Solved New build - CPUs

bobkn · May 11, 2025

SIW2 said:
13m 21s

(snip)

I didn't watch the video.

Is it primarily aimed at gamers?

gunrunnerjohn · May 11, 2025

msalton1 said:
My question was almost moot anyway, given one of my first tasks after a build is to update to the latest bios.

I always check the BIOS version when assembling a new computer, or even a hand-me-down. The update was just more imperative in this case, lack of an update would kill the processor in a pretty short time!

msalton1 · May 11, 2025

SIW2 said:
13m 21s

In almost every test/graph in the video, the 14900K and 14700K best the Ultras, and the 14700K seems to be the best value. It varies between besting the 14900K or is just a few points below.

Trying to learn · May 11, 2025

Oh it's good to read about the issues with 13th and 14th gen being solved now. We decided to stick to a i5-12600K because of what we had read about the newer 13,14 gen ones at the time, and ours had a good reputation from what we could see. I felt bad for the problems so many seemed to have at the time. They must be feeling a lot of relief now. :)

bobkn · May 11, 2025

msalton1 said:
In almost every test/graph in the video, the 14900K and 14700K best the Ultras, and the 14700K seems to be the best value. It varies between besting the 14900K or is just a few points below.

I presume that a prospective Maximus Hero buyer cares little about the greater value of the 14700K over the 14900K.

Maybe its easier cooling would matter.

bobkn · May 11, 2025

msalton1 said:
In almost every test/graph in the video, the 14900K and 14700K best the Ultras, and the 14700K seems to be the best value. It varies between besting the 14900K or is just a few points below.

I broke down and stepped through the video. (I'm not a fan of YouTube videos.)

"Almost every" seems like a slight exaggeration.

Based on the video, the Ryzen 9000 series chips may be the ones to get. (No, I don't have one.)

hdmi · May 11, 2025

msalton1 said:
Quality, reliability and speed are important factors as well. From what I'm reading, I may be better off in the mentioned terms going with a 14700K or 13700K over the 265 or 285 ultras.

Core Ultra 9 285K has 27.6 percent higher PassMark CPU Mark score than Core i7-14700KF. With the power limits removed, when combined with one of the best liquid air cooling solutions the Core Ultra 9 285K can run stable and still remain adequately cool under sustained heavy load so the overclocking potential you get is palpable and real. You pays your money for the motherboard from the Asus we love, but you said that cost isn't really important.

SIW2 · May 11, 2025

msalton1 · May 12, 2025

bobkn said:
I presume that a prospective Maximus Hero buyer cares little about the greater value of the 14700K over the 14900K.

Maybe its easier cooling would matter.

That I have the means to buy quality doesn't mean I should overlook value. The latter contributes to the former.

msalton1 · May 12, 2025

hdmi said:
Core Ultra 9 285K has 27.6 percent higher PassMark CPU Mark score than Core i7-14700KF. With the power limits removed, when combined with one of the best liquid air cooling solutions the Core Ultra 9 285K can run stable and still remain adequately cool under sustained heavy load so the overclocking potential you get is palpable and real. You pays your money for the motherboard from the Asus we love, but you said that cost isn't really important.

I see some good points to the Ultra line. It does run at significantly lower temperatures, and it's not subject to the bug issue the 13th and 14th Gen have been (apparently, there's still a chance of getting a cpu with that issue that requires the fix). I don't like the high temps the 13/14 cpus run at.

But I am also reading a lot of poor reviews on the Ultra series processors.

I don't do much gaming right now. I think I mentioned earlier that a primary reason for the new build is to support UA's Apollo Twin X audio interface via TB, which requires native motherboard support (add on TB cards won't work).

I would also like the possibility to game with good performance. I'm a heavy user in terms of applications, multi-tasking, web usage and photo related software (some files I process are 2-3 GB). And as mentioned, I'm also venturing into audio processing with plugins.

To the Apollo issue, there seems to be issues getting it to work/work well in Windows. I've read of successes using the iCore chips, but none with the Ultra chips.

Also, in order to take the chance on the Ultra CPU, I pay substantially more and can't go back to the iCore series unless I start over.

I haven't made a decision yet, but my research isn't turning up a lot of good reasons to go with the Ultra series and I'm leaning heavily toward iCore.

PerpetualCycle · May 12, 2025

msalton1 said:
I see some good points to the Ultra line. It does run at significantly lower temperatures, and it's not subject to the bug issue the 13th and 14th Gen have been (apparently, there's still a chance of getting a cpu with that issue that requires the fix). I don't like the high temps the 13/14 cpus run at.

But I am also reading a lot of poor reviews on the Ultra series processors.

I don't do much gaming right now. I think I mentioned earlier that a primary reason for the new build is to support UA's Apollo Twin X audio interface via TB, which requires native motherboard support (add on TB cards won't work).

I would also like the possibility to game with good performance. I'm a heavy user in terms of applications, multi-tasking, web usage and photo related software (some files I process are 2-3 GB). And as mentioned, I'm also venturing into audio processing with plugins.

To the Apollo issue, there seems to be issues getting it to work/work well in Windows. I've read of successes using the iCore chips, but none with the Ultra chips.

Also, in order to take the chance on the Ultra CPU, I pay substantially more and can't go back to the iCore series unless I start over.

