Intel Core i5-14600K CPU Review: The Ultimate Midrange Powerhouse Unleashed!

Key Takeaways

Intel's Core i5-14600K is a refresh of the Core i5-13600K with higher clock speeds, offering good single- and multi-threaded performance.

The 14600K's higher price in comparison to the 13600K hampers its competitiveness and prevents it from becoming the dominant choice in the midrange segment. Additionally, the outdated underlying technology of the 14600K suggests that it will appear outdated when compared to upcoming Intel and AMD CPUs in 2024.

Intel's Core i5-13600K has garnered significant praise as one of the company's most impressive CPUs in recent times. It boasts impressive performance, an attractive price point, and decent efficiency, albeit falling slightly behind the competition. Ideally, Intel would have followed up with one of its upcoming Meteor Lake CPUs for the desktop market. However, to our disappointment, Intel has made the decision to exclude Meteor Lake from their desktop lineup. Consequently, Intel had only one option for their 14th-generation CPUs: to revamp their 13th-generation Raptor Lake chips. Thus, the Core i5-14600K should not be viewed as a true successor to the 13600K, but rather a rebranded version with slight improvements.

With that being said, the 13600K was a commendable chip, and the 14600K, although an upgraded variant, still retains its merit. However, the increased price of the 14600K renders it less desirable as the reigning midrange champion compared to the 13600K, at least until discounts become available. Furthermore, the underlying technology of the 14600K clearly shows its age, and with both AMD and Intel gearing up to unveil genuinely next generation products in 2024, it is evident that the 14600K will likely appear outdated within a year.

Intel Core i5-14600K

6 / 10Intel's Core i5-14600K is a refresh of its popular Core i5-13600K, featuring the same cores and architecture but also higher clock speeds. 

Brand: Intel

CPU Model: Core i5-14600K

CPU Socket: LGA 1700

Cores: 6 physical + 8 virtual

Threads: 20

Architecture: Raptor Lake

Process: Intel 7

Socket: LGA 1700

Base Clock Speed: 3.5GHz

Boost Clock Speed: 5.3GHz

Cache: 24MB L3 + 20MB L2

RAM: DDR4, DDR5

PCIe: PCIe 5.0

Graphics: Intel UHD Graphics 770

TDP: 181W

Pros: Offers good single- and multi-threaded performance

LGA 1700 motherboards provide better value compared to AM5.

Cons Practically a 13600K that costs more for little gain

Next generation Intel and AMD CPUs not far away

Worse power efficiency than Ryzen 7000

See at Intel

Intel Core i5-14600K Price and Availability

Hannah Stryker

The Core i5-14600K is already available for purchase as you read this review. It is priced at $320, but due to low supply, the initial prices may be higher, which is a common occurrence during CPU launches. However, considering that the 14600K is essentially a binned version of the 13600K, and there is already a surplus of the latter, it wouldn't be surprising if the 14600K deviates from the usual trend.

Although the $320 price tag makes this CPU relatively expensive, it is actually lower than the official price of the 13600K, which is $330. However, currently on Amazon, the 14600K is available for $285, which is the important figure to consider. I anticipate that the 14600K's price will decrease in the upcoming months due to its lack of competitiveness. Nevertheless, on launch day, the 14600K will cost $40 or more than the 13600K, despite their similarities.

Intel Core i5-14600K Specifications

Hannah Stryker

As an update to the Core i5-13600K, the specifications of the 14600K should not be unexpected. The processor is manufactured using the Intel 7 (formerly 10nm) process, utilizes the Raptor Lake architecture, maintains the same core count and cache size, while also boasting a slight improvement in clock speed.

The current offering is somewhat disappointing. While Intel had originally planned to release Meteor Lake after Alder Lake, the 13th-generation Raptor Lake CPUs in 2022 were surprisingly impressive, despite only offering more cache and cores. However, the 14th-generation Raptor Lake Refresh CPUs seem to be reminiscent of Intel's 7th-generation Kaby Lake CPUs from 2017, which were essentially a refresh of the 6th-generation Skylake chips with higher clock speeds.

Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between now and 2017: AMD is not as competitive. Although AMD undeniably has superior technology with Ryzen 7000, it comes at a higher price. As a result, 13th-generation CPUs like the 13600K have managed to remain fairly competitive against AMD's alternatives. Even at its initial launch price, the 14600K still poses as a worthy contender for Ryzen 7000.

Test Bench Setup and Methodology

I conducted a review where I compared the 14600K to two of AMD's competing chips from the Ryzen 7000 series: the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X. Despite being priced higher, these two AMD CPUs needed to demonstrate significantly better performance to justify their cost. All CPUs were tested under identical conditions and with the same hardware, with the exception of the motherboard.

While there are significant variations in motherboard settings between Intel and AMD CPUs, I made sure to optimize performance by enabling certain settings. For the 14600K, I enabled multicore enhancement, while for the 7800X3D and 7900X, I enabled Precision Boost Overdrive. These settings are typically enabled by default on most motherboards, and it is highly recommended to keep them enabled for improved performance. However, it is important to note that these settings also increase power consumption, which will be thoroughly analyzed in this review.

In order to manage the excessive heat, I made the decision to keep the Phantom Spirit CPU cooler running at maximum fan speed consistently. Additionally, I conducted tests under controlled conditions with an ambient temperature of 70F or 21C, carefully maintained using central air conditioning. It's worth noting that these conditions, along with my open-air test bench, may be more cool than what most users experience. Nevertheless, even a high-end cooler like a $100+ AIO liquid cooler would achieve similar results, regardless of fan speed, ambient temperature, or open-air cooling.

When conducting gaming benchmarks, the GPU plays a crucial role in obtaining accurate results, and generally, a faster GPU yields better performance. Although the RTX 3070 Ti is considered a midrange GPU in today's standards, I boosted its performance by overclocking the graphics chip by 200MHz and the VRAM by 1700MHz, bringing it closer to the capabilities of the RTX 3080. While it may not compare to the top-tier RTX 4090, I have taken measures to address and compensate for any potential limitations in graphics performance through my meticulous benchmarking methodology.

To test games, I followed a straightforward methodology. Firstly, I adjusted the graphics settings of each game to ensure that the 7800X3D could maintain an average of 120FPS in five games and 240FPS in the other three. Next, I employed the same graphics settings to test the 14600K and 7900X. The purpose of this approach was to establish the 7800X3D, one of the top-performing gaming CPUs available, as a benchmark against which I could compare the other CPUs. By conducting tests in this manner, the results were not influenced by the 3070 Ti, as any GPU could have been used to achieve these framerates.

It should be noted, however, that benchmarking in this way may lead to GPU bottlenecking rather than CPU bottlenecking. Some may argue that a CPU gaming benchmark lacks validity if it is not CPU bottlenecked. Yet, in numerous games, a CPU only reaches its limit or experiences bottlenecking after reaching a few hundred frames per second. Only a few games have settings that significantly impact CPU performance, while any CPU will eventually struggle to process a high number of frames. As a result, many CPU reviews test at low resolutions and settings.

Real PC gamers typically prefer higher quality graphics settings and are willing to sacrifice higher framerates, even if it means playing at 60 FPS or lower. That's why I didn't just choose quality settings at random to increase the framerate. So, keeping this in mind, the gaming benchmarks were designed to determine if the 14600K performs slower than the 7800X3D in a realistic gaming scenario, and if so, by how much slower.

In terms of other software-related matters, I made sure to update Windows, applications, games, and drivers to their latest versions as of October 9. I also disabled VBS, a setting known to impact gaming performance negatively, and activated the high-performance power plan, which can enhance overall performance to some extent. Now that all of this has been addressed, let's move on to the results.

Intel Core i5-14600K Performance: A Jack of All Trades

The tested applications encompass Cinebench R23, Cinebench 2024, the official Blender benchmark, and a diverse selection of eight games spanning various genres and release dates. Although these benchmarks may not provide an exact representation of CPU performance in all scenarios and unique circumstances, they provide a comprehensive overview of the expected performance in the majority of cases.

