Intel Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K and Core i5-14600K Review: Raptor Lake Refreshed
by Gavin Bonshor on October 17, 2023 9:00 AM ESTSPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results
Single-threaded performance is only one element in regard to performance on a multi-core processor, and it's time to look at multi-threaded performance in SPEC2017. Although things in the single-threaded SPEC2017 testing showed that both Zen 4 and Raptor Lake were consistently at loggerheads, let's look at data in the Rate-N multi-threaded section.
Looking at multi-threaded performance in SPECint2017, the only test that seemed to benefit from the increased core clock speeds of the Core i9-14900K was in 502.gcc_r, which is a simulation based on the GNU C compiler that analyzes source code inputs and compiles a few large files instead of many different small files. In this instance, we saw 34% more performance with the Core i9-14900K than the Core i9-13900K, but we are currently re-testing to ensure this isn't an anomaly and is an accurate representation.
Of course, it's also fair to assume that the clock speed increase yields a benefit, although we aren't seeing this translate to more performance in other tests within the SPECint2017 MT suite.
The last section of our SPEC2017 testing is the SPECfp2017 MT, and once again, we are seeing some gains, but they are very marginal at most. We did actually see some regression in one test, 511.povray_r, which represents a 2560 x 2048 pixel rendering of a chess board and is saved as a Targa (.tga) file extension. Given that we also run a specific Persistence of Ray tracing (POVRay) test in our suite, and we didn't see this regression here, it could be an anomaly, and as we've stated, we are re-testing SPEC to eliminate any of these anomalies or variations.
Overall, in both ST and MT SPEC2017 suite performance, the Intel Core i9-14900K doesn't represent significant gains in performance over the Core i9-13900K.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
cmdrdredd - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
You aren't even the target market for any of this so your comment is useless and pointless. You are not an enthusiast, gamer, or need the power for work.ItsAdam - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
I old a 4090 and I wouldn't want a CPU with the same power as it. I was waiting for Meteor Lake upgrading from my 5800X3D, but when I heard it was a refresh I was like oh no.Looks like I'm going to be a beta tester for AMDs 6000 series, and I'm quite frankly bored of AMD and it's crash test consumer development.
I know times are changing, I know, and I loved to tinker but it's getting too long in the tooth with AMD ATM with all the agesa "fixes" which is usually a big performance loss.
I really wanted INTEL to come out brawling,but all they're doing is digging their own grave.
They shouldn't have released ANOTHER refresh, especially one as bad as this.
lilo777 - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
You do not pay the utility for peak power consumption. You pay for actual consumption which is much lower because power peaks are rare and short.mode_13h - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
> power peaks are rare and short.Depends on what you're doing. If rendering, video encoding, or lots of software compilation, then not necessarily.
mode_13h - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
Thanks for continuing to run SPEC2017, but I'm really missing the cumulative scores. Also, I wish we could get cumulative scores on E-cores only and P-cores only, as well as populating that graph with some other popular CPUs, as was done up to the i9-12900K review.For reference, please see the chart titled "SPEC2017 Rate-N Estimated Total", at the bottom of this page:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t...
The following page of that review goes on to explore the P & E cores.
Perhaps this would be good material for a follow-on article?
eloyard - Thursday, October 19, 2023 - link
2000s called, want their Net-Burst back.Reinforcer - Saturday, October 28, 2023 - link
Then don't let the motherboard run away with power lol, Honestly what is wrong with you reviewers fixated on how much power it can draw? Set it to Intel's 253w limit and enjoy almost the same performance as one that is consuming stupid amounts of power, It's not rocket science or do we not know how to set a motherboard up these days?