• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Leak - Intel 14900KS Limited Edition - 6.2Ghz, +400W, +100Cº

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Leaked classified top secret video of Intel R&D team working on next generation advanced TDP for their future CPU's:

Bird Lol GIF
Looks like this one was not too far off either:
 

Bojji

Gold Member
Always been Intel but stopped on the 12700k - it’s clear the technology has stalled - they are just feeding in 50% more watts and running them hot to eek out 20% gains. Will wait to see what AMD do next.

They improved 12 series with more l2 cache in 13 series but they really shouldn't make power hungry variants. They are inefficient as fuck.

Intel is doing the same thing with Alder Lake lake they did with Skylake cores, they run it as long as they can.
 

Fabieter

Member
Intel cpus are like amd gpus Jesus. It's insane that the German government gave them more than 10b. Tax payer money for a foreign company which invested far less than they should in the last decade. Fuck that.
 

Pedro Motta

Member
This is exclusive to Intel's high end ridiculous chips. Mid range or AMD products are not this ridiculous in power draw and heat (though the recent Ryzens do get silly with it)
It's not my fault you can't see this is reaching the breaking point. And it's not just CPU's, GPU's are also getting ridiculous in termos of size, power draw and heat generation. We need a paradigm shift ASAP.
 

ShirAhava

Plays with kids toys, in the adult gaming world
Life is good on Comet Lake aka Comfy Lake. The day I need to upgrade from my 65w i7 will be a sad one.
 

winjer

Member
It's not my fault you can't see this is reaching the breaking point. And it's not just CPU's, GPU's are also getting ridiculous in termos of size, power draw and heat generation. We need a paradigm shift ASAP.

Good luck with that.
With Moore's law slowing down, and transistor cost going up fast, companies have to push higher clocks.

Besides, this is not an X86 problem. Like Jim Keller said some time ago, ISA has little to do with performance and power usage.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
It's not my fault you can't see this is reaching the breaking point. And it's not just CPU's, GPU's are also getting ridiculous in termos of size, power draw and heat generation. We need a paradigm shift ASAP.

It's coming in the next 2-3 years. It will be Nvidia who ushers in the new reality for PC. I'm not saying that's a good thing, given their penchant for market dominance and pricing shenanigans, but I look at all the players right now and I see them as being the ones to really strike the much-needed deathblow to X86.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Why do we need a deathblow on the X86?

Because it's old and outdated, and there's a ton of stuff included in X86 that is completely irrelevant to today's computing. Even Intel understands this, hence this whitepaper they released last year, which attempts to soften the blow.


The problem is, Intel is a mess nowadays, and so the chances of them being the ones to usher in the change--the change that's coming whether you like it or not--is unlikely. Especially with Nvidia essentially declaring war.

ARM is the future.
 
Last edited:

simpatico

Member
I'm upgrading my CPU today. MicroCenter combos dictate the choices are as follows:

7700x
7800x3D
12600KF
12900K

To be frank, I'm not thrilled with any. Mostly because of thermals. 7700x was the preliminary winner, but that 95c operating temp doesn't sit well with me. Maybe that's based on old thinking. Now I see this.
 

winjer

Member
Because it's old and outdated, and there's a ton of stuff included in X86 that is completely irrelevant to today's computing. Even Intel understands this, hence this whitepaper they released last year, which attempts to soften the blow.


The problem is, Intel is a mess nowadays, and so the chances of them being the ones to usher in the change--the change that's coming whether you like it or not--is unlikely.

ARM is the future.

That is just Intel trying to deprecate 32 support. You might want to remember that ARM also had 32 support.
And ARM ISA is as old as X86. They just had different paths throughout the years, leading to diverging approaches.

There is nothing in the market that signals that PCs are going to switch to ARM anytime soon.
Almost every company has an AMR license, including AMD and Intel. But that doesn't mean they will push it to replace X86.
The reality is that today, power efficiency and performance are related to process node and architecture. Not to ISA.
 

Dorfdad

Gold Member
Also been intel guy but recently bought a 7950x3d and air cooler.

