To see what that means in practice, in my multi generational meta benchmark the 285K lands currently only on rank 12, behind the top Intel processors from the last two generations (i7-13700K and 14700K plus the respective i9) and several AMD processors. https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu. The 3D cache just helps a lot in games, but the loss against the own predecessor must hurt even more.
I see how that can be misleading. It's globally not a percentage based score.
The benchmark is creating a global order based on which one is faster, including indirect comparisons. But that only takes care of the position, not the rating. That one is based on the percentage between direct neighbor iff there is a direct comparison in the benchmark data, otherwise it's a small .1 increment. So many small percentage increases that don't necessarily match the direct comparion between parts that are not neighbors. Sometimes that works great, sometimes not.
Here the example looks a bit pathological, that difference is further off than I expected when introducing the calculation recently. For the 12700K and 13700K, the direct comparison sees the 12700K at 85% of the 13700k:
So yeah, sorry, that part is misleading right now. I'll check the calculation.
But the ingested individual benchmark numbers and the ranking, so the position, is very solid I'd say. With the caveat that ranking position can change with more data.
For gaming, those CPUs were a sidegrade at best. To be honest, it wouldn't have been a big issue, especially for folks upgrading from way older hardware, if only their pricing wasn't so out of line with the value that they provide (look at their GPUs, at least there the MSRP makes the hardware good value).
So, for one in other software the new processors do better. The 285K beats the i9-14900KS by a bit in my app benchmark collection (which is less extensive, but still). And second yes, according to https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/intel-core-u... for example they are less extreme in their energy usage and more efficient in general, albeit not more efficient than the AMD processors.
> I seem to remember you'd need dedicated industrial cooling for the 14700k.
Those CPUs run hot, but it got exaggerated a lot online. It’s not hard to handle their heat with a good air cooler (even some of the $50 units like the Peerless Assassin) or a run of the mill closed loop water cooler.
There are a lot of old notions in the gaming community that you need to keep CPUs under arbitrary temperature thresholds or that any throttling is bad. Modern CPUs and GPUs run themselves deep into the performance curves and slight throttling is barely noticeable.
Hm, to keep in mind though that what the gaming community always claimed actually did happen with those processors - they disintegrated because of too much voltage (and probably heat). https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/processors/intel-cpu-crashe.... So the "run themselves deep into the performance curves" part of these Intel processors was a disaster.
Although it looks like the heat indeed makes it worse
> If you have an Intel Raptor Lake system and you're in the northern hemisphere, chances are that your machine is crashing more often because of the summer heat. I know because I can literally see which EU countries have been affected by heat waves by looking at the locales of Firefox crash reports coming from Raptor Lake systems.
If you want people to take your benchmark seriously, you'd need to provide a very great deal more information on how those numbers are generated. "It's complicated, just trust me" isn't a good enough explanation.
If you want people to listen, you need to have a link where you explain what hardware you're using, what settings you're using, what apps/games you're running, what metrics you're using and how you compute your Magical Number.
My already high level of sceptism is compounded by some scarcely-believable results, such as that according to your testing the i9-14900K and i9-13900K have essentially identical performance. Other, more reputable and established sources do not agree with you (to put it mildly).
Hey, I do try to make the site as transparent as possible - but admit that the site does not make it obvious. For such a doubt, go into the comparison of the two (https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...) where all benchmarks used that the two processors share are listed. The benchmark bars are clickable and go to the source.
It does get really complicated to address something like that when all comparisons are indirect. Thankfully, that's not the case here.
