With problems in intel's 13 and 14th gen, is it wise to get them now?

davidleven · Jul 29, 2024

I have a budget of 500 - 600 USD, and what would be the best CPU for me in this budget, should I consider Intel? Or should I even upgrade?

Any cool tools to check the value to money ratio as well?

cereberus · Jul 29, 2024

These problems are very exaggerated.

With your budget (I assume that is for pc not just cpu but your post is ambiguous), I would imagine an i5 is highest intel chip you could get.

You can test performance using passmark benchmarking tool but with your budget, best you will get is lower to mid range typically 30-50th percentile.

That means pc will perform ok but expect power performance for gaming (say).

davidleven · Jul 29, 2024

So, it's safe to consider Intel's CPUs, as I was skeptical, and this i7-14700KF CPU was looking to give me a great value for my money as well

How would you guys rate it?

bobkn · Jul 29, 2024

I'm not sure whether any problems exist for Gen13 and Gen14 CPUs if they are limited to Intel's specified power maximums using BIOS settings. Some motherboards (like my Asus Z690-E) had their original default settings higher. If the limits are removed altogether, an I9-14900K can run much higher, without explicit overclocking.

The I7-14700KF I regard as a good choice. I might prefer the I7-14700K, which includes an integrated graphics controller. (As a backup, or for some specialized video processing.)

If I was building a new PC, I might be tempted by the AMD Ryzen 9000 series, due out in a week or two. I suggest reading up on those. It's unclear to me that they'll offer a major price/performance/cooling advantage, but they may be at least a little better than Intel's current finest.

(I'm CPU agnostic. See "my computer".)

pparks1 · Jul 29, 2024

davidleven said:
I have a budget of 500 - 600 USD, and what would be the best CPU for me in this budget, should I consider Intel? Or should I even upgrade?

Any cool tools to check the value to money ratio as well?

Is that budget just for the CPU, or is it the CPU and the motherboard and potential RAM that might be required (DDR5)?

Steve C · Jul 30, 2024

davidleven said:
So, it's safe to consider Intel's CPUs, as I was skeptical, and this i7-14700KF CPU was looking to give me a great value for my money as well

How would you guys rate it?

I have the i7-14700K which includes the GPU. I would spend a bit more for this CPU to provide a backup GPU in case your main GPU fails. My CPU has been stable but I have set power limits of 125 / 175W and limited the max CPU temperature to 85C.

spapakons · Jul 30, 2024

Many will tell you that AMD is faster, has less micros packing more power, has more cores etc. I don't believe in AMD fan boys. In most applications, including Adobe applications single core power counts more that the number of cores a CPU has. And in that still Intel beats AMD. I prefer having fewer cores working their best than having double the cores and remain idle most of the time. Even in gaming very few games take advantage of too many cores, but they benefit from faster working fewer cores. So my advice is don't listen to the "Siren" called AMD, steer clear stick with Intel. Performance and compatibility with older games and applications is much more important than the number of cores. As for the bugs they are a BIOS update away from fixing, if they are not already fixed.

hdmi · Jul 30, 2024

For those.

davidleven · Jul 30, 2024

bobkn said:
I'm not sure whether any problems exist for Gen13 and Gen14 CPUs if they are limited to Intel's specified power maximums using BIOS settings. Some motherboards (like my Asus Z690-E) had their original default settings higher. If the limits are removed altogether, an I9-14900K can run much higher, without explicit overclocking.

The I7-14700KF I regard as a good choice. I might prefer the I7-14700K, which includes an integrated graphics controller. (As a backup, or for some specialized video processing.)

If I was building a new PC, I might be tempted by the AMD Ryzen 9000 series, due out in a week or two. I suggest reading up on those. It's unclear to me that they'll offer a major price/performance/cooling advantage, but they may be at least a little better than Intel's current finest.

(I'm CPU agnostic. See "my computer".)

