i7 13700k or i7 14700k ?

[River]

If you had to pick between the two to get with i7 13700k being cheaper and being able to get today which one would you pick ?

Already have motherboard, ram, and everything.

If you need to know the rest of the specs I will post them.

[hawkeye]

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

Escrito originalmente por Guydodge:

youve never ran multiple apps while gaming and had no effect while running games.i can download while gaming or anything eles i choose.and saying its not for gaming is just
being a troll

How is a 20 core i7 not enough? I have half that with my 10th gen i9 and it's still enough, and I've ran multiple apps in the background and chromium browsers at the same time as games.

At this point you're just arguing because you want your point to be right, but you're not. Most reviewers echo the point that there's no real point in buying the i9, especially in this instance where the i7 has more than enough cores for 99.9% of users, performs better in games, and costs less.

OP, ignore this user. He/she doesn't understand how pc's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvCr-thM8

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

[shiel]

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

How is a 20 core i7 not enough? I have half that with my 10th gen i9 and it's still enough, and I've ran multiple apps in the background and chromium browsers at the same time as games.

At this point you're just arguing because you want your point to be right, but you're not. Most reviewers echo the point that there's no real point in buying the i9, especially in this instance where the i7 has more than enough cores for 99.9% of users, performs better in games, and costs less.

OP, ignore this user. He/she doesn't understand how pc's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvCr-thM8

This ^

Buy what's cheaper. The 14 series is a joke and offers basically no improvements over 13th gen.

[Illusion of Progress]

With the extra e-cores the Core i7 has, especially in the 14th generation, there's perhaps a case that even that is excessive too. But you need it if you want 8 performance cores, as the Core i5 only has 6. But the Core i9, Ryzen 9, and even modern Core i7 are far more than gaming needs. At 1440p or 4K it becomes even less of a necessity because you become GPU bound more often.

Even on AMD's side where there are no extra e-cores, the 5600X3D nearly matching the 5800X3D clearly shows the Ryzen 5 tier with 6/12 is more than enough for now, and 8/16 is more than you'll need before you replace it due to it being too slow. So the Ryzen 7 X3D or Core i5 are plenty high as most people need to go. Beyond that is for productivity or serious multi-tasking, especially on AMD's side where you give up gaming performance by picking a standard Rzyen 9 over a X3D Ryzen 7.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

Escrito originalmente por 尺．し工几ᗪヨ尺:

How is a 20 core i7 not enough? I have half that with my 10th gen i9 and it's still enough, and I've ran multiple apps in the background and chromium browsers at the same time as games.

At this point you're just arguing because you want your point to be right, but you're not. Most reviewers echo the point that there's no real point in buying the i9, especially in this instance where the i7 has more than enough cores for 99.9% of users, performs better in games, and costs less.

OP, ignore this user. He/she doesn't understand how pc's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvCr-thM8

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

I don't think (though feel free to put me in my place if I'm wrong) RLindler is saying the Core i9 isn't better. I think what's being stated is that a tier or even two down are still more than enough, and that the higher tiers are vastly diminished returns as opposed to something necessary. And this is true.

And you link to that synthetic single core test as thought it represents gaming performance absolutely and it doesn't. I've had to point this out to you as game results clearly show this. That single core score doesn't take extra cache into account at all. If you're going to tell someone else they don't understand PCs, pushing a synthetic that fails to account for half of AMD's relevant gaming performance isn't a good look of what does represent understanding PC performance. If you like that as a source, they seemingly have a gaming ranking you can use instead.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/top-gaming-cpus.html

Which itself is a bit odd, but hey, it's definitely more accurate to how they stack up in gaming than that single thread ranking is, that's for sure.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

OP, ignore this user. He/she doesn't understand how pc's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvCr-thM8

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

I don't think (though feel free to put me in my place if I'm wrong) RLindler is saying the Core i9 isn't better. I think what's being stated is that a tier or even two down are still more than enough, and that the higher tiers are vastly diminished returns as opposed to something necessary. And this is true.

And you link to that synthetic single core test as thought it represents gaming performance absolutely and it doesn't. I've had to point this out to you as game results clearly show this. That single core score doesn't take extra cache into account at all. If you're going to tell someone else they don't understand PCs, pushing a synthetic that fails to account for half of AMD's relevant gaming performance isn't a good look of what does represent understanding PC performance. If you like that as a source, they seemingly have a gaming ranking you can use instead.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/top-gaming-cpus.html

Which itself is a bit odd, but hey, it's definitely more accurate to how they stack up in gaming than that single thread ranking is, that's for sure.

Exactly that, I said they were excessive. If people want to spend extra on CPUs they don't actually need, that's their decision, but they shouldn't be fricking recommending it to everyone, especially when there's cheaper options that give more than satisfactory performance and sometimes cheaper options that give even more performance (i.e. 7800X3D, 7950X3D, etc.)

If you actually need an i9 at this point, then your system isn't just for gaming. There's no way that 12 e-cores with the i7s won't be enough for "running stuff in the background while gaming."

It's also interesting that they felt the need to link the 14900K when I was specifically saying not to buy the 13900K because there's less of a point due to the lack of APO (which makes E-cores actually useful without having to overclock the crap out of them), which is currently only supported on Windows 11 with a 14700K/KF or 14900K/KF and there's no telling if or when 13th generation will ever get it. Picking the 14900K over the 14700K is also stupid, all you're getting is 4 E-cores and a tiny bit extra FPS that will do literally nothing. It's for people who don't care about spending way too much just to min-max their setup.

