That also explains why it seems like both 13th & 14th Gen CPUs are affected by the same instability problems. Because they are literally the same chips.
I was originally intending to get a 14th gen chip as I thought it would be all new and shiny, but after seeing that they've done practically nothing with it, my next upgrade is gonna be an AMD instead! Well done intel, I haven't bought an AMD chip since my old Athlon XP!
@@TheBlackBuddha17 he may need a pc for the next 12-16 months lol (also relying on trusting intel on a product at least a year away when they called 14th gen a 'significant' uplift)
Why did you thought that 14th gen would be all new and shiny ? It was known for many months already that it will be a refresh and only mildly interesting, at best. It's still a good choice if you know you won't upgrade anytime soon (otherwise just get AMD with AM5, and you'll be guaranteed a nice upgrade to Zen5, possible Zen6 too) or if you want a cheap modern & powerful $100 CPU, like i3 14100 or i3 14300 (when they'll appear, I think in January 2024). That would still play all games at a good level, for now and the next 2 or so years.
For my 13900k and 14900k I have done the following: MCE off, PL1 and PL2 limit to 225, limit P-core boost to 5.5 GHz and E-core boost to 4.3GHz, and use balanced power profile in Windows (although I do disable core parking to keep system highly responsive). Oh and just XMP on the RAM. I didn’t change LLC value. I have set voltage offset at a modest -0.015v and set the Core limit to 300 Amps. I have disabled the C6&C7 C states and EIST. Lastly I have locked AVX at 0 offset. I have tested on P95, CB R23 and CB R15. All great and in a mid 20 degree room, no workload exceeds 80c on package or cores. Very happy and benchmarks are very close to where they were before taming these beasts.
Intel is basically so shady that essentially they will overclock the processor scribble out the last generation name and then claim it's a new processor. Was it essentially having the same more or less performance. I think these large companies are beginning to become too comfortable in there high prestige in confidence in market industries where they dominate in. It is very rare that you ever see a single one of these companies deviate in what they do or ever try anything truly different than what they're already doing. These companies stick to what works. If nobody has learned this you vote with your wallet. imagine if 15th gen intel felt like doing a rug pull because lets say people who had 13th gen felt like oh I need 14th gen and everyone rushes out and gets it. The that could send the WRONG Signal to these large corporate companies that they can have stagnate Innovation keep things the same just rename product pump out the same thing as last year and make the same money. imagine that we could realistically flip the script and cancel current 14th gen and make the 15th gen the proper 14th gen that it should be. even if intel doesn't pump out a new CPU for 2 years, that would be better than pumping out some e waste.
Yeah they have released something just because of yearly deadline and if it wasn't an obligation they wouldn"t release a thing, because these are a shame anyways, and all the changes from previous gen are done in squeezing last juice for given (already absurdly high) tdp and regulated purely by the need to do at least something because nothing else that would for real be a technical improvement is ready. I also liked GN's comparison of i5 power usage. It says IT ALL about how intel does things, no improvement just faking it. Idk who invented yearly deadlines, maybe its a "social trend" like with other comsumer stuff but AMD switched from 1 year to 1.5 year as far as i noticed and noone stopped buying them because of that.. when "trends" go against reasonability they should be abolished. Also i miss old namings and cpu tweaks within a generation, like we had fx 6100 6120 6200 or 4770k 4790k or phenom 455 465 black edition etc, it was kinda cool to see not just 000s at the end. Social trends make people stupid
Yeah if the 14900K had a little more cache or actually a better memory controller then I might be interested but with some overclocking I think my 13900K will do fine for another year 😌
Why would you have been interested regardless? :/ You'd have spent another $500+ just for a little more cache or something? I genuinely do not understand some consumers. More money than sense.
They didn't even have the respect to put the 13900K Super Saiyan Edition in a special fancy box. Intel is telling use through marketing that they think we are all stupid.
HUB found the 14th gen parts do appear to get a little bump in performance at the same clock speed, it seems like there might be some kind of microcode change. Pretty crap either way.
@@attepatte8485 There's some slight changes to the VID tables but it's pretty marginal, the sample variance from one chip to the next is bigger than the difference of the averages?
I think Techtesters found DVLR gave reasonable performance boosts at limited power and ST has reduced power consumption, but the way Intel & mobo defaults ignore power limits meant this was masked in most reviews. The sheer cheek of launching these tweaks as a new generation is the most impressive thing. I think the Zen3 B1 (or 2) stepping was as significant in power draw.
@@RobBCactive I thought DLVR (Digital Linear Voltage Regulator) was present in 13th gen, but disabled, because it wasn't working properly. And I thought they got it working in 14th gen, and that's why we see ~10% lower power usage in lower SKUs. 14900 is maxed out, but 14600 compared to 13600 consumes less and it has marginal improvement in performance.
@@alpha007org yeah, DLVR didn't work like Thread Director was buggy in 12th gen, something improved in Raptor. Relying on thermal throttling hid the improvement in most reviews. Fact is AMD Threadripper is more exciting than this launch.
LOL same stepping! What will be funny to observe is "minimum whatever requirements" demanding 14th gen but not 13th. I mean hard requirements like Microsoft's.
I think it's scummy to advertise it as an entirely new generation, I caught them on Twitter/X calling the 14900K a massive leap in performance and efficiency, they should be sued for misleading non tech savvy customers. Calling it 13900KS would have been fine, delaying it until they have the tile-based design ready would have been acceptable. But we all know Intel, they have been struggling since Skylake, Apple gave them a push when they got divorced in 2020, hybrid architecture is a win but Intel is still struggling, they have been recycling the same process node for years, they refuse to use TSMC, they compensate the non-existent IPC improvements by completely discarding efficiency and pushing their CPU's to consume 250W+, their AVX-512 platform still suck, their compression/decompression performance still lags behind AMD. Their architecture is a MESS, they can't even clock the cores at different frequencies, if one core is maxed out while all the other cores are idling, well to bad, the frequency of all cores match the maxed core freq because they can't individually control them. They removed the I/O controller from CPU and made it on the motherboard instead since the 12th gen, making the system latency higher for no damn reason. Intel is struggling HARD....................................................
Nah, cars do it for years. A "New generation of XXXXX car", but it's the same plataform, engine but with a new bodywork design.. It's fine, it does change enough to be a "new generation" with the AI stuff and a new core count for some of the chips. It's not what ppl expected but i don't get what they expected since they said that 14th gen would be on socket 1700
Just a qucik note; Intel is fighting AMD with 10nm. Let that sink in for a moment. Yes i agree they are greedy mfs and they dont want to push all cards out, but honestly they might have it all prepeared! ;)
Really happy with my 13600K (AM5 mobo prices were crazy when I upgraded a year ago) but I honestly expected 14th gen to be a decent uplift, something where in a bunch of years I could upgrade to the 14700K and see a decent difference. That was disappointing, LGA 1700 finally ended up supporting 12th Gen, 13th Gen, and 13th Gen Again.
