Intel Core i9-14900KS Review: The Swan Song of Raptor Lake With A Super Fast 6.2 GHz Turbo
by Gavin Bonshor on May 10, 2024 10:30 AM ESTCPU Benchmark Performance: Science And Simulation
Our Science section covers all the tests that typically resemble more scientific-based workloads and instruction sets. Simulation and Science have a lot of overlap in the benchmarking world. The benchmarks that fall under Science have a distinct use for the data they output – in our Simulation section, these act more like synthetics but, at some level, are still trying to simulate a given environment.
In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, how data is transferred and by what mechanism is pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security.
Adding to our 2024 CPU suite, we've included the Montage Astronomical Image Mosaic Engine (MAIM) benchmark and OpenFOAM 1.2 and retained our gaming simulation benchmarks, including our Dwarf Fortress and Factorio benchmarks.
We are using DDR5 memory on the Core i9-14900KS, as well as the other Intel 14th Gen Core series processors including the Core i9-14900K, the Core i7-14700K, Core i5-14600K, and Intel's 13th Gen at the relative JEDEC settings. The same methodology is also used for the AMD Ryzen 7000 series and Intel's 12th Gen (Alder Lake) processors. Below are the settings we have used for each platform:
- DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 14th & 13th Gen
- DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
- DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen
Looking at the results in the science and simulation portion of our CPU test suite, one key result stands out, and that's in Ycruncher multi-threaded. We are currently re-testing this to see if it is an anomaly or if the heavy intensity of the workload negates performance due to thermal constraints. In the rest of the tests, we see some wins for AMD and the Ryzen 7000 series based on their Zen 4 microarchitecture, although Intel also does gain wins here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
Thunder 57 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Agree 100%. My guess is the benchmarks were already done and rather than throw them in the trash where they belong they published them. I will take Gavin at his word that he will update this, but IMHO they should've held back until all of the benchmakrs were done. ReplyBushLin - Thursday, May 16, 2024 - link
So... Doesn't look like the review has been updated, coming up to a week later ReplyOxford Guy - Monday, May 20, 2024 - link
Is anyone surprised? Replykkilobyte - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
What's the point of publishing the article without those extra tests in the first place? And since this can change your conclusions a bit, this is confusing and misleading."Don't worry"? Let me remind you the article on the i5-14600k, which stilks says after a month that you are currently re-running SPEC2017 tests and "will update the results". Have those tests been completely re-run? Were the graphs fully updated? When was it updated? You didn't care to update the text accordingly, making the review confusing at best.
So please, stop publishing articles where half of the job isn't even (properly) done. If not all tests are finished, then by all means finish them before publishing the article. Reply
Thunder 57 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link
Exactly. I have little faith in anything they say here as this website has fallen off a cliff. They just completely gave up on reviewing video cards. CPU reviews seem half assed since Ian Cuttress left. And you are right, the conclusion could (and should) change based on the next set of results. Will we see an updated conclusion? I sure hope so. ReplyPeachNCream - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Please be kind to AT. They're short staffed, underfunded, and cannot hang onto english native speaking talent so they're doing the best with what they have available. Besides, this is the first non-PSU, watercooler, or external storage device review they've published in a while. It's better we encourage them than insult them for leaving it half finished. 50% is better than 0% isn't it? ReplyOxford Guy - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
Given the situation with Intel's CPUs, it's unreasonable to publish a new article without testing according to the so-called power defaults.Utterly unreasonable. Reply
powerarmour - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link
Unbelievable Intel shilling now here, a waste of space this site. ReplyGeoffreyA - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
I agree with PeachNCream. The insults are not helping anybody but probably making them feel more despondent and driving them away. Replykkilobyte - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link
I don't see any 'insulting' here. What I'm saying is that the job was not properly done. And no, a half-finished review article with incomplete data and a possibly not proper conclusion is not "better than nothing".That AT is understaffed is none of my business, and it doesn't in any case justify publishing half-finished content. And let's remember that this website is not a charity either. Reply