I’m in love with the performance, stability and speed of this chip. Unless intel has a major breakthrough I’m staying AMD for the next few builds.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
There is nothing in the market that signals that PCs are going to switch to ARM anytime soon. Almost every company has an ARM license, including AMD and Intel. But that doesn't mean they will push it to replace X86.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Windows ARM licensing exclusivity ends this year:


Qualcomm’s exclusivity agreement with Microsoft to provide CPUs for Windows on Arm PCs has been rumored to expire in 2024. Still, Arm CEO Rene Haas is the first person to confirm it officially in an interview with Stratechery. The end of the exclusivity agreement means Windows on Arm PCs can start to use non-Qualcomm Arm chips in the coming years.

That's why AMD and Nvidia are rushing in.

I'm not sure how you look at this information objectively, along with Apple's ARM success, and think "yes, it appears to be smooth sailing for X86."

Edit:

To help paint the picture, imagine an all-Nvidia machine marketed to gamers and creators. I think that should illustrate the point sufficiently.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
You seem to be overlooking the fact that Windows ARM licensing exclusivity ends this year:


That's why AMD and Nvidia are rushing in.

I'm not sure how you look at this information objectively, along with Apple's ARM success, and think "yes, it appears to be smooth sailing for X86."

Edit:

To help paint the picture, imagine an all-Nvidia machine marketed to gamers and creators. I think that should illustrate the point sufficiently.

Microsoft for decades have been fighting not to be dependent on Intel.
MS missed out big time when ARM became the standard for mobile phones, while Windows never caught on and Android became dominant.
Ever since, that MS ha been trying to break into that part of the market.

Nvidia has no other option other than ARM. Nvidia doesn't have an X86 license.
AMD has an ARM license for decades. And they already tried to make some CPUs but never got far with it.
So they are not rushing in. Nvidia is using what it can use. And AMD is still in the X86 camp.

A PC with NVidia using an ARM CPU would essentially discard several decades of backwards compatibility. Not only with games, but also game engines, tools, middleware, etc.
There is a reason that for the last few generations that X86 has been the standard for gaming consoles. And will probably continue to be in the future with the PS6 and the next Xbox.
This is a great advantage, because porting between PCs, PS5 and Series consoles, becomes simpler and quicker.
 

Elysium44

Banned
A PC with NVidia using an ARM CPU would essentially discard several decades of backwards compatibility. Not only with games, but also game engines, tools, middleware, etc.
There is a reason that for the last few generations that X86 has been the standard for gaming consoles. And will probably continue to be in the future with the PS6 and the next Xbox.
This is a great advantage, because porting between PCs, PS5 and Series consoles, becomes simpler and quicker.

That could presumably be solved by an Apple Rosetta-type or other emulation solution, it wouldn't be insurmountable. I'm not saying it will happen, but the need for backwards compatibility wouldn't prevent it happening.
 

winjer

Member
That could presumably be solved by an Apple Rosetta-type or other emulation solution, it wouldn't be insurmountable. I'm not saying it will happen, but the need for backwards compatibility wouldn't prevent it happening.

Rosetta is much slower than native code.
It's good to have such a fallback, but it's not ideal.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
That could presumably be solved by an Apple Rosetta-type or other emulation solution, it wouldn't be insurmountable. I'm not saying it will happen, but the need for backwards compatibility wouldn't prevent it happening.
1. Rosetta is exclusive to Apple PCs.
2. It's slower than running Native
3. Translation solutions will never reach 100% compatibility and if there's even the most obscure software out there that cannot run on ARM through X86 emulation of any opf the sort, the change won't go through
4. the fastest ARM chips are still nowhere near what your average Ryzen 9/i9 are capable of, and so long as there is a need for that horsepower in the consumer market there is a need for X86.
 

Elysium44

Banned
1. Rosetta is exclusive to Apple PCs.
2. It's slower than running Native
3. Translation solutions will never reach 100% compatibility and if there's even the most obscure software out there that cannot run on ARM through X86 emulation of any opf the sort, the change won't go through
4. the fastest ARM chips are still nowhere near what your average Ryzen 9/i9 are capable of, and so long as there is a need for that horsepower in the consumer market there is a need for X86.