Tbh I kinda figured that performance would be about the same. Plus intel’s stock price isn’t amazing, though they have good dividends. I figured they would do the most pro-profit thing while they’re low (sell the same thing with a different name). I figured we wouldn’t get a real upgrade until the next socket.
inb4 User Benchmark sings high praises on how much better it is compared to 13th gen and how obviously greater it is than the AMD counterpart and anybody saying otherwise are AMD paid shills
Didn't 14th gen bring DLVR as minor change? (At least that's the common reasoning for the +200 MHz boost) 14500 and below still use Alder Lake silicon (C0 with lower L2 and slower DDR5) For me personally this is not enough to call it a new generation though
I don't think it should receive 0 points for manufacturing node and core increases. First, the manufacturing node might be improved a bit. Really, small increase, but it's there. Either that or it's the DLVR working (which I don't know where it would be classified). 14600K is ever so slightly faster, at about 10% less power draw (and 100?MHz more) than 13600K. This is very similar, but clearly not the same exact chip and everything else. And to be frank, I think 14900K can be much better with tuned voltage, it seems to me that mobo manufacturers put a too-high voltage, to make sure all hit 6GHz. And that's why it consumes even more than 13900K, even at the same clock speeds. That shouldn't normally happen, and I think it's because of mobo default/stock voltage/power settings. The memory controller got improved too, though we don't know by how much. Buildoid made a video about a few tests, and it doesn't seem like much, one was better, another was the same. Still early to tell. The 13th gen i5s and i3s with Alder Lake cores will hopefully have Raptor Lake cores in 14th gen, so that would be an improvement. 14700K did got more cores and cache, so maybe not fully 0 points there either. Overall, all the changes are really small. And put together, they're still small. Still, if Kaby Lake (7th gen) was a new gen, then I don't see why 14th gen wouldn't be a new gen.
by that logic the first i7 6700k to roll out of the factory and the last i7 6700k rolling out before the skylake s production shut down was a new gen with the same name, try a better logic next
@@OfSheikah Fair point, but if Kaby Lake was a different generation, then Raptor Lake refresh is a different generation too. While on that, I still get conflicting information regarding the DLVR. Some say it's enabled, some say it isn't. I wish we can get a definitive answer.
Intels order of priorities goes: #1 - Server/HPC #2 - laptop/mobile #3 - Desktop #4 - Enthusiast/DIY So from a business perspective it does make sense. With AMD and now ARM chip makers hot on intels heels, they can't afford to lose ground in server and laptop. Even if that means ceding the desktop to AMD.
The 14700 got a core count increase so its the only one who deserves a point for new generation. Its price stays same so it literally the better choice in price per core.
I am not happy with Intel's behavior at all, calling them shady is being nice. Not only is 14th gen a rebranding of the 13900KS but on top of that they are releasing a brand new micro code (Reptar mitigation) for everything below the 14th gen that will make them slower. I am currently on a 12900K, I have installed at least two microcode updates on it which completely slowed it down. Microsoft and Intel have a very good relationship, so good of a relationship that whenever Intel needs to slow down its older processors they send out security updates. Even if you avoid updating your bios, Microsoft will install a security patch that will bring down your processors performance. So their ideology is "We can't bring out a new product, so we'll just slow down your current one to make this release look shinny".
Have had a 13700K since launch and to be honest, it has performed exceptionally, in fact it is a great CPU for my workloads both semi pro and gaming...but 14th gen is just the same with a minor clock boost, so not new at all except the 14700k which really is not new either though if the 13th gen gets reduced in price by a nice amount, then okay....
LGA1700 is the best and worst Intel platform. We got a brand new node, new architecture and new core design, but we also got a totally pointless Refresh "generation" that's nothing more than a cashgrab for consumers and middleground for investors.
though some of the models are a new architecture like 13600 was based on Alter Lake (with the smaller cache) while 14600 is now a Raptor Lake (with bigger cache).
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot mostly due to the desktop vs mobile issue - the new mobile chips will be a decent upgrade, but the new desktop ones won't. That would be fine in a vacuum, but from a marketing perspective, I think that will be a negative thing overall. The one thing that can help with this is the re-branding on the mobile side not being applied yet to the desktop side, so maybe they will be fine. Few will upgrade from 13th to 14th but I think anyone who hasn't upgraded from 12th to 13th might upgrade to 14th. Without enough new adoption to the 1700 socket given it's soon to be obsolete though, this one might not sell very well on the desktop side.
Thing is, Meteor Lake will probably *not* be a 'decent upgrade'. More efficient, so good for laptops, but potentially slower at the high end due to Intel 4 simply not being as incredibly mature as Intel 7 is by now. And no big IPC gains or anything to make up for it. It will also likely be quite expensive, which is probably why they aren't even making an 8 core Meteor Lake part. It's ultimately quite a lot of silicon they're using for this, and margins for competitively priced desktop parts wouldn't be good.
6:10 i'm not following. in the image you state that the one on the right is not the actual image, and then you ask ask us to spot the difference, concluding that there is none. if its not the actual image, then how are you making that conclusion ?
There are no die shots of a 14900K yet, but since it’s the same chip and the same stepping, they are the same. I just didn’t want ppl to think I too a die shot of a 14900K.
about the practice calling it 14th gen, I find it disingenuous towars the customers. From marketing though, it does not only simulate newer tech, it makes naming the models easier. Releasing a 13650 or 13750 would make for very long, complex model lists which would also be confusing for the customer. I still dislike the obvious attempt to sell old wine in new bottles, but in itself the 14th "gen" core line is quite good, spanning a whole range from budget to higend, with most models in the i5 range (where I guess the typcial customer gets its Intel CPU).
Edit: Take the following with a grain of salt - as has been pointed out there's actually no reliable confirmation of DLVR being enabled on RLR. I'll leave my original comment for reference, because most of it still applies - except for the DLVR part. Original comment: There actually is a change to original Raptor Lake silicon, albeit very minor. Intel did enable DLVR (Digital Linear Voltage Regulator) in RLR. This was already physically present in RL but was disabled. The effects are very minor, and since they are mostly dependent on the chip not being fully loaded and running on the very edge of its V/F curve already, they are mostly overlooked in reviews. Moreso as the i9s are already maxing out the thermal and current limits of Intel7, even in original RL. If you test an i5-14600K(F) in a lightly threaded environment, you're likely seeing a minor uplift in performance and a slight reduction in power consumption compared to the 13600K. If you instead fully load the chip with all limits disabled (or use an i9 in the first place), that little difference gets plastered completely and becomes unnoticeable. So Intel at least did change something, however that little something is so unnoticeable it gets glossed over most of the time. And to be fair: The effects are comparable to what new steppings of existing designs have achieved in the past. Certainly nowhere near enough to warrant the label "new generation."
Hi Daniel, I’ve yet to see any indication that RPL-R has active DLVR, especially since this change would most certainly require a new stepping and related BIOS functionality. Intel has tweaked some power tables and even if it’s the same stepping and process node, the manufacturing process matures over time, resulting in slightly improved silicon functionality on average over time. So, until proven otherwise, I have to disagree. No DLVR for RPL-R. If you have other sources, please do share them!
@@HighYield It may well be that you're right. Your comment made me go back and think about it again. There's indeed no (reliable) confirmation of DLVR actually being enabled in RLR, only that it's physically present - so it may well be disabled again - which I can find no definitive answer to, either. Anyway, the differences in silicon behaviour from RL to RLR could very well be the effect of Intel 7 being more mature now, as you suggested. I'll edit my comment above to add a caveat. And thank you for your input, it's very much appreciated.
