News Intel Core i9-14900K, i7-14700K and i5-14600K Review: Raptor Lake Refresh XXX

[thestryker]

I do understand that! However, I also understand that Paul just installed the new CPUs the same way your typical DIY'er would. That makes the review valid, IMO.

It's not a review of the product though so it shouldn't be labeled as such.

It's important to test these products as they function out-of-the-box. As a supplemental test, it would be highly informative to test them as per the official Intel spec.

This isn't testing the CPU as it functions out of the box however and you don't seem to be understanding that. This is only testing as it stands in this reviewers setup with the results not being representative. For example if they were running one of the MSI boards which had their thermal throttle limit raised the results would be wildly different. This is the problem with reviewing this way while not providing the baseline. Professional reviewers didn't hand wave away MCE when it first started getting enabled and they shouldn't with this either.

I agree with @King_V that Intel is basically trying to have it both ways. By letting their board partners use non-standard specs, reviewers get the best performance benchmarks. However, because it's non-standard, Intel can claim the power figures are invalid (without mentioning the performance is also invalidated). It's a clever tactic, but I don't think it wowrks. All people see are the countless reviews showing the out-of-the-box behavior - both in terms of performance, but also heat & power.

I think you're both overestimating how much Intel actually cares. Motherboard makers do these things to try to position themselves above each other and always have since the early days of MCE.

If Intel cared about how the results looked they'd actually mandate specific settings to make themselves look better. Instead what the reviews end up looking like is a bunch of varying performance and power consumption which is all over the place. With this it's pretty hard to nail down any conclusion other than high power consumption.

Let's face it with this launch if they really cared about how things looked the only CPU they'd have sampled early is the 14700K.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel is very specifically NOT doing anything to stop the MB makers from this. Ergo, Intel does not want them to stop.

Oh yes they do, they very specifically and explicitly state at what point you are losing your warranty, mobo makers have the warranty condition of only using their products properly.
So both intel and gigabyte are telling you that you only are covered under warranty if you stay below max allowed settings, which includes TDP or max power.

Does any review every say that, hey these settings will null your warranty so that's what we are showing you, we want you to lose your warranty.

Earn Points, Unlock Badges. Get Rewards. | GIGABYTE AORUS Rewards Program

Make the most of your membership — enjoy games, invite friends, earn points, get rewards, and more. Get 5 AORUS Points immediately by using my Invite Code when you sign up!

member.aorus.com

If the Product fails during normal and proper use within the warranty period, GIGABYTE will, at its discretion, repair or replace the Product.

 

[sundragon]

I saw the review on Gamers Nexus and they roasted the i9-14900K because it's barely (within variance) better than the 13900K - It's embarrassing that Intel's touting this as a successor when more than half the tests had 0-3% improvement or less - Especially at the price. Just buy the X3D from AMD or the older 13900K and save $100 and save face.

 

[King_V]

Oh yes they do, they very specifically and explicitly state at what point you are losing your warranty, mobo makers have the warranty condition of only using their products properly.
So both intel and gigabyte are telling you that you only are covered under warranty if you stay below max allowed settings, which includes TDP or max power.

Does any review every say that, hey these settings will null your warranty so that's what we are showing you, we want you to lose your warranty.

Earn Points, Unlock Badges. Get Rewards. | GIGABYTE AORUS Rewards Program

Make the most of your membership — enjoy games, invite friends, earn points, get rewards, and more. Get 5 AORUS Points immediately by using my Invite Code when you sign up!

member.aorus.com

So, then, what Intel is getting is the extra bit of performance that the reviewers show, AND evading any warranty responsibility? Seriously?

Your argument seems to require an even bigger conspiracy. ie: for Intel, and ONLY Intel, everything is arranged so that the customer is screwed if they just plug it in and go, without carefully adjusting the BIOS settings.

If what you're saying in your posts is true, then you're making one of the biggest arguments possible AGAINST buying an Intel platform. Why would anyone take that chance if they run the risk of overheating and running beyond spec, and voiding their warranty, just by running things as-is out of the box?

