Test Setup
This is very important, we are using the default Windows 11 settings, which means Core Isolation/Memory Integrity (VBS) was ENABLED by default, we did NOT disable it. In addition, we used Windows 11 Power Mode of “Balanced” on every comparison CPU, except where noted on the 285K and 245K in the graphs (read the previous page for more info).
Intel LGA1851 Setup
MSI provided our MSI MEG Z890 ACE motherboard, and during the process of review, we had several different BIOS’s available to test with. We utilized the absolute latest version provided by MSI at the time of review, which is E7E22IMSI.1A14U5. We suspect there will be newer BIOSs available on the website post-launch than even this one, as there were many XMP and memory optimizations happening in the background through the review process. Therefore, check MSI’s website for the latest official BIOS.
The MSI MEG Z890 ACE offers a unique Click-BIOS, which lets you click through the menus in an easy way. You can see above that the new default power setting in the BIOS is Intel’s Performance Profile, which is now the default. It sets PL1/PL2 to 250W on the 285K and 347A. There are other power profiles available from MSI that will boost this higher, setting PL2 higher, or making it unlimited even. While we did not test these modes today, they are there and we wanted to show what is possible for enthusiasts. We set our memory to 6400MT/s Gear 2.
Intel LGA1700 Setup
We typically do not install Beta BIOSs, however, in order to gain the newest Intel microcode 0x12B for our Raptor Lake-R CPUs on the ASUS TUF Gaming Z790 PRO WIFI motherboard, we had to install a Beta BIOS version 1666. Therefore, we did just that so that microcode 0x12B would be applied.
We are using the Intel Default Settings Profiles of “Extreme” and “Performance” that are available on the Intel Core i9-14900K CPU. The BIOS does run at “Intel Default Settings” under Performance Preferences and also sets SVID Behavior to “Intel’s Fail Safe” as well as “Disabling” ASUS MultiCore Enhancement.
The motherboard defaults to the “Extreme” profile, but we are also going to test “Performance” in our graphs to match the same power profile setting in the BIOS on the new Arrow Lake CPUs. In this way, you can see both sets of performance out of the 14900K. We are also enabling Intel Dynamic Tuning Technology, to directly match this feature which is enabled by DEFAULT on the new Arrow Lake platform.
AMD AM5 Setup
For our AMD AM5 configuration, we are using the newly released ASRock X870E Taichi motherboard which we have reviewed. We are using the latest BIOS, which is 3.08 and this is based on AGESA 1.2.0.2. We have put together the optimal platform, according to AMD, for Zen 5. We are using the standard 6000MT/s DDR5 at CL30, keeping memory ratios optimized.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Those are some dissapointing results for gaming, kinda leaves me at an annoying point, 9800X3D is only an 8 core providing it launches when it's rumoured to (early november) rest is early next year and I don't realy want to go previous gen.
Also like I said in the other thread, the ultra 9 and 5 are already sold out at some outlets around here. intel still going strong (or no stock to speak off)
There are people who will buy Intel even when they have no logical reason to do so. I work with a guy like that. He won't buy anything else because of the reputation non-Intel CPU's had in the 1990's.
Gotta know supply to gauge demand...
My take: This is a transitional product that lays the ground work for future releases. This isn't remotely the first time Intel has done this. The Wilamette Socket 423 Pentium IV's were such a product. It introduced RAMBUS memory and they were often out performed by their Pentium III counterparts, especially Tualatin CPU's. The socket Northwood Socket 478 stuff was a lot better. The Prescott core CPU's were also kind of transitional as these were built with even deeper pipeline stages to ramp the clocks up even more. Their EM64T extensions were present on the core but weren't enabled (excluding one model) until the transition to LGA sockets.
Unfortunately, the only real benefit to these is that they shouldn't have any degradation and stability issues in games where as the 13th and 14th generation CPU's did prior to microcode updates and BIOS updates were created to mitigate them. Assuming your CPU wasn't degrading to start with.