14th Gen is a bottoming out for Intel. It is hopefully a short term regressions for them with a LOT of work ahead. That being said I am still going to be buying likely durring black friday if the deals are good as the prices of the 13th gen will likely have to come down at some point in comparison to 14th gen even if they are the same chips. ( and I got a hella deal on a z690 motherboard to upgrade a 1st gen threadripper past it's prime but still a solid system.)
The recent prime day had some fairly great deals on hynix A-die ram kits (~$135 for 64 GB Hynix A) and high-end z690 boards. I already managed to get a killer deal on a 13900K for ~$350 upon 14th gen's launch from a local overclocker. It's always worth checking your local marketplace whenever a new generation launches, the enthusiasts always upgrade to play with the new toys despite knowing it's not a generational improvement. Rumors of a better IMC and tighter bins is too enticing for them.
It is definitely a sort of 'lull' for them before they plan to kick things off. Also gotta remember they do have Meteor Lake for laptops, so it's not like they're not doing anything. Overall, they are aiming for an incredibly rapid tech pace going from Intel 7 -> Intel 4 -> Intel 3 -> Intel 20A -> Intel 18A, introducing ambitious backside power delivery, and switching from FinFET to GAA all within a few years. If they can do this, they will be a clear step ahead of AMD on process tech again, especially as TSMC are struggling for progress right now as well.
Intel is selling us the i9-13900K a year later but with the same price and no physical change to the die at all, this is the worst refresh ever to happen in the history of intel, even their old Quad-cores got arch. and node improvements, i am very disappointed !
Whenever I hear "Intel", the first thing that pops in to my mind is "14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" #Innovation
Some people say that RPL-R deserved being called a "new generation" because it has "DLVR enabled", a feature supposed to decrease power consumption at same clock/performance. But how could this be true is the silicon is physically the same ?
intel even released intel application optimization (Intel APO) just to increase the 14th gen performance and this thing wont work on previous gen cpu 💀
They shouldve called them 13[ ]70 or something. Like they did with the Devil's Canyon refresh for the 4770k/4670k. Add a number, actually use that obnoxiously long name, or just call them 14-7k or something like that. Their marketing feels so disingenuine. (I'm still gonna buy a 14600k/13600k/12700k as a direct replacement for my 12500 once they are a bit cheaper or on the used market)
MLID said DLVR is used, but I also think it isn't or the changes would have been bigger. I think Intel should have called them 13950K, 13800K and 13650K, since those names are more fitting for a refresh. I REALLY HOPE that all non-K chips will become Raptor Cove instead of Alder Lake/Golden Cove, but it's unlikely, knowing Intel. This paints a very dire picture. In a week, we will see that Meteor Lake still loses to Phoenix. Arrow Lake needs to be an absolute beast if it's supposed to even compete with Zen 5, let alone beat it... and that is considering that it won't get delayed, and that after Arrow Lake there won't be another stagnation. If Arrow Lake is great but after it there is just another refresh, then it seems that Intel is capable to create a new architecture every 2-4 years but nothing in the meantime, and Ryzen will get more and more ahead of them, unless they start stagnating too, which definitely doesn't seem the case. If Intel releases Arrow Lake on time but unfinished, then the refresh might have a decent improvement, but it will lose to Zen 5... and the refresh will lose to Zen 6. If Arrow Lake is delayed, it will lose against Zen 6. Both these scenarios look even worse than the first one, and the first one is still not great. Meanwhile, servers, which is the big moneymaker for AMD, it seems there that Intel is even less likely to compete than in desktops. The future seems very bad for Intel and very good for AMD, no matter how badly they do against Nvidia.
Just watched computex. Seems like Zen 5 was about a ~16% IPC improvement with no increase to core counts which is a bit disappointing. Arrow lake will achieve similar IPC just from the node jump alone going from Intel 7 -> Intel 3 -> 20a/n3. But it really comes down to pricing since AMDs chips are much easier to produce. If AMD puts the 9800x/x3d for
Doesnt feel like a slap in the face since it was expected and certainly not the first time. Skylake to Kaby lake anyone? Without a new node Intel wont be releasing better cpus. They can only really tweak what they already have. Even complete redesigns as with 10th gen dont really do anything without a new node. Every bit of performance increase between 12th to 13th gen is due to higher clocks and increased power consumption. You can buy 12th gen today and overclock it to 14th gen performance yourself.
What's funny as well... 12900k has substantially less lag on desktop applications and the desktop experience itself... Its actually more snappy. The 13th gen is up to 150ms less responsive. But that doesn't matter in workloads so much.. Going away from true monolithic always has some draw back.
Not to mention, most people report that a 10900 feels more responsive than even 13th... I had a chart showing actual latency but could not find in a quick search. Any hoo.
@@deansigman6099 oh cool. I check him from time to time. Some one in the comments brought it up to me. So I researched it. And was surprised its true. Iv heard people right clicking and taking up to 5 seconds to open the little right click menu How is that real. Ffs . Unacceptable
@@fepethepenguin8287 I have a 13700k myself and came from an I7 6700k. To be honest even the old skylake feels faster when loading chrome and other basic tasks. It could just be a placebo affect playing mind games. Haven't tested it out.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure there are a number of microcode changes, mostly related to power management. That's why the refresh chips are able to use less power under mixed loads than the originals. Beyond that, I'd say the two main problems with Intel right now are lack of platform longevity and power consumption. The performance is good on these chips, but the platform is a dead end, and the power consumption is through the roof, making it literally impossible to run a 14900K at full tilt without temperature throttling - doesn't matter what kind of cooling you use, you cannot get the heat out of the die fast enough. Personally, I'm also not fond of the hybrid design. I much prefer AMD's answer with compact cores that work exactly the same, and just have lower clock speeds and less cache, giving them the same IPC as the normal cores (less cache will impact some workloads, but at the lower clock speeds, most workloads have the same IPC across normal and compact cores).
There seem to be microcode changes, but these would work the same on 13th gen CPUs. Fully agree that Intels problem right now is power efficiency and that LGA1700 is a dead platform.
The power efficiency problem may be because Intel is a node "behind" compared to TSMC. But to be fair, Intel at least on parity, if not better, than TSMC on the same node.
@@ChannelSho Intel's "10nm" node, which they now call Intel 7, is behind even TSMC's 7nm node in efficiency. That said, the main problem is design, not node. If they ported Raptor Lake to TSMC's 5nm node, it'd still be drastically less efficient than Zen 4.
The 12th gen i5 i am sitting on may be my last intel cpu, i am getting tired of Intel to screw costumers over. Unless i can get a 13700k/14700k at a VERY VERY steep discount in a few years, i will just stay on this until a platform swap to AM5/AM6.
Hopefully Intel is not going back to their old ways. Don't get me wrong, the "quality of performance" is way more compared to the older decades, but still, we need improvement
Well... Among all the dissapointment. I'm glad I just bought mine i9 13900ks at half the price of an i9 14900k... (Comparing at used prices, of course)
I for once am glad. For start, who want AMD, it is always there.. But to whom invested on soquet 1700 it is a great news that our plataform will be relevant for 1 more year. Also, it may be the same CPU design but it does have improvements. I'm fine, who own a 12th or a 13th gen still don't need to worry with upgrades, who want to upgrade to 14th gen will still see improvements AND AMD is still there competitive and even beating in some aspects.
intel replaced my 13900k with the 14900k and its far better all around yes even before my 13900k took a dump.14900k is far more stable powerful and just super sweet !!! 15 fps more on average running in 4k on a 4090 thats big in my book.
it's a refried generation in my real opinion, they could have waited to launch the 14th gen with the next architecture in 2024 because ryzen 8000 are rumored to be launched in the early 2024 so intel could copmpete with them.
