Lowest price for this i've seen so far, pretty sure it's the ATL?
Haven't seen a cheaper one than this. Bought one for much more in early 2024
Excludes Northern Territory, QLD Far North, QLD Regional, QLD South East, WA Regional, WA Remote.
i7-14700K there is still a potential for CPU degradation. AM5 maybe the better option for new builds
Not an issue as long as you stop the motherboard from auto pushing 1.58v to the cache…
Incredibly easy to fix in BIOS as well, set literally one number (AC Loadline).
Much better value vs. 9700x @ $545 (70% slower), this is literally faster than 9900x @ $699 (2% slower) for multithreaded tasks. Obviously this is terrible if only gaming, 7800x3d should be first choice there.
https://i.imgur.com/W3vx3Vd.png
Issue is LGA1700 upgrade path is dead, but for the price difference in 3-4 years you can buy a entirely new motherboard when upgrading instead.
How does it compare in value to the core ultra series?
The 265K is a bit faster in multithread (~5%) but slower (~7%) in gaming.
I would personally take the 14700k due to the lower platform / motherboard cost, and upgrade with a entirely new platform in 3-5 years.
This is assuming you have enough space for a 120mm tower cooler at least - something like a Deepcool AG400 @ $27 is enough to cool 14900K / 14700K at full power, with an optional fanswap to a $6 Arctic P12 for quiet operation.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Go6a7R3iGCVjtj7qjmHZ69-120…
@HPdeskjet: The 265K is cheaper for better performance, and you wouldn't be buying either CPU if gaming was a consideration, so I don't really see the point of getting this?
Other than the discount from buying into an end of life platform I suppose
@Jolakot: Just overall platform cost for the 14700k is much cheaper, especially if you needed tb4/usb4/10gbe or additional pcie lanes etc.
This is good for mixed workload, where the x3d chips are unacceptably bad for multithread:
the 265k needs CUDIMMs to keep up for gaming ($280 -> $450 for 48gb…)
the 7900x has stuttering issues due to AMD Scheduler being broken
the 7800x3d is way too slow for anything except gaming
the 9900x is $200-300 more expensive with comparable motherboard
I think the limit is 1.55v (for both core and cache - they share the same voltage rail).
In addition to setting the correct AC Loadline, the fix is to set IA VR Voltage Limit to 1.55v (or lower if you want to be safe).
Or simply update BIOS to microcode 0x129, 0x12B or newer, which should set the loadline and voltage limit for you.
You can go all the way down to 1.35-1.4v vcore limit and lose less than 2% performance on the 14700K in ST and no performance in MT.
I don't really know what asus/gigabyte/asrock were thinking with pushing 1.55+ vcore auto.
They need the auto 6ghz button to work for marketing I guess…
@HPdeskjet: True. Intel left too little safety margin to get very high single-core clock speeds. It needed a lot of voltage to get the last couple hundred MHz. Capping the voltage would eat into a very small bit of that ST boost performance.
While some motherboard makers are partly to blame for exacerbating the problem with their bad default power settings in earlier BIOS. Intel is mainly to blame here - the issue was present on nearly every motherboard, including enterprise and server grade motherboards, such as Supermicro which adhere strictly to Intel official specs and guidelines.
Back when Intel was still troubleshooting the issue, their own June 2024 guidance mentions nothing about limiting the voltage. Up until the BIOS fix, Intel never instructed motherboard makers to limit CPU voltage; motherboard makers would reasonably assume the CPU knows how to avoid damaging itself and request the correct voltage at all times.
If I recall correctly, Supermicro motherboards which adhered to Intel's worst case loadline of 1.1 mOhm ironically may have done more harm than good, because a higher resistance made the CPU request higher voltages to compensate the voltage drop. Enthusiast/gaming motherboards when manually set correctly can do much better than 1.1 mOhm and have the CPU request lower voltages.
@8bitsperbyte: Yep, correct.
My ASrock Z690 actually had calibrated values by default, 0.2mOhm AC Loadline for LLC3 (0.4mOhm for LLC4) and would not go over ~1.425v even when boosting to 5.8ghz.