I said Rosetta-type. That means something like it, not literally Rosetta.

Emulation being slower than native is a given, it doesn't mean it isn't viable.

If x86 is deemed a dead-end then this or something like it will happen, and the people who want to use legacy software will either have to deal with emulation or continue to use older hardware. There would be an overlap of years while x86 Windows was still supported. It's already happened with DOS software, people who used to rely on native DOS programs had to deal with it, and they did.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
I said Rosetta-type. That means something like it, not literally Rosetta.

Emulation being slower than native is a given, it doesn't mean it isn't viable.

If x86 is deemed a dead-end then this or something like it will happen, and the people who want to use legacy software will either have to deal with emulation or continue to use older hardware. There would be an overlap of years while x86 Windows was still supported. It's already happened with DOS software, people who used to rely on native DOS programs had to deal with it, and they did.

Of course X86 in not a dead end.
We continue to see major improvements.
The issue is that Intel has a worse process node than TSMC and they are willing to sacrifice everything to squeeze every last mhz from their CPUs.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I said Rosetta-type. That means something like it, not literally Rosetta.

Emulation being slower than native is a given, it doesn't mean it isn't viable.

If x86 is deemed a dead-end then this or something like it will happen, and the people who want to use legacy software will either have to deal with emulation or continue to use older hardware. There would be an overlap of years while x86 Windows was still supported. It's already happened with DOS software, people who used to rely on native DOS programs had to deal with it, and they did.
The difference between DOS and now is that DOS was around for like... a decade? couple of years? X86 has been the standard for twice that amount of time, not only that but during the most popular period for home computing.

Needless to say, the amount of software on X86 as opposed to DOS is dramatically larger and a lot more of it needs to be taken into consideration. Especially for gaming when you know that 99% of developers will not take the time to natively port their stuff to run on ARM. We can't even get most of the industry to natively support Linux (which BTW, Linux also requires extensive translation in order run most windows software- and that still has a long way to go in terms of supporting ALL the good software. If translating from OS to OS is difficult enough imagine translating from X86 Windows to another architecture entirely)

And X86 isn't a dead end- Intel just fell off. It happens to every company at some point. Intel's incompetence doesn't mean that the entire architecture of X86 CPUs is some disgusting, archaic relic that needs to be shelved- it simply means Intel's having a bit of a moment.
 
Last edited:

Solidus_T

Banned
I'm upgrading my CPU today. MicroCenter combos dictate the choices are as follows:

7700x
7800x3D
12600KF
12900K

To be frank, I'm not thrilled with any. Mostly because of thermals. 7700x was the preliminary winner, but that 95c operating temp doesn't sit well with me. Maybe that's based on old thinking. Now I see this.
7800X3D is literally the best gaming CPU you can get right now.
 
To come on top of benchmark they're pushing +100% tdp just for 10% more performance .

The fking stage of cpu benchmark is a nomanland atm , no one follow rule anymore .
so futile. The pointless struggles of an animal being slaughtered.

The next ryzen, are rumored to be such a large jump even this wouldn't help intel.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Microsoft for decades have been fighting not to be dependent on Intel.
MS missed out big time when ARM became the standard for mobile phones, while Windows never caught on and Android became dominant.
Ever since, that MS ha been trying to break into that part of the market.

Nvidia has no other option other than ARM. Nvidia doesn't have an X86 license.
AMD has an ARM license for decades. And they already tried to make some CPUs but never got far with it.
So they are not rushing in. Nvidia is using what it can use. And AMD is still in the X86 camp.

A PC with NVidia using an ARM CPU would essentially discard several decades of backwards compatibility. Not only with games, but also game engines, tools, middleware, etc.
There is a reason that for the last few generations that X86 has been the standard for gaming consoles. And will probably continue to be in the future with the PS6 and the next Xbox.
This is a great advantage, because porting between PCs, PS5 and Series consoles, becomes simpler and quicker.

First, thanks for the thoughtful post. Always nice to see that around here.

