Yeah but Intel has gone full insanity here. If Prescott could heat my dorm room in college, the Raptor Lake on juice should be able to heat an entire house. This is over 3x the heat output of the hottest Prescott!Reply
AT did some testing on this last year and the short of it is unsurprisingly AMD scales up AND down better than Intel when it comes to performance per watt, but Intel can hit higher TDP's due to limits AMD has on their package power.
Don't worry; I will be testing Intel Default settings, too. I'm testing over the weekend and adding them in.
I tested, as we normally do because it keeps the data set consistent. As I state on the first page
"This does pose questions when it comes to testing and reviewing Intel's 14th and 13th Gen processors. We have been considering our standpoint on this, as we will typically test at the default motherboard settings with memory set to JEDEC specifications of the specific processor we're testing. For this review, we will be testing how we usually test, as this fits within the realm of keeping things consistent."
Intel's back-and-forth with motherboard vendors on this issue has raised many questions. We intend to address it as soon as possible. We already test with memory as per JEDEC, and I usually get a lot of criticism about why I don't test with DDR5-6000 or DDR5-7200, etc.
Don't worry, we will be addressing this in-house.Reply
I am expecting reviews to start fixing Intel's inaccuracies, not "keeping things consistent". Using an overclocked CPU, at an overclocked state in a review, helps maintaining inconsistency not consistency. Especially when there is a chance the CPU to get degraded even in the short period of warranty time. The fact that this is pre overclocked CPU from Intel, doesn't mean it should be tested that way, especially after the latest revelations. Whatever data you had, should have gone directly to the trash bin and only test with whatever Intel believes it is "in spec".Reply
Agree 100%. My guess is the benchmarks were already done and rather than throw them in the trash where they belong they published them. I will take Gavin at his word that he will update this, but IMHO they should've held back until all of the benchmakrs were done.Reply
What's the point of publishing the article without those extra tests in the first place? And since this can change your conclusions a bit, this is confusing and misleading.
"Don't worry"? Let me remind you the article on the i5-14600k, which stilks says after a month that you are currently re-running SPEC2017 tests and "will update the results". Have those tests been completely re-run? Were the graphs fully updated? When was it updated? You didn't care to update the text accordingly, making the review confusing at best.
So please, stop publishing articles where half of the job isn't even (properly) done. If not all tests are finished, then by all means finish them before publishing the article.Reply
Exactly. I have little faith in anything they say here as this website has fallen off a cliff. They just completely gave up on reviewing video cards. CPU reviews seem half assed since Ian Cuttress left. And you are right, the conclusion could (and should) change based on the next set of results. Will we see an updated conclusion? I sure hope so.Reply
Please be kind to AT. They're short staffed, underfunded, and cannot hang onto english native speaking talent so they're doing the best with what they have available. Besides, this is the first non-PSU, watercooler, or external storage device review they've published in a while. It's better we encourage them than insult them for leaving it half finished. 50% is better than 0% isn't it?Reply
I don't see any 'insulting' here. What I'm saying is that the job was not properly done. And no, a half-finished review article with incomplete data and a possibly not proper conclusion is not "better than nothing".