 

[bit_user]

"Typical DIY'er "

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HY6kJy

You seem to be implying something by including the mail-in rebate? As far as I can tell, PCPartPicker automatically populates that field.

 

[rambo919]

So, then, what Intel is getting is the extra bit of performance that the reviewers show, AND evading any warranty responsibility? Seriously?

Your argument seems to require an even bigger conspiracy. ie: for Intel, and ONLY Intel, everything is arranged so that the customer is screwed if they just plug it in and go, without carefully adjusting the BIOS settings.

If what you're saying in your posts is true, then you're making one of the biggest arguments possible AGAINST buying an Intel platform. Why would anyone take that chance if they run the risk of overheating and running beyond spec, and voiding their warranty, just by running things as-is out of the box?

It's the same on both sides, it's just the kind of risks that are different.

 

[rambo919]

I saw the review on Gamers Nexus and they roasted the i9-14900K because it's barely (within variance) better than the 13900K - It's embarrassing that Intel's touting this as a successor when more than half the tests had 0-3% improvement or less - Especially at the price. Just buy the X3D from AMD or the older 13900K and save $100 and save face.

To be fair. When it comes to the highest end hardware.... most software does not take advantage of it. You basically buy this grade of hardware for niche use cases or bragging rights.

Most people will be fine with non-K i7's at highest which is about where the improvements this refresh seems to top out..... but that just means they probably should have done a lot of this already in the 13th gen but were saving it up for the pre-planned refresh.

 

[TerryLaze]

So, then, what Intel is getting is the extra bit of performance that the reviewers show, AND evading any warranty responsibility? Seriously?

Your argument seems to require an even bigger conspiracy. ie: for Intel, and ONLY Intel, everything is arranged so that the customer is screwed if they just plug it in and go, without carefully adjusting the BIOS settings.

If what you're saying in your posts is true, then you're making one of the biggest arguments possible AGAINST buying an Intel platform. Why would anyone take that chance if they run the risk of overheating and running beyond spec, and voiding their warranty, just by running things as-is out of the box?

That's EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ELECTRONICS you have at home, yes AMD included, when their CPUs where blowing up that wasn't covered under warranty either.
(They did replace them to avoid even more bad press and intel would also replace CPUs damaged from overclocking but it's still up to them to do it or not)
You are supposed to know these things, just like you are supposed to know not to stick hamsters in the microwave, especially if you are spending like 4k on a system you are supposed to know what you are doing.

The only disingenuous party here are the reviewers that don't clearly mark warranty voiding results as such.

 

[TerryLaze]

You seem to be implying something by including the mail-in rebate? As far as I can tell, PCPartPicker automatically populates that field.

I just copy pasted the total, as you said it was added automatically so I left it there because otherwise some smartass would have said, "but it was $20 cheaper than what you claim"

 

[bit_user]

It's not a review of the product though so it shouldn't be labeled as such.

It is, though. It's a review of how it functions in that board or similar.

This isn't testing the CPU as it functions out of the box however and you don't seem to be understanding that.

I do understand your point - I just disagree. It's arrogant to suggest the only reason I disagree is that I don't understand you. You don't have a monopoly on the One True Way to do benchmarking.

If the motherboard used were unique in how it treated the CPU, you might have a point. However, I agree with @King_V - that Intel made a conscious decision to advertise its CPUs at one TDP & turbo power, while doing nothing to prevent motherboards from exceeding those limits, nor even warning people that motherboards might do that by default.

Intel is really trying to have it both ways and I don't think that is right. They want the performance advantage of having motherboards exceed the CPU's advertised limits by default, while then being able to turn around and blame the user or reviewer for the CPU burning so much power and throttling all over the place.

At minimum, what Intel should do is put a huge disclaimer on the power limits, stating that these are only the manufacturer-suggested limits, whereas actual motherboards and systems may exceed these specifications. Better yet might be to specify the limits they actually do enforce.

