AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core i9-14900K Faceoff

[Admin]

The battle for supremacy in the high-end desktop CPU market has reached a new pinnacle with the release of AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X, setting the stage for an intense showdown against Intel's Core i9-14900K.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core i9-14900K Faceoff : Read more

 

[phxrider]

I'd still buy the AMD if only due to the power usage and heat output of the Intel, if I was building a new PC. (Actually, I'd wait for the X3D version, but I already have a 7950X3D and don't see the need to upgrade unless they really surprise me with something big and totally unexpected with the 9950X3D.)

And AFAIK, no one who can afford high-end gaming systems with a $600 CPU and $700+ in the GPU plays at 1080. It's a benchmark for benchmarking's sake - IMO not anything anyone should worry about in the real world.

 

[tony.dimarzio]

No mention at all of 13th and 14th gen instability issues and silicon degradation. That should be worth at least a point or more toward aggregate scores.

 

[XaiViaR]

Winner:
AMD 7800x3d
If you focusing on gaming, like this article does, then neither of these comparisons are the right one.

 

[Moobear]

Winner:
AMD 7800x3d
If you focusing on gaming, like this article does, then neither of these comparisons are the right one.

Amen

 

[Moobear]

No mention at all of 13th and 14th gen instability issues and silicon degradation. That should be worth at least a point or more toward aggregate scores.

Yeah unbelievable that they give Intel a win with al the issues they are having and potentially advise people buying faulty chips after reading this article.

 

[Gururu]

The 14900 remains a strong chip even against Intel's new offerings. If the fixes hold up, it may have a long life with enthusiasts over the next few years.

 

[logainofhades]

And AFAIK, no one who can afford high-end gaming systems with a $600 CPU and $700+ in the GPU plays at 1080. It's a benchmark for benchmarking's sake - IMO not anything anyone should worry about in the real world.

Actually competitive gamers do such things.

 

[phxrider]

Actually competitive gamers do such things.

Cool. What percent of the market are they?

I'm guessing that niche would want a 7800X3D anyway.

 

[TheHerald]

How did you measure power draw? What kind of limits where in place? Ycruncher only limited to 220w on the 14900k seems off to me. It should be much higher

 

[logainofhades]

Cool. What percent of the market are they?

I'm guessing that niche would want a 7800X3D anyway.

Your claim was no one. 1080p can still be quite demanding, especially for those that want to go all in on RT.

Ultra settings in starfield also could be demanding even at 1080p.

 

[phxrider]

Your claim was no one. 1080p can still be quite demanding, especially for those that want to go all in on RT.

Ultra settings in starfield also could be demanding even at 1080p.

All this entire post shows is that these games run faster on a faster GPU, AKA GPU limited, not CPU. If the game was CPU limited, you could put a faster GPU in it and it would run at the same speed.

You're actually making my point.

 

[Eirhead]

I'd still buy the AMD if only due to the power usage and heat output of the Intel, if I was building a new PC. (Actually, I'd wait for the X3D version, but I already have a 7950X3D and don't see the need to upgrade unless they really surprise me with something big and totally unexpected with the 9950X3D.)

And AFAIK, no one who can afford high-end gaming systems with a $600 CPU and $700+ in the GPU plays at 1080. It's a benchmark for benchmarking's sake - IMO not anything anyone should worry about in the real world.

I'm building a workstation right now for photogrammetry, 3d modeling and video editing. A threadripper or epyc processor would be superior, but since we're doing it on a "budget" we were gonna go for 9950x. Unfortunately, during my research I found that none of the 9xxx processors officially support 128gb - 192gb of ram (which is something I need). I'm told I can probably get it to run at lower, DDR5 default, clock speeds... but at that point, not only am I paying more for a little bit of efficiency, but I'm also losing a lot of performance that I feel I should be getting.

Initially I was gonna build the 9950x with just a good air cooler. But we're going to switch to a 14900k which saves me like $200, throw $50 more into the cooling solution and get an AIO, for a total of $150 in savings. It's not a personal PC, and it's gonna be running in a noisy office with lots of different equipment, so the extra noise and extra power consumption is really irrelevant to me.

I know my photogrammetry software performs better with more L2+L3 cache, which is why I wanted the 9950X. But AMD really should put more effort into their memory controller. As well Intel has bigger L2 cache sizes which is probably part of the reason why they continue to perform very well in multithreaded situations. So for a user like me who is building a machine for video editing / 3d modeling / highend, lots of ram workstations that are step below server gear... there's a reason why I will continue to opt for Intel over AMD.

And it's funny too, because AMDs threadripper and Epic processors are king for what I wanna do. So it's not like AMD doesn't possess the technology to completely wipe the floor with Intel. They just chose to cheap out and offer an AMD sidegrade version to the 14900k instead of releasing a 14900k killer. They should have released a killer.

 

[logainofhades]

I'm building a workstation right now for photogrammetry, 3d modeling and video editing. A threadripper or epyc processor would be superior, but since we're doing it on a "budget" we were gonna go for 9950x. Unfortunately, during my research I found that none of the 9xxx processors officially support 128gb - 192gb of ram (which is something I need). I'm told I can probably get it to run at lower, DDR5 default, clock speeds... but at that point, not only am I paying more for a little bit of efficiency, but I'm also losing a lot of performance that I feel I should be getting.

Initially I was gonna build the 9950x with just a good air cooler. But we're going to switch to a 14900k which saves me like $200, throw $50 more into the cooling solution and get an AIO, for a total of $150 in savings. It's not a personal PC, and it's gonna be running in a noisy office with lots of different equipment, so the extra noise and extra power consumption is really irrelevant to me.

I know my photogrammetry software performs better with more L2+L3 cache, which is why I wanted the 9950X. But AMD really should put more effort into their memory controller. As well Intel has bigger L2 cache sizes which is probably part of the reason why they continue to perform very well in multithreaded situations. So for a user like me who is building a machine for video editing / 3d modeling / highend, lots of ram workstations that are step below server gear... there's a reason why I will continue to opt for Intel over AMD.

And it's funny too, because AMDs threadripper and Epic processors are king for what I wanna do. So it's not like AMD doesn't possess the technology to completely wipe the floor with Intel. They just chose to cheap out and offer an AMD sidegrade version to the 14900k instead of releasing a 14900k killer. They should have released a killer.

Good luck with the 14900k and 4 sticks of ram for 128gb, unless you go DDR4. DDR5 and 4 sticks of ram are problematic on both platforms.

 

[Eirhead]

Good luck with the 14900k and 4 sticks of ram for 128gb, unless you go DDR4. DDR5 and 4 sticks of ram are problematic on both platforms.

Seen lots of mobos advertising 4 dimm compatibility with the intel architecture. It's only a 5200MHz kit, so it's not like I'm getting crazy high memory speeds. But I don't see any AMD mobos advertising 4 dimm 128gb compatibility, so that has me scared to touch AMD in this case.