The 14400 is just a locked, lower clocked 12600kf with an igpu and $10 cooler.
It's a little more different than that. The 600 is a faster CPU in it's own right. Two generations of polishing have maybe added some extra oomph and efficiency to the 400 but it's still a step behind it's Alder sibling.
Spending $100 more (after sales tax) just to have a higher number, lower clocks and a cooler you won't use is not a solid choice.
No, it is not. Maybe there is a use case where the 14400 is ideal but all alternatives have to be considered.
Also the cooler itself. Why not use the cooler? It works, it cools, and aside highest performance or gaming scenarios, there is no penalty compared to aftermarket coolers.
If you want top tier 1440p or higher gaming performance, you would lose a little bit running a stock cooler but i'm not sure how much.
I'm sure i'd rather have a Peerless Assassin or Phantom Spirit EVO because the extra cost is only $30-50.
But you have to add that extra cost to any K series CPU, and you really have to think twice about the meagre savings and risk when buying a F series CPU.
I agree with you though. The 12600K is faster (very slightly) and some $70 cheaper, so even with a cooler upgrade it's still cheaper overall.
All i wanted to say was that 14400 is a good chip, but is it the right one?
That $100 could take you from a 7600XT to 7700XT GPU, save $30 on top of that and you would still have better CPU performance with the 12600kf.
With the 7600x you would have to drop from DDR5 to DDR4 to have enough money left over to upgrade your GPU from a 76000XT to a 7700XT. But that is an option.
Agreed on both points. And DDR4 is very fast, trouble free, and reasonably cheap. You can also get 96Gb or 128Gb more easily than DD5, for what it's worth.
I find these types of reviews a dead end.
I want to compare the CPU cost. As long as the cost is close, I don't care.
Costs change, esp. as new products emerge to push the old out. Or as cutting edge tech matures and comes down in price, like DDR5 for example.
I want to know how long it takes to get work done, how long will I need to wait, or how long other stuff waits.
Well benchmarks kind of exist for this reason. But the reason they're limited is that there's too many specific workloads.
I think you'd learn more by asking people who have experience with work similar to yours or gaming needs similar to yours. They can tell you if stuff moves quickly or if it lags, or how long renders or whatever take.
Most of the basic stuff happens very quickly, unless you have an extremly budget build/laptop.
I want to know how much the power requirements are going to affect my utility bill. If I 'm not going to notice the watt difference on my utility bill, I don't care.
You have three choices:
run HWMonitor to see how much power your PC uses.
measure power use at the wall
use a higher efficiency power supply. The higher the efficiency, the more accurate the PSUs power draw.
On the other hand, you're just going to pay the bill no matter what, unless you have some extreme use case or weird problem.
Because most PCs just don't use absurd amounts of electricity.
I run a lot of dockers.
I run a lot of browser tabs.
I occasionally run productivity apps.
Sounds very average. You're 100% justified in looking at the price of a CPU, just make sure it's not a real turd. Read reviews.
As mentioned above the 12600K is one of the cheaper CPUs and it's ... kinda great.
So what you're saying is Tom's is right to make a poor comparison article that doesn't make sense or help anyone because Intel decided to rebadge things?
It's par for the course.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram