INTEL CPUs *OC Benchmark & Discussion*

[xonix]

just want to check if i am not able to wait for intel 15th gen, can I go for 14th gen one?
Does it still have stability issues?

Buy AMD Ryzen 7000 series

 

[memoriess]

Buy AMD Ryzen 7000 series

I used AMD before, but surprised that intel is better in running emulators...

 

[iceblendedchoc]

just want to check if i am not able to wait for intel 15th gen, can I go for 14th gen one?
Does it still have stability issues?

suggest you to wait or skip 13 and 14 gen even with the hot patch and 5 years warranty.

 

[Phen8210]

Buy AMD Ryzen 7000 series

never say that in an intel thread, the knights will strike at you

 

[Phen8210]

 

[matique]

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-admits-core-ultra-9-285k-will-be-slower-than-i9-14900k-in-gaming

Looks like it's goodbye intel for me and going to team red! At stock, the U9 285K is even slower than the 13/14900k, and loses quite a lot to the 9950x/7950x3d. I'm assuming this is due to the tile latency issues.

 

[KYZT2021]

always go with your wallet

 

[kimsix]

Intel sucks, wait for x870e apex

 

[matique]

Intel sucks, wait for x870e apex

Lol AM5 no need for apex lah, it'll be quite worthless. No benefit to ram oc on AM5 for gaming as long as IF is the limit. Go pray IF strong, can hit 2200 happy alr, run 6600c28 tight.

 

[Phen8210]

Intel sucks, wait for x870e apex

intel ftw

 

[watzup_ken]

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-admits-core-ultra-9-285k-will-be-slower-than-i9-14900k-in-gaming

Looks like it's goodbye intel for me and going to team red! At stock, the U9 285K is even slower than the 13/14900k, and loses quite a lot to the 9950x/7950x3d. I'm assuming this is due to the tile latency issues.

I think it may be worth to wait for official reviews to see the extent of the regression before deciding. But what is clear to me is that there will be tradeoffs with the new design and focus on power efficiency, and therefore, you won't see consistent gains across different apps and workloads like we are accustomed to see with a new generation of CPUs.

The silver lining for Intel is that TSMC's 3nm definitely helped them achieved their power efficiency greatly over Intel 7, which probably mitigated some of these performance lost due to lower power target. Which I think was the reason why Intel decided to go full TSMC instead of using their own foundry for their Arrow and Lunar Lake.

 

[matique]

I think it may be worth to wait for official reviews to see the extent of the regression before deciding. But what is clear to me is that there will be tradeoffs with the new design and focus on power efficiency, and therefore, you won't see consistent gains across different apps and workloads like we are accustomed to see with a new generation of CPUs.

The silver lining for Intel is that TSMC's 3nm definitely helped them achieved their power efficiency greatly over Intel 7, which probably mitigated some of these performance lost due to lower power target. Which I think was the reason why Intel decided to go full TSMC instead of using their own foundry for their Arrow and Lunar Lake.

This is official news, from intel slides with presumably jedec 6400. There will be some gains from OCing + mem tuning, but fundamentally if L3 is this slow to the point of regression despite the stronger core performance, then tuning the CPU won't help much. As it is on TSMC node, the VF scaling won't be much this round too versus an intel node, so not much headroom to boost the core further.

Ideally the target OC for 285K would be 5.8-5.9ghz boost, 5.7 sustained, with memory being 9600c38 or higher. No matter how fast the ram is, if tile latency for L2/L3 is this **** then it can't help.

I don't care for efficiency, especially at the loss of performance. Afaik intel went with TSMC as 20a process was halted to quicken the maturity of 18a.

 

[R6exR6]

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-admits-core-ultra-9-285k-will-be-slower-than-i9-14900k-in-gaming

Looks like it's goodbye intel for me and going to team red! At stock, the U9 285K is even slower than the 13/14900k, and loses quite a lot to the 9950x/7950x3d. I'm assuming this is due to the tile latency issues.

Gonna pair 9800X3D with 5090 next year. ARL is a huge disappointment!

 

[matique]

Gonna pair 9800X3D with 5090 next year. ARL is a huge disappointment!

I will be holding off upgrades till i change monitor. Currently already maxed out most games on 3440x1440 175fps. But as always, it's more financially wise to purchase flagship GPU early, price rarely drops and often rises.

CKD ram will cost a lot, and the Z890 board pricing is slightly higher too. Total platform cost will rise by quite a bit, for little to no gains. X3D chips would make more sense, as you can still use cheaper b650 boards, retain my current ram and wait for X3D discounts during BFCM.

 

[Koenig168]

I will be holding off upgrades till i change monitor. Currently already maxed out most games on 3440x1440 175fps. But as always, it's more financially wise to purchase flagship GPU early, price rarely drops and often rises.

CKD ram will cost a lot, and the Z890 board pricing is slightly higher too. Total platform cost will rise by quite a bit, for little to no gains. X3D chips would make more sense, as you can still use cheaper b650 boards, retain my current ram and wait for X3D discounts during BFCM.

The 9000X3D won't be discounted during this BFCM, maybe the next. Doubt you will wait that long , especially if the 9000X3D turn out to be the winner I expect it to be.

 

[R6exR6]

I will be holding off upgrades till i change monitor. Currently already maxed out most games on 3440x1440 175fps. But as always, it's more financially wise to purchase flagship GPU early, price rarely drops and often rises.

