Yes anyone who even has the slightest bit of tech skill to even come and read a forum here likely understands this. Problem is it is still not extreme enough to even reach the general consumer. You would have to put a big frowny face icon on the ads intel runs on tiktok to even half get the attention of many consumers.
Yes it is. It's not only so powerful it's kind of ridiculous, it's putting money back into my pocket via my power bill.
And how much overhead in software did that review require?Since TomsHardware is supposed to be a tech site and not just a gamer site, I wish these reviews would be more detailed, like Techpowerup did in their review. They included machine learning, physics, chemistry and genome analysis, among other non-gaming programs, while TH relied mostly on just standard benchmarks like Cinebench.
When you pushed clockspeed further beyond what the chip can manage, you will run into diminishing returns in terms of clockspeed vs power. So to me, the more aggressive clockspeed over the 13th gen Raptor Lake will make the chips less efficient, no surprises. Even that extra 100 Mhz that they can squeeze out of the chips will blow the power requirement out of proportion. And that same 100 or 200 Mhz is not going to make any material impact to performance. Goes to show Intel's desperation here really. Putting this into perspective, Intel's CPU only power draw is going into a flagship GPU territory, which is something I wasn't expecting. For the small package, it is near impossible to keep the chip from throttling with conventional water cooling solution.What's making me laugh is that I jokingly "called it", not ACTUALLY expecting Intel to release what are essentially overclocked 13th-gens. I mean, I thought that they'd have higher clocks but I didn't really expect them to consume more power, but as we can see, they do:
The i9-14900K is actually less power-efficient than the already overly-thirsty i9-13900K. Well, that places it in the same category as the ridiculousness known as the i9-13900KS, not a good place to be.
This isn't a refresh, it's literally just some overclocked 13th-gens and are more of a step backward than a step forward. That's the real joke.
Lol, so you spend like $1000 on a new system to save $25 per month, that will make you get even in 3.3 years......you know you could have just gotten into the bios and save $25 a month without spending a dime right?!
I would go so far as to say, at least on 14nm, that as soon as Intel went beyond 4 physical cores with a 4GHz clock that efficiency went out the window in search of absolute performance. Yes during gaming the 8700k was only using the same power at the 7700k, but games at that time almost never used more than a couple threads. Once you got into full core AVX loads the 8700k was using 40% more power or more.
I'm mostly a gamer with some minor productivity and light streaming. So that CPU would have been throwing money away for me. But the X3D is an innovative product. But, here comes Meteor Lake. Intel's first chiplet design. LOL
I disagree on the part about them understanding the market. If anything I feel they understand it better than most, at least in as much as it jives with my understanding/needs/wants (I've been doing this for over 30 years if that counts for anything). I mean, it's likely I'm way off base too so there's that and ultimately it's just my thoughts on the matter.
I think that it's very unlikely that meteor will have a cache large enough to get close to x3d ,at the scale that intel has to make CPUs it would be way too expensive, not just in money but mainly resources, for something that would not increase their sales anyway above what the new arch would do.
I think it's fine to enjoy YouTubers doing the obligatory rants and such, but it's also important to realize that those rants, on YouTube, are there specifically to drive views. Because you get paid, directly, by your view count. And sure, sites like ours get paid directly by our pageviews (plus other stuff like ecommerce), but this is the big difference between a YouTuber and small tech sites, versus stuff like Tom's Hardware.
Thanks for this response Jarred. Clear, measured and insightful. This is the kind of stuff I come to Tom's for. There's not many editors that would take the time to respond in such a manner. Now excuse me as I allude to my prior post... it has been a good day!
Until it dies we'll probably have the 20th gen, scratch that, until it becomes somewhat slow enough to consider upgrading we'll have the 20th gen.
I'm still rocking an i7-4770k from 2013. Only reason I am looking to upgrade is I need more than 32GB RAM to really make my desktop a good virtual home lab. Overall the CPU has enough grunt for the 6700XT and the games in which I play.
I didn't expect Intel to reign in power efficiency all that much, I just expected that, since this was a refresh, that they'd be able to push a few hundred extra MHz without increasing the power consumption. From looking at what we're seeing here, this isn't a refresh at all, it's just Intel managing to get faster stable clocks on the same 13th-gen silicon. This "refresh" could just be chocked up to Intel selling higher-binned 13th-gen silicon and just calling it 14th-gen. I think that a more honest name for the i9-14900K would be the i9-13950K, but hey, you and I both know just how important something like honesty is to big corporations like this, eh?
I agree. Intel 13th and "14th" gen CPUs are essentially "Liquid Cooling Required" CPUs if you want to avoid thermal throttling.
Then it's not really a refresh, it's just Intel selling higher-binned 13th-gen silicon and calling it "14th-gen". A refresh means that the silicon was re-worked and usually results in higher clocks (even if only slightly so) without increased power consumption. If Intel referred to the i9-14900K as the i9-13950K, then I would have no issues with it but they're trying to call this a whole new generation even though it's not.
I agree with you on that one for sure!
And yet, for some crazy reason, people keep buying them and so do OEMs.
To be fair they did increase performance without increasing power consumption, but no premium motherboards on the market run them at their stock PL2. TPU's review shows peak stock 14900K power consumption within 5W of the 13900K and in the application tests they were 1W apart all while maintaining a slight performance bump. This is still on Intel because they don't seem to care about this behavior, but these chips are no different than 9th-10th gen refreshes.I didn't expect Intel to reign in power efficiency all that much, I just expected that, since this was a refresh, that they'd be able to push a few hundred extra MHz without increasing the power consumption. From looking at what we're seeing here, this isn't a refresh at all, it's just Intel managing to get faster stable clocks on the same 13th-gen silicon. This "refresh" could just be chocked up to Intel selling higher-binned 13th-gen silicon and just calling it 14th-gen. I think that a more honest name for the i9-14900K would be the i9-13950K, but hey, you and I both know just how important something like honesty is to big corporations like this, eh?
Well, that is better than it appeared, but I still think that it's disingenuous to call these CPUs a different generation. I think that a much more fitting name for the i9-14900K would have been the i9-13950K because this isn't really a new generation of CPUs.
This is the new gen 11+++ edition need greather numbers for show the advanced node of the advanced node plus edition alpha +. In some days the intel will launch a new way to perform benchmark. Some benchmark will have the ultra zoom mode.
Oh absolutely, but they need to help their OEM partners and the precedent is long set.
Is it they they don't care, or is it they they encourage this, because it gives them they miniscule benefit over running within the limits?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram