Intel 14900 vs. 14900k - how will they differ in real life due to difference in "Performance core base frequency"

[Lurking]

At work I'm getting a new PC for demanding task requiring the full 8 P-cores. I have very little to no choice in the matter and Dell is the only option. IT quoted a system with Intel 14900. Originally they talked about a 14900k. AMD is not an option and also not a Xeon or thread ripper. The 14900(k) is what I get, or nothing. 

 

I realize the max turbo will be different (5.8GHz vs. 6GHz) and that may not matter much.

 

But the "Performance core base frequency" is quite different from 2GHz to 3.2GHz for the 14900k. It isn't really clear what that means. My best guess is that is the frequency i have if all 8 P-cores run at open throttle? 

 

The e-core base frequency also differs (1,5 vs. 2.4 GHz). but the application i use that uses multiple cores will not use e-cores. So that may matter less. It is really the P-core performance i need to know if using 8 P-cores will be worse with the 14900. I saw benchmark results, but I suspect many benchmarks also benefit from the e-cores, which isn't the case here. 

 

I don't know how much more the "k" would cost from Dell (it isn't just the CPU, also more cooling and PSU). 

 

Can someone tell how both will differ when using 8 p-cores? 

 

[Tetras]

I don't think the base frequency will matter, but the power limits will.

 

If the CPU has the power limits applied (PL1/PL2) it will be anywhere from a chunk slower to way slower than the K in long-run multithreaded tasks. Light load should be little difference.

 

That said, prebuilds rarely have sufficient cooling to handle these CPUs at full pelt anyway, so this is likely to be a moot point.

[Lurking]

3 minutes ago, Tetras said:

I don't think the base frequency will matter, but the power limits will.

 

If the CPU has the power limits applied (PL1/PL2) it will be anywhere from a chunk slower to way slower than the K in long-run multithreaded tasks. Light load should be little difference.

 

That said, prebuilds rarely have sufficient cooling to handle these CPUs at full pelt anyway, so this is likely to be a moot point.

The way I read the description, frequencies could be anything.  This says about "Performance core base frequency" it is " The standard speed for P-cores, providing a reliable pace for everyday tasks without additional boosts.". 

 

But  you are right, the way Dell could implement cooling (or lack thereof) and power limits, they could be nearly identical. But at the off-chance they actually cool i better and it doesn't cost much more, the 14900k may be a better choice. 

 

(I know about degrading issue, but this isn't a point here since Dell likes intel.... I'm just afraid they add even more power limits to prevent degradation)

[CatTNT]

I absolutely cannot recommend anybody ever get a 14900K, do whatever you can to avoid this processor. I bought one originally, it fried itself pretty quickly, got a warranty replacement, and this one has also fried itself after ~7 months. My current 14900K is running the newest BIOS that Intel claimed to have fixed the issues, yet it happened to me AGAIN. The only fix to this is underclocking the two P cores that boost to 6Ghz down in line with the rest of the P cores, 5.7 Ghz. If you literally cannot avoid this processor, then i suggest you preemptively underclock your 2 highest boosting P cores to avoid the eventual BSODs, crashes, and random errors. You literally cannot run this processor at stock settings or it will eventually become unstable

[Lurking]

9 minutes ago, CatTNT said:

I absolutely cannot recommend anybody ever get a 14900K, do whatever you can to avoid this processor. I bought one originally, it fried itself pretty quickly, got a warranty replacement, and this one has also fried itself after ~7 months. My current 14900K is running the newest BIOS that Intel claimed to have fixed the issues, yet it happened to me AGAIN. The only fix to this is underclocking the two P cores that boost to 6Ghz down in line with the rest of the P cores, 5.7 Ghz. If you literally cannot avoid this processor, then i suggest you preemptively underclock your 2 highest boosting P cores to avoid the eventual BSODs, crashes, and random errors. You literally cannot run this processor at stock settings or it will eventually become unstable

It is my understanding any higher powered Intel 13th/14th generation are impacted. So the non-k 14900 also should suffer. Or am I mistaken?

 

I doubt Dell BIOS will have much for settings. They lock that down to users. So, I have to use it as is. 

[Somerandomtechyboi]

Id assume the k chip would run better cause they cheap out less on the board and cooler unlike the non k where theyre probably going to cheap out so much it cant even hit 4ghz pcore under full load

[KnoT]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

It is my understanding any higher powered Intel 13th/14th generation are impacted. So the non-k 14900 also should suffer. Or am I mistaken?

 

I doubt Dell BIOS will have much for settings. They lock that down to users. So, I have to use it as is. 

All* 13/14 gen are

*Not sure about low end cpus like eg 14100f

[jaslion]

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

So the non-k 14900 also should suffer. Or am I mistaken?

Yes you are correct any i7/i9 is guaranteed to have an issue and thus NEEDS the patch. The ks series is doomed regardless usually. The non k series are a bit more fine normally.

 

All 13th/14th gen chips have the problem but so far there's been no i3's known with the defect and i5's are very very limited and not fully confirmed atm.

 

Eithet way what dell is it? I dont know of a single dell that could properly cool a 13700 let alone something better. They do opt for better cooling often when a k chip is installed.

[Selle]

OEMs like HP/Dell/Lenovo tends to strictly stick to Intels guidelines. When you run those CPUs on actual Intel stock specifications the k CPU will outperform the non-k by quite a bit after the turbo timer runs out because PL1 of the k is 125w and 65w for the non-k. The initial performance before hitting the turbo time limit is pretty close. It depends on the workload. A constant heavy load like a render will hit the turbo time limit, but other varied loads like gaming does not hit the limit. 
 

Consumer DIY boards tends to completely ignore the turbo timer and run PL2 all the time, in this instance the k and the non-k will be pretty close. 

[Tridefender]

50 minutes ago, Selle said:

OEMs like HP/Dell/Lenovo tends to strictly stick to Intels guidelines. When you run those CPUs on actual Intel stock specifications the k CPU will outperform the non-k by quite a bit after the turbo timer runs out because PL1 of the k is 125w and 65w for the non-k. The initial performance before hitting the turbo time limit is pretty close. It depends on the workload. A constant heavy load like a render will hit the turbo time limit, but other varied loads like gaming does not hit the limit. 
 

Consumer DIY boards tends to completely ignore the turbo timer and run PL2 all the time, in this instance the k and the non-k will be pretty close. 

Assuming you don't bother OC

[jaslion]

2 hours ago, Tridefender said:

Assuming you don't bother OC

Normally that isn't possible regardless. You get a k series but can't oc in most oem boards.

[Lurking]

7 hours ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Id assume the k chip would run better cause they cheap out less on the board and cooler unlike the non k where theyre probably going to cheap out so much it cant even hit 4ghz pcore under full load

That is my hope that the "k" will have a bit better cooling/power.

4 hours ago, jaslion said:

Yes you are correct any i7/i9 is guaranteed to have an issue and thus NEEDS the patch. The ks series is doomed regardless usually. The non k series are a bit more fine normally.

 

All 13th/14th gen chips have the problem but so far there's been no i3's known with the defect and i5's are very very limited and not fully confirmed atm.

 

Eithet way what dell is it? I dont know of a single dell that could properly cool a 13700 let alone something better. They do opt for better cooling often when a k chip is installed.

it is a Precision 3680. it is a bit convoluted how our IT buys them and I can't see myself what options exist or cost. I only get very limited and delayed information. I'm just happy I have a minimum input to begin with. 

 

My software only requires performance for very short bursts. But for those it matters since I have to wait that time it takes. I use Autodesk Revit (A Building Information Model) and that still has a lot of single-threaded parts. And I also use a lighting simulation, and that uses many cores (But it absolutely doesn't benefit from e-cores).

 

So, the turbo boost that is just for a few seconds would benefit me well. My current system (Xeon W2245) struggles with that and i have the spinning wheel when performing some functions. 

 

Originally I looked into 12-core Xeon or Threadripper systems... but those cost almost 4 times as much as the 14900(k) offers. I had tried my software on my private Ryzen 9 7900 and it works very well. So, the 8-core 14900(k) is a compromise. And Dell doesn't offer AMD for desktop platforms outside gaming PCs. So, Intel 14 series is my best option. And no, i would never buy Intel these day for my own PCs. 

 

I'm not really concerned about the degradation since we get the 4-year warranty. Yes, I lose work time if they replace it. But I didn't choose to buy Dell... and my current PC already got a full warranty replacement. Actually when they replaced my PC under warranty, i got the 8-core vs. the 6-core it came with. My hope is, if in 1 year it breaks, i may get something better   So, with Dell, there will be some loss in work time regardless. 

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, Lurking said:

Precision 3680

THose have only one cooler design. They can handle a couple seconds of burst of a 14900k but do hit thermal max within 5 seconds basically on single cores.

 

So yeah get the k, hope it breaks multiple times over the course of a couple years so they get you a core ultra 200 or better new one (even if it's slower since the 200's sorta are)

[Lurking]

8 minutes ago, jaslion said:

THose have only one cooler design. They can handle a couple seconds of burst of a 14900k but do hit thermal max within 5 seconds basically on single cores.

 

So yeah get the k, hope it breaks multiple times over the course of a couple years so they get you a core ultra 200 or better new one (even if it's slower since the 200's sorta are)

My hope is, this new PC will only take a few seconds or less to do what I need. 

I also will get a better GPU (A2000 with 16GB vs. a P2000 with 5GB and 64GB instead of 32GB. 

 

My fear is, Dell still sells the W2245 systems from 2019. So they for some reason have a source of outdated CPUs. So, a warranty replacement may be the same platform. but that is speculation at this point. 

 

Anyway, I try to get the 14900k. At least i then won't look back and regret skimping on details if I encounter a spinning wheel again. 

[Tetras]

9 hours ago, Lurking said:

The way I read the description, frequencies could be anything.  This says about "Performance core base frequency" it is " The standard speed for P-cores, providing a reliable pace for everyday tasks without additional boosts.". 

 

But  you are right, the way Dell could implement cooling (or lack thereof) and power limits, they could be nearly identical. But at the off-chance they actually cool i better and it doesn't cost much more, the 14900k may be a better choice. 

The interpretation I'm aware of, is that the base clock is the maximum frequency that Intel support for the CPU when it is operating at the equivalent power consumption of the CPU's TDP, but since the introduction of turbo mode, the base clock is meaningless in real world usage.

 

The power limits are more meaningful, because they define the ability of the CPU to boost toward the maximum turbo clock, which with a power hungry CPU like the 14900/14900K, it can dramatically impact the performance of long-run multithreaded workloads. Anything lightly threaded (and gaming, for the most part) does not (or rarely) hit the power limits, so this is only an issue if you're doing something CPU intensive over a long period of time.

[jaslion]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

the W2245 systems from 2019. So they for some reason have a source of outdated CPUs

These were very non in demand cpu's. Like not at all wanted also on a hedt sorta platform that wasnt popular at all. So basically heaps dead stock in many places

[Lurking]

15 minutes ago, jaslion said:

These were very non in demand cpu's. Like not at all wanted also on a hedt sorta platform that wasnt popular at all. So basically heaps dead stock in many places

It must be old stock. But most of the Dell workstations (up to Precision 5000) still use those old CPU. Other people in my office recently got a "new" PC with those old CPU (even only the 6-core). i bet Dell bought a whole pile of those for cheap. i got my current PC over 5 years ago, so at the time it at least wasn't that outdated. 

 

I'm hopeful the 14900k with much more cache, IPC and clock speed will resolve many of my problems. The e-cores probably will help a bit taking background tasks off the 8 P-cores (so the theory at least).

 

From what I saw, for Dell you have to go to Precision 7000 to get the current generation Xeon/TR. That is some serious money and the reason i have to settle for the 14900k. Even not knowing a lot about computers, I always would say once you go through the effort to buy a new PC, it should be current technology at that time. Not a technology that was released almost 6 years ago. 6years is an eternity in electronics.

[jaslion]

24 minutes ago, Lurking said:

i have to settle for the 14900k.

Wouldnt even call it settle as this thing has heaps single core perf that the xeons cant match

[Lurking]

9 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Wouldnt even call it settle as this thing has heaps single core perf that the xeons cant match

I know, "settling for the fastest Intel consumer CPU" sounds like a 1st World problem. I didn't really compare benchmarks of 14900k vs. a 12-core Xeon or TR. But the TR would have 12 full cores, and 8-channel RAM (I would only have used 4 channels, though). And they have 10Gbit network port. And there is a better chance, Dell would implement better power/cooling. So, there would have been a few tangible benefits. ECC RAM also may be beneficial. But the cost IT quoted for a Xeon/TR in the Precision 7000 series gave everyone a heart attack. Like 3.5 times of the 14900 system with same GPU and amount of RAM (Don't look that up on Dell website, the prices our IT quotes have nothing to do with what I can see on dell.com). 

 

Thanks everyone for the input. I requested to get a price for the 14900k and hope the added cost will be reasonable enough to be approved. 

 

More speed= more better

[daygeckoart]

The difference will be in the power limits and cooling. You should get the K version because Dell will include a better heatsink or water cooler, and the chip's power limit will be higher, I think 125W as opposed to 65W.