Discussion 14 Gen - What Are Your Opinions?

[jnjnilson6]

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-core-i9-14900k-vs-13900k/

It seems that we're witnessing an effect which shouldn't have been there from the beginning.

Throughout the past there have been innumerable instances of the beauty of newer generations covering an unpremeditated space - that of delivering higher performance - inconclusively. Such phenomena were not among the commonest, but they have been witnessed both in the CPU and GPU world. A few examples:

Pentium 4s were slower if at synonymous speeds to those of Pentium IIIs.
Radeon HD 5850 was faster than HD 6850 and HD 7770.

Do provide your thoughts and opinions; it would make for a worthwhile discussion!

 

[Colif]

From what i remember the main difference between 13 & 14 is 14 gets extra instructions that 13 doesn't, and its a little faster and hotter.

Its not a generation, just a refresh if anything. The only CPU that is different from previous was the 14700k which gained more cores.

So since they only newer versions of previous CPU, they may not always be faster than the older ones in every task.

 

[Eximo]

10th to 11th gen was another 'it depends'.

i9-10900 had 10 cores and 20mb cache. The i9-11900 reverted back to 8 cores 16mb cache, basically identical to the i7-11700 except for turbo boost 3.0. So for the average use case there was no reason to buy an 11900 over the 11700, and the 10850k/10900/10900k could outperform both in some games because of the extra cache. Overall multithreaded performance was similar between all of them.

 

[Colif]

You have to be careful comparing generations in GPU as the entire architecture can change between models and if the new one not better, it can stand out. I think similar happened after Nvidia 20 series.

CPU slightly easier as normally not major architecture changes, though they do happen.

 

[Phaaze88]

These are more refined 13th gen, which are more refined 12th gen.
The board vendors are giving it a bad rep. See Hardware Canucks 14900K review to see what I mean.

The boards should be running under Intel spec out of the box, with end users choosing what to do with it afterwards.
Most folks do NOT go far in bios, beyond custom fan curves, clear CMOS and updates. They're not aware that their cpu is operating out of spec out of the box.
[Some boards run Intel spec, but you don't know until you get it. Probably safe to assume most Z-boards are customized bioses.]

Should reviewers do 2 separate runs to show the discrepancy? Heck no. They shouldn't have to.
This is a problem between Intel and the board vendors.
Well, that's my 2 cents.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

Id go 13th then and just overclock.

HWUnboxed showed nothing but temp increases
Gamers Nexus showed some very slight improvements, margin of error though, with more heat as well.

 

[instawookie]

This was my result of a 13700k to a 14700k. Both Cpu's on stock clock, only difference between the two runs was a f24 bios vs a f27 bios. While the results aren't thrilling, nor did I expect much gain, an upgrade is an upgrade, and my friend gets to inherit my 13700k for a super reasonable price of 200$. I didn't see a temp increase yet, as most are reporting. The 13700k run was on a pre-applied paste from a Phanteks D30 360mm AIO, the 14700k run was using Mx-6 with an X-pattern.

Result

www.3dmark.com

 

[Phaaze88]

This was my result of a 13700k to a 14700k. Both Cpu's on stock clock, only difference between the two runs was a f24 bios vs a f27 bios. While the results aren't thrilling, nor did I expect much gain, an upgrade is an upgrade, and my friend gets to inherit my 13700k for a super reasonable price of 200$. I didn't see a temp increase yet, as most are reporting. The 13700k run was on a pre-applied paste from a Phanteks D30 360mm AIO, the 14700k run was using Mx-6 with an X-pattern.

Result

www.3dmark.com

That's custom settings and not Intel spec...

 

[instawookie]

That's custom settings and not Intel spec...

You get the idea...

 

[Iwillnotcomment]

Ti(e) of cpus

 

[Phaaze88]

You get the idea...

Beyond all the numbers in the link, I don't get what you were getting at, that's why I questioned it.
You said 'stock clock', but both chips in the link registered at 6ghz. Neither cpu does that normally.
An upgrade is an upgrade, but unlike the 14-6 and 14-9, the 14-7 got a bump in e-core count, which has a situational use.
If Intel hadn't done that, it'd be identical to the 13-7, but it's not.

 

[instawookie]

Beyond all the numbers in the link, I don't get what you were getting at, that's why I questioned it.
You said 'stock clock', but both chips in the link registered at 6ghz. Neither cpu does that normally.
An upgrade is an upgrade, but unlike the 14-6 and 14-9, the 14-7 got a bump in e-core count, which has a situational use.
If Intel hadn't done that, it'd be identical to the 13-7, but it's not.

Apologies for the lack of clarity, but simply what I was illustrating was a stock for stock comparison for a standard consumer. The 6ghz feature is a Bios option offered on 13700k and 13900k chips, which will automatically tweak CPU voltage and Vcore Load Line Calibration of 13900K and 13700K processors to detect the most two optimized cores running at 6GHz frequency. So that timespy benchmark was a straight forward plug and play result from what a typical consumer may adjust in Bios, such as enabling (instant 6ghz , re-sizeable bar, setting the XMP profile to align with memory speed, disabling fastboot, etc...) I would not consider enabling instant 6ghz an actual overclock, and even if it was... both chips have the option available which shouldn't alter the results of how close the performance actually is between the two CPU's.

 

[kira-faye]

More E cores. No one cares about E cores. They're a joke.

 

[Eximo]

Unless you do anything with heavy multithreading. That is when they prove their worth.

For the typical consumer, you can stick with the 6P core only chips, or disable E cores. 12700K are a bargain right now.

 

[punkncat]

10th to 11th gen was another 'it depends'.

i9-10900 had 10 cores and 20mb cache. The i9-11900 reverted back to 8 cores 16mb cache, basically identical to the i7-11700 except for turbo boost 3.0. So for the average use case there was no reason to buy an 11900 over the 11700, and the 10850k/10900/10900k could outperform both in some games because of the extra cache. Overall multithreaded performance was similar between all of them.

IMO, the 11900K is essentially just a factory OC 11700K that for sure will hit 5+ GHz. I am using one in my main rig right now. I haven't found any particular cause to see to needing replace it yet. One of my main concerns, and to focus a bit on the point of OP, is that the new chips both from AMD and Intel run very hot. "By design" or not, these are going to be running in my office/game room which is already cooling challenged in the dead of summer. I don't want to be in here with a CPU pouring out 100*C whether it hits 6GHz or not.

I guess I could replace a radiant heater.

The other aspect to be considered here is the sheer power draw. Either of the top tier consumer CPU brands are drawing an insane amount of power. When you balance a top tier i9 with a graphics card (that could melt connectors) that is also pulling an insane amount of wattage out of the wall that is a lot of meter spin alone. Then the increased tax on your AC system and so forth. It seems to be a bit wasteful.

And here I sit saying that with a powerful gaming rig sitting beside me.

/hypocritical

 

[Eximo]

Which is why I didn't mind abandoning the unlocked parts for the first time in the core series. 10900F can hit 5.2Ghz but generally hovers around 4.9-5.0.

I've considered picking up an 11700k or even 11700 just to get PCIe 4.0 working, but not much point if I am going to replace the board for a DDR5 system next generation.

I also power limit my 3080Ti to 280W. Water cooling makes it a little too efficient at getting the heat out. Summer time was never the best with a gaming PC, but I do miss my GTX1080 efficiency. Probably going to pick up Battlemage just for power reduction, maybe AMD if the 8000 series cards have a decent offering.

Looking more and more like it will end up a AMD CPU with an Intel GPU.

 

[Zerk2012]

I have no opinion.
It's just a refresh what did people expect?

I have no reason to upgrade from my 10600K I don't need 240FPS 60@ 1440p is just fine with me as long as I can get that NO upgrades.

 

[Eximo]

I have no opinion.
It's just a refresh what did people expect?

I have no reason to upgrade from my 10600K I don't need 240FPS 60@ 1440p is just fine with me as long as I can get that NO upgrades.

Yeah, not like we are getting a Haswell Refresh again. That was quite significant at the top end. 3.9Ghz stock boost to 4.5Ghz stock boost. Overclocking narrowed that gap a lot, but still like a 300-500Mhz increase depending.

But 100-200Mhz increase isn't quite the same since the CPUs are now sitting in the 5.5Ghz range to start.

 

[Zerk2012]

Yeah, not like we are getting a Haswell Refresh again. That was quite significant at the top end. 3.9Ghz stock boost to 4.5Ghz stock boost. Overclocking narrowed that gap a lot, but still like a 300-500Mhz increase depending.

But 100-200Mhz increase isn't quite the same since the CPUs are now sitting in the 5.5Ghz range to start.

They did improve the thermal interface material on the Haswell refresh.

 

[Order 66]

I know I am a bit late to the party here, but I feel like 14th gen is not worth it, I will stick with my 7700x, thank you very much. The only saving grace for 14th gen is that it doesn't require a new motherboard.

 

[sonofjesse]

Companies have put out products to generate news media, articles etc. Not every year is this 35% increase in IPC or anything. That is why it really does not pay to upgrade every year. Way back in the day I was guilty of upgrading too often.

I recently just did a CPU upgrade in a B350 motherboard and it has put a lot of new life in that box. Having an upgrade path is great. I wished Intel would be a bit better in that. AM4 was really amazing and been selling point.

 

[Order 66]

Companies have put out products to generate news media, articles etc. Not every year is this 35% increase in IPC or anything. That is why it really does not pay to upgrade every year. Way back in the day I was guilty of upgrading too often.

I recently just did a CPU upgrade in a B350 motherboard and it has put a lot of new life in that box. Having an upgrade path is great. I wished Intel would be a bit better in that. AM4 was really amazing and been selling point.

This is what owners of the 1080ti have experienced. it is still decent for 1080p. If you are are on 12th gen intel, you do not need to upgrade to 14th gen (for gaming)

 

[jnjnilson6]

This is what owners of the 1080ti have experienced. it is still decent for 1080p. If you are are on 12th gen intel, you do not need to upgrade to 14th gen (for gaming)

It is still pretty cool that currently Intel Iris Xe is somewhere between the HD 5870 and 7870. Back in the day Intel Integrated Graphics was so slow that Counter-Strike 1.6 lagged on it. I am talking in regards to personal experience - Celeron G530 (Sandy Bridge / 2 cores / 2.4 GHz) and Intel HD 2000. You'd think it would not lag on Counter-Strike 1.6, but it did, especially with many players. And Crysis was basically a slideshow, running many times slower even than a Mobility Radeon 4530 (which barely touched the middle grounds for gaming in 2010). Then I put a Radeon HD 6770 into that system and the comparison between it and Integrated Graphics was like comparing the distance from the Milky Way to Andromeda - indefinitely indefinite. The system originally retained 2 GB RAM, then I think I jumped to 16, although I am not sure if in-between there was a point in which it retained 4. That has expired into time to be brought back conscientiously no longer.

It seemed that it would be a long, long time until we'd witness the day Integrated Graphics would retain true strength and high-end productivity, at least from the perspective of those years.

Yet, here we are, in 2023 with Intel Iris Xe providing performance synonymous with that of high-end cards from 2009-2012. And the technology is finally truly powerful; not to be brushed aside with mockery and laughter, but to be regarded seriously.