Not competitive, high price, a short lived platform and Win 11 is a mess. Nothing ever works as intended at launch. What is wrong with these companies? Fumbling the ball at the 1-yd line seems to be the norm. Bush league overall...
@Brent_Justice - what I'm seeing about is that by decoupling the memory controller from the compute die, Intel has added latency to main memory access. Do we know if this is reflected in say AIDA64?
@Dan_D - looks like we're going to have to see if Intel can overcome the above latency issue the same way AMD did when they went to chiplets with Zen.
I think they can. How they would be able to mitigate this is unclear to me but this is the type of thing Intel is typically good at engineering their way through historically. Generally speaking, Intel's CPU's have not been effected by latency to the same degree as AMD's. AMD for one reason or another has always dealt with that to some degree. AMD's answer for the most part was simply to throw L3 cache at the problem which doesn't work in all scenarios.
Though throwing L3 cache at the problem is a simple fix, but its a costly one.
AMDs use of stacking for the L3 cache on a CCD, which in turn they can use for gaming SKUs as well as enterprise (which they originally created them for), is genius.
Imagine slow(er) Zen 3 and Zen 4 cores (both clockspeed and IPC vs. Alder/Raptor P-cores) not only outrunning them but also doing so at 1/2 the power draw for gaming.
Now imagine Intel P-cores backed up by enough L3 cache to make memory latency irrelevant.
I think Intel needs to copy AMD here (or emulate? imitate?) and find a way to get that cache in a die with broader market appeal (i.e. also usable in Xeons). Their chiplet setup should enable them to do so.
One thing that's been sticking in my mind with the Arrow Lake release is that this is the first time Intel has decoupled their memory controller from their compute dies since... Core 2? At least in the consumer space (so not talking about buffered DIMMs). AMD did with Zen 2 IIRC. Intel has been using IMCs since Lynnfield in the i7 870 from 2009, 15 years ago!
I'm not sure that this is even possible. I think there are probably scenarios where simply adding cache doesn't help.
Well, AMD had an integrated memory controller since the Athlon 64 days. However, Intel's Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad were the last CPU's to have an off-die memory controller. Though it was in the chipset at the time and not anywhere on the CPU itself.
I believe its two things:
1. Consumers buy products that suck on the promise that they will be fixed later
2. Development practices that involve the term: MVP (Minimum Viable Product)
Number 2 combined with number 1 just continuously lowers the bar for number 2.
Thanks, @Brent_Justice for the very detailed review of these CPUs and extra testing with both power modes. It's a shame that APO isn't supported for the games reviewed, especially since they are popular titles that users are likely to have in their libraries. I wonder if Intel will be able to provide updates later on which might improve those results. Really interesting how CB2077 has a prioritize P-core option that only further proved there are other potential gains to be had.
A lot to unpack with these and obviously Intel is experimenting with a number of strategies with them.
I will have more information in an upcoming review, but installing some DDR5 CUDIMMs 8400, but running at 8200 MT/s currently, AIDA64's Cache Mem latency result is 88ns this is at 8200MT/s CL40-50-50-128 CR2. I will have some memory comparison data in an upcoming article at 6400, 8200, 8400 and 8600 on this motherboard with this RAM kit, so stay tuned. But my first reaction is that this isn't bad latency, I think it was worse at the beginning of all this, but as new BIOS's have come out, latency has improved. MSI's fix notes state XMP and memory performance optimization with the new BIOS releases I'm using.
I really want an all P-Core option, an 8-Pcore only or 12-Pcore only CPU would be a great option for gaming.
I am NOT a fan of big.LITTLE / hybrid architecture on x86 desktops. Intel please give us P-core only options!
I would prefer only p-cores too, but due to the lack of HT would we not require like at least a 10 or12 core if you need 8 for games already.
I mean testing conditions is one thing, but a real everyday use system usually has more running in the background then just the bare minimum.