Yeah, makes sense to hold on for a week or two, as my next month's pay is also still not here, haha

pparks1 said:
Is that budget just for the CPU, or is it the CPU and the motherboard and potential RAM that might be required (DDR5)?

It's for just the CPU

davidleven said:
So, it's safe to consider Intel's CPUs, as I was skeptical, and this i7-14700KF CPU Price was looking to give me a great value for my money as well

How would you guys rate it?

Looks like I am going to hold on this for a while

Steve C said:
I have the i7-14700K which includes the GPU. I would spend a bit more for this CPU to provide a backup GPU in case your main GPU fails. My CPU has been stable but I have set power limits of 125 / 175W and limited the max CPU temperature to 85C.

This actually makes sense, thanks

spapakons said:
Many will tell you that AMD is faster, has less micros packing more power, has more cores etc. I don't believe in AMD fan boys. In most applications, including Adobe applications single core power counts more that the number of cores a CPU has. And in that still Intel beats AMD. I prefer having fewer cores working their best than having double the cores and remain idle most of the time. Even in gaming very few games take advantage of too many cores, but they benefit from faster working fewer cores. So my advice is don't listen to the "Siren" called AMD, steer clear stick with Intel. Performance and compatibility with older games and applications is much more important than the number of cores. As for the bugs they are a BIOS update away from fixing, if they are not already fixed.

This, exactly this has been my debate, and people compare overall performance, and not their usecase

spapakons · Jul 30, 2024

Larger engine in a car doesn't necessarily mean more horse power. Similarly more cores doesn't translate to more performance. In most applications and games single core performance is much more important and there Intel is best.

hdmi · Jul 30, 2024

spapakons said:
Larger engine in a car doesn't necessarily mean more horse power. Similarly more cores doesn't translate to more performance. In most applications and games single core performance is much more important and there Intel is best.

bobkn · Jul 30, 2024

spapakons said:
Larger engine in a car doesn't necessarily mean more horse power. Similarly more cores doesn't translate to more performance. In most applications and games single core performance is much more important and there Intel is best.

The single-core performance of Ryzen 9000 series CPUs may exceed that of similar Intel Gen14 models. Legitimate (not leaked) reviews should be appearing fairly soon.

spapakons · Jul 30, 2024

"May" is not enough for me to make me buy AMD. What is the price difference between Intel and AMD? If it is less than $50 I would choose Intel to be on the safe side. If it is higher I would rather buy a lesser Intel model (such as Core-i3 instead of Core-i5) than go to AMD.

SIW2 · Jul 30, 2024

You could take a look at the hardware unboxed channel if you enjoy in depth comparisons of components.

hdmi · Jul 30, 2024

spapakons said:
"May" is not enough for me to make me buy AMD. What is the price difference between Intel and AMD? If it is less than $50 I would choose Intel to be on the safe side. If it is higher I would rather buy a lesser Intel model (such as Core-i3 instead of Core-i5) than go to AMD.

OP is talking i9-14900K & Ryzen 9 7900X/7900X3D prices. In almost all real-world performance tasks (non gaming) the i9 wins, and you also have to factor in things like the price differences between the various different motherboard choices, etc.. AMD has just delayed the release of the 9000 series by 1–2 weeks.

spapakons · Jul 30, 2024

Exactly! No matter how hard AMD fan boys try to convince us, we are not blind, we can still see Intel is faster where it matters albeit having half or less number of cores than AMD. Performance and compatibility are much more important than number of cores. Most remain idle anyway, unless the game or application has specifically written for that number of cores. I don't think this will ever happen until this number of cores is mainstream and the programmer is worth taking the extra effort required to do that.

bobkn · Jul 30, 2024

spapakons said:
"May" is not enough for me to make me buy AMD. What is the price difference between Intel and AMD? If it is less than $50 I would choose Intel to be on the safe side. If it is higher I would rather buy a lesser Intel model (such as Core-i3 instead of Core-i5) than go to AMD.

