Not done with the article yet, but I think there's a typo in the table under the heading Latency: It says the 14900K was tested with DDR5-3600, that doesn't sound right ^^
Edit: Finished the article. Hard to not be disappointed by these results. Of course at the end of the day what matters is the actual usecase performance (and I haven't …
Not done with the article yet, but I think there's a typo in the table under the heading Latency: It says the 14900K was tested with DDR5-3600, that doesn't sound right ^^
Edit: Finished the article. Hard to not be disappointed by these results. Of course at the end of the day what matters is the actual usecase performance (and I haven't looked at any "normal" benchmarks) but some of those latencies are just weird. Hopefully at least some of it is just a bug. Or maybe not "hopefully" - given the prices that Intel charges, the product should really launch working as intended (at least pretty much). I'd rather have a slightly slower but less buggy processor than a slightly faster one that needs updates like acroread ;)
Not done with the article yet, but I think there's a typo in the table under the heading Latency: It says the 14900K was tested with DDR5-3600, that doesn't sound right ^^
Edit: Finished the article. Hard to not be disappointed by these results. Of course at the end of the day what matters is the actual usecase performance (and I haven't looked at any "normal" benchmarks) but some of those latencies are just weird. Hopefully at least some of it is just a bug. Or maybe not "hopefully" - given the prices that Intel charges, the product should really launch working as intended (at least pretty much). I'd rather have a slightly slower but less buggy processor than a slightly faster one that needs updates like acroread ;)