You missed that they added DLVR. It makes 0 difference for the 14900k because the OHS is already Thermaltake maxed or, but the 14600k actually consumes LESS power than the 13600k dispute it's higher clocks
RPL-R doesn’t have active DLVR, it’s fused off just like in the original RPL-S. At least I haven’t seen any indication otherwise, please do share any sources if you have different information!
Alder Lake-S and Raptor Lake-S are different dies, at leas for the K-CPUs. RPL has a larger P-core L2$ and twice the E-cores. It's very different from a physical pov.
What about the DLVR being enabled? That has been shown to give more performance when power limits are set, I have also seen reduction in power consumption measured in ST workloads, as well as HUB finding some IPC gains. OTOH I wouldn't buy Intel because it's as clear as mud what I'd be getting, the segmentation is an issue and rebadging looks certain.
@@impuls60 they definitely have so some SKUs are from newer masks, but calling these a new range, rather new SKUs of 13th is a cheek, misleading naïve customers with talk of leaps in performance.
I'm still not confident Intel can deliver Arrow Lake-S next year, at least not as what they originally claimed it would be, using Intel 20A process and backside power delivery. And it seems like they've tapped Intel 7 out, so another Raptor Lake refresh doesn't make sense. Only other option would be a Meteor Lake-S release of some sort. Intel has a lot of promise in like 2025+, but next year could be rough for Intel in terms of desktop offerings.
i dont think much increased after the i7900k i9700k types series 9 to think how much you would have wasted since 2018 to 2023 on Dumb upgrades to watch youtube :)
What a disgusting move by intel. Renaming a refresh to look like an entirely new CPU? Definitely conning the 2 digit IQ fan club. Speak with your wallet, folks.
Hope not to sound harsh, just wanted to praise your other content: you usually produce much deeper analysis, this time it felt a bit useless. Not your fault if intel is doing this, just not worth 8 min of video 😅
A KS for the price of a K? I'm not complaining, given in testing the binning in the 14900k does tend to be better than the 13900k. Is it a new generation, no but they had to call the Refresh something I'm not that bothered.
Intel wasn't able to implement their pay-as-you-go model, with license keys for hardware features like network switches or oscilloscopes. Instead you can pay for the same chip three times if you want all the features. AM5 isn't exactly vibrant either. The new Threadrippers are going to let you pour 500W into a what's basically a 7900X so we'll find out how hamstrung Zen 4 is on the desktop
heh not really, the threadrippers are getting up to 96 cores (pro) or 64 cores compared to a 7950x's mere 16, they will probably be the only relevant HEDT chips for some time, with their only competitors being amd server chips
Let me correct you, threadrippers are on a different socket and the lowest end skus still provide 6 channel memory support and tons more pci express lanes. We also know the tdp for the 96 core sky. It's 300w.
@@shanent5793 you're comparing the lowest chip of the sku to the highest end of another, and the main use for these chips for ppls that need pcie lanes and other i/o wihtout necessarily wanting to pay for tons of cores also, i'd like to remind you that intel desktop chips can pull as high as 400w, and 350w isn't anything outlandish for HEDT/server chips
If you have a 12th gen alder lake desktop chip then this 14th generation could be a great upgrade while maintaining motherboard compatibility. For example moving from a 12th gen i5 to a 14th gen i7 could yield some massive improvements and up to 20 more CPU threads.
The move from a 12400 to 13700k would be the same exact thing as a 12400 to 14700k for 99% of people. People can judge if that’s a good update path for themselves, but feeding into the “14th gen” being specifically better is extremely disingenuous.
We will eventually get to a point when performance simply doesn't improve every year, like how car manufacturers can just keep using the same engine for many years, that'll happen with CPUs and GPUs as well as SOCs on smartphones, like within a few years.
Tech media are over themselves and their self-importance. Intel re-released same chips, but slightly better and every entitled youtuber lost their minds.
lol? deception is intels filed of play for all the historical timeline like secretly chiller-oc'd 56-core thing or paid 'principled technologies' nda violating 9900k review, aid even these "energy efficient" cores that push TDP through the roof with only intent to reach AMD on production software benchmarks. When AMD always leaned towards inovation and implementing real cool things like chiplets, sam, x3d and now cdna
That also explains why it seems like both 13th & 14th Gen CPUs are affected by the same instability problems. Because they are literally the same chips.
I was originally intending to get a 14th gen chip as I thought it would be all new and shiny, but after seeing that they've done practically nothing with it, my next upgrade is gonna be an AMD instead! Well done intel, I haven't bought an AMD chip since my old Athlon XP!
AM4 had a rough start, but honestly it is one of the greatest CPU lineups of all time, especially by the 3000 series.
Enjoy the AMDip 🙌🏻
why not waiy until Q3 or Q4 2024 for arrow lake? its supposed to utterly awesome and have like a 25%-35% IPC increase
@@TheBlackBuddha17 he may need a pc for the next 12-16 months lol (also relying on trusting intel on a product at least a year away when they called 14th gen a 'significant' uplift)
Why did you thought that 14th gen would be all new and shiny ? It was known for many months already that it will be a refresh and only mildly interesting, at best.
It's still a good choice if you know you won't upgrade anytime soon (otherwise just get AMD with AM5, and you'll be guaranteed a nice upgrade to Zen5, possible Zen6 too) or if you want a cheap modern & powerful $100 CPU, like i3 14100 or i3 14300 (when they'll appear, I think in January 2024). That would still play all games at a good level, for now and the next 2 or so years.
For my 13900k and 14900k I have done the following: MCE off, PL1 and PL2 limit to 225, limit P-core boost to 5.5 GHz and E-core boost to 4.3GHz, and use balanced power profile in Windows (although I do disable core parking to keep system highly responsive). Oh and just XMP on the RAM. I didn’t change LLC value. I have set voltage offset at a modest -0.015v and set the Core limit to 300 Amps. I have disabled the C6&C7 C states and EIST. Lastly I have locked AVX at 0 offset. I have tested on P95, CB R23 and CB R15. All great and in a mid 20 degree room, no workload exceeds 80c on package or cores. Very happy and benchmarks are very close to where they were before taming these beasts.
Intel is basically so shady that essentially they will overclock the processor scribble out the last generation name and then claim it's a new processor. Was it essentially having the same more or less performance. I think these large companies are beginning to become too comfortable in there high prestige in confidence in market industries where they dominate in. It is very rare that you ever see a single one of these companies deviate in what they do or ever try anything truly different than what they're already doing. These companies stick to what works. If nobody has learned this you vote with your wallet. imagine if 15th gen intel felt like doing a rug pull because lets say people who had 13th gen felt like oh I need 14th gen and everyone rushes out and gets it. The that could send the WRONG Signal to these large corporate companies that they can have stagnate Innovation keep things the same just rename product pump out the same thing as last year and make the same money. imagine that we could realistically flip the script and cancel current 14th gen and make the 15th gen the proper 14th gen that it should be. even if intel doesn't pump out a new CPU for 2 years, that would be better than pumping out some e waste.