The Asus server boards (W680) and Supermicro followed the "default" number of 1.1mOhm, and the CPU would recieve 1.58v prior to the microcode update even when only asking for 1.45 (130mv+ overshoot !), which puts it well within cache degrade territory (but not core degrade, that's higher at 1.72v), hence it took so long to find the issue.
The CPU can only ask for 1.45v - 1.48v VID maximum with the worst binned chips even prior to the microcode update, which is still outside of degrade territory (but with a small margin), but when combined with board overshoot from uncalibrated VRM Loadline resistances you would actually get 1.55-1.58v vcore, which falls within the degrade zone.
@HPdeskjet: Thank you for your detailed comments and sharing your numbers.
I agree with what you said. I just want to emphasise that the AC Loadline setting controls what voltage the CPU asks, whereas Load Line Calibration controls what voltage the motherboard VRM outputs. Both settings contribute to the eventual voltage the CPU receives.
So in your example where the CPU has defined 1.45v for its maximum V/F point. The CPU will ask for 1.45v only when the motherboard has been configured to 0.01 mOhm AC Loadline. However, if the motherboard has been configured to 1.1 mOhm AC Loadline, the CPU does indeed ask for a higher voltage (e.g. 1.58v), because it expects the motherboard's power delivery impedance will bring it back down to 1.45v for the worst case power current draw. I'm oversimplifying this a bit, but Buildzoid explains this in greater detail in his long videos on his YouTube channel.
LLC controls what voltage the motherboard VRM sends out to the CPU. In general, AC LL and LLC should be set to match (or be roughly equal). But if LLC is significantly lower than AC LL, then the CPU would receive considerably more voltage than it requested.
ASUS server and Supermicro boards did the right thing. They had 1.1 mOhm AC LL and I think they also had a matching 1.1 mOhm LLC. This is within Intel's spec of allowed power delivery impedance. Hence, any voltage overshoot/damage is actually a result of the CPU requesting for it.
Just to contribute my numbers.
My ASUS B760-I (when running on an old BIOS) is not calibrated. The default was AC LL of 1.300 mOhm, and LLC was Level 3 (which I assume is around 1.100 mOhm - no way for me to check what each level is). That put my i5-13600K Vcore at ~1.403v for stock 5.1 GHz at full load.
Using trial and error, I manually calibrated it to 0.280 mOhm AC LL, and LLC at Level 6 (which I assume was close to 0.280 mOhm). This reduced Vcore to ~1.323v at full load.
I then added a -0.150v offset. This further reduced Vcore to ~1.128v at full load.
So the extra (unnecessary) voltage margin (by Intel and ASUS) was around 0.275v. Shaving that off trimmed a lot of power usage and heat.
So just to confirm, for users who build with this or other 13th or 14th generation Intel CPUs, who use motherboards without updating their BIOS - are, at, risk, of, their motherboards over-volting their brand new CPU, causing advanced, sudden and extreme degradation.
Where as with an AM5 CPU, this is not a concern, they are for the most part self-regulating voltages, with only few examples having issues on certain boards, etc.
Conclusion being, AM5 is a far safer choice than Intel 13th, 14th or '15th' with whatever naming convention they've gone with.
BIOS updates are required on both AM5 and LGA1700 right now.
AM5 actually has far more risk with an older BIOS if you are using a 9000 series cpu.
current AM5 platforms have vsoc fluctuation issues on older BIOS (>1.35v literally burns the cpu die and bulges the package) that is fixed on everyone except ASrock (80mv ripple).
This is a re-occurring issue that was present at the start of 7000 series and fixed using bios updates, and was added back recently on 9000 series in a attempt to increase power saving using dynamic vsoc.
Yes, Asus and MSI were forcing 1.3v on EXPO also on older BIOS versions, it was never just limited to ASrock. It was never "only few examples having issues on certain boards".
current LGA1700 platforms have vcore spike issues if the BIOS is older than 0x12B / 0x129. which has been solved for months.
I don't see how this is an issue on either platform, considering:
BIOS updates take less than 5 minutes to complete
is doable on most modern boards without the CPU
is literally one download…
No brainer! AMD Ryzen 9 AI 370….
Amazon AU (via US) has the current gen Core Ultra 7 265K for $468.23 (or $519 for local stock via Computer Alliance).
