I have them listed a bit cheaper in local stores. Some stores have pre-orders, but prices are higher. Some, as usual, add the "new product tax". I also see that motherboards that are supposed to be unavailable for review in the first days after release are already listed as available tomorrow from the local store. There is nothing better than signing an NDA and getting samples after the premiere, and after, people can buy them in retail ... only two mobos for which I signed the NDA in the last weeks, arrived before the official premiere. It's one of the X870E mobo (Gigabyte on the front page), and one Z890.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Arrow Lake leaks + post-launch discussion
- Thread starter mackerel
- Start date
![]-[itman](/forums/data/avatars/m/9/9309.jpg?1650325391){kind=avatar}
First review posted early by accident, someone snagged screenshots of several results. Things don't look very good. The 285k has a slight edge in CB24 and that's about it. It scores 40,797 in CB23. That puts it just behind the 9950x while using more power when fully loaded.
In gaming, they have the 285k matching the 13700k or 12900k depending on the game.
Edit: No data on power consumption with lighter loads.
Edit 2: From other reports that saw the review but didn't grab screenshots, the 285k is actually below the 12900k in some of the other games.
In gaming, they have the 285k matching the 13700k or 12900k depending on the game.
Edit: No data on power consumption with lighter loads.
Edit 2: From other reports that saw the review but didn't grab screenshots, the 285k is actually below the 12900k in some of the other games.
Last edited:
Ha... who accidentally posted the review?
overclock3d. It's been taken down now but obviously not before people snagged some screenshots.
Funny story...
Maybe 10 years ago or so, I was writing an article with an embargo. I left Wordpress up on my PC and went upstairs to make some food. After several minutes, my phone starts going off saying the article was published!!! WTF?!!! I run downstairs and there's one of my kids on the PC who, somehow, managed to hit the publish button. We skurried and got it down, and there wasn't any screenshots or anything. I couldn't believe it (nor could the staff here at the time, LOL).
It happens, LOL.
To be honest, I don't care about CPU performance as it will still be good enough for everything, and only single users can really complain that some games don't run at 720p 500FPS+. Do we need faster CPUs? I don't think so. Some time ago, we had a conversation about how pointless CPU upgrades are nowadays. It's more "I want" than "I need". At least if the efficiency was much better, but it's not. Well, not in Intel, as (especially lower) AMD X3D CPUs cover that in an amazing way. Btw. 9800X3D is supposed to be available in two weeks.
I want something that finally handles available RAM (even though I know that RAM OC still won't give the expected performance gain). Z790 mobos support higher RAM frequency than 13/14th gen CPUs can handle, and often, even 8000 stable is a problem. My worst 14900K couldn't run with RAM at 7200. Z890 mobos have already listed QVLs with 9000+ kits, and it's still the same Hynix A/M die. The highest kits will be CUDIMM (press releases showed 10k+ kits), but we can still expect regular kits to run at 8600+. I should have 2 different CUDIMM kits for this weekend, but I don't know if I will find the time to even run any tests.
I want something that finally handles available RAM (even though I know that RAM OC still won't give the expected performance gain). Z790 mobos support higher RAM frequency than 13/14th gen CPUs can handle, and often, even 8000 stable is a problem. My worst 14900K couldn't run with RAM at 7200. Z890 mobos have already listed QVLs with 9000+ kits, and it's still the same Hynix A/M die. The highest kits will be CUDIMM (press releases showed 10k+ kits), but we can still expect regular kits to run at 8600+. I should have 2 different CUDIMM kits for this weekend, but I don't know if I will find the time to even run any tests.
Two of my local stores have 285k in pre-order with shipping on the 24th. I wasn't checking many others. Sadly, I didn't get a CPU, so I must buy one.
I have one kit at JEDEC specs, but it is still CUDIMM ... and one confirmed in customs documents, but no one said what it is. I still had to declare that I knew what was inside the package. It's planned for delivery tomorrow. 2-3 others are "not ready yet," but I'm signed up for review samples. I also have no idea what it will be, but you will see some reviews on the front page in a few weeks.
It looks like the paper premiere is true. Even if there were CPUs in the center EU, they were all sold out before they appeared as available. However, I know most stores didn't even have them and still had open orders. All pre-orders are for CPUs arriving in about ten days or later. Lower models are also unavailable right now.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Thread Starter
- #91
I'll withhold my judgement until embargo lifts shortly, but with all the stuff flying around it isn't looking likely for me to consider ARL as a system update. Original candidate of 9950X (or possible future X3D version if I delay long enough) remains best options.
Videocardz claim to have got a marketing slide on 9800X3D. Most interesting for gamers with claimed +8% in gaming, +15% MT vs 7800X3D. Stated max boost of 5200 MHz (+200 over 7800X3D). Base isn't mentioned but was separately leaked at 4700 MHz (+500 over 7800X3D). Base clocks are somewhat indicative of efficiency improvements given same nominal TDP.
videocardz.com
Videocardz claim to have got a marketing slide on 9800X3D. Most interesting for gamers with claimed +8% in gaming, +15% MT vs 7800X3D. Stated max boost of 5200 MHz (+200 over 7800X3D). Base isn't mentioned but was separately leaked at 4700 MHz (+500 over 7800X3D). Base clocks are somewhat indicative of efficiency improvements given same nominal TDP.