Cinebench R23, Cinebench 2024, and Blender

Close

In Cinebench R23, the 14600K performs better than the 7900X and 7800X3D in the multi-threaded test, positioning itself between the two processors. However, in the single-threaded test, the 14600K only manages to come out slightly ahead. Despite this slight disadvantage, the 14600K offers significantly better value for money compared to the 7900X and particularly the 7800X3D.

The margins in Cinebench 2024 show minimal variation, with the 14600K experiencing a slight decline in performance during the single-threaded test. As a result, the 14600K achieved the same score as the 7900X, instead of securing a slight victory as observed in Cinebench R23.

120+ FPS Gaming Benchmarks

The performance margins in Blender closely align with the multi-threaded tests of Cinebench R23 and 2024. Similar to its price range, the 14600K performs impressively, maintaining a solid position in the middle.

The performance of the benchmark for the in-game "Cyberpunk 2077" was relatively similar across all systems. While the 14600K technically holds the top position by a margin of two FPS, its noticeably lower 99th percentile framerate, which measures the consistency of the framerate, realistically places it in last position. However, considering the small difference between 108FPS for the 14600K and 119 FPS for the other systems in the 99th percentile category, this result can be seen as a tie overall.

In "Hitman 3's" Berlin map, the 14600K falls behind both the 7800X3D and the 7900X. This particular map is known for its dense population of non-playable characters. However, the 7800X3D only manages a slight lead over the 14600K, while the 7900X shows minimal improvement in terms of speed.

Although the Cozumel area of "Shadow of the Tomb Raider" is known for its heavy CPU demands due to the numerous NPCs present, this performance test yields mixed results. It is important to note that the game runs smoothly on most contemporary CPUs and GPUs, hence the unsurprising outcome.

In order to achieve satisfactory framerates, most "Total War" games heavily rely on a powerful CPU, and "Total War: Three Kingdoms" is no exception. Interestingly, the performance of all three CPUs is quite similar; however, the 7800X3D stands out as marginally faster than both the 14600K and 7900X, although the difference is minimal.

The final game with a lower frame rate that I tested is "The Witcher 3." I specifically tested it in the DirectX 12 mode, which was introduced in 2022 to support ray tracing and upscaling technologies. I conducted the test in Novigrad, an area in the game known for its high CPU demands due to the numerous NPCs. Interestingly, all CPUs performed similarly in terms of the 99th percentile framerate, but there were noticeable differences in the average framerate. The 14600K outperformed the 7900X, but couldn't quite match the performance of the 7800X3D.

240+ FPS Gaming Benchmarks

The first benchmark we conducted was on the newly released "Counter-Strike 2," which is expected to have better CPU optimization compared to "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive." This improvement is due to CS2 utilizing the modern Vulkan API, while CS:GO was built on DirectX 9. Although the 14600K displayed a higher average framerate, its performance in the 99th percentile was significantly poorer compared to both the 7800X3D and 7900X. It is worth mentioning that both AMD CPUs provided a smoother and more enjoyable gaming experience.

In "Fortnite," the 14600K came close to matching the performance of the 7800X3D and even surpassed the 7900X by a small margin. Differentiating between these CPUs might prove challenging, but the 14600K yielding such positive results cannot be overlooked.

However, both the 14600K and 7900X fell short compared to the 7800X3D in "Forza Horizon 5." The 7800X3D outperforms not only in average framerate but also in the 99th percentile. Nevertheless, the 14600K was slightly behind the 7900X, which is an acceptable result.

In terms of performance, the 14600K generally performs well. Only in three games does the 7800X3D have a noticeable advantage over the 14600K, and in only one of those games ("Forza Horizon 5") is the performance difference significant enough for the average gamer to notice. Additionally, the 14600K outshines the 7800X3D in tasks that heavily rely on single- or multi-threaded performance, which are weak points for the 7800X3D.

Power Consumption and Thermals

When it comes to the 7900X, it outperforms in multi-threaded tasks, such as Cinebench and Blender, with almost a 20% advantage. However, if you're solely focused on gaming, the 14600K provides a similar performance. Even if gaming is not a priority, the 14600K offers better value for money compared to the 7900X, as it is significantly cheaper despite being slightly slower.