This would only be great for an upgrade on the same platform. You would be better off with the Intel current gen if you need to stick with Intel, especially with the price drops. You still end up on a dead platform but at least it would be more current, if you are buying new.
CPU $555.15 + $5 Delivery (Excl. NT)
I felt uneasy when the price is not $555.55 + $5
Intel is dead by now. Paying the price for the greedy years.
Ok is this seriously worth considering? Let's do the maths, let's actually do it.
It's $555.15. The last I checked, that's without a CPU cooler, so let's find out how well it performs and then which AMD AM5 CPU matches most closely, for performance (gaming).
So using HUB review, looking at the 9700X, the 14700K performs 6% when at 1080p, paired with a RTX 4090. So if it's less than 6% more expensive, it's better value, simple.
Can a 9700X be bought for $521 or less today? Nope seems like it's $538.50.
So if it were just that simple, this processor wins. Of course, it isn't, the 9700X performs only 3% ahead of the 7700X which is identical to the 7700, just depends on the power you're using, essentially (I know the 7700X is binned higher but testing doesn't show it's worth the added investment).
So the real competitor from AMD is the Ryzen 7 7700, which is going for $479, so that's 86.3% of the price of this part. Does it perform 23.7% slower? No, it performs 8-9% slower. Again, at 1080p, using an RTX 4090.
Then there's the fact the 13th and 14th gen boards and CPU combinations are, not only end of life (so no upgrades available), they're also at risk of overvolting and burning themselves out. It isn't a resolved situation, they are still adjusting the microcode, do some research if you're interested.
So +$75 to your build, before looking at motherboards (with the bios updating to ensure you're not overvolting, coolers (you'll need a bigger more expensive cooler to really gain this performance, the 7700 will give you 97% of its maximum performance with a fraction of the power and thus heat budget, 65-70W).
No, thank you.
EDIT: I think I wouldn't pay more than $400 for this part, taking into account all of those risks and added costs, and even then, it's seriously questionable. You'd need specific niche use cases, most gaming, is not one of them.
You wouldn't be looking at the 9700x, the relevant comparison would be the 9900x @ $700 for mixed usage.
I agree, nobody should buy 14700K for pure gaming.
The 14700k is 70% faster than the 9700x in multithread and 3% faster than the 9900x (R23).
The 14700K is also a bit easier to cool than the 9700x (but comparable to the 9900x) due to the much lower heat density, if you need to account for that as a factor.
The 9700 non-X is extremely easy to cool though, it's a 7700x/9700x problem with the 142w stock PPT.
142w on single CCD AM5 runs anywhere from 5-10C hotter on air than 230w on dual CCD AM5 (9950x) or 253w on Intel (13900K). For stock power you pretty much need a 240aio with a good coldplate and waterblock (atmos/LT/mystique/galahad).
The 7700x even runs 30c (!!!) hotter than the 5950x when both are drawing 142w, because it has less than half the surface area for the same heat load.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/342887041496907786/13…
If you are gaming only, you should take a 7800X3D and cheaper motherboard + ram (A620 is doable due to 142w -> 80w and no reliance on memory on X3D) over the 9700X and fast ram.
Intel power efficiency and value is terrible for gaming only.
Yes the real answer is 7800X3D is probably far better value again.
Point is, 14700K is a poor product, there's use cases for it, but you'd really really REALLY want to have exhausted all other options, it's the last option, all 13th and 14th gen Intel CPUs are. 15th gen which they've butchered the name of and no one knows what to call it, so, 15th gen, was DOA.
![[eBay Plus] Intel Core i7-14700K CPU $555.15 + $5 Delivery (Excl. NT) @ Centre Com eBay](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/81/906381.jpg?h=5211cc31)
This deal post was incorrectly merged to eBay insufficient quantity thread. Centre Com appears to maintain its eBay stock level at 5. Please refer here for user comments made prior to 1pm 19 May.
Copies of comments
Duplicity
Do they still blow themselves up?
Wiadro
too much
jasswolf
Same as the tray price for a Ryzen 7800X3D, worse even. Unless you have a specific non-gaming use case, probably skip, and even then you should be looking at the Ultra 200 series.
marshmall0w2
Can't believe it's still this expensive lmao