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

[coder]

Thanks for the benchmarks, Michael. However, please get in the habit of telling us what CPU cooler you're using! These days, the unlocked CPUs run so hot that they tend to be thermally-limited, as much or more than anything else.

[coder]

these Intel CPUs are hard to beat.

Unless you care about efficiency or heat output. If I ran one of these CPUs, I'd have to use lower power limits (for reasons of heat & noise), at which point I might just be better off with the equivalent Ryzen.

source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641...13900k-7950x/2

[coder]

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.

They're exactly the same. Here, you'll find a chart showing all 14th gen-branded CPUs are using the same die & stepping as either a 12th gen or 13th gen model.

https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z790-AORUS-ELITE-X-AX/support#support-cpu

The only thing Intel changed were the clock limits, based on how their Intel 7 manufacturing node is maturing.

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

On anything but lightly-threaded tasks, they're likely to be thermally-limited. The professional reviewers tend to use cooling setups far in excess of what most users have.

[coder]

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.

The main reason they're so inefficient is that they're being clocked well above their sweet spot. Especially for Zen 4, it makes very little sense to run it at such high power, but they're catering to gamers who want those few extra FPS. See the chart I posted, above.

There are other reasons why they're less efficient than ARM-based ones. The x86 ISA is only part of it. The other main part is that they're optimizing area-efficiency more than cores designed primarily for mobile, where you're really trying to maximize perf/W.

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.

When they start selling CPUs based on these other ISAs, you'll see them still running at very high power levels, because market dynamics dictate that they maximize area-efficiency (sometimes referred to as PPA).

[fitzie]

The main reason they're so inefficient is that they're being clocked well above their sweet spot. Especially for Zen 4, it makes very little sense to run it at such high power, but they're catering to gamers who want those few extra FPS. See the chart I posted, above.

There are other reasons why they're less efficient than ARM-based ones. The x86 ISA is only part of it. The other main part is that they're optimizing area-efficiency more than cores designed primarily for mobile, where you're really trying to maximize perf/W.


When they start selling CPUs based on these other ISAs, you'll see them still running at very high power levels, because market dynamics dictate that they maximize area-efficiency (sometimes referred to as PPA).

i think intel and amd are in totally different boats, because one has fabs and the other does not. they're both sinking, but amd trying to built arm chips is going to be competing with in house silicon like apple m3/google tensor, and high end chips from qualcomm and now nvidia. on the low end it's a dime a dozen. don't see the customers coming to them for an arm chip any time soon. all intel has to do is make arm work on their fabs, and hope that china invades taiwan, then the customers will come lining up.

[AkulaMD]

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.

Does this 14th Gen comes with a brand new efficiency core (small core) or they are just using the efficiency core that was launched with the 12th Gen?

[fitzie]

I wonder if 14th gen will work with W680 motherboards. Probably going to stick with AM5 for next box, but would certainly spec out an ecc based 14th gen core box to compare with if it's compatible

--
edit: it is, according to:

https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/workstation/pro-ws-w680-ace/helpdesk_qvl_cpu?model2Name=Pro-WS-W680-ACE

now I have to decide on am5 vs 14th gen core. My current mobo is an WS series from Asus (P9D WS), so I'm quite partial to them.

[coder]

i think intel and amd are in totally different boats, because one has fabs and the other does not.

Interesting point. Perhaps, because of that, Intel can afford to worry less about area-efficiency. That certainly seemed to play out in this current generation. Golden Cove is just a lot bigger than AMD's cores, which is ultimately why it can manage more single-thread performance. It's also why they needed the more area-efficient E-cores, in order to be competitive on multithreaded performance.

amd trying to built arm chips is going to be competing with in house silicon like apple m3/google tensor, and high end chips from qualcomm and now nvidia.

I think it's not as bad as you say. The only business that's entirely off the table is Apple's, as they're the only device maker who's actually designing their own cores. The other device makers and cloud operators are using standard cores designed by ARM. As Apple has repeatedly shown, ARM's IP never seems to push the limits of what's possible. AMD will have its work cut out for it, trying to beat Qualcomm/Nuvia, but not if AMD instead focuses on the server market. Yes, Nuvia wanted to build server cores, but Qualcomm has expressed an intent to focus on the client market, for now.

all intel has to do is make arm work on their fabs, and hope that china invades taiwan, then the customers will come lining up.

You're assuming Intel's fabs and design business stay under the same parent. I doubt they will, given how different their economics are. Design is a lot more profitable than manufacturing, but manufacturing is so capital intensive that it dilutes the profits reaped by the design businesses. Therefore, it makes sense split them up, as soon as the fabs are truly self-sufficient.

[coder]

Does this 14th Gen comes with a brand new efficiency core (small core) or they are just using the efficiency core that was launched with the 12th Gen?

As I said above, the CPUs branded as 14th gen are actually using the exact same dies as 12th gen and 13th gen, depending on the model in question.

Between the 12th & 13th gen, the only apparent change in the E-cores is a doubling of the L2 cache (i.e. from 2 MB to 4MB per quad-core cluster). Perhaps the speed of their ring bus port also increased.

[coder]

I wonder if 14th gen will work with W680 motherboards.

Yes. All LGA 1700 board should support the 14th generation, however a new BIOS version is probably required. I don't know whether there are any boards which won't even boot into BIOS with a 14th gen CPU installed, but older motherboards would sometimes have this problem. Motherboards with a BMC usually have that as a workaround.

would certainly spec out an ecc based 14th gen core box to compare with if it's compatible

Just be aware that W680 boards don't support ECC with all CPU models. In the 12th gen, Intel put the cut-off at >= i5-12500. If you used a i5-12400 or below, ECC wouldn't be supported. It has nothing to do with which die the CPU is using, either. It's pure market segmentation.

The same distinction exists in 13th gen, but I don't know where the cutoff is. Not sure about 14th gen, but check the motherboards documentation & online support info, for details.