News Intel Core i9-14900KS Review: The Last Core i9 Hits Record 6.2 GHz at Stock Settings

[bit_user]

@bit_user you are trying to be fair, but are you really being fair?
Nobody would ever recommend anyone to buy DDR4 these days for a new system.

I didn't take a position on that matter. I just said the argument should be a numerical one and that way it boils down to a value judgement for each person to make for themselves.

Let's talk about it in terms of cost @ the same performance, or performance @ the same cost.

 

[bit_user]

This is simply not true. Not only because of reuse of existing parts but because of lower latency in DDR4.

Don't forget to divide latency by speed, in order to get the actual number of ns. A DDR5-7200 CL34 kit actually has lower latency than a DDR4-3600 CL18 kit!

And yes, in case you're not aware, such a DDR5 product is sold as Team T-Force Delta.

Speeds are comparable between 4 and 5 except for really high OC like 7600 or 8000.

"Speeds" as in application performance? It depends on what you're doing, but it can definitely make a difference. Entire articles have been written about the subject.

Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review (Page 16)

Recently look at the performance differential between DDR5 6000 and 7200 MHz on Raptor-Lake, Intels Gen 13th series processors. Today we review a TeamGroup T-Force Delta 7200 CL34 (!) DDR5 kit to see...

www.guru3d.com

Exaggeration creeps into articles almost without the author even noticing; It needs to be filtered out. But bias is in the head of the reader, not the writer. All the writer can do is choose from a collection of facts and experiences, same as we all do. And they are cherry-picked by default. The articles are never perfect, and they don't need to be.

That's ridiculous. While you can never exactly match a set of benchmarks to any one reader's interests, this can be done better or worse. An unscrupulous reviewer can absolutely skew results by doing things like deciding which benchmarks to include or how to run them.

 

[Udyr]

That's ridiculous. While you can never exactly match a set of benchmarks to any one reader's interests, this can be done better or worse. An unscrupulous reviewer can absolutely skew results by doing things like deciding which benchmarks to include or how to run them.

"Just buy it"
- Someone, somewhere.

 

[Lucky_SLS]

New system, sure. But if you already have decent DDR4 kits why not? I know a lot of people that have 13900k / 14900k and still use DDR4 cause they already owned dual rank 32gb bdie kits. We are talking about 4000c14 kits etc. I wouldn't replace them if I had them.

Talking about DDR4 when coming from an 8th gen part with 3200mhz is fine for a 14700k or even 14900k.

The KS costs 140 USD more over the 14900k. The user who shells out that much would definitely go for DDR5. The performance difference is small but not zero when you compare DDR4 vs DDR5 in gaming. You would be having the same performance by going for DDR4 and 14900KS vs DDR5 and 14900K. Whats the point?

Not supporting Intel, just my opinion on cost and DDR4 with a ludicrous part like the 14900KS.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

Paul really needs to be replaced.
Constantly reading Intel praise centric crap is not only unfair on competitors, it's a blight on Toms.
Will he mention lack of DDR4 support on Intel 15900K, not a chance.
He is always begrudging in his reviews where AMD wins and will do anything possible to shine a good light on Intel.
With such bias, it's difficult to trust anything he posts, including results.

I find it strange that your account dates to 2013, and you've only contributed a handful of times, yet two of those were in the past 24 hours to complain about authors on this site...

I'm not here to attack you, but I find the timing odd. Why weigh in so negatively now?

 

[bit_user]

The KS costs 140 USD more over the 14900k. The user who shells out that much would definitely go for DDR5. The performance difference is small but not zero when you compare DDR4 vs DDR5 in gaming. You would be having the same performance by going for DDR4 and 14900KS vs DDR5 and 14900K. Whats the point?

We're on a tangent. I think nobody proposed using DDR4 with either 14th gen i9 CPU, in this thread, nor does the article. Rather, the issue was raised in reference to the way the author (Paul) still views lack of DDR4 support as a con for AMD's AM5 platform. However, the most recently-reviewed AM5 product was a low-end model (8600G, IIRC).

Had it been higher-end, I think we might reasonably say Paul was being unfair. For instance, just as you wouldn't typically buy a i9-14900KS just to turn around and use it with DDR4, nor would one do that with a premium AMD CPU model, like the R9 7950X3D.

 

[TheHerald]

Talking about DDR4 when coming from an 8th gen part with 3200mhz is fine for a 14700k or even 14900k.

The KS costs 140 USD more over the 14900k. The user who shells out that much would definitely go for DDR5. The performance difference is small but not zero when you compare DDR4 vs DDR5 in gaming. You would be having the same performance by going for DDR4 and 14900KS vs DDR5 and 14900K. Whats the point?

Not supporting Intel, just my opinion on cost and DDR4 with a ludicrous part like the 14900KS.

Honest to god, if I indeed had some 4000mhz dual rank 32gb bdie kits I would still be using them. I only had 4000 bdie kits single rank 16gb, and that's the only reason I went for ddr5.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

@icycool , fine to air your concerns, but let's please not talk about people being "replaced".

FWIW, I've read Paul's articles for many years and appreciate his depth and attention to detail. I know many have voiced the same concern you shared about his apparent proclivity towards DDR4-supporting platforms at a time when it seems to conveniently align with Intel.

I think Paul could do a lot either to defend this position or perhaps reconsider, if he would make a numerical argument by pricing out a comparably-performing Intel or AMD system (i.e. just motherboard + CPU + RAM). If the overall cost argument no longer goes in Intel's favor, then drop DDR4 as a pro/con. However, if DDR4 still makes the difference, then at least he can point to an amount of $ that it's costing people to go with the AM5-based option.

I have made many numerical comparisons of the price of the chip, system, and motherboard with DDR4 vs DDR5 in both reviews and articles. Those price comparisons, in tables and text, are here on the website. They aren't in every single article because there are times when it isn't as much of a factor, if at all. For instance, in this review for this chip, which no one in their right mind would kit out with DDR4.

In fact, DDR4 isn't even mentioned in this article beyond the fact that the chip supports it, yet here we are. Reading these comments gives the overwhelming sense that I have recommended this chip, whereas the article states otherwise.

 

[Rogue Leader]

@bit_user you are trying to be fair, but are you really being fair?
Nobody would ever recommend anyone to buy DDR4 these days for a new system.

GN provides unbiased reviews.
Jared provides excellent GPU reviews.
Paul is just dead to me, literally not even worth scrolling to the bit where "Intel is the best!".

This is your one and only warning, we got it, you don't love some of Tom's reporters. If you would like to continue mean spirited attacks on them you won't be posting here. Let it go.

Posting this publicly because this should go for all. We are all adults here, act like it.