Yeah they have released something just because of yearly deadline and if it wasn't an obligation they wouldn"t release a thing, because these are a shame anyways, and all the changes from previous gen are done in squeezing last juice for given (already absurdly high) tdp and regulated purely by the need to do at least something because nothing else that would for real be a technical improvement is ready.
I also liked GN's comparison of i5 power usage. It says IT ALL about how intel does things, no improvement just faking it.
Idk who invented yearly deadlines, maybe its a "social trend" like with other comsumer stuff but AMD switched from 1 year to 1.5 year as far as i noticed and noone stopped buying them because of that.. when "trends" go against reasonability they should be abolished.
Also i miss old namings and cpu tweaks within a generation, like we had fx 6100 6120 6200 or 4770k 4790k or phenom 455 465 black edition etc, it was kinda cool to see not just 000s at the end. Social trends make people stupid
Yeah if the 14900K had a little more cache or actually a better memory controller then I might be interested but with some overclocking I think my 13900K will do fine for another year 😌
another five years. I am not even joking. You should have gone with the 7950X3D though...
Why would you have been interested regardless? :/ You'd have spent another $500+ just for a little more cache or something? I genuinely do not understand some consumers. More money than sense.
They didn't even have the respect to put the 13900K Super Saiyan Edition in a special fancy box. Intel is telling use through marketing that they think we are all stupid.
Dang, as someone who gets new computers once every 8 years, "last me another year" hit home.
@@npip99 haha well little update.. I bought the 14900K 😬
13th gen was an upgrade over 12th gen, 14th gen is just "good bins" of 13th gen.
"Good voltage regulator"
HUB found the 14th gen parts do appear to get a little bump in performance at the same clock speed, it seems like there might be some kind of microcode change. Pretty crap either way.
More power efficient
@@attepatte8485 There's some slight changes to the VID tables but it's pretty marginal, the sample variance from one chip to the next is bigger than the difference of the averages?
I think Techtesters found DVLR gave reasonable performance boosts at limited power and ST has reduced power consumption, but the way Intel & mobo defaults ignore power limits meant this was masked in most reviews.
The sheer cheek of launching these tweaks as a new generation is the most impressive thing. I think the Zen3 B1 (or 2) stepping was as significant in power draw.
@@RobBCactive I thought DLVR (Digital Linear Voltage Regulator) was present in 13th gen, but disabled, because it wasn't working properly. And I thought they got it working in 14th gen, and that's why we see ~10% lower power usage in lower SKUs. 14900 is maxed out, but 14600 compared to 13600 consumes less and it has marginal improvement in performance.
@@alpha007org yeah, DLVR didn't work like Thread Director was buggy in 12th gen, something improved in Raptor. Relying on thermal throttling hid the improvement in most reviews.
Fact is AMD Threadripper is more exciting than this launch.
LOL same stepping! What will be funny to observe is "minimum whatever requirements" demanding 14th gen but not 13th. I mean hard requirements like Microsoft's.
I think it's scummy to advertise it as an entirely new generation, I caught them on Twitter/X calling the 14900K a massive leap in performance and efficiency, they should be sued for misleading non tech savvy customers. Calling it 13900KS would have been fine, delaying it until they have the tile-based design ready would have been acceptable. But we all know Intel, they have been struggling since Skylake, Apple gave them a push when they got divorced in 2020, hybrid architecture is a win but Intel is still struggling, they have been recycling the same process node for years, they refuse to use TSMC, they compensate the non-existent IPC improvements by completely discarding efficiency and pushing their CPU's to consume 250W+, their AVX-512 platform still suck, their compression/decompression performance still lags behind AMD. Their architecture is a MESS, they can't even clock the cores at different frequencies, if one core is maxed out while all the other cores are idling, well to bad, the frequency of all cores match the maxed core freq because they can't individually control them. They removed the I/O controller from CPU and made it on the motherboard instead since the 12th gen, making the system latency higher for no damn reason. Intel is struggling HARD....................................................
Nah, cars do it for years.
A "New generation of XXXXX car", but it's the same plataform, engine but with a new bodywork design..
It's fine, it does change enough to be a "new generation" with the AI stuff and a new core count for some of the chips.
It's not what ppl expected but i don't get what they expected since they said that 14th gen would be on socket 1700
Just a qucik note; Intel is fighting AMD with 10nm. Let that sink in for a moment.
Yes i agree they are greedy mfs and they dont want to push all cards out, but honestly they might have it all prepeared! ;)
Really happy with my 13600K (AM5 mobo prices were crazy when I upgraded a year ago) but I honestly expected 14th gen to be a decent uplift, something where in a bunch of years I could upgrade to the 14700K and see a decent difference.
That was disappointing, LGA 1700 finally ended up supporting 12th Gen, 13th Gen, and 13th Gen Again.
Tbf, the 14700K is the only part that's decent and has notable improvements over last gen. Not the best, but better than the others.
Tbh I kinda figured that performance would be about the same. Plus intel’s stock price isn’t amazing, though they have good dividends. I figured they would do the most pro-profit thing while they’re low (sell the same thing with a different name).
I figured we wouldn’t get a real upgrade until the next socket.
They really pulled an Apple move here.
Apples chips beat every snapdragon, tensor and dimensity chip tho so it’s not really a problem 😂
Apple says it's A15 or A16, they don't say its new generation when it's not!
Intel has always been like this.
inb4 User Benchmark sings high praises on how much better it is compared to 13th gen and how obviously greater it is than the AMD counterpart and anybody saying otherwise are AMD paid shills
Didn't 14th gen bring DLVR as minor change? (At least that's the common reasoning for the +200 MHz boost)
14500 and below still use Alder Lake silicon (C0 with lower L2 and slower DDR5)
For me personally this is not enough to call it a new generation though
No DLVR to my knowledge. The 200MHz are the same as the 13900KS, it’s just binning/a more mature manufacturing process.
@@HighYield yeah I just checked there seems to be no confirmation it's used and it's disabled on OG raptor lake
I don't think it should receive 0 points for manufacturing node and core increases.
First, the manufacturing node might be improved a bit. Really, small increase, but it's there. Either that or it's the DLVR working (which I don't know where it would be classified). 14600K is ever so slightly faster, at about 10% less power draw (and 100?MHz more) than 13600K. This is very similar, but clearly not the same exact chip and everything else. And to be frank, I think 14900K can be much better with tuned voltage, it seems to me that mobo manufacturers put a too-high voltage, to make sure all hit 6GHz. And that's why it consumes even more than 13900K, even at the same clock speeds. That shouldn't normally happen, and I think it's because of mobo default/stock voltage/power settings.
The memory controller got improved too, though we don't know by how much. Buildoid made a video about a few tests, and it doesn't seem like much, one was better, another was the same. Still early to tell.
The 13th gen i5s and i3s with Alder Lake cores will hopefully have Raptor Lake cores in 14th gen, so that would be an improvement.
14700K did got more cores and cache, so maybe not fully 0 points there either.
Overall, all the changes are really small. And put together, they're still small. Still, if Kaby Lake (7th gen) was a new gen, then I don't see why 14th gen wouldn't be a new gen.
200mhz more then 136
by that logic the first i7 6700k to roll out of the factory and the last i7 6700k rolling out before the skylake s production shut down was a new gen with the same name, try a better logic next
@@OfSheikah Fair point, but if Kaby Lake was a different generation, then Raptor Lake refresh is a different generation too.