I acknowledge there will be challenges with a transition to ARM, but I don't believe any of them will be big enough to stop the eventuality of it.

We're clearly coming from two different perspectives. Let's see what Nvidia and AMD roll out in 2025 and then see what's what. Then, you and I can engage in this:

There Can Be Only One Highlander GIF


And X86 isn't a dead end- Intel just fell off. It happens to every company at some point. Intel's incompetence doesn't mean that the entire architecture of X86 CPUs is some disgusting, archaic relic that needs to be shelved- it simply means Intel's having a bit of a moment.

Well, except that AMD is leaping into ARM's arms. And this time in a far more serious way.
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I acknowledge there will be challenges with a transition to ARM, but I don't believe any of them will be big enough to stop the eventuality of it.
Why is it some how an eventuality when there's nothing wrong with X86 CPUs currently?

What advantage does ARM somehow bring to desktop computing that warrants this switch? It's less powerful than most X86 CPUs, and while the reduced heat and power usage is nice for laptops and computers, it's not anything useful for a desktop computer. And even then, consoles like the XSX and PS5 have managed to get X86 really quiet & cool, even at high loads.
 

welshrat

Member
Lol what a ridiculous CPU. I don't care either way but currently own an amd Ryzen and they are so much more power efficient. Intel really need to sort this out.
 
Last edited:

Chiggs

Gold Member
and while the reduced heat and power usage is nice for laptops and computers, it's not anything useful for a desktop computer.

There are two things you need to understand before we go any further, and I say that not to be snobby or condescending, but to just set the stage. If we can't agree on the following two items, any further discussion will just be pointless.

So here they are:
  1. The market is shifting away from desktop PCs...and has been for years.
  2. Many companies in the PC sector have watched Apple's foray into ARM with interest and envy...most notably Nvidia, AMD, and Microsoft.
    • All three of them sense that the Windows market is ripe for disruption.
    • Intel is also watching...but with fear, and would rather become a chip fabricator because deep down inside, Pat Gelsinger, a smart man, knows his company's goose is cooked if they can't suck on the government's tit.
      • This is what happens when you sit around with your thumb up your ass for ten years...and do NOTHING to innovate.
Also, please remember that Nvidia tried to outright buy ARM back in 2020. These are not stupid people. They're licking their chops at the thought of dominating the PC market like Intel used to. Same goes for AMD. As for Microsoft, they want to be like Apple.

If after reading through all of that, or this, and genuinely processing the info, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that *SOMETHING* is afoot. The challenge, which winjer winjer referenced in his post, would be the X86 to ARM Windows transition. There's no denying that it could be more difficult than Apple's transition to Apple silicon.

But it's not impossible. Not with AMD, Nvidia, and Microsoft all plowing ahead. Which they are.

What advantage does ARM somehow bring to desktop computing that warrants this switch? It's less powerful than most X86 CPUs,

That's a fantastic question, and I'm more than happy to answer, while semi-plagiarizing from a handful of articles. I'd recommend reading this one, though...if you're truly interested.
  • Simplified manufacturing and reduced production/materials cost.
    • Lower transistor count...another reason why X86 sucks: a bunch of transistors spent on things very few people care about.
  • Generally speaking, improved performance per watt (provided the design is competent and the fabbing process is up to snuff and not a generation behind).
    • This usually means:
      • Lower electric bills for consumers.
      • And less heat.
  • Smaller form factors, like the Apple Studio design.
    • For laptops, the advantage should be obvious.
Also, from my vantage point, the Apple M3 laptops smoke most Intel or AMD ones. I also think that Nvidia has some of the best designers and engineers in the world, and that their stab at a modern ARM Windows chip could be a Sputnik moment.
 
Last edited:
Well, IMO, it goes without saying that if productivity is the main use your PC is used for, you should be using AMD.
Hell no. 3rd time I've used amd and everytime I have issues. OK my Athlon XP back in the day didn't, but my 3600 gets bsods every day when idling. Memtests, prime95, and gaming it runs fine, but in a word doc or browser just sitting there... Irq_lessthan_equel, nstkernel, or some other kryptic code. Down clocking memory does shit.

