makes more sense.What's the idle wattage in windows on balanced plan? HWinfo CPU package power : 12.83W
Intel 14th/13th gen, latency/stability issues?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
"If the world doesn't make sense... disable CEP". The bios is quite cryptic, a magical mystery tour. Pages after pages of setting like "PTT", help description: "disable/enable PTT". If you know, you know. Then people have something to discuss on forums.
Idle power hoovers between 9 and 10W.
CEP explained. Looks like it should be off by default for K series.
Idle power hoovers between 9 and 10W.
CEP explained. Looks like it should be off by default for K series.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
-
- KVRist
- 48 posts since 6 Aug, 2014
I look forward to hearing you're results!Jim Roseberry wrote: Mon May 06, 2024 7:16 pm Just ran Cinebench 2024 on M2 Ultra, 13900k, and 14900k.
M2 Ultra multi-core = 1928
13900k multi-core = 2120
14900k multi-core = 2195
14700k multi-core = 2041
Obviously Cinebench doesn't represent all real-world facets/scenarios.
When you're trying to have a conversation about performance, a custom DAW test isn't something that can be conveniently quantified across multiple users. Both parties would need 100% identical plugins/project.
Some users would then argue that they don't use said tested plugins... or a project of said construction.
Cinebench is a useful tool to conveniently compare performance.
Everyone can access, it's consistent, and it takes a mere 10 minutes
14700k outperforms M.2 Ultra (let alone 13900k, 14900k, and 14900ks).
With Mac Studio, you're currently leaving a lot of drive performance on the table.
A nice TB/USB4 external M.2 Enclosure sustains ~3659MB/Sec... while the PCIe 4.0 M.2 drive itself can sustain ~7300MB/Sec.
The machine next to me runs half a dozen PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives at full speed.
Threadripper has always been a bad choice for DAW purposes.
350w TDP (7980x)
Active Cooled chipsets
Poor ultra-low-latency performance
A well-spec'd 7980x machine clocks-in the better part of $10k. CPU alone is $5k.
Ryzen 7950x3D is a good low-latency performer... but you're paying slightly more for slightly lower performance (vs Intel).
Intel's Arrow Lake (15th Gen) and Ryzen 9xxx are also in the pipe (released later this year).
Arrow lake will bring native PCIe 5.0 support for M.2 drives... so you'll be able to connect PCIe 5.0 M.2 SSDs for 12,0000+MB/Sec.
I would like to ask one question, and I go back and forth with this. If building an Intel system would you recommend a CPU contact frame? Even after setting the power limits in the bios, and using a Noctua cooler people still keep hounding me to install one making me paranoid.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
With contact frames, there are two angles: better cooling and CPU bending. Both are half way into an urban legend territory. Mojo. Believe it or not. With the cooling I think it's mojo, especially that some cooling solutions are made to adjust for uneven surface. With bending, rumor is that CPU can change shape over time when in spring socket, when it's pressured in the middle point. Then connection to the socket may become unstable... My guess is that there may be something to it, but probably only when you are running CPU hot, so likely only applies to top end CPUs pushed to the limit. You know, it's easier to shape thing when they are hot. But it's pure speculation on my part.
I put Thermal Grizzly frame when I was building (new version, which pushes against mobo surface), mostly because I wanted the full experience, and contact frames are in the lora of these CPUs. It was very easy to install. Just one caveat. Some mobos are thicker and require longer screws (ones used to mount original socket are too short, TG supplies replacement screws in the package), like Z790 Hero I have. But longer screws may interfere with backplate of cooling solution. I got EKWB AIO and it's backplace has holes in those spots, so no problem, screws go through the backplate. But I'm not sure it's a standard fro backplates. Investigate.
I put Thermal Grizzly frame when I was building (new version, which pushes against mobo surface), mostly because I wanted the full experience, and contact frames are in the lora of these CPUs. It was very easy to install. Just one caveat. Some mobos are thicker and require longer screws (ones used to mount original socket are too short, TG supplies replacement screws in the package), like Z790 Hero I have. But longer screws may interfere with backplate of cooling solution. I got EKWB AIO and it's backplace has holes in those spots, so no problem, screws go through the backplate. But I'm not sure it's a standard fro backplates. Investigate.
-
- KVRian
- 1188 posts since 21 Aug, 2017 from Brasil
Intel CPU without contact frame.Iris. A wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 1:27 pm I would like to ask one question, and I go back and forth with this. If building an Intel system would you recommend a CPU contact frame? Even after setting the power limits in the bios, and using a Noctua cooler people still keep hounding me to install one making me paranoid.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
That guy silently assumes it's the CPU being not perfectly flat due to pressure points and that his cooling fan has perfectly flat contact surface.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
-
- KVRist
- 39 posts since 28 Jul, 2023
The i9's are basically terrible CPUs that start throttling themselves as they get hot very quickly unless you're running some very good water cooling and they draw ridiculous amounts of power to not be much faster than the competition.
I would stick to the i7's and i5's. The K series aren't worth looking at if your not overclocking them, which is kind of negated these days anyway due to the turbo boosting all CPUs do.
If you're really worried about power and efficiency I would say look at AMD, their chips run cooler, draw less power and don't have those crap 'efficiency' cores. However the AM5 motherboards and current pricing leave a lot to be desired.
My 2 pence.
I would stick to the i7's and i5's. The K series aren't worth looking at if your not overclocking them, which is kind of negated these days anyway due to the turbo boosting all CPUs do.
If you're really worried about power and efficiency I would say look at AMD, their chips run cooler, draw less power and don't have those crap 'efficiency' cores. However the AM5 motherboards and current pricing leave a lot to be desired.