While on that, I still get conflicting information regarding the DLVR. Some say it's enabled, some say it isn't. I wish we can get a definitive answer.
Anybody here after the intel 13th and 14th issues?
Intels order of priorities goes:
#1 - Server/HPC
#2 - laptop/mobile
#3 - Desktop
#4 - Enthusiast/DIY
So from a business perspective it does make sense. With AMD and now ARM chip makers hot on intels heels, they can't afford to lose ground in server and laptop. Even if that means ceding the desktop to AMD.
The 14700 got a core count increase so its the only one who deserves a point for new generation. Its price stays same so it literally the better choice in price per core.
I am not happy with Intel's behavior at all, calling them shady is being nice. Not only is 14th gen a rebranding of the 13900KS but on top of that they are releasing a brand new micro code (Reptar mitigation) for everything below the 14th gen that will make them slower. I am currently on a 12900K, I have installed at least two microcode updates on it which completely slowed it down. Microsoft and Intel have a very good relationship, so good of a relationship that whenever Intel needs to slow down its older processors they send out security updates. Even if you avoid updating your bios, Microsoft will install a security patch that will bring down your processors performance. So their ideology is "We can't bring out a new product, so we'll just slow down your current one to make this release look shinny".
Have had a 13700K since launch and to be honest, it has performed exceptionally, in fact it is a great CPU for my workloads both semi pro and gaming...but 14th gen is just the same with a minor clock boost, so not new at all except the 14700k which really is not new either though if the 13th gen gets reduced in price by a nice amount, then okay....
pretty much, the same Intel 0-5% ipc lift they done previously
LGA1700 is the best and worst Intel platform. We got a brand new node, new architecture and new core design, but we also got a totally pointless Refresh "generation" that's nothing more than a cashgrab for consumers and middleground for investors.
though some of the models are a new architecture like 13600 was based on Alter Lake (with the smaller cache) while 14600 is now a Raptor Lake (with bigger cache).
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot mostly due to the desktop vs mobile issue - the new mobile chips will be a decent upgrade, but the new desktop ones won't. That would be fine in a vacuum, but from a marketing perspective, I think that will be a negative thing overall. The one thing that can help with this is the re-branding on the mobile side not being applied yet to the desktop side, so maybe they will be fine. Few will upgrade from 13th to 14th but I think anyone who hasn't upgraded from 12th to 13th might upgrade to 14th. Without enough new adoption to the 1700 socket given it's soon to be obsolete though, this one might not sell very well on the desktop side.
Thing is, Meteor Lake will probably *not* be a 'decent upgrade'. More efficient, so good for laptops, but potentially slower at the high end due to Intel 4 simply not being as incredibly mature as Intel 7 is by now. And no big IPC gains or anything to make up for it. It will also likely be quite expensive, which is probably why they aren't even making an 8 core Meteor Lake part. It's ultimately quite a lot of silicon they're using for this, and margins for competitively priced desktop parts wouldn't be good.
@@maynardburger so what do you think Intel should have done?
I think its more due to OEMs that release new products every year that intel is forced to release new gen cpus every year
6:10 i'm not following.
in the image you state that the one on the right is not the actual image, and then you ask ask us to spot the difference, concluding that there is none.
if its not the actual image, then how are you making that conclusion ?
There are no die shots of a 14900K yet, but since it’s the same chip and the same stepping, they are the same. I just didn’t want ppl to think I too a die shot of a 14900K.
Even Raptor Lake's extra L2 cache was physically present in Alder lake, just wasn't enabled.
Wait really? I’d love to have a source on that because that is genuinely interesting if true
Too bad they laser it off so you cant try to enable it like phenom x3 core unlocking long ago
That sounds super interesting, any more info/sources on that?
Ah yeah, I remember the Phenom II X3 days :D @@virtualtools_3021
about the practice calling it 14th gen, I find it disingenuous towars the customers. From marketing though, it does not only simulate newer tech, it makes naming the models easier. Releasing a 13650 or 13750 would make for very long, complex model lists which would also be confusing for the customer. I still dislike the obvious attempt to sell old wine in new bottles, but in itself the 14th "gen" core line is quite good, spanning a whole range from budget to higend, with most models in the i5 range (where I guess the typcial customer gets its Intel CPU).
Wintel, 3rd succesfull air selling monopoly after church and Russia.
Edit: Take the following with a grain of salt - as has been pointed out there's actually no reliable confirmation of DLVR being enabled on RLR. I'll leave my original comment for reference, because most of it still applies - except for the DLVR part.
Original comment:
There actually is a change to original Raptor Lake silicon, albeit very minor. Intel did enable DLVR (Digital Linear Voltage Regulator) in RLR. This was already physically present in RL but was disabled.
The effects are very minor, and since they are mostly dependent on the chip not being fully loaded and running on the very edge of its V/F curve already, they are mostly overlooked in reviews. Moreso as the i9s are already maxing out the thermal and current limits of Intel7, even in original RL. If you test an i5-14600K(F) in a lightly threaded environment, you're likely seeing a minor uplift in performance and a slight reduction in power consumption compared to the 13600K. If you instead fully load the chip with all limits disabled (or use an i9 in the first place), that little difference gets plastered completely and becomes unnoticeable.
So Intel at least did change something, however that little something is so unnoticeable it gets glossed over most of the time. And to be fair: The effects are comparable to what new steppings of existing designs have achieved in the past. Certainly nowhere near enough to warrant the label "new generation."
Hi Daniel, I’ve yet to see any indication that RPL-R has active DLVR, especially since this change would most certainly require a new stepping and related BIOS functionality.
Intel has tweaked some power tables and even if it’s the same stepping and process node, the manufacturing process matures over time, resulting in slightly improved silicon functionality on average over time.
So, until proven otherwise, I have to disagree. No DLVR for RPL-R. If you have other sources, please do share them!
@@HighYield It may well be that you're right.
Your comment made me go back and think about it again. There's indeed no (reliable) confirmation of DLVR actually being enabled in RLR, only that it's physically present - so it may well be disabled again - which I can find no definitive answer to, either.
Anyway, the differences in silicon behaviour from RL to RLR could very well be the effect of Intel 7 being more mature now, as you suggested.
I'll edit my comment above to add a caveat. And thank you for your input, it's very much appreciated.
14th gen is the new worst Intel CPU generation beating the 11th gen lol.
14th Gen is a bottoming out for Intel. It is hopefully a short term regressions for them with a LOT of work ahead. That being said I am still going to be buying likely durring black friday if the deals are good as the prices of the 13th gen will likely have to come down at some point in comparison to 14th gen even if they are the same chips. ( and I got a hella deal on a z690 motherboard to upgrade a 1st gen threadripper past it's prime but still a solid system.)
The recent prime day had some fairly great deals on hynix A-die ram kits (~$135 for 64 GB Hynix A) and high-end z690 boards.
I already managed to get a killer deal on a 13900K for ~$350 upon 14th gen's launch from a local overclocker. It's always worth checking your local marketplace whenever a new generation launches, the enthusiasts always upgrade to play with the new toys despite knowing it's not a generational improvement. Rumors of a better IMC and tighter bins is too enticing for them.