I haven't made a decision yet, but my research isn't turning up a lot of good reasons to go with the Ultra series and I'm leaning heavily toward iCore.

I think the major reason the core 9 ultra 7 265k runs cooler than the 14900 or 13900 is that it does not support hyperthreading. The comparison should be to the 14900 or 13900 with hyperthreading turned off. Then they both have the equal number of logical cores as the ultra. Question is which will run cooler and faster. I expect the ultra will have had some performance increase in the form of more Instructions Per Clock cycle. But it perfroms the same on cinibench as far as I can see (I run my 13900KS with hyperthreading off).

gunrunnerjohn · May 12, 2025

msalton1 said:
I see some good points to the Ultra line. It does run at significantly lower temperatures, and it's not subject to the bug issue the 13th and 14th Gen have been (apparently, there's still a chance of getting a cpu with that issue that requires the fix). I don't like the high temps the 13/14 cpus run at.

I think unless you overclock or don't update your BIOS to the current version that addresses the uCode issue, the bug is a non-issue. I did a stress test on my system with the i5-14500 processor, after a few minutes running here's the temperature results. Nothing alarming to me in these results.

bobkn · May 12, 2025

msalton1 said:
(snip)

I don't do much gaming right now. I think I mentioned earlier that a primary reason for the new build is to support UA's Apollo Twin X audio interface via TB, which requires native motherboard support (add on TB cards won't work).

(snip)

So far, I've avoided any use of TB.

I have an Asus Z690-E with a TB header. A special accessory card is needed to provide the TB port. (I haven't bought one.) I don't know how common that approach is.

hdmi · May 12, 2025

msalton1 said:
I see some good points to the Ultra line. It does run at significantly lower temperatures, and it's not subject to the bug issue the 13th and 14th Gen have been (apparently, there's still a chance of getting a cpu with that issue that requires the fix). I don't like the high temps the 13/14 cpus run at.

But I am also reading a lot of poor reviews on the Ultra series processors.

I don't do much gaming right now. I think I mentioned earlier that a primary reason for the new build is to support UA's Apollo Twin X audio interface via TB, which requires native motherboard support (add on TB cards won't work).

I would also like the possibility to game with good performance. I'm a heavy user in terms of applications, multi-tasking, web usage and photo related software (some files I process are 2-3 GB). And as mentioned, I'm also venturing into audio processing with plugins.

To the Apollo issue, there seems to be issues getting it to work/work well in Windows. I've read of successes using the iCore chips, but none with the Ultra chips.

Also, in order to take the chance on the Ultra CPU, I pay substantially more and can't go back to the iCore series unless I start over.

I haven't made a decision yet, but my research isn't turning up a lot of good reasons to go with the Ultra series and I'm leaning heavily toward iCore.

I have no idea why so many people on here keep talking about the Core Ultra 7 265K. IMO just forget that CPU even exists.. I was talking about the Core Ultra 9 285K with Giphy Integration. :evilgrin:

SIW2 · May 13, 2025

gunrunnerjohn · May 13, 2025

SIW2 said:

I'd rather see a couple of paragraphs that I could read in several minutes that tells me what a 40 minute video can tell me.

bobkn · May 13, 2025

gunrunnerjohn said:
I'd rather see a couple of paragraphs that I could read in several minutes that tells me what a 40 minute video can tell me.

Okay, boomer.

(My preference is the same. And I'm in the middle of the Baby Boomer generation.)

hdmi · May 13, 2025

gunrunnerjohn said:
I'd rather see a couple of paragraphs that I could read in several minutes that tells me what a 40 minute video can tell me.

Here: Get It Together, Intel: Core Ultra 9 285K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 7800X3D, 9950X, More | GamersNexus

That older review is mostly about gaming performance, though. As a result, the 9950X usually "wins". It also doesn't take into account the fact that the 285K, especially when paired with CUDIMMs up to 9.2 GT/s or beyond [that weren't around yet at the time when GamersNexus had just published the review] gives better overall performance during non-gaming types of heavy workloads when compared to the 9950X.

Another difference is that the 285K gives a (much) bigger gain in performance from overclocking compared to the 9950X. As for the 9950X3D, that one is better for gaming, but it costs ~~$895~~ ~~$950~~ $1,023 currently. That plus the fact that, between the 9950X and the 9950X3D, the overall difference in performance during non-gaming types of heavy workloads is barely noticeable.

Motherboard prices also play a role in determining the total value, but so does picking the right motherboard and RAM for the job. The 285K only really starts to shine if you can overclock it to a level that is both sustainable and sufficiently high.
ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z890 HERO BTF

gunrunnerjohn · May 13, 2025

Truthfully, that's way more computer than I need for anything I do. :)

msalton1 · May 13, 2025

One thing I hadn't considered is socket/platform lifespan. I'm guessing there's no upward potential for LGA 1700, but it looks like 1851 is headed for early retirement. LGA 1954 won;t likely be out until the 2nd half of 2026, at least a year away.

Intel's next-gen Nova Lake CPUs will seemingly use a new LGA1954 socket

LGA1954 in, LGA1851 out.

www.tomshardware.com

Solved New build - CPUs

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

New member

My Computer

and glad to be here

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Jack of all trades – master of none

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Syzygy

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Jack of all trades – master of none

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Jack of all trades – master of none

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

New member

My Computer

Similar threads