5 ms·
Intel's Core I7-14700K Benchmarked: More Cores, Higher Clocks
- pcurve 3y agoI wonder how fast is enough? I'm using 9 year old Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz. I think this machine will last another 9 no problem?
- quickthrower2 3y agoAnd that is because we can but bigger workloads in the cloud at more economical prices for those rare times you meed it and most of the time we are thin clients to the web, or running simple UIs. Gaming excepted.
- JohnBooty 3y agoI've got a Core i7-3770K at 4ghz-ish. As far as performance goes, yeah, totally fine for almost anything including gaming. Maybe not crushing big video editing projects but I don't do that. According to various benchmarks my other machine, a Core i5-13xxxx is "only" about 2x as fast single-threaded. Not a massive difference for CPUs released over 10 years apart. The 3770K apparently won't be able to run Windows 11 because of lack of TPM support and Windows 10 will be discontinued in a few years. I guess the 4790 will be in the same boat? Not sure I care. I guess it can still be a gaming machine as long as MS issues critical updates. I don't use these things for work anyway.
- pcurve 3y agoyep, 4790 is definitely SOL... re: Win 11 upgrade. I'm happy with Win 10. 95% of my computer usage is Chrome anyway. ;)
- JohnBooty 3y agoThat's a shame, because those 3xxx and 4xxx CPUs are quite capable. Of course, they can still live on as Linux machines. I have an unreasonable level of affection for that old box of mine. It's depressing to know how many machines of that vintage will simply go to the scrap heap, especially once Windows 10 stops getting security updates.
- pcurve 3y ago"they can still live on as Linux machines. I have an unreasonable level of affection for that old box of mine." So funny you mention that. That's exactly what happened to my older core-i5 machine. It's a media PC in the livingroom running on Ubuntu after I ported the Windows license over to my current machine ;-)
- ramesh31 3y agoWhat is Intel's future? I find myself asking this lately. The desktop market is strong but niche, and their datacenter numbers are waning. Perhaps there's a future where an Intel/AMD consortium could take on the dominance of Nvidia in the GPU ML space. It really comes down to creating a viable alternative to CUDA, which maybe they could do together.
- smoldesu 3y agoI think Intel will be fine. Their far future is probably based around fabbing mid-range chips for other customers, which should be pretty lucrative (with or without Samsung as a competitor). Maybe they'll rekindle their RISC-V research once their ARM partnership winds down, or double down on their GPU line. They have a lot of options right now. > Perhaps there's a future where an Intel/AMD consortium could take on the dominance of Nvidia in the GPU ML space. The thing that is cementing Nvidia's dominance is industry hostility. If you could ship a truly cross-platform GPGPU driver to every modern device, CUDA would be a harder sell. Instead, the best you can get are intermediary libraries like ONNX that do their best to cherry-pick and expose common and accelerated operations. CUDA eats it's lunch in featureset and optimization. To fix this, you have to bring Microsoft and Apple to the table too. It is purely a matter of investment and cooperation, neither of which seems to exist right now.
- foota 3y agoIsn't Microsoft pretty invested in onnx?
- smoldesu 3y agoThey are. The problem isn't them, it's everyone else; their execution providers are all over the place, with many lacking fundamental features and others with insane compilation requirements. And when you compare it to CUDA... they're in different leagues, literally. ONNX is solely looking at AI acceleration, not the field of GPGPU compute. If you want synchronized memory pages or generic GPU compute APIs, ONNX is not even part of the discussion. It's a great effort, and one I'm definitely rooting for. I wouldn't expect it to dethrone Nvidia though, even if someone manages to beat their hardware.
- gautamcgoel 3y agoThis generation of Intel CPUs is essentially more E-cores, higher clocks, and perhaps an updated DRAM controller which is guaranteed to work with higher-clocked RAM. I don't find any of this particularly compelling, and would probably wait for the next generation, which is supposed to represent a much more substantial upgrade. I would also like to see more processors offered with just P-cores - I would rather buy a $200 CPU with 8 P-cores than a $250 CPU with 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores (I understand that others may have different needs).
- brucethemoose2 3y ago> I would also like to see more processors offered with just P-cores - I would rather buy a $200 CPU with 8 P-cores than a $250 CPU with 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores (I understand that others may have different needs). On the contrary, I think there's a market for, say, 2 P cores and 24+ E cores. They are extremely area efficient, and some workloads like compilation or chunked encoding just want more real cores. And this niche is (for the moment) an advantage Intel has over AMD. Also, Intel already offers P core only SKUs.
