Intel’s new Core i9-14900KS arrives today for $699 with boosts up to 6.2GHz

[John Elden Ring]

Intel is launching its flagship Core i9-14900KS processor today, with clock speeds that boost all the way up to 6.2GHz. That’s 200MHz more than the previous Core i9-13900KS that launched last year and was the first desktop processor to break the 6GHz barrier at stock speeds.
This new Core i9-14900KS will be priced at $699, the same as the previous 13900KS, and will be available in stores today. The 6.2GHz max turbo frequency is an out-of-the-box boost, so there could be room for overclocking to push these speeds even further. The 14900KS has the same 24 cores found on the 14900K, with eight performance cores and 16 efficiency ones. It does run at a 150-watt base power, though, instead of the 125 watts found on the 14900K.

Other than the power and turbo frequencies, the 14900KS is almost identical to the 14900K. It’s essentially a “binned” version that has been selected to run at a higher clock speed. Z790 and Z690 motherboards will support the 14900KS with the latest BIOS updates.

via TheVerge

 

[flaccidsnake]

what is the y-axis here?

 

[Gediminas]

what is the y-axis here?

fps, obviously.

 

[Evilnemesis8]

I'll be honest, the value proposition for the super high end CPUs is pretty ass considering you're so much likely to be GPU bound in games. Don't get me started on Intel and their cooling needs.

 

[flaccidsnake]

I'll be honest, the value proposition for the super high end CPUs is pretty ass considering you're so much likely to be GPU bound in games. Don't get me started on Intel and their cooling needs.

Top of the line parts are never worth the premium unless you're doing cutting-edge professional work where it'll give you a competitive advantage. For practically everybody, you're better off getting a notch above mainstream parts (so Ryzen7, i7, xx70, x700) and upgrading more often.

 

[Polyh3dron]

curious to know if this KS has a better binned memory controller.

 

[anonpuffs]

Lmao this is their 4th try beating the 7800x3d and they still cant

 

[flaccidsnake]

Lmao this is their 4th try beating the 7800x3d and they still cant

1.15 in starfield broh

 

[anonpuffs]

1.15 in starfield broh

Lmao 5% faster in starfield , meanwhile 16% slower in counterstrike which is a game people actually play

Will still be 3% slower in multi game benchmarks

 

[Systemshock2023]

Should be paired with a GTX 480 4 way for the ultimate blast furnace at home experience

 

[xollowsob]

It would have to boost my cock to 10" for me to pay that much for a CPU.

 

[rinzler]

Intel always manages to come back swinging but at a cost. Thermals and power consumption, I wouldn't want these hot hogs in my system for a few FPS more honestly.

 

[Nhomnhom]

I haven't cared for CPUs in ages, unless you use your PC for some work task that requires it or you are really into high frame rate gaming it hardly matters at all.

Sometimes I think about upgrading to a 5700x3D since it wouldn't cost much to upgrade but I can't convince myself it would be worth the hassle.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

via TheVerge

Free ad for Ryzen 7 7800X3D .

 

[Would_you_kindly]

I'd need a new motherboard first mines from 2011/2012 I'd basically need to completely rebuild a new pc if I wanted to game on it with new games & that's expensive AF lol

 

[anonpuffs]

I haven't cared for CPUs in ages, unless you use your PC for some work task that requires it or you are really into high frame rate gaming it hardly matters at all.

Sometimes I think about upgrading to a 5700x3D since it wouldn't cost much to upgrade but I can't convince myself it would be worth the hassle.

Cpu is important because it affects 1% and 0.1% low stutters. If you game at 60fps it's nbd, but 120fps+ dropping to 80 feels bad

 

[Would_you_kindly]

Cpu is important because it affects 1% and 0.1% low stutters. If you game at 60fps it's nbd, but 120fps+ dropping to 80 feels bad

I doubt many people play 120 + I've been looking at monitors that do 4k HDR 10+ with a 120-240hz refresh rate & they're ridiculously expensive

 

[anonpuffs]

I doubt many people play 120 + I've been looking at monitors that do 4k HDR 10+ with a 120-240hz refresh rate & they're ridiculously expensive

Barely anyone on pc plays at 4k. The most common resolution is 1080p followed by 1440p.

 

[rinzler]

Barely anyone on pc plays at 4k. The most common resolution is 1080p followed by 1440p.

4K is a complete waste of resources at least from a desktop perspective. A 1440p monitor will get you a higher PPI than an 4K TV at double or more the frame rate.

 

[anonpuffs]

4K is a complete waste of resources at least from a desktop perspective. A 1440p monitor will get you a higher PPI than an 4K TV at double or more the frame rate.

I have both a 1440p monitor and a 4k tv and i prefer the tv every time. The problem with monitors is that HDR mostly sucks on them, even at similar PPI the 4k TV is way more immersive due to taking up more of your fov. Of course that isn't always desirable like if you're playing a competitive shooter but most of the time I prefer it. It's why I prefer playing all my jrpgs and action adventure games on the ps5 even if it performs worse and has lower graphics settings. The color saturation and dynamic range of TVs, especially OLED is just so superior.