CKD ram will cost a lot, and the Z890 board pricing is slightly higher too. Total platform cost will rise by quite a bit, for little to no gains. X3D chips would make more sense, as you can still use cheaper b650 boards, retain my current ram and wait for X3D discounts during BFCM.

If only my old, presbyopic eyes can see properly at the near-distances of ultrawide monitors ...
No choice, bought an 85" Sony TV, so no problem seeing the details. Best thing is my old eyes can't even see the huge pixels.
Will need all the GPU muscles to max settings my games at 4K! Hope the top X3D CPU can still produce playable fps in 10 years' time. Don't intend to upgrade CPU/mobo until either one dies. GPU upgrades alone will be good enough for many years to come.

 

[watzup_ken]

This is official news, from intel slides with presumably jedec 6400. There will be some gains from OCing + mem tuning, but fundamentally if L3 is this slow to the point of regression despite the stronger core performance, then tuning the CPU won't help much. As it is on TSMC node, the VF scaling won't be much this round too versus an intel node, so not much headroom to boost the core further.

Ideally the target OC for 285K would be 5.8-5.9ghz boost, 5.7 sustained, with memory being 9600c38 or higher. No matter how fast the ram is, if tile latency for L2/L3 is this **** then it can't help.

I don't care for efficiency, especially at the loss of performance. Afaik intel went with TSMC as 20a process was halted to quicken the maturity of 18a.

I feel there are signs that Intel's foundry is not as healthy as they have you believe.
1. There were articles of Broadcom expressing concerns around yield issues with 18A
https://www.trendforce.com/news/202...urces-all-sub-3nm-process-production-to-tsmc/
2. Pat himself mentioned that TSMC is the "right technology".
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2355435/intels-lunar-lake-is-actually-made-at-tsmc.html

The timing of these 2 news is about 3 months apart, so it is actually not that far off. If 18A is having yield issues, I can imagine 20A is no better such that it got killed off. Which is why TSMC is the "right technology"? And if I am not wrong, Intel's initial Lunar Lake featured an Intel foundry chip (mostly) apart from the iGPU that has always been produced by TSMC.

 

[matique]

The 9000X3D won't be discounted during this BFCM, maybe the next. Doubt you will wait that long , especially if the 9000X3D turn out to be the winner I expect it to be.

Hahaha when the time comes to upgrade, just suck thumb and go only. My main concern for CPU is gaming at 1440p/4k and maintaining consistent lows, which AMD has been bad at for awhile. See if the new gen helps, especially with way bigger cache. Keeping an eye on double cache CCD...

If only my old, presbyopic eyes can see properly at the near-distances of ultrawide monitors ...
No choice, bought an 85" Sony TV, so no problem seeing the details. Best thing is my old eyes can't even see the huge pixels.
Will need all the GPU muscles to max settings my games at 4K! Hope the top X3D CPU can still produce playable fps in 10 years' time. Don't intend to upgrade CPU/mobo until either one dies. GPU upgrades alone will be good enough for many years to come.

Haha doubt a system can last that long nowadays. I think 6 years is a good enough gap. 85" TV sounds damn shiok lol especially at a decent distance. Always upgrade GPU first, and if GPU too strong for CPU then upgrade CPU. Rinse and repeat...

I feel there are signs that Intel's foundry is not as healthy as they have you believe.
1. There were articles of Broadcom expressing concerns around yield issues with 18A
https://www.trendforce.com/news/202...urces-all-sub-3nm-process-production-to-tsmc/
2. Pat himself mentioned that TSMC is the "right technology".
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2355435/intels-lunar-lake-is-actually-made-at-tsmc.html

The timing of these 2 news is about 3 months apart, so it is actually not that far off. If 18A is having yield issues, I can imagine 20A is no better such that it got killed off. Which is why TSMC is the "right technology"? And if I am not wrong, Intel's initial Lunar Lake featured an Intel foundry chip (mostly) apart from the iGPU that has always been produced by TSMC.

Agree on the points...that's why i say 20a was halted to quicken the 18a process. They'd rather fight on one front than waste resources on two. TSMC was the better choice than a not so developed 20a.

 

[kimsix]

Lol AM5 no need for apex lah, it'll be quite worthless. No benefit to ram oc on AM5 for gaming as long as IF is the limit. Go pray IF strong, can hit 2200 happy alr, run 6600c28 tight.

newest agesa really helped to achieve 2200 fclk for me. Amd is best! But running 6600 1:1 is hard, even 6400 1:1 hard. Apex should help to get 8400 2:1 at least

i think amd mobo also bestest! Asrock b650 steel legend got all you need, bet my kkj its specs will better than many z890 mobo

 

[Phen8210]

I feel there are signs that Intel's foundry is not as healthy as they have you believe.
1. There were articles of Broadcom expressing concerns around yield issues with 18A
https://www.trendforce.com/news/202...urces-all-sub-3nm-process-production-to-tsmc/
2. Pat himself mentioned that TSMC is the "right technology".
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2355435/intels-lunar-lake-is-actually-made-at-tsmc.html

The timing of these 2 news is about 3 months apart, so it is actually not that far off. If 18A is having yield issues, I can imagine 20A is no better such that it got killed off. Which is why TSMC is the "right technology"? And if I am not wrong, Intel's initial Lunar Lake featured an Intel foundry chip (mostly) apart from the iGPU that has always been produced by TSMC.

No, Intel has no issues. They are perfect in my eyes. My opinion is the truth, and everyone must accept it.