I think you're both overestimating how much Intel actually cares.

I can't prove you wrong, but it seems obvious to me that they absolutely care how these things benchmark! They just don't want to control the situation, because that would destroy their plausible deniability.

 

[bit_user]

Oh yes they do, they very specifically and explicitly state at what point you are losing your warranty, mobo makers have the warranty condition of only using their products properly.

The problem is that you can exceed the specified limits of the CPU, at all, without losing the warranty. So, of course many board manufacturers are going to do that!

If the Product fails during normal and proper use within the warranty period, GIGABYTE will, at its discretion, repair or replace the Product.

I think that's referring to the motherboard, itself. I'd be very surprised if the motherboard warrany covered the CPU, RAM, SSD, etc.

 

[rambo919]

I think that's referring to the motherboard, itself. I'd be very surprised if the motherboard warrany covered the CPU, RAM, SSD, etc.

If that happens and no warrenty covers it.... it would probably be shifted to insurance if you have it. But it can become a very complicated mess.

 

[thestryker]

It is, though. It's a review of how it functions in that board or similar.

Then it's a motherboard review not a CPU review.

I do understand your point - I just disagree. It's arrogant to suggest the only reason I disagree is that I don't understand you.

Your previous statement proves what I said about you not understanding what I'm saying. The review isn't just reviewing the CPU at that point it's reviewing the CPU binning (which locking to PL2 does not do), specific motherboard, power delivery and cooling. If you do understand my point you're just completely ignoring it to suit your own purposes.

You don't have a monopoly on the One True Way to do benchmarking.

You're right I don't, but I can point out when a reviewer does something in a fashion which makes their data comparatively useless.

If the motherboard used were unique in how it treated the CPU, you might have a point. However, I agree with @King_V - that Intel made a conscious decision to advertise its CPUs at one TDP & turbo power, while doing nothing to prevent motherboards from exceeding those limits, nor even warning people that motherboards might do that by default.

Intel is really trying to have it both ways and I don't think that is right. They want the performance advantage of having motherboards exceed the CPU's advertised limits by default, while then being able to turn around and blame the user or reviewer for the CPU burning so much power and throttling all over the place.

At minimum, what Intel should do is put a huge disclaimer on the power limits, stating that these are only the manufacturer-suggested limits, whereas actual motherboards and systems may exceed these specifications. Better yet might be to specify the limits they actually do enforce.

So you're saying a reviewer using relatively useless data is okay because Intel doesn't police the motherboard makers to your liking?

I can't prove you wrong, but it seems obvious to me that they absolutely care how these things benchmark! They just don't want to control the situation, because that would destroy their plausible deniability.

So it's a conspiracy to muddy the review waters? That's quite literally what you're saying here. You realize that some form of this has been the case with motherboards for over a decade right?

For example this article dates back to when Ian was motherboard reviewer and talking about motherboards, but they disabled it for CPU reviews:

MultiCore Enhancement: The Debate About Free MHz

www.anandtech.com

 

[sundragon]

To be fair. When it comes to the highest end hardware.... most software does not take advantage of it. You basically buy this grade of hardware for niche use cases or bragging rights.

Most people will be fine with non-K i7's at highest which is about where the improvements this refresh seems to top out..... but that just means they probably should have done a lot of this already in the 13th gen but were saving it up for the pre-planned refresh.

It's just embarrassing to see Intel's most recent "top tier" offering being no different in the most strenuous tests - It's not even future proofing with new features, it's just a different label for a higher price. SMH

 

[TerryLaze]

It's just embarrassing to see Intel's most recent "top tier" offering being no different in the most strenuous tests - It's not even future proofing with new features, it's just a different label for a higher price. SMH

Not that it makes these CPUs any better but they did introduce new features, the application optimizer could be a big change especially for people that can't be bothered to shut off e-cores or to use a tool to confine a game to p-cores only and stuff like that.​

And of course toms did report on these things being new but promptly did not benchmark these two games to see if the claims are true.