That AT is understaffed is none of my business, and it doesn't in any case justify publishing half-finished content. And let's remember that this website is not a charity either.Reply
Reasonably, yes readers shouldn't be concerned with AT funding and staffing problems, but I think it's out of an abundance of kindness that we try our best to overlook the inaccuracies, incompleteness, and typos that currently plagues content here on an on-going basis in the hopes of being encouraging for the future health of the site. Assuming it gets a little time and effort from both employees and leadership, AT can once again become a useful site that does more than just repost company press releases and add grammatical errors during ill-informed fluff commentary.Reply
Is there a donate/patreon link? Gotta get with the times. Get funding for complete reviews instead of releasing data which isn't even recommended by Intel. I know this site can't make enough money to keep people around even with all these ads. If your base readership gave $5 per year, I bet you could afford some full-time staff.Reply
Didn't Apple eventually turn Anand into an employee? If the half-eaten fruit company bribed me with a lorry load of money, I'd have departed as well and at least played lip service to their overpriced popularity contest products. Running this site has to be more than a bit draining for someone that might have cared.Reply
They take a light approach to comment removal. Things would have to devolve into petty squabbling or delve into topics like AT's loss of web traffic or credibility so its not like they censor with a heavy hand. It's just to protect Future LLC's financial interests and how it appears to readers. Calm down please.Reply
I would so love for Anandtech to do another of their IPC-focused articles at this moment between AMD and Intel. Take the Core i9 14900K (or KS, don't matter), disable all the E-cores, and set all the P-cores at the same 4.0GHz. From AMD, use both the Ryzen 7 7800X and 7800X3D, and do the same: set all cores to 4.0GHz. Then take those three setups (Zen 4, Zen 4+X3D, Raptor Lake Refresh) through the full benchmark runs. Everyone on the same amount of cores, same frequency.Reply
Can we see the v/f curve from the VID of the chip you have for testing? Specifically what are the VID voltages at 6.2 and 5.9? At 6.2 they can vary from just below 1.4V (golden sample) to over 1.5V (really bad).Reply
Anandtech should focus on comparing x86 CPUs to ARM CPUs if they want to differentiate. Any media can run the benchmarks provided here. But not many or no one is doing Intel/AMD vs Apple Silicon thoroughly.
M4 ST speeds are 20%+ faster than an Intel 14900KS.Reply
The problem is the same as it always has been - It's not a fair hardware comparison when the APIs (OS/libraries) are difference, compilers are different, power settings are different, and both hardware centric and software centric optimisations are different.
Example: It's bad enough just comparing the same OpenGL package this way, Comparing D3D against OGL never worked.Reply
and there you are again, spouting Apple nonsense. Yes, in Apple's ARM favoring benchmarks ARM CPU's do better. IT has little relevance to x86 CPU's which are far more powerful. ARM is great for mobile. NEXT! Reply
Apple strongly supported Intel parts for quite a number of years. They're moving on precisely because Intel hasn't been performing for a while now.Reply
Hi Gavin! Can you please point to official URLs/documents that provide the JEDEC timings for Intel and Ryzen CPUs, based on which you chose your settings? Thanks!Reply
I look forward to future power profile testing as the issues with RPL die seem to have finally forced Intel's hand with regards to default settings. Would also love to see some memory speed scaling tests as this hasn't really been done in depth that I've seen. Reply
High power consumption, overclocking potential seemingly depleted from the get-go due to intensified competition with AMD. This likely leads to instabilities exacerbated by additional tuning from motherboard manufacturers, which used to be a non-issue. One could also argue that the design is in need of renewal or that one must abandon overclocking in this area. Both motherboard manufacturers and customers alike.Reply
This cpu is a dumpster fire waiting to happen, eventually the aio will fail, and even will a correctly sized cooler this will heat up your room pretty quick. Intel needs to go back to and learn how to correctly make a cpu that doesn't need more than a 130w cooler. This is insane, work on ipc, and ipc alone, I don't give a hoot about max clock speeds.Reply
Seeing the results, the conclusion from the AT of old would have been simple, do not buy unless you want a binned CPU for LN2 over locking. Bit disappointing tons of data, terrible conclusion. Reply
I agree with you, anandtech should have taken the opportunity to criticize intel for chasing mhz and not ipc gains, how many pc gamers and productivity enthusiasts want a cpu that takes a 400w cooler to tame this cpu, this is not even make for the top 5%, I rather they gave more cores or increased IPC, or do what AMD is doing and stack vcache on top of the cpu. I understand their manufacturing nodes are behind, but this is not the way to make up for it. We want real improvements every year, and this is a terrible example of the cpu evolving. This should be called out for being the worst cpu option for enthusiasts. Reply
I was about to ask the same question. Will that be similar to the article about the Core Ultra 7 155H, that still says "We are currently re-running SPEC2017 on the Intel Core i5-14600K, and we will update the results accordingly once we have them." on its SPEC2017 benchmark page after more than a month?Reply
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
Back to Article
kobblestown - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Right next to https://www.anandtech.com/show/21392/amd-hits-reco... at the front page at the moment. ReplyFatFlatulentGit - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Dangit, here I was gonna have a walk down memory lane and the benchmark images are all missing. Replyedwpang - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
History repeats itself, 20 years ago, Intel Pentium 4 Prescott increased clock speed, but no much performance gain:https://www.anandtech.com/show/1230 Reply
Samus - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Yeah but Intel has gone full insanity here. If Prescott could heat my dorm room in college, the Raptor Lake on juice should be able to heat an entire house. This is over 3x the heat output of the hottest Prescott! ReplyGeoffreyA - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
That's the thing. Prescott has this reputation, rightly so, but I don't think it went over 200 W. Cedar Mill further curtailed the TDP. Replyboozed - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
I'd love to have seen some specific performance results, i.e. performance/watt or work/energy. ReplySamus - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link
AT did some testing on this last year and the short of it is unsurprisingly AMD scales up AND down better than Intel when it comes to performance per watt, but Intel can hit higher TDP's due to limits AMD has on their package power.https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch... Reply
James5mith - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Would have liked to see this review done at the Intel dictated stock settings rather than the motherboard defaults.https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-... Reply
Gavin Bonshor - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Don't worry; I will be testing Intel Default settings, too. I'm testing over the weekend and adding them in.I tested, as we normally do because it keeps the data set consistent. As I state on the first page
"This does pose questions when it comes to testing and reviewing Intel's 14th and 13th Gen processors. We have been considering our standpoint on this, as we will typically test at the default motherboard settings with memory set to JEDEC specifications of the specific processor we're testing. For this review, we will be testing how we usually test, as this fits within the realm of keeping things consistent."
Intel's back-and-forth with motherboard vendors on this issue has raised many questions. We intend to address it as soon as possible. We already test with memory as per JEDEC, and I usually get a lot of criticism about why I don't test with DDR5-6000 or DDR5-7200, etc.
Don't worry, we will be addressing this in-house. Reply
yannigr2 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
I am expecting reviews to start fixing Intel's inaccuracies, not "keeping things consistent". Using an overclocked CPU, at an overclocked state in a review, helps maintaining inconsistency not consistency. Especially when there is a chance the CPU to get degraded even in the short period of warranty time. The fact that this is pre overclocked CPU from Intel, doesn't mean it should be tested that way, especially after the latest revelations. Whatever data you had, should have gone directly to the trash bin and only test with whatever Intel believes it is "in spec". ReplyThunder 57 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Agree 100%. My guess is the benchmarks were already done and rather than throw them in the trash where they belong they published them. I will take Gavin at his word that he will update this, but IMHO they should've held back until all of the benchmakrs were done. ReplyBushLin - Thursday, May 16, 2024 - link
So... Doesn't look like the review has been updated, coming up to a week later Replykkilobyte - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
What's the point of publishing the article without those extra tests in the first place? And since this can change your conclusions a bit, this is confusing and misleading."Don't worry"? Let me remind you the article on the i5-14600k, which stilks says after a month that you are currently re-running SPEC2017 tests and "will update the results". Have those tests been completely re-run? Were the graphs fully updated? When was it updated? You didn't care to update the text accordingly, making the review confusing at best.
