CPU Benchmark Performance: Power, Productivity and Web

Our previous sets of ‘office’ benchmarks have often been a mix of science and synthetics, so this time, we wanted to keep our office and productivity section purely based on real-world performance. We've also incorporated our power testing into this section.

The biggest update to our Office-focused tests for 2024 and beyond includes UL's Procyon software, which is the successor to PCMark. Procyon benchmarks office performance using Microsoft Office applications and Adobe Premier Pro's video editing capabilities.

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 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

Power

The nature of reporting processor power consumption has become, in part, a bit of a nightmare. Historically the peak power consumption of a processor, as purchased, is given by its Thermal Design Power (TDP, or PL1). For many markets, such as embedded processors, that value of TDP still signifies the peak power consumption. For the processors we test at AnandTech, either desktop, notebook, or enterprise, this is not always the case.

Modern high-performance processors implement a feature called Turbo. This allows, usually for a limited time, a processor to go beyond its rated frequency. Exactly how far the processor goes depends on a few factors, such as the Turbo Power Limit (PL2), whether the peak frequency is hard coded, the thermals, and the power delivery. Turbo can sometimes be very aggressive, allowing power values 2.5x above the rated TDP.

AMD and Intel have different definitions for TDP that are, broadly speaking, applied the same. The difference comes from turbo modes, turbo limits, turbo budgets, and how the processors manage that power balance. These topics are 10000-12000 word articles in their own right, and we’ve got a few articles worth reading on the topic.

(0-0) Peak Power

Looking at power consumption, the Core i9-14900KS, as expected, pulls a lot of power, 408 W, to be exact, in our peak power test. In the grand scheme of things, using our ASRock Z790 Taichi Cararra at default (motherboard default, not Intel Default), it pulls just under 8% more than the regular Core i9-14900K. Compared to AMD's Ryzen 9 7000 series chips, the Core i9-14900KS is pulling over double the power of the Ryzen 9 7950X, which is simply crazy.

When using a heavy load such as yCruncher, the Intel Core i9-14900KS is significantly more powerful than the non-special edition Core i9-14900 K. In the multi-threaded benchmark, the Core i9-14900KS consistently spikes above 400 W. In contrast, the Core i9-14900K doesn't go beyond 360 W. Given how similar both chips are in performance, the additional power used and the additional heat generated certainly don't equate to the same jump in performance, at least not when looking at it from percentiles. 

Moving down to gaming, we can see that the Core i9-14900KS uses much less power than when the workload is intensely dependent on the CPU. In F1 2023 at 1080p High settings, the Core i9-14900KS does use more power than the Core i9-14900K, by around 10 to 12 W, although the Core i9-14900K did spike just as high during the most intensive scene. This means the frequencies are more consistent when gaming as they do not hit the thermal limits, at least not with the 360mm AIO cooler we use from MSI. 

Overall, the true nature of the Intel Core i9-14900KS with the 6.2 GHz maximum turbo ultimately uses more CPU VCore, up to 1.44 V, as we monitored, which is frankly too high for any Raptor Lake chip to be operating at. The thermal limits become a nuisance, although Intel's design means that they can hit the TJ Maxx (maximum temperature) and still perform well due to the utilization of Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost. It is still difficult to praise any desktop processor that uses 400 W at full load, and as with other KS SKUs we have tested, we're experiencing much the same issues in the way of power and thermal usage.

Productivity and Web

(1-1) UL Procyon Office: Word

(1-2) UL Procyon Office: Excel

(1-3) UL Procyon Office: Outlook

(1-4) UL Procyon Office: PowerPoint

(1-6) LibreOffice: 20 Documents to PDF Conversion

(2-1) JetStream 2.1 Benchmark

(2-2) Timed Linux Kernel Compilation 6.1: deconfig build

(2-5) MariaDB 11.0.1: MySQL Database - 512 Clients

(2-5b) MariaDB 11.0.1: MySQL Database - 1024 Clients

Our productivity and web-based section consistently see the Core i9-14900KS trade blows with the Core i9-14900K. In the timed tests such as LibreOffice and the Linux Kernel Compilation benchmark, the additional frequency helps marginally, but it doesn't change things much. At least not from a real-world performance standpoint in this area.

Test Bed and Setup: Moving Towards 2024 CPU Benchmark Performance: Encoding
Comments Locked

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • kobblestown - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    Right next to https://www.anandtech.com/show/21392/amd-hits-reco... at the front page at the moment.
  • FatFlatulentGit - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    Dangit, here I was gonna have a walk down memory lane and the benchmark images are all missing.
  • edwpang - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    History repeats itself, 20 years ago, Intel Pentium 4 Prescott increased clock speed, but no much performance gain:
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/1230
  • Samus - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link

    Yeah but Intel has gone full insanity here. If Prescott could heat my dorm room in college, the Raptor Lake on juice should be able to heat an entire house. This is over 3x the heat output of the hottest Prescott!
  • GeoffreyA - Saturday, May 11, 2024 - link

    That's the thing. Prescott has this reputation, rightly so, but I don't think it went over 200 W. Cedar Mill further curtailed the TDP.
  • boozed - Sunday, May 12, 2024 - link

    I'd love to have seen some specific performance results, i.e. performance/watt or work/energy.
  • Samus - Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - link

    AT did some testing on this last year and the short of it is unsurprisingly AMD scales up AND down better than Intel when it comes to performance per watt, but Intel can hit higher TDP's due to limits AMD has on their package power.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch...
  • James5mith - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    Would have liked to see this review done at the Intel dictated stock settings rather than the motherboard defaults.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/21374/intel-issues-...
  • Gavin Bonshor - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    Don't worry; I will be testing Intel Default settings, too. I'm testing over the weekend and adding them in.

    I tested, as we normally do because it keeps the data set consistent. As I state on the first page

    "This does pose questions when it comes to testing and reviewing Intel's 14th and 13th Gen processors. We have been considering our standpoint on this, as we will typically test at the default motherboard settings with memory set to JEDEC specifications of the specific processor we're testing. For this review, we will be testing how we usually test, as this fits within the realm of keeping things consistent."

    Intel's back-and-forth with motherboard vendors on this issue has raised many questions. We intend to address it as soon as possible. We already test with memory as per JEDEC, and I usually get a lot of criticism about why I don't test with DDR5-6000 or DDR5-7200, etc.

    Don't worry, we will be addressing this in-house.
  • yannigr2 - Friday, May 10, 2024 - link

    I am expecting reviews to start fixing Intel's inaccuracies, not "keeping things consistent". Using an overclocked CPU, at an overclocked state in a review, helps maintaining inconsistency not consistency. Especially when there is a chance the CPU to get degraded even in the short period of warranty time. The fact that this is pre overclocked CPU from Intel, doesn't mean it should be tested that way, especially after the latest revelations. Whatever data you had, should have gone directly to the trash bin and only test with whatever Intel believes it is "in spec".

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now