AI-Assisted Overclocking and the Application Performance Optimizer​

 

[thestryker]

It's just embarrassing to see Intel's most recent "top tier" offering being no different in the most strenuous tests - It's not even future proofing with new features, it's just a different label for a higher price. SMH

You mean same price, because while it's far more likely to see 13th gen discounted Intel's 14th gen shares the exact same tray price.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel is really trying to have it both ways and I don't think that is right. They want the performance advantage of having motherboards exceed the CPU's advertised limits by default, while then being able to turn around and blame the user or reviewer for the CPU burning so much power and throttling all over the place.

On a pretty decent range of multi apps open/unlimited grants a whole whopping 1% more performance than 253W , that's too little to even call it variance, it's the exact same performance...
That's another reason that it's incredibly disingenuous to not show both results, it makes people like you believe that the difference from more power is huge, and you are a person that seeks for the truth and wants proof for everything, imagine other people.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www.computerbase.de

 

[bit_user]

Then it's a motherboard review not a CPU review.

No, because the motherboard performs differently with different CPUs in it. What it's measuring is a system. However, you could reasonably expect all motherboards enforcing similar limits to perform similarly.

If you do understand my point you're just completely ignoring it to suit your own purposes.

I don't have any more purpose than I suppose you do. I can have opinions about things without a particular purpose in mind.

So you're saying a reviewer using relatively useless data is okay because Intel doesn't police the motherboard makers to your liking?

So, if your point is that this data is irrelevant because it's so highly-specific to the motherboard, then perhaps you can show me a breakdown of which motherboards enforce which limits, so we can appreciate just how niche this one is.

So it's a conspiracy to muddy the review waters? That's quite literally what you're saying here.

Conspiracy is a big word. I liken it to nutrition labeling, on packaged food. One way to lower the unhealthy parameters is to quote an artificially small serving size.

If Intel isn't going to enforce the PL values they advertise, and they're not even warranty-voiding, then they don't really have a lot of meaning, do they? There's no real disincentive to deviate from them. At that point, they become mere suggestions.

You realize that some form of this has been the case with motherboards for over a decade right?

What changed is when Intel decided they were no longer warranty-voiding, which I think happened only about 2 years ago.

 

[bit_user]

On a pretty decent range of multi apps open/unlimited grants a whole whopping 1% more performance than 253W , that's too little to even call it variance, it's the exact same performance...

That computebase article measures 13th gen. Now, show me one that repeats the same tests on 14th gen.

it makes people like you believe that the difference from more power is huge, and you are a person that seeks for the truth and wants proof for everything, imagine other people.

I never said how big the difference was. As I've asked you before, don't put words in my mouth.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www.computerbase.de

Even if the difference for 14th gen would also round to 1%, as it did with the 13th gen tests you quoted there, that's still significant given the main difference between the two is only their clock speeds (and by only about 3.4%, max).

 

[thestryker]

However, you could reasonably expect all motherboards enforcing similar limits to perform similarly.

No you really can't, because you could put another 14900K in there and get different numbers across the board.

How about this:
Anandtech had peak power ~428, TPU 406, and Tom's highest was 359
That's just 3 reviewers using 3 different boards (with 3 different 14900K CPUs obviously). I'm not sure how you think these numbers can lead to comparative results without there also being a comparison to the CPU running stock power levels. If reviewers are all getting different power consumption and different benchmark results (that don't necessarily scale with power consumption) how is someone supposed to come to a reasonable conclusion?

I'm not going to waste anymore time repeating myself on this topic as it's clear you have no problem with varied CPU test results due to non CPU related reasons and I do.

What changed is when Intel decided they were no longer warranty-voiding, which I think happened only about 2 years ago.

If you actually read the article or know the history they've never voided warranty for MCE and it was on by default then as well.

 

[bit_user]

No you really can't, because you could put another 14900K in there and get different numbers across the board.

I guess that depends on how much variation there is between those CPUs.