I also measured power and temperature on the 14600K and 7900X while conducting Cinebench 2024's multi-threaded test. These two CPUs have similar multi-threaded performance. I collected this data from HWInfo, a statistics app. Although it may not be as precise as using a tool to directly measure power drawn from the outlet or on the CPU power cables, it is sufficient for a task of this nature.

The 14600K and 7900X had average power consumption of 154 and 163 watts respectively. However, during intensive benchmarks like Cinebench R23, the 7900X typically consumed around 170 watts. While the 14600K consumed less power in this scenario, its power efficiency was worse due to its lower score. This is not surprising considering that the 7900X is manufactured on TSMC's more advanced 5nm process, which is a full generation ahead of Intel's 7nm process.

On the other hand, the 14600K exhibited excellent power consumption when not under heavy load. During idle periods, the 14600K only consumed a minimal amount of single-digit watts. Even when performing basic tasks like web browsing and file navigation, the power consumption ranged between 10 to 30 watts, typically closer to the lower end. In contrast, the 7900X seldom dropped below 30 watts and often spiked to over 50 watts depending on the activity being performed.

In comparison to the 7900X, the 14600K demonstrates superior thermal performance by consuming only a few watts less, with an average temperature of around 77C, whereas the 7900X reaches about 87C. Since AMD adopted chiplets for its desktop CPUs, cooling Ryzen processors has become exceedingly challenging. Remarkably, the 7900X achieves an unusually favorable outcome in Cinebench 2024, thanks to its slightly lower power consumption; however, in Cinebench R23, it consistently operates at approximately 90C.

Additionally, the temperature performance of the 14600K at idle or low loads is significantly superior. The temperature chart clearly demonstrates that the 14600K began at 37C, whereas the 7900X started at a higher temperature of 47C. The 14600K consistently maintained lower temperatures in the low 30s (C), while the 7900X fluctuated between the 40s and 50s, even with the Phantom Spirit cooler running at maximum fan speed. This is primarily due to the 7900X exhibiting poorer power consumption during periods of idle and light workloads, exacerbating the already challenging cooling situation for Ryzen CPUs.

Should You Buy the Intel Core i5-14600K?

Hannah Stryker

You should buy the Intel Core i5-14600K if:

You want a CPU that performs well in most things

You want to save money on the CPU, RAM, and motherboard

You don't need anything super high-end

You shouldn't buy the Intel Core i5-14600K if:

The Core i5-13600K is available for a lower price

You need top-end multicore performance and have the budget for it

If we look at it objectively, the desktop version of Meteor Lake (which got canceled recently) seemed more promising than just a simple refresh. It would have introduced a completely new architecture, incorporating the advanced Intel 4 (formerly 7nm) process, more efficient and powerful cores, and a new socket that would support at least two generations of Intel CPUs. However, I do question whether it would have been competitively priced compared to the 13th or 14th-generation Raptor Lake chips. Despite the higher current pricing of the 14th-generation CPUs, I am not too bothered by it, as I have doubts about the pricing of the Meteor Lake alternative.

Content should be rewritten as follows:

Despite Intel's commitment to their highly praised product stack, the Core i5-14600K falls short due to one major issue - its price. Priced far too high, it is not worth investing in over the Core i5-13600K, as the performance difference is marginal. Additionally, since the 14th-generation chips mark the end for LGA 1700 compatibility, opting for the 14600K limits future upgrade options without replacing the motherboard.

In due time, the 14600K may eventually be priced similarly to the current 13600K. However, waiting for this price adjustment means potentially missing out on more enticing options such as the current generation Ryzen 7000 CPUs or the upcoming Intel and AMD CPUs. For those seeking a superb midrange CPU, the 13600K is the smarter choice. At its current price, the 14600K is simply too expensive and too similar to justify its purchase.

With a disappointing value rating of 6 out of 10, the Intel Core i5-14600K is a refreshed version of its well-known Core i5-13600K. While it retains the same cores and architecture, it does boast higher clock speeds.

See at Intel