I had to reflash the bios and I get a good day or two and bam happens again. System restore, good for a day and bam. Eventually it's every 30 min, but only when idle. Apparently it's a flaw with that specific chip run for 2020 they weren't doing stringent testing or something and a slew of bad chips got sent out.

So back to Intel. They have always been more stable, for me. . Same with Nvidia. Last amd card fried after 2 years. It sucks as the Athlon and Athlon 64 were awesome back in the day, had better features and cheap compared to Intel.

As for this specific Intel chip. Hell no it's probably cost more than my rig. Really this is overkill and less you do rendering.
 
Last edited:

Silver Wattle

Gold Member
There are two things you need to understand before we go any further, and I say that not to be snobby or condescending, but to just set the stage. If we can't agree on the following two items, any further discussion will just be pointless.

So here they are:
  1. The market is shifting away from desktop PCs...and has been for years.
  2. Many companies in the PC sector have watched Apple's foray into ARM with interest and envy...most notably Nvidia, AMD, and Microsoft.
    • All three of them sense that the Windows market is ripe for disruption.
    • Intel is also watching...but with fear, and would rather become a chip fabricator because deep down inside, Pat Gelsinger, a smart man, knows his company's goose is cooked if they can't suck on the government's tit.
      • This is what happens when you sit around with your thumb up your ass for ten years...and do NOTHING to innovate.
Also, please remember that Nvidia tried to outright buy ARM back in 2020. These are not stupid people. They're licking their chops at the thought of dominating the PC market like Intel used to. Same goes for AMD. As for Microsoft, they want to be like Apple.

If after reading through all of that, or this, and genuinely processing the info, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that *SOMETHING* is afoot. The challenge, which winjer winjer referenced in his post, would be the X86 to ARM Windows transition. There's no denying that it could be more difficult than Apple's transition to Apple silicon.

But it's not impossible. Not with AMD, Nvidia, and Microsoft all plowing ahead. Which they are.



That's a fantastic question, and I'm more than happy to answer, while semi-plagiarizing from a handful of articles. I'd recommend reading this one, though...if you're truly interested.
  • Simplified manufacturing and reduced production/materials cost.
    • Lower transistor count...another reason why X86 sucks: a bunch of transistors spent on things very few people care about.
  • Generally speaking, improved performance per watt (provided the design is competent and the fabbing process is up to snuff and not a generation behind).
    • This usually means:
      • Lower electric bills for consumers.
      • And less heat.
  • Smaller form factors, like the Apple Studio design.
    • For laptops, the advantage should be obvious.
Also, from my vantage point, the Apple M3 laptops smoke most Intel or AMD ones. I also think that Nvidia has some of the best designers and engineers in the world, and that their stab at a modern ARM Windows chip could be a Sputnik moment.
 

clem84

Gold Member
My main concern would be, what is the life expectancy of a chip running that hot on a regular basis? Yeah, they can keep it.
 

Solidus_T

Banned
Incorrect - if you bought a 7950X3D and disabled the non-X3D CCX in the bios then it would be faster.
Also, the 7800X3D doesn't beat the 14900K in all games.
It's the best bang for the buck though and wins a lot of scenarios.
I mean yeah the 7950X3D is a higher bin but lol why would you do that when the 7800X3D performs at the top of benchmarks for like 210-250 less than the 7950X3D or 14900K? I guess if you are going for the top perf without worrying about price, that would make sense.
The 7800X3D outperforms the intel part for the matter in most games, and where it doesn't it's still in the same range of performance while requiring a less expensive cooling solution and costing less. A no-brainier choice for gaming PCs
 

Puscifer

Member
I'm upgrading my CPU today. MicroCenter combos dictate the choices are as follows:

7700x
7800x3D
12600KF
12900K

To be frank, I'm not thrilled with any. Mostly because of thermals. 7700x was the preliminary winner, but that 95c operating temp doesn't sit well with me. Maybe that's based on old thinking. Now I see this.
Choosing anything on the list that isn't the 7800X3D makes you a sucker
 
Top Bottom