So please, stop publishing articles where half of the job isn't even (properly) done. If not all tests are finished, then by all means finish them before publishing the article. Reply
Thunder 57 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Exactly. I have little faith in anything they say here as this website has fallen off a cliff. They just completely gave up on reviewing video cards. CPU reviews seem half assed since Ian Cuttress left. And you are right, the conclusion could (and should) change based on the next set of results. Will we see an updated conclusion? I sure hope so. ReplyPeachNCream - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Please be kind to AT. They're short staffed, underfunded, and cannot hang onto english native speaking talent so they're doing the best with what they have available. Besides, this is the first non-PSU, watercooler, or external storage device review they've published in a while. It's better we encourage them than insult them for leaving it half finished. 50% is better than 0% isn't it? ReplyOxford Guy - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Given the situation with Intel's CPUs, it's unreasonable to publish a new article without testing according to the so-called power defaults.Utterly unreasonable. Reply
powerarmour - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Unbelievable Intel shilling now here, a waste of space this site. ReplyGeoffreyA - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
I agree with PeachNCream. The insults are not helping anybody but probably making them feel more despondent and driving them away. Replykkilobyte - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
I don't see any 'insulting' here. What I'm saying is that the job was not properly done. And no, a half-finished review article with incomplete data and a possibly not proper conclusion is not "better than nothing".That AT is understaffed is none of my business, and it doesn't in any case justify publishing half-finished content. And let's remember that this website is not a charity either. Reply
PeachNCream - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Reasonably, yes readers shouldn't be concerned with AT funding and staffing problems, but I think it's out of an abundance of kindness that we try our best to overlook the inaccuracies, incompleteness, and typos that currently plagues content here on an on-going basis in the hopes of being encouraging for the future health of the site. Assuming it gets a little time and effort from both employees and leadership, AT can once again become a useful site that does more than just repost company press releases and add grammatical errors during ill-informed fluff commentary. ReplyIketh - Monday, May 13, 2024 - link
Is there a donate/patreon link? Gotta get with the times. Get funding for complete reviews instead of releasing data which isn't even recommended by Intel. I know this site can't make enough money to keep people around even with all these ads. If your base readership gave $5 per year, I bet you could afford some full-time staff. Replygoatfajitas - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
It went downhill even before Anand left. At some point he sort of "checked out". ReplyGeoffreyA - Monday, May 13, 2024 - link
He caught the Apple bug... ReplyPeachNCream - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link
Didn't Apple eventually turn Anand into an employee? If the half-eaten fruit company bribed me with a lorry load of money, I'd have departed as well and at least played lip service to their overpriced popularity contest products. Running this site has to be more than a bit draining for someone that might have cared. ReplyAndrewJacksonZA - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Thanks Gavin. The Intel BIOS issue is something that I've been wondering if the press would re-test CPUs or not for. Replymode_13h - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
> Don't worry; I will be testing Intel Default settings, too.Thank you. I'm looking forward to it. Reply
shabby - Monday, May 13, 2024 - link
Just use an air cooler, 400w power usage problem solved. Replypowerarmour - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Absolutely, considering comments were removed on the last article this smells of bias otherwise. ReplyPeachNCream - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link
They take a light approach to comment removal. Things would have to devolve into petty squabbling or delve into topics like AT's loss of web traffic or credibility so its not like they censor with a heavy hand. It's just to protect Future LLC's financial interests and how it appears to readers. Calm down please. ReplyOxford Guy - Thursday, May 16, 2024 - link
Are you an employee? Replynandnandnand - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Instable means unstable?! NoooOOOoo! Replyerotomania - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Suffering instability while being unstable...yikes Replyerotomania - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Thanks Gavin. Enjoyable read. Pretty steep CPU+cooler investment, considering a $20ish Thermalright air cooler can cool an i5-14600K just fine.Autocorrect may have nipped this phrase: "...decide the IHS from the chip..." Reply
Gavin Bonshor - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
I appreciate your comment.Also, thank you for spotting that. My apologies! It has now been fixed :) Reply