[hawkeye]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

OP, ignore this user. He/she doesn't understand how pc's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MvvCr-thM8

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

I don't think (though feel free to put me in my place if I'm wrong) RLindler is saying the Core i9 isn't better. I think what's being stated is that a tier or even two down are still more than enough, and that the higher tiers are vastly diminished returns as opposed to something necessary. And this is true.

And you link to that synthetic single core test as thought it represents gaming performance absolutely and it doesn't. I've had to point this out to you as game results clearly show this. That single core score doesn't take extra cache into account at all. If you're going to tell someone else they don't understand PCs, pushing a synthetic that fails to account for half of AMD's relevant gaming performance isn't a good look of what does represent understanding PC performance. If you like that as a source, they seemingly have a gaming ranking you can use instead.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/top-gaming-cpus.html

Which itself is a bit odd, but hey, it's definitely more accurate to how they stack up in gaming than that single thread ranking is, that's for sure.

Only if you are a layman and believe fps equates to game engine performance.
If you didn't keep swapping core for thread I'd take your comments more seriously.

Most code in a game doesn't impact fps. That code executes in between fps-related code. And it tends to be single-threaded. That's why the single thread score is important. It's a measure of the speed that the cpu can get through heavy number crunching.

The fps in lightweight games is unimportant. Why do IT pro's do benchmarks? Because they want to know what happens under load. Not when the cpu is doing sfa.

Fps benchmarks are what the youtubers use because the masses don't understand how game engines work.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

If you didn't keep swapping core for thread I'd take your comments more seriously.

???

What are you even talking about? I'm not saying anything about core for thread?

Escrito originalmente por hawkeye:

That's why the single thread score is important. It's a measure of the speed that the cpu can get through heavy number crunching.

Anything is a measurement of whatever it measures. It's meaningless data on its own; what makes things matter is how relevant their particular measurement might be.

And I've given you data to show that this particular singular synthetic test doesn't take the extra cache of the X3D processors into account at all, yet in benchmarks of real word games, the cache demonstrably makes a range of difference.

Ergo, putting this single threaded score on a pedestal for gaming performance is outdated. It might work reasonably well if you ignore that the X3D CPUs exist, but back in reality, those CPUs do exist.

[PopinFRESH]

I don’t get the question. You are asking to compare the same thing. /s 🤣

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por PopinFRESH:

I don’t get the question. You are asking to compare the same thing. /s 🤣

To be fair, the Core i7 14700 is the one spot in the fourteenth generation that saw the biggest uplift since it gained four e-cores over its predecessor.

There's also apparently the APO (?) advantage but I'm not sure what that is.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por PopinFRESH:

I don’t get the question. You are asking to compare the same thing. /s 🤣

To be fair, the Core i7 14700 is the one spot in the fourteenth generation that saw the biggest uplift since it gained four e-cores over its predecessor.

There's also apparently the APO (?) advantage but I'm not sure what that is.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000095419/processors.html

[N3tRunn3r]

If you can wait until summer 2024, get an Intel 15th Gen (Arrow Lake).

Intel's 15th Gen are going to be a real upgrade in all aspects, as 14th Gen is just a little refresh of the 13th Gen, an outdated/obsolete tech/lithography procedure, and so not worthy..

Intel's 15th Gen will going to be a real gamechanger in competition and brings Intel Servers even finally back to the front.

However, Intel's 14th Gen for "mobile devices" as Laptops or even for Smartphones is not a refresh but a real upgrade already. For example the upcoming i9-14980 HX as these are built within the latest state-of-the-art Lithography tech..

So, in general, I suggest you wait until summer 2024 to get an i7-15700k or i9-15900k .. 15th Gen releases in a brand new next-gen Lithography Tech made/invented in Germany (Trumpf, Zeiss) in cooperation with ASML, TSMC and JASM.

• https://www.trumpf.com/en_US/solutions/applications/euv-lithography/
  
  
• https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/c/2020-deutscher-zukunftspreis-euv-won-by-zeiss-smt.html
  
  
• https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/smt-magazine/euv-lithography-as-an-european-joint-project.html
  
  
• https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/inspiring-technology/euv-lithography.html
  
  
• https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems
  
  
• https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/2880
  
  
• https://www.xda-developers.com/intel-roadmap-2025-explainer/

Skip the 13th Gen and especially the 14th Gen for Desktops, while 14th Gen for Laptops is a go! And if you are interested into a new Smartphone, check for the "Snapdragon 8 Gen 3" .. Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 -- its tech -- is already ~5 years old ..

P.s.:
What is your current CPU btw?

[River]

Escrito originalmente por N3tRunn3r:

If you can wait until summer 2024, get an Intel 15th Gen (Arrow Lake).

Intel's 15th Gen are going to be a real upgrade in all aspects, as 14th Gen is just a little refresh of the 13th Gen and not worthy..

Intel's 15th Gen will going to be a real gamechanger in competition and brings Intel Servers back to the front.

However, Intel's 14th Gen for mobile devices is not a refresh but a real upgrade already.

So, I suggest you wait until summer 2024 to get an i7-15700k or i9-15900k ..

Skip the 13th Gen and especially the 14th Gen for Desktop.

Thank you.

[A&A]

APO sounds similar to the "Intel upgrade service" that was supported for a year.

[River]

i7 12700k is my current CPU

RTX 4090 GPU

[River]

I read many reviews, mostly customer reviews, of going from a i7 12700k or a little lower to a 14 th generation CPU mostly i7 14700k or more and getting a lot greater performance. Though they never say by how much.