening. More advanced tech is always more efficient because otherwise it doesn't get made.

Like I said, when AMD was inferior, I paid less than half the cost of the i7-3770K for an FX-8350 and it turned out to be the best-value CPU that I have ever purchased and it's not even close. Intel is overly-greedy and arrogant and won't do this so AMD has finally managed to bulldoze Intel (I couldn't resist...heheheheh).

I think that by now you'll understand what I was talking about. I've provided so much information that a baby who had never even seen a computer would understand what I'm talking about at this point.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Regarding the 14400, from what I’ve seen if you’ve got a 12600kf/k or better, no reason to get the 14400. I purchased a 12600kf when it was on sale for $140. It’s a decent little cpu. Next cpu will likely be either a 14th gen i7 or new build depending how I feel at the time.

 

[thestryker]

When you see the amount of juice that Intel has to pump through the i9-14900K to keep up with the 7800X3D to the point that the X3D chip only wins by 4%, you'll understand that their tech isn't up to AMD's level because if it were, this wouldn't be happening. More advanced tech is always more efficient because otherwise it doesn't get made.

While comparing the two for gaming is valid as they're the top of the respective stacks for gaming making any other conclusions based on that data is at best disingenuous and misleading at worst.

Gaming workloads also tend to highlight the scheduling problems on Intel's hybrid architecture. This can be seen most obviously by looking at gaming power consumption difference between 13700K and anything higher as the extra E-core clusters get lit up.

Then there's of course the known variables of N5 being better than Intel 7, more cache positively impacting gaming and 3D V-cache forcing clock limits.

When you take away the 3D V-Cache a 13600K beats AMD's entire stack at gaming without completely blowing the power budget. This would indicate rather clearly that there's no obvious overall "technology" victor except under specific circumstances.

 

[35below0]

You didn't actually look at the chart did you? Look again and tell me the difference in power consumption between the i9-13900K and the i9-14900K. I mean, if it makes you feel better, sure, let's use the i9-13900K instead.

Yes i did. The reason i said 13900K is fairer because the 14900K came later, but again it's not the point.

Look at the charts. What you just said is the opposite of true because the power draw delta on the application average chart between the R9-7950X and the i9-13900K is significantly greater than the delta on the multi-thread full-load chart.

Look at the reviews, and correct a slew of them. I'm neither pro intel nor anti AMD (just ignore that i have literally zero AMD products. It's besides the point!), and i also do not shop i9s or need them. So for me personally i should have no reason to favor some imaginary intel lead.

Regarding the 14400, from what I’ve seen if you’ve got a 12600kf/k or better, no reason to get the 14400. I purchased a 12600kf when it was on sale for $140. It’s a decent little cpu. Next cpu will likely be either a 14th gen i7 or new build depending how I feel at the time.

I do like the 14700K. The numbers are good. Real good.

It's not really that cut and dry with performance. I looked at the productivity and gaming benchmarks on TPU (because they're easier to read than Tom's and have relative performance charts). The i9-13900K appears to be ahead in most applications by 3-5% overall. I say appears because there are so many different applications.

The 13900K is also decently ahead in gaming by 12% on average. That doesn't surprise me because the R9-5950X always gamed more like an i7-13700K. AMD CPUs seem to have become more use-case specific ever since the X3D CPUs came out.

That's pretty much what i could conclude. They're either neck and neck, or one or the other has a slight advantage in very specific circumstance.
For example, the R9-5959X comes out ahead in some games despite the average 12$ lead the intel has on it.