NextGen_Gamer - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
I would so love for Anandtech to do another of their IPC-focused articles at this moment between AMD and Intel. Take the Core i9 14900K (or KS, don't matter), disable all the E-cores, and set all the P-cores at the same 4.0GHz. From AMD, use both the Ryzen 7 7800X and 7800X3D, and do the same: set all cores to 4.0GHz. Then take those three setups (Zen 4, Zen 4+X3D, Raptor Lake Refresh) through the full benchmark runs. Everyone on the same amount of cores, same frequency. ReplyHulk - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Can we see the v/f curve from the VID of the chip you have for testing?Specifically what are the VID voltages at 6.2 and 5.9? At 6.2 they can vary from just below 1.4V (golden sample) to over 1.5V (really bad). Reply
HideOut - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Why is it Anandtech is posting reviews of a CPU thats been out a while now... ReplyThunder 57 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
They probably finally got enough ad revenue to buy one since no one samples them anything anymore it seems. ReplyRyan Smith - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
We just finished reviewing it. Several things came in/required attention at once. Replylemurbutton - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Anandtech should focus on comparing x86 CPUs to ARM CPUs if they want to differentiate. Any media can run the benchmarks provided here. But not many or no one is doing Intel/AMD vs Apple Silicon thoroughly.M4 ST speeds are 20%+ faster than an Intel 14900KS. Reply
evanh - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
The problem is the same as it always has been - It's not a fair hardware comparison when the APIs (OS/libraries) are difference, compilers are different, power settings are different, and both hardware centric and software centric optimisations are different.Example: It's bad enough just comparing the same OpenGL package this way, Comparing D3D against OGL never worked. Reply
goatfajitas - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
and there you are again, spouting Apple nonsense. Yes, in Apple's ARM favoring benchmarks ARM CPU's do better. IT has little relevance to x86 CPU's which are far more powerful. ARM is great for mobile. NEXT! Replyevanh - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Apple strongly supported Intel parts for quite a number of years. They're moving on precisely because Intel hasn't been performing for a while now. ReplyIgor_Kavinski - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Hi Gavin! Can you please point to official URLs/documents that provide the JEDEC timings for Intel and Ryzen CPUs, based on which you chose your settings? Thanks! Replythestryker - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
I look forward to future power profile testing as the issues with RPL die seem to have finally forced Intel's hand with regards to default settings. Would also love to see some memory speed scaling tests as this hasn't really been done in depth that I've seen. Replyxray9 - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
High power consumption, overclocking potential seemingly depleted from the get-go due to intensified competition with AMD. This likely leads to instabilities exacerbated by additional tuning from motherboard manufacturers, which used to be a non-issue. One could also argue that the design is in need of renewal or that one must abandon overclocking in this area. Both motherboard manufacturers and customers alike. Replyedlee - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
This cpu is a dumpster fire waiting to happen, eventually the aio will fail, and even will a correctly sized cooler this will heat up your room pretty quick. Intel needs to go back to and learn how to correctly make a cpu that doesn't need more than a 130w cooler. This is insane, work on ipc, and ipc alone, I don't give a hoot about max clock speeds. Replydoncerdo - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Seeing the results, the conclusion from the AT of old would have been simple, do not buy unless you want a binned CPU for LN2 over locking. Bit disappointing tons of data, terrible conclusion. Replyedlee - Monday, May 13, 2024 - link
I agree with you, anandtech should have taken the opportunity to criticize intel for chasing mhz and not ipc gains, how many pc gamers and productivity enthusiasts want a cpu that takes a 400w cooler to tame this cpu, this is not even make for the top 5%, I rather they gave more cores or increased IPC, or do what AMD is doing and stack vcache on top of the cpu. I understand their manufacturing nodes are behind, but this is not the way to make up for it. We want real improvements every year, and this is a terrible example of the cpu evolving. This should be called out for being the worst cpu option for enthusiasts. ReplyThunder 57 - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link
It is now Tuesday. Gavin said he would run the benchmarks again over the weekend and update the article. Where is the update? Replykkilobyte - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link
I was about to ask the same question. Will that be similar to the article about the Core Ultra 7 155H, that still says "We are currently re-running SPEC2017 on the Intel Core i5-14600K, and we will update the results accordingly once we have them." on its SPEC2017 benchmark page after more than a month? Reply