Intel Core i5 14600K & Intel Core i9 14900K Linux Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Core i5 14600K & Intel Core i9 14900K Linux Benchmarks

Earlier this month Intel introduced the 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" processors led by the flagship Core i9 14900K. Unfortunately my review samples had arrived late but in any event today are the first Linux benchmarks of the new Core i5 14600K and Core i9 14900K processors compared to prior 13th Gen Core processors as well as the AMD Ryzen 7000 series competition. All of these Intel and AMD processors were freshly re-tested on the newly-launched Ubuntu 23.10 with the Linux 6.5 kernel.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-14600k-14900k-linux

[sophisticles]

The Core i9 14900K and Core i5 14600K were great for gaming/graphics, web browsers, if running many single-threaded Python or PHP scripts, creator software like GIMP and Darktable, etc. Or for SOHO/development small servers like for PostgreSQL, Memcached, and Node.js the Intel 14th Gen CPUs worked out well as good options. When it comes to more of the HPC-type workloads and other heavily multi-threaded tasks the positioning of Raptor Lake Refresh against Zen 4 varied based on particulars of the software under test.

So basically for most tasks that matter to the home and professional market, these Intel CPUs are hard to beat.

In all honesty, the performance is close enough that unless someone is running an Intel and an AMD system side by side they are unlikely to notice that one is faster than the other.

What I would like to see if a simple multitasking test.

Basically run the PTS suite from start to finish and make note of the total time, not each individual benchmark result, but the time to took to finish everything from start to finish on both an Intel and AMD system.

Then do the same thing again but this time run 3 or 4 instances of PTS simultaneously, and record the total time it took from the start of the first instance to the end of the last instance.

I think the results of such a "mega-tasking" test would be interesting.

[Mitch]

Like Michael says, the new 14th Gen Intel CPUs are more of a refresh than a new generation (which the names imply). I think the hardware is identical or very similar. The 14900k could have easily been a 13990k or 13950k. Still, progress is progress.

Not worth the upgrade to 14's over 13's, but if you're getting a new system or upgrading something really old or low-end, might as well pick the 14 if you're going for Intel.

They are quite power hungry to achieve that performance, too, but desktops have a high power budget.

[junkbustr]

As always, thanks for the benchmarks, Michael.

I'm wondering how these results on the latest Ubuntu release compare to Ryzen 5000 series. Especially if you compare current component costs.
AMD B550-based boards coupled with 5000-series CPU's still look like the bang-for-the-buck leader compared to B650/Ryzen 7000-series.
If I can get 85% of the performance for 60% of the cost....

Inquiring minds want to know.

[stormcrow]

So basically for most tasks that matter to the home and professional market, these Intel CPUs are hard to beat.

In all honesty, the performance is close enough that unless someone is running an Intel and an AMD system side by side they are unlikely to notice that one is faster than the other.

What I would like to see if a simple multitasking test.

Basically run the PTS suite from start to finish and make note of the total time, not each individual benchmark result, but the time to took to finish everything from start to finish on both an Intel and AMD system.

Then do the same thing again but this time run 3 or 4 instances of PTS simultaneously, and record the total time it took from the start of the first instance to the end of the last instance.

I think the results of such a "mega-tasking" test would be interesting.

I'd argue that for most home tasks, and even a great many professional ones that don't depend on raw performance metrics, processors have plateaued as a practical matter for several years now. A few seconds response time here or there is usually inside of an interactive task's human reaction cycle that it won't impact productivity in meaningful ways.

For simple server tasks like a SOHO file server, there's been very little need to upgrade since the Sandy Bridge era. So long as the network is still 1 Gbps the CPU nor SATA aren't the bottleneck. That's probably the vast majority home and small office LANs even now - and wifi only networks rarely breach that as a practical matter regardless of advertising.

Gaming and performance computing is where things are different, but that's a niche of PC (or Mac) users. Most just want to get work done or e'mail grandma, or look up people telling them more of what they want to hear assuming they even have a PC at home at all these days that wasn't issued by their workplace or school.

Put another way, 14th Gen CPUs are only "good" when you can get them for a bargain because their performance metrics are only marginally notable for a current generation processor - and are still awful on thermal/power efficiency.

[uid313]

Intel and AMD both have shit CPUs which are very energy inefficient so in order to increase performance they have to feed them with a lot of more power in order to yield a little bit more performance. So especially the more expensive high-end CPUs are shitty, like the Intel Core i9 and Ryzen 9 series, so it is much better to buy a Intel i5 or Ryzen 5 rather than the very power thirsty i9 or Ryzen 9.

I look forward Qualcomm launching their new Snapdragon Elite X which is going to crush both Intel and AMD. Soon Nvidia will join too with their new high performance ARM CPU and Intel and AMD will be left behind with their shitty x86 CPUs.

Intel and AMD really need to make either a ARM or RISC-V CPU. The x86 architecture is at a dead end. Intel nor AMD can make x86 CPUs that are good enough to compete with the ARM-based offerings of Apple, Qualcomm and Nvidia.

If HP and Dell want to sell something, they need to bring some ARM-based products to the market, because their products are inferior. We all hate Apple but they got the best laptops on the market. Microsoft knows it, their Surface Book is shit, it cannot compete, they need ARM. Samsung knows it, their laptops are shit, they need ARM.

[Paradigm Shifter]

So basically for most tasks that matter to the home and professional market, these Intel CPUs are hard to beat.

Depends if you live in a country where power is cheap, and how much the total platform costs hit.

I've been very pleased with performance of a 5900X with "Eco" mode enabled (which supposedly limits the CPU to 65W) so to see CPUs trying to draw 250W is kind of off-putting.

[Teggs]

Very generational uplift. Much wow.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

The i7 is the most interesting chip of the 14th gen SKUs so far since it gained another 4 E cores.

[Alex Doe]

Thank you for the benchmark Michael! No need to bother with upgrade. Let's wait for 15th gen.