I'm not suggesting that anyone pre-order a Ryzen 9000 CPU based on hopes, expectations, or statements by AMD fans.

In a few weeks, there could be real price and performance information available for those specifying a new system build. I can't predict whether AMD might be superior to Intel's current offerings. Or just equivalent.

I wonder how many believe that buying an Intel CPU is "to be on the safe side"? I've used both Intel and AMD CPUs over many years. I haven't had compatibility or reliability issues with either. I thought that the Athlon 64 X2 was the best choice back when Intel was struggling with their Pentium 4, nearly 20 years ago. The Core series put Intel back in the running. My current primary system is AMD mainly because I wished to try an HEDT (high end desktop) system, which Intel hasn't offered since Gen10. (Please don't counter with Xeon.)

Marcus Vinicus · Jul 30, 2024

It isn't easy to get a handle on the potential issues with these Raptor Lake 13th and 14th processors. The scale of this isn't fully known.
1. How many processors sold have issues caused during manufacturing?
2. How many processors have issues caused by incorrect installation or mishandling by users?
3. How many users have had or currently have RMA claims re these processors?
4. What percentage of users have never had any issues?

Intel have done a poor job of managing the numerous issues with Raptor Lake processors. That said my 13900K has never had any issues with BSODs or instabilities. The only issue I had was when I first built my current PC was two sets of faulty Corsair ram.

To the question would I buy say a 14th generation Raptor Lake CPU? Nope, nor would I buy the new upcoming AMD or Intel processors for at least 6 months post release when the mainboard firmware has been updated to fix any inevitable early gremlins.

bobkn · Jul 30, 2024

Marcus Vinicus said:
It isn't easy to get a handle on the potential issues with these Raptor Lake 13th and 14th processors. The scale of this isn't fully known.
1. How many processors sold have issues caused during manufacturing?
2. How many processors have issues caused by incorrect installation or mishandling by users?
3. How many users have had or currently have RMA claims re these processors?
4. What percentage of users have never had any issues?

Intel have done a poor job of managing the numerous issues with Raptor Lake processors. That said my 13900K has never had any issues with BSODs or instabilities. The only issue I had was when I first built my current PC was two sets of faulty Corsair ram.

To the question would I buy say a 14th generation Raptor Lake CPU? Nope, nor would I buy the new upcoming AMD or Intel processors for at least 6 months post release when the mainboard firmware has been updated to fix any inevitable early gremlins.

There may be other issues with Gen13/14.

Intel admits damage to unstable 14th-gen and 13th-gen CPUs is permanent – incoming patch is a preventative, not a cure

Although there could be a chance that ‘some instability improvements’ might benefit currently impacted CPUs

www.techradar.com

The unusual problem is having CPUs degrade over time of use, rather than being DOA or having a sudden total failure.

I have an I9-13900K in an Asus Z690-E motherboard. (Its default BIOS settings didn't use the recommended Intel power limits.) It hasn't failed, so far, but I don't game.

I'll do the BIOS update when Asus provides it.

I wonder how much satisfaction users have had with warranty returns? Last year, I had a warranty denied because I used DDR5 with an XMP that was above the approved frequency for the CPU. (Maybe I should have lied.)

RJARRRPCGP · Jul 30, 2024

bobkn said:
I wonder how much satisfaction users have had with warranty returns? Last year, I had a warranty denied because I used DDR5 with an XMP that was above the approved frequency for the CPU. (Maybe I should have lied.)

Were you getting what looked like a RAM subsystem failure, such as "PAGE_FAULT_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA", "BAD_POOL_HEADER" and/or "MEMORY_MANAGEMENT" stop error codes?

With problems in intel's 13 and 14th gen, is it wise to get them now?

Member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Jack of all trades – master of none

My Computers

Member

My Computer

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

Well-known member

My Computers

Semper paratus

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computers