It is definitely a sort of 'lull' for them before they plan to kick things off. Also gotta remember they do have Meteor Lake for laptops, so it's not like they're not doing anything. Overall, they are aiming for an incredibly rapid tech pace going from Intel 7 -> Intel 4 -> Intel 3 -> Intel 20A -> Intel 18A, introducing ambitious backside power delivery, and switching from FinFET to GAA all within a few years. If they can do this, they will be a clear step ahead of AMD on process tech again, especially as TSMC are struggling for progress right now as well.
Intel is selling us the i9-13900K a year later but with the same price and no physical change to the die at all, this is the worst refresh ever to happen in the history of intel, even their old Quad-cores got arch. and node improvements, i am very disappointed !
Whenever I hear "Intel", the first thing that pops in to my mind is "14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++" #Innovation
The 14900K is just a factory-overclocked 13900K..
Some people say that RPL-R deserved being called a "new generation" because it has "DLVR enabled",
a feature supposed to decrease power consumption at same clock/performance.
But how could this be true is the silicon is physically the same ?
I don’t think this is true and I haven’t see anything supporting this claim.
I just find it sad that the whole "Intel core iX" branding that started so strong over a decade ago, goes out not with a bang but a whimper.
intel even released intel application optimization (Intel APO) just to increase the 14th gen performance and this thing wont work on previous gen cpu 💀
Meanwhile I'm still running 12 years old i7-3790x :D
I think the 13 gen KS has a special silicon.
They shouldve called them 13[ ]70 or something. Like they did with the Devil's Canyon refresh for the 4770k/4670k. Add a number, actually use that obnoxiously long name, or just call them 14-7k or something like that. Their marketing feels so disingenuine.
(I'm still gonna buy a 14600k/13600k/12700k as a direct replacement for my 12500 once they are a bit cheaper or on the used market)
There must be more changes than just this
Sadly not, only 200MHz higher clks.
MLID said DLVR is used, but I also think it isn't or the changes would have been bigger. I think Intel should have called them 13950K, 13800K and 13650K, since those names are more fitting for a refresh. I REALLY HOPE that all non-K chips will become Raptor Cove instead of Alder Lake/Golden Cove, but it's unlikely, knowing Intel.
This paints a very dire picture. In a week, we will see that Meteor Lake still loses to Phoenix. Arrow Lake needs to be an absolute beast if it's supposed to even compete with Zen 5, let alone beat it... and that is considering that it won't get delayed, and that after Arrow Lake there won't be another stagnation.
If Arrow Lake is great but after it there is just another refresh, then it seems that Intel is capable to create a new architecture every 2-4 years but nothing in the meantime, and Ryzen will get more and more ahead of them, unless they start stagnating too, which definitely doesn't seem the case.
If Intel releases Arrow Lake on time but unfinished, then the refresh might have a decent improvement, but it will lose to Zen 5... and the refresh will lose to Zen 6.
If Arrow Lake is delayed, it will lose against Zen 6.
Both these scenarios look even worse than the first one, and the first one is still not great. Meanwhile, servers, which is the big moneymaker for AMD, it seems there that Intel is even less likely to compete than in desktops.
The future seems very bad for Intel and very good for AMD, no matter how badly they do against Nvidia.
Just watched computex. Seems like Zen 5 was about a ~16% IPC improvement with no increase to core counts which is a bit disappointing. Arrow lake will achieve similar IPC just from the node jump alone going from Intel 7 -> Intel 3 -> 20a/n3.
But it really comes down to pricing since AMDs chips are much easier to produce. If AMD puts the 9800x/x3d for
the 14700k has more E cores than the 13700k, I would consider that a decent upgrade.
Doesnt feel like a slap in the face since it was expected and certainly not the first time. Skylake to Kaby lake anyone? Without a new node Intel wont be releasing better cpus. They can only really tweak what they already have. Even complete redesigns as with 10th gen dont really do anything without a new node. Every bit of performance increase between 12th to 13th gen is due to higher clocks and increased power consumption. You can buy 12th gen today and overclock it to 14th gen performance yourself.
What's funny as well... 12900k has substantially less lag on desktop applications and the desktop experience itself...
Its actually more snappy.
The 13th gen is up to 150ms less responsive. But that doesn't matter in workloads so much..
Going away from true monolithic always has some draw back.
Not to mention, most people report that a 10900 feels more responsive than even 13th...
I had a chart showing actual latency but could not find in a quick search.
Any hoo.
@@fepethepenguin8287tech yes city has done latency comparisons. He has even downgraded his computer due to the latency increase.
@@deansigman6099 oh cool. I check him from time to time.
Some one in the comments brought it up to me. So I researched it. And was surprised its true.
Iv heard people right clicking and taking up to 5 seconds to open the little right click menu
How is that real. Ffs . Unacceptable
@@fepethepenguin8287 I have a 13700k myself and came from an I7 6700k. To be honest even the old skylake feels faster when loading chrome and other basic tasks. It could just be a placebo affect playing mind games. Haven't tested it out.
you nee arctic cooler with 14th gen and power plant too
To be fair, I'm pretty sure there are a number of microcode changes, mostly related to power management. That's why the refresh chips are able to use less power under mixed loads than the originals.
Beyond that, I'd say the two main problems with Intel right now are lack of platform longevity and power consumption. The performance is good on these chips, but the platform is a dead end, and the power consumption is through the roof, making it literally impossible to run a 14900K at full tilt without temperature throttling - doesn't matter what kind of cooling you use, you cannot get the heat out of the die fast enough.
Personally, I'm also not fond of the hybrid design. I much prefer AMD's answer with compact cores that work exactly the same, and just have lower clock speeds and less cache, giving them the same IPC as the normal cores (less cache will impact some workloads, but at the lower clock speeds, most workloads have the same IPC across normal and compact cores).
There seem to be microcode changes, but these would work the same on 13th gen CPUs.
Fully agree that Intels problem right now is power efficiency and that LGA1700 is a dead platform.
The power efficiency problem may be because Intel is a node "behind" compared to TSMC. But to be fair, Intel at least on parity, if not better, than TSMC on the same node.
@@ChannelSho Intel's "10nm" node, which they now call Intel 7, is behind even TSMC's 7nm node in efficiency. That said, the main problem is design, not node. If they ported Raptor Lake to TSMC's 5nm node, it'd still be drastically less efficient than Zen 4.
The 12th gen i5 i am sitting on may be my last intel cpu, i am getting tired of Intel to screw costumers over. Unless i can get a 13700k/14700k at a VERY VERY steep discount in a few years, i will just stay on this until a platform swap to AM5/AM6.
they add only in 14700k cores
Hopefully Intel is not going back to their old ways. Don't get me wrong, the "quality of performance" is way more compared to the older decades, but still, we need improvement
The power consumption is astronomical. Ridiculous
Well... Among all the dissapointment. I'm glad I just bought mine i9 13900ks at half the price of an i9 14900k... (Comparing at used prices, of course)
May be to attract customers who are hesitant to purchase the intel chips because Number 13 has bad vibes
So, I got i9 13900ks, was excited to see how good 14900k was, but this is disappointing...
I for once am glad.
For start, who want AMD, it is always there..
But to whom invested on soquet 1700 it is a great news that our plataform will be relevant for 1 more year.
Also, it may be the same CPU design but it does have improvements.
