Shane_B. Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) I posted this in the proper sub forum but didn't get a response, so I'll try here. I'm just beginning to research CPU's seriously for the first time since I built my i7-6700k based system. Its not supported by Win 11 so its time to start looking before Win 10 reaches the end. I see the new Core Ultra chips are the latest, but the benchmarks I'm seeing are basically showing the i9-14900k's are almost equal performance wise and cost far less than the top Core Ultra. The 14900k is older now though. Is there any reason not to consider it for a new build? Ozone 9 Advanced really struggles on my 6700K. Will I see an improvement on a 14900k? Thanks for any input. Edited March 12 by Shane_B. Fixed typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgon-Shaw Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, Shane_B. said: Ozone 9 Advanced really struggles on my 6700K. Will I see an improvement on a 14900k? Yeah should be a huge improvement but there were loads of reports of stability issues with that chip so maybe do some research to see if things have improved or look at something like a Ryzen 7950x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timboalogo Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K 3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference. I can load a zillion synths and effects without a hitch. There is an upper limit though, where things start to stutter but I can load way more software than I used to before this happens. I find the newer software is more graphics intensive (Ozone 9). The onboard Intel graphics suits my needs but you may need a dedicated graphics card, but good ones are expensive. I did a lot of research before my last build, including posting at tomshardware and although they don't know DAWs, they know enough to help. In fact they talked me out of the i9 to the i7. I suppose it's up to how much of a risk you want to take with the ultra chips. Hope this helps! Timbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragi Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 37 minutes ago, timboalogo said: went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K 3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference. Same here. The issue reports of the intel 13. and 14. CPU Generation are according to experts like Jim Roseberry : overrated. have a look at Jims tips for the configuration : I've built scores of machines using 13th and 14th Gen CPUs. If you know how to configure them... they're certainly not a problem. Especially if you're talking about the i9 13900k or 14900k, they're not what I'd call a "novice-build". If you just set everything to "Auto" and set memory to XMP Profile 1/2, you're going to have a machine that thermal-throttles under heavy loads... and will most likely be unstable (especially if using faster DDR5). Proper BIOS configuration will prevent thermal-throttling, instability, and potentially damaging the CPU. Edited March 13 by Pragi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy1 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 34 minutes ago, timboalogo said: I went to the "12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700K 3.60 GHz" with 32 gigs of RAM and SSDs last year or so and couldn't believe the difference. I can load a zillion synths and effects without a hitch. There is an upper limit though, where things start to stutter but I can load way more software than I used to before this happens. I find the newer software is more graphics intensive (Ozone 9). The onboard Intel graphics suits my needs but you may need a dedicated graphics card, but good ones are expensive. I did a lot of research before my last build, including posting at tomshardware and although they don't know DAWs, they know enough to help. In fact they talked me out of the i9 to the i7. I suppose it's up to how much of a risk you want to take with the ultra chips. Hope this helps! Timbo Sounds nice esoecially if one is too look for a budget build. This CPU is under $200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy1 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 So much of this now is becoming a rocket science. I find it confusing with these Intel cores. AMD seems easier. I still think of replacing my rarely used AMD FX6300 with an AMD 8 core 64 watt system. The reality for me is doing get carried away with wanting muscle car performance. I don't ever need to be able to run 200 tracks when I rarely reach 30. Overhead that I will never use. You have to wonder if MS doesn't change their mind with the TMP requirement when people stay on W10 past it's existence. Then there are 3rd party developers who can risk a loss with W11 as a minimum requirement. That would probably turn more people to using Reaper. No more updates from using W10 doesn't worry me. In the software world the amount bad updates seems to increase using something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane_B. Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 I've been doing a lot of reading on these Gen 14 cpus. I definitely don't want to go with the new Ultra cpus. The cost/benefit factor doesn't add up. From what I read they run on a lot less power, but are barely faster than the Gen 14's. I'm leaning toward the i7 now. It has the same amount of P cores as the i9 and faster, which is what's important for daw's. Three interesting things I've read. 1. One of the problems with Gen 14 was bad chips that oxidized on the inside. That's been fixed. 2. All BIOS's overclock them even when set not to. You have to manually set them up and you have to do it immediately. Once they run for a while at the wrong settings they are permanently damaged. That wouldn't be a problem for me because I never overclock and always go in and manually override the cpu and memory swttings to base specs. 3. You can continue to safely use Win 10 after it's end of life. You can buy security updates yearly for it but you only get security updates. No new features or bug fixes. I have an RTX 3060 12GB video card. I only play one game and not very often anymore. I like Fallout. A 3060 is overkill I think for DAW ussage so I think I'll be very happy if I go with the i7. I see no need for the i9. I'll mainly use my PC as a DAW, Word and Excel, and very very light gaming. I do just fine with the light photo and video editing I do with my current i7 6700k so I think I'll be in good shape with the i7 14700k. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane_B. Posted March 16 Author Share Posted March 16 Here's a question I can't find an answer to. If you have a PCIe Gen 5 mobo, you only get one Gen 5 GPU slot and one Gen 5 M.2 Drive slot. The rest are Gen 4, if the mobo even has more than one m.2 slot. The Gen 5 GPU slot and the first Gen 5 m.2 slot are shared and have direct lines to the CPU. If there are any other m.2 slots they are Gen 4 and have their own processor. On every PCIe Gen 5 mobo I've found, if you have the Gen 5 GPU and first M.2 slot filled (Gen 5), your CPU lanes are split between the two slowing them both down. My question is after explaining all that lol, If you have a PCIe Gen 4 only mobo, a Gen 4 GPU and a Gen 4 m.2 drive, does it still get split, or are both directly connected to the cpu equally? I can't seem to find an answer anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane_B. Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it. PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4. So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives. I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57Gregy Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 35 minutes ago, Shane_B. said: Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it. PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4. So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives. I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time. Bub, did you see Jim's response in Computers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragi Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 6 hours ago, Shane_B. said: Still haven't found a solid answer. What I have found is, in the price range I'm looking at I can't find a single mobo that has all the same gen pcie slots and it makes sense after really reading up on it. PCIe 4 has gpu and 1st m.2 slot shared Gen 4, and any others are Gen 3. Gen 5s have shared Gen 5 gpu and 1st m.2 slot and the rest Gen 4. So, what I'll do is get Gen 5 so it's a little future proof for future gpu's and use the Gen 4 m.2 slots for drives. I can't imagine any of it really matters. I've never had a single issue running anything DAW related on my old 6700 except for having to freeze Ozone from time to time. How about to send a pm to Jim ? Til now I noticed him always as helpful. Edited March 18 by Pragi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane_B. Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 10 hours ago, 57Gregy said: Bub, did you see Jim's response in Computers? No I didn't. That's weird. I never got a notification there was a reply to that thread. I will check. Thanks for letting me know! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Roseberry Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) I was just going to chime-in... 😉 Here's my response from the other thread... and I've added a bit more. The 14900k is a fine performer. You need large top-tier AIO cooling (forget air coolers). I'd recommend top-tier AIO cooling for all three of the CPUs mentioned below. The Core Ultra 9 285k is slightly faster... and at lower TDP (heat). Using Cinebench R23 Multi-Core test for comparison: 14900k scores ~38712 Core Ultra 9 285k scores ~42620 9950x scores ~42871 The AMD 9950x slightly outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285k. 14900k is a bit over $400 9950x is a bit over $500 Core Ultra 9 285k is ~$600 The Core Ultra 9 has a couple of advantages: Lower TDP (lower temps) Some reasonably priced Z890 motherboards come stock with a single Thunderbolt port. That's enough for most users... and it's considerably less expensive than a high-end board with TB (typically $600-$1000)... or having to use an AIC. If you don't need the power of the Core Ultra 9 CPU, the Core Ultra 7 265k is about the same price as the 14700k. Edited March 18 by Jim Roseberry 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now