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D official performance leak: 8% better at gaming, 15% in multi-threaded apps vs. 7800X3D - VideoCardz.com
Leaked AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D marketing slide claims 8% gaming performance boost over 7800X3D This is how AMD is going to advertise its new CPU. AMD is set to launch its first Ryzen 9000 processor equipped with 3D V-Cache on November 7th. We are still two weeks away from this launch, but given the...
videocardz.com
I wanted 9950X, then I thought I would get 9950X3D, but now I'm not sure if I need it. Most motherboard samples will arrive this year and later; I don't really need a new CPU. With Intel, it is a different story, as I need it for RAM reviews. It doesn't matter for storage as long as it's not APU.
Edit:
I just noticed that some stores used all 265K/KF CPUs for their highly overpriced gaming desktops, which will be available for sale next week.
It's just annoying: triple NDA dates, a lot of noise, and no CPUs in stores.
Edit2:
I ordered 265K. One store in Denmark had them available. If they don't cancel the order, it will arrive at the beginning of next week. The fastest confirmed delivery for the 285K for me is the 12th of November (including the required delivery time and a national holiday). All other stores/distributors say they don't know when it will be available. I used my contacts in distribution, but they said they don't know.
Edit:
I just noticed that some stores used all 265K/KF CPUs for their highly overpriced gaming desktops, which will be available for sale next week.
It's just annoying: triple NDA dates, a lot of noise, and no CPUs in stores.
GB added Kingston Renegade 48GB 8200 C40 CUDIMM. It's the same Hynix M-die as in all other 48GB 7000+ kits, but I guess that profiles can make a difference right now. We will see once I get any CPU ...
Edit2:
I ordered 265K. One store in Denmark had them available. If they don't cancel the order, it will arrive at the beginning of next week. The fastest confirmed delivery for the 285K for me is the 12th of November (including the required delivery time and a national holiday). All other stores/distributors say they don't know when it will be available. I used my contacts in distribution, but they said they don't know.
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Thread Starter
- #95
First CB23 scores I found at Tom's Hardware review were 43010 and 43117, so I'm about 1% high. Not bad! First result was with 7200 ram, 2nd CU8200, but again CB23 isn't really impacted by that. I'll separately look at CB 2024 later.
I've only very quickly skimmed TechPowerUp's review on it so far. Looks a very mixed bag performance wise. When it is fast, it can be really fast. Otherwise, it is unremarkable with previous and current products. I'm guessing the internet will go with the glass half empty viewpoint in that it doesn't dominate in gaming, which we already knew before today. Their 1080p gaming puts its predecessor 5% ahead, and AMD's today champion 9% ahead. Did 14900k fall back a bit with all the recent fixes as I thought it was closer. Still, we're poking at small % differences here. If you had a system with one of those CPUs, you're not going to be complaining about performance are you? I haven't drilled into power yet.It's so close; I can smell the disappointment already...
Edit: quick look at the same UK supplier I referenced earlier, they currently only show 265k in stock.
Last edited:
Yes, 14900k has had some performance regression due to the latest bios updates.
Overall, it seems like it does well in a couple of areas, but completely falls down in others. Unless you just want it to tinker with, I don't see much demand for ARL.
Sadly for Intel, the two games I test motherboards with (feels like I need to expand that now more than ever) F1 24 and CP2077 show around 18-25% less for whatever reason. I reached out to other reviewers, reinstalled the OS 3/4 times using 23H2 and 24H2, minimal installs, and still came up with the same results.
Unremarkable is what plenty will think. IMO, it does well in that there's no HT and it still battles back and forth with the 14900k and 9950x. And like we mentioned earlier it has a clock deficit and the uncore is lower.
When I rebenched the 14900k on 24h2, it was within margin of error from the previous build with anything that was the same (I updated several benchmarks to the latest). That's using the latest BIOS at the time (so early October timeframe).
EDIT: Time to read some reviews... wish Anand/Ian was still around..............
Unremarkable is what plenty will think. IMO, it does well in that there's no HT and it still battles back and forth with the 14900k and 9950x. And like we mentioned earlier it has a clock deficit and the uncore is lower.
When I rebenched the 14900k on 24h2, it was within margin of error from the previous build with anything that was the same (I updated several benchmarks to the latest). That's using the latest BIOS at the time (so early October timeframe).
EDIT: Time to read some reviews... wish Anand/Ian was still around..............
Last edited:
It seems like it does well in games that aren't super CPU demanding, but falls apart in those that are. CP2077 and simulator games (like F1 24) are pretty demanding on the CPU (assuming you're not running into GPU limits).
OP
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Thread Starter
- #99
Funnily enough I have PCWorld's video playing now and they're on Photoshop. Their results put the 285k about same as 14900k.
Do they use the Puget benchmark or a custom one? I've so far seen a few that use the Puget benchmark and they all show roughly the same result. The performance repeatability seems to be an issue right now though, so it's hard to say exactly what the true performance is.