My 2 pence.
-
- KVRian
- 890 posts since 9 May, 2005
My company has been building DAWs professionally for over 30 years.
There's nothing wrong or sub-par with the i9 13900k or 14900k.
Yes, they draw a lot of power.
Yes, they require top-tier 480mm AIO cooling.
Properly configured (not a novice build), the i9 can run super fast and very quiet.
Ryzen 9xxx doesn't top the i9... nor does the Apple M2 Ultra (Have one here for testing purposes and to support clients).
Ryzen 9 7950x is a good performer... but you're going to pay slightly more... for slightly lower performance (vs i9). Have tested both side-by-side.
I use/recommend K series CPUs... because they offer higher clock-speed.
Right now, the i9-14900 is $30 more than the i9-14900k.
IMO, It doesn't make sense to pay slightly more... for slightly lower performance.
i9-14900:
Max Turbo = 5.8GHz
Performance Core = 5.4GHz
Efficient Core = 4.3GHz
i9-14900k
Max Turbo = 6GHz
Performance Core = 5.6GHz
Efficient Core = 4.4GHz
An i9 build (done well) is a big commitment (literally and figuratively).
You've got to go all the way... (meaning a case that can accommodate 480mm radiator, quality AIO, large power-supply, and the knowledge to tweak for top-performance while keeping temps and noise in-check).
If you want to scale back a bit... and keep most of the performance of an i9, the i7-14700k is a great performer.
As a point of reference, the 14900k scores ~40k with Cinebench R23 Multi-Core.
The 14700k scores ~34k.
The i9-14900k is really just a refreshed i9-13900ks (not a new/updated architecture).
If you test performance, they're identical.
We have many 12th, 13th, and 14th Gen CPUs in the field (many clients composing for TV/Film).
Efficient cores are not a problem (don't cause drop-outs, glitches, etc).
I believe Steinberg's document (concern about efficient cores) stems more from mobile CPUs... where clock-speed can be considerably lower.
There's nothing wrong or sub-par with the i9 13900k or 14900k.
Yes, they draw a lot of power.
Yes, they require top-tier 480mm AIO cooling.
Properly configured (not a novice build), the i9 can run super fast and very quiet.
Ryzen 9xxx doesn't top the i9... nor does the Apple M2 Ultra (Have one here for testing purposes and to support clients).
Ryzen 9 7950x is a good performer... but you're going to pay slightly more... for slightly lower performance (vs i9). Have tested both side-by-side.
I use/recommend K series CPUs... because they offer higher clock-speed.
Right now, the i9-14900 is $30 more than the i9-14900k.
IMO, It doesn't make sense to pay slightly more... for slightly lower performance.
i9-14900:
Max Turbo = 5.8GHz
Performance Core = 5.4GHz
Efficient Core = 4.3GHz
i9-14900k
Max Turbo = 6GHz
Performance Core = 5.6GHz
Efficient Core = 4.4GHz
An i9 build (done well) is a big commitment (literally and figuratively).
You've got to go all the way... (meaning a case that can accommodate 480mm radiator, quality AIO, large power-supply, and the knowledge to tweak for top-performance while keeping temps and noise in-check).
If you want to scale back a bit... and keep most of the performance of an i9, the i7-14700k is a great performer.
As a point of reference, the 14900k scores ~40k with Cinebench R23 Multi-Core.
The 14700k scores ~34k.
The i9-14900k is really just a refreshed i9-13900ks (not a new/updated architecture).
If you test performance, they're identical.
We have many 12th, 13th, and 14th Gen CPUs in the field (many clients composing for TV/Film).
Efficient cores are not a problem (don't cause drop-outs, glitches, etc).
I believe Steinberg's document (concern about efficient cores) stems more from mobile CPUs... where clock-speed can be considerably lower.
-
- KVRian
- 600 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
June 2024 Guidance regarding Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen K/KF/KS instability reports:
https://community.intel.com/t5/Processo ... -p/1607807
https://community.intel.com/t5/Processo ... -p/1607807
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4801 posts since 1 Aug, 2005 from Warszawa, Poland
Finally official numbers for 14700k, took them a whole to write those.
Meanwhile I had my first bluescreen. W10 gets stuck on welcome screen out of the blue, what an abomination of a system.
And if I run a really heavy Kontakt instrument I get crackles. It feels less and less an upgrade.
Meanwhile I had my first bluescreen. W10 gets stuck on welcome screen out of the blue, what an abomination of a system.
And if I run a really heavy Kontakt instrument I get crackles. It feels less and less an upgrade.
-
- KVRAF
- 3222 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
This is why builders of audio systems really need to publish a variety of specific workload scenarios along with relative performance results. Running the same tests with major OS updates is important as well. I know that this is laborious work but good data is very hard to find against a deluge of gaming performance reportage.
Zombie Queen wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 12:29 pm Finally official numbers for 14700k, took them a whole to write those.
Meanwhile I had my first bluescreen. W10 gets stuck on welcome screen out of the blue, what an abomination of a system.
And if I run a really heavy Kontakt instrument I get crackles. It feels less and less an upgrade.
-
- KVRian
- 600 posts since 1 Jul, 2009
Bluescreen could be driver or hardware/CPU instability issue.
I would have just put Win11 on the new PC. Win10 will be discontinued next year and also, Win11 is better optimized for hybrid (P-core/E-core) CPU's:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en ... 20for%20it
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16959/in ... mber-4th/3
I would have just put Win11 on the new PC. Win10 will be discontinued next year and also, Win11 is better optimized for hybrid (P-core/E-core) CPU's:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en ... 20for%20it
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16959/in ... mber-4th/3