- gymbeaux 3y agoI don’t see how P+E/bigLITTLE is giving Intel an edge when Ryzen 7th Gen is still whooping Intel CPUs in the power consumption department. What are some cases where one would want 2 P cores and 24 E cores?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoCompilation or video encoding, as said above.
- gymbeaux 3y agoBut why would I want them to be E cores instead of P cores? Battery life?
- gautamcgoel 3y ago
- maskedinvader 3y agoWow core i4900k and 14900ks editions rumored to have 6.0 ghz and 6.20 ghz clock speeds ! I thought we were had hit a 5 ghz ceiling with current tech. What a time to be alive !
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThe power draw is going to be insane though! It feels like the Pentium 4 all over again, except no one is really objecting to skyrocketing power usage, and not just for CPUs... GPUs, RAM, even SSDs!
- gymbeaux 3y agoPeople only seem to care about power consumption when it’s AMD
- brucethemoose2 3y agoRocket Lake was criticized for it. But Alder Lake/Ampere and everything after all feels insane and unopposed. Ryzen/Radeon 7000 is kinda turbo happy too, just not as bad.
- metadat 3y ago125W at load isn't that much at all. 6ghz is crazy. We really are living in the future! Edit: why does TFA say 12W for all three processors?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoFor the 13900K, its more like 300W over a 69W idle! https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-13900k-review,6.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-13900k-r...
- metadat 3y agoYeah, it was a long day yesterday and I must've been exhausted - because my brain saw rows of "125W" in TFA's table, but looking at it today, that column is "PBP", and then there's another column with more meaningful values along the lines of what you've shared. Now I'm wondering, what's PBP? Processor Base Power, is apparently an Intel-specific term introduced with 12th generation Alder Lake chips, and it's meant to convey the thermal energy which must be dissipated when said CPUs are running at their base frequency. https://liliputing.com/pbp-vs-tdp-intel-changes-power-consumption-starting-with-12th-gen-chips/ https://liliputing.com/pbp-vs-tdp-intel-changes-power-consum... Thank you brucethemoose for helping clarify this for me!
- frfl 3y agoThe laptop I got handed at work was surprisingly powerful. i7 13xxxk, i forget the exact model, but its spec'd at up to 5ghz. Then i logged into MS Teams, Outlook in the browser...slow as ever. Probably just as 'fast' as if I opened them on my i5 3rd gen which is 10 years old at this point Reminds me of a rant Jon Blow went on regarding the M1 [1], it doesn't matter how powerful the CPU is when the software running on it doesn't get any faster [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unx3WCWZwUc&pp=ygULam9uIGJsb3cgbTE%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unx3WCWZwUc&pp=ygULam9uIGJsb3c...
- CableNinja 3y agoA big issue is that many processes are either pinned to a single core, or, dont utilize libraries that make it capable of using more processing power. Games are stupidly notorious for this. All the GPU power and highest spec multi core CPU in the world wont help you when the bottleneck is the simple fact of the process not doing multiprocessing is in so many apps. Its not just games either of course, other popular apps do it too.
- skavi 3y agomodern game engines don’t really have that problem anymore.
- sfmike 3y agoagreed this video goes over the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dNuR16gJ2A&t=140s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dNuR16gJ2A&t=140s How people with 10th gen feels snappier then the fastest of current gen for various reasons. I've noticed too that just a basic quad core mini pc can "feel" snappier to the eyes and normal usage then a gaming rig with top cpu gpu.
- CommanderData 3y agoI have the same issue. Doubt its my processor. Corp laptops have a bunch of things enabled, bitlocker in my experience slows my machine down considerably making it an IO bottleneck.
- eternityforest 3y ago
- jacknews 3y agoThese intel cpus are power-hungry beasts. Just doing a quick search on benchmark comparisions of the Ryzen 7040 series (a mobile cpu), and it's about 90% the performance of the intel flagship, and roasts it on GPU.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xracy 3y agoI guess power-draw and clock speed is how we're going to be getting around Moore's law ending for a while... Doesn't feel like the right way forward. Would be cool to do more with less by switching off of x86 optimizations.