I'm fine, who own a 12th or a 13th gen still don't need to worry with upgrades, who want to upgrade to 14th gen will still see improvements AND AMD is still there competitive and even beating in some aspects.
intel replaced my 13900k with the 14900k and its far better all around yes even before my 13900k
took a dump.14900k is far more stable powerful and just super sweet !!! 15 fps more on average running in 4k
on a 4090 thats big in my book.
Intel: But we turned on DLVR... maybe. 😂
I'm pretty sure DLVR is still inactive on RPL-R.
So this is more the process node maturing
Yep, along with a bit of fine tuning and increasing those numbers they set to segment their products.
it's a refried generation in my real opinion, they could have waited to launch the 14th gen with the next architecture in 2024 because ryzen 8000 are rumored to be launched in the early 2024 so intel could copmpete with them.
You missed that they added DLVR. It makes 0 difference for the 14900k because the OHS is already Thermaltake maxed or, but the 14600k actually consumes LESS power than the 13600k dispute it's higher clocks
it's software, just artificial limitations - could have been done basically on any CPU that has software voltage controls so haswell and up
@@mircomputers DLVR was fused off of raptor lake because it didn't work. So it is a hard design feature that they only now got working
that would require a new stepping @@jamescampbell6728
RPL-R doesn’t have active DLVR, it’s fused off just like in the original RPL-S. At least I haven’t seen any indication otherwise, please do share any sources if you have different information!
Bro, they have been the same chip just slightly higher clocks since 12th gen. What are we talking about
Alder Lake-S and Raptor Lake-S are different dies, at leas for the K-CPUs. RPL has a larger P-core L2$ and twice the E-cores. It's very different from a physical pov.
Same IPC, brother, effectively the same. @@HighYield
so they really were Just binning chips for a year lol
14700k sems to the only viable upgrade from last gen equilvilent.
What about the DLVR being enabled? That has been shown to give more performance when power limits are set, I have also seen reduction in power consumption measured in ST workloads, as well as HUB finding some IPC gains.
OTOH I wouldn't buy Intel because it's as clear as mud what I'd be getting, the segmentation is an issue and rebadging looks certain.
I dont think it has DLVR! Just individual core freq changes lol.
@@impuls60 they definitely have so some SKUs are from newer masks, but calling these a new range, rather new SKUs of 13th is a cheek, misleading naïve customers with talk of leaps in performance.
Hey Rob, afaik DLVR is still fused off and not active on RPL-R.
its the same chip , I tested and benchmarked both. My 13900k preformed better sadly .
Correction: Alder Lake was released in November 2021, not October 2021. Raptor Lake was released in October 2022, not November 2022.
Very important video ! But, as the saying goes: The show must go on !
i'll take a 11900ks please
Are most of the people that post comments gamers?
13950K should it be
A lot of companies are doing the same... iPhones, windows, cars, what you are talking about.
We are talking about processors.
iPhone processor performance and efficiency will increase year by year.
only new are number 14
Yes but you get the 13900ks for the price of the 13900k
I'm still not confident Intel can deliver Arrow Lake-S next year, at least not as what they originally claimed it would be, using Intel 20A process and backside power delivery. And it seems like they've tapped Intel 7 out, so another Raptor Lake refresh doesn't make sense. Only other option would be a Meteor Lake-S release of some sort. Intel has a lot of promise in like 2025+, but next year could be rough for Intel in terms of desktop offerings.
It's scammy. A new low for Intel...
i dont think much increased after the i7900k i9700k types series 9 to think how much you would have wasted since 2018 to 2023 on Dumb upgrades to watch youtube :)
13900ks = 14900k
Never bought Intel outside of Mobile and Servers, still never will, i know why ;)=
What a disgusting move by intel. Renaming a refresh to look like an entirely new CPU? Definitely conning the 2 digit IQ fan club. Speak with your wallet, folks.
Hope not to sound harsh, just wanted to praise your other content: you usually produce much deeper analysis, this time it felt a bit useless. Not your fault if intel is doing this, just not worth 8 min of video 😅
For sure, it was less of an analysis, more of a “stating the obvious”. Not much to analyse if nothing changed.
7nm
waste of silicon
A KS for the price of a K? I'm not complaining, given in testing the binning in the 14900k does tend to be better than the 13900k. Is it a new generation, no but they had to call the Refresh something I'm not that bothered.
Intel wasn't able to implement their pay-as-you-go model, with license keys for hardware features like network switches or oscilloscopes. Instead you can pay for the same chip three times if you want all the features.
AM5 isn't exactly vibrant either. The new Threadrippers are going to let you pour 500W into a what's basically a 7900X so we'll find out how hamstrung Zen 4 is on the desktop
heh not really, the threadrippers are getting up to 96 cores (pro) or 64 cores compared to a 7950x's mere 16, they will probably be the only relevant HEDT chips for some time, with their only competitors being amd server chips
Let me correct you, threadrippers are on a different socket and the lowest end skus still provide 6 channel memory support and tons more pci express lanes. We also know the tdp for the 96 core sky. It's 300w.
@@korcommander TDP for the 12-core is 350W. Non-pro Threadripper only supports four channels. So much for corrections 🙄
@@LeLe-pm2pr not really what?
@@shanent5793 you're comparing the lowest chip of the sku to the highest end of another, and the main use for these chips for ppls that need pcie lanes and other i/o wihtout necessarily wanting to pay for tons of cores
also, i'd like to remind you that intel desktop chips can pull as high as 400w, and 350w isn't anything outlandish for HEDT/server chips
Yes.....No shit. They never said it's a new architecture?? It's a refresh
but they called it '14th' gen. why not call them 13x50?
the issue is that it misleads the customers
If you have a 12th gen alder lake desktop chip then this 14th generation could be a great upgrade while maintaining motherboard compatibility. For example moving from a 12th gen i5 to a 14th gen i7 could yield some massive improvements and up to 20 more CPU threads.
The move from a 12400 to 13700k would be the same exact thing as a 12400 to 14700k for 99% of people. People can judge if that’s a good update path for themselves, but feeding into the “14th gen” being specifically better is extremely disingenuous.
We will eventually get to a point when performance simply doesn't improve every year, like how car manufacturers can just keep using the same engine for many years, that'll happen with CPUs and GPUs as well as SOCs on smartphones, like within a few years.
Tech media are over themselves and their self-importance. Intel re-released same chips, but slightly better and every entitled youtuber lost their minds.
Since Intel kept prices the same I really have no issue with 14th gen.
intel really following in AMD's footsteps in deceptive naming practices
lol? deception is intels filed of play for all the historical timeline like secretly chiller-oc'd 56-core thing or paid 'principled technologies' nda violating 9900k review, aid even these "energy efficient" cores that push TDP through the roof with only intent to reach AMD on production software benchmarks. When AMD always leaned towards inovation and implementing real cool things like chiplets, sam, x3d and now cdna
wt r amd deceptive naming practice?
@@sudeshryan8707 i dunno cause AMD usually adds a '50' or '70' at the end of the name instead of calling it a totally new gen.
@@Born_Stellar thats acceptable.. thats hw a refresh should be named instead of marketing it as new gen
It’s definitely a team sport 👀
It's a refresh, AMD does it as well, stop hating.
Which amd cpu generation was that?
amd never made a refresh that equated to 1-2% performance increases in gaming
yeah but AMD adds a 50 or 70 or even a T instead of just calling it a totally new thing.