How about this:
Anandtech had peak power ~428, TPU 406, and Tom's highest was 359

Probably a lot of that can be explained by differences in measurement methodology. I'm pretty sure Anandtech's is a point measurement - that's what they've done in the recent past, and why their values tend to be so outrageous. Tom's is the average over an entire Prime95 test run, which makes it substantially more relevant.

TechPowerUp actually measured 282 W, with enforced PL & Tau, but that was on a different workload - Blender. I don't know which scene, however. The 407 W value is for "All Power Limits Removed".

That's just 3 reviewers using 3 different boards (with 3 different 14900K CPUs obviously). I'm not sure how you think these numbers can lead to comparative results without there also being a comparison to the CPU running stock power levels.

The fact that you're comparing results across different tests and methodologies tells me you're not truly interested in having a serious discussion about benchmarking. I'm not going to speculate what your agenda is, but I'm not interested in being your foil.

it's clear you have no problem with varied CPU test results due to non CPU related reasons

How about not putting words in my mouth?

The problem is Intel. They're claiming the power limits are one thing, but that's not how it's being used in the wild. They created this mess, and it's really not clear what you're proposing be done about it that would also set realistic expectations for what an end-user experiences, when building or buying a system with these CPUs.

If you actually read the article or know the history they've never voided warranty for MCE and it was on by default then as well.

Intel didn't officially allow MCE. All that article says is that the author has heard that Intel was willing to honor the warranty on CPUs where MCE had been enabled.

 

[RodroX]

Actually, they did.

​

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D Review: New Mid-Range Gaming Champ Is a Micro Center Exclusive

95% of the 5800X3D’s gaming performance for 20% less cash

www.tomshardware.com

​

Yes, I know, I meant a worldwide launch. Like what they did with the R7 5800X3D or the new 7xxxX3D.

 

[bit_user]

Yes, I know, I meant a worldwide launch. Like what they did with the R7 5800X3D or the new 7xxxX3D.

Yes, but at least you can see how the 5600X3D performs and might even be priced.

 

[ilukey77]

Yes, I know, I meant a worldwide launch. Like what they did with the R7 5800X3D or the new 7xxxX3D.

the 5600x3d is sadly a MEH product its sole purpose is to sell rejected 5800x3ds and at a small amount..

I get why it now exists past been a rejected 5800x3d as the 5800x3d was a huge sell it and see product so at the time was little faith in the x3d line up which has now all changed !

 

[TerryLaze]

No, because the motherboard performs differently with different CPUs in it. What it's measuring is a system. However, you could reasonably expect all motherboards enforcing similar limits to perform similarly.

Look at the title of this review, does it say review of a system? This is a CPU review which means that you have to isolate everything as much as possible to only show differences that actually come from the CPU, and not from mobo settings or anything else.

So, if your point is that this data is irrelevant because it's so highly-specific to the motherboard, then perhaps you can show me a breakdown of which motherboards enforce which limits, so we can appreciate just how niche this one is.

These mobos will still support 14th gen, out of 10 mobos with the default settings only one pushed to 200W while one was as low as 65W, 7 out of 10 stuck with the suggested TDP of 125W.
Yes, these are Budget boards, that is the point we are making, the CPU will run differently depending on the mobo you use.
(You can find the video on youtube by using the title under the pic. )

What changed is when Intel decided they were no longer warranty-voiding, which I think happened only about 2 years ago.

Quote,link, something?!

That computebase article measures 13th gen. Now, show me one that repeats the same tests on 14th gen.

Why?! What for?! Just so you can drag this out forever?!
They are the same thing.

I never said how big the difference was. As I've asked you before, don't put words in my mouth.

So you left out a very important fact, I stated that fact and now you are calling this putting words in your mouth?! Seriously?!

Even if the difference for 14th gen would also round to 1%, as it did with the 13th gen tests you quoted there, that's still significant given the main difference between the two is only their clock speeds (and by only about 3.4%, max).

Maybe it would be significant if it started with the 14th gen but it started many gens ago now.
The 13th gen gains this 1% as well, so the final difference is no different.