Unleashing Powerhouse Performance: Intel Core i9-14900K Breaks Barriers with 6GHz Speed

Key Takeaways

Intel's Core i9-14900K is currently the fastest CPU available for LGA 1700 motherboards, delivering top-end performance in single-threaded, multi-threaded, and gaming tasks.

The 14900K exhibits a high power draw and heat output, with no possibility for upgrades beyond this generation.

Although the Core i9-14900K delivers impressive performance, it falls short of being a revolutionary new product line. In the near future, Intel and AMD are poised to launch next-generation CPUs that promise substantial generational improvements, potentially overshadowing the 14900K within a year.

Intel's desktop position has been uncertain since the launch of its Raptor Lake chips in 2022, which only managed to tie with AMD's Ryzen 7000 CPUs. While Meteor Lake could have been a strong successor, Intel has opted for the 14th-generation Raptor Lake Refresh. These new CPUs are essentially identical to the previous ones, with the Core i9-14900K being a discounted version of the Core i9-13900KS. However, it still stands as one of the fastest CPUs in the world, if not the fastest, according to some metrics.

As the fastest CPU that the LGA 1700 socket will ever receive (unless a hypothetical Core i9-14900KS is released), the 14900K serves as a farewell performance for the platform that revived Intel's competitiveness and challenged AMD. In about a year's time, we may not pay much attention to the 14900K as both Intel and AMD are preparing new CPUs with significant generational improvements. However, for now, the 14900K remains Intel's quickest CPU and a contender for the fastest mainstream CPU on the market.

The Intel Core i9-14900K is the ultimate powerhouse for LGA 1700 motherboards, offering unparalleled speeds and top-notch performance in single-threaded tasks, multi-threaded operations, and gaming.

Brand: Intel

CPU Model: Core i9-14900K

CPU Socket: LGA 1700

Cores: 8 Primary Cores + 16 Efficiencies Cores

Threads: 32

Architecture: Raptor Lake

Process: Intel 7

Base Clock Speed: 3.2GHz

Boost Clock Speed: 6.0GHz

Cache: 36MB L3 + 32MB L2

RAM: DDR4, DDR5 Compatible

PCIe: 5.0 Supported

Graphics: Intel UHD Graphics 770

TDP: 253W

Pros: Exceptional performance in all aspects

Great value for the price.

AI overclocking in XTU

Cons Extremely high power draw and heat

No upgrade path

Actual next-generation CPUs from Intel and AMD coming soon

See at Intel

Intel Core i9-14900K Price and Availability

The Core i9-14900K is currently available for purchase at an official price of $590. However, it is likely that the 14900K will initially have limited availability and higher prices due to the scarcity of chips capable of reaching its rated 6GHz. Hopefully, in the near future, the 14900K will be widely available at a normal price similar to the 13900K, even if it goes out of stock initially.

With a price tag of $590, the 14900K is only $50 more expensive than the 13900K, which has an official price of $600 but commonly sells for around $540. While this price difference may not be ideal for the 14900K, at the flagship level, a $50 increase is relatively insignificant. Moreover, when compared to the 13900KS, which has a street price of $730 (even higher than its official price of $700), the 14900K appears to be a great deal.

Intel Core i9-14900K Specifications

Hannah Stryker

The Core i9-14900K shares many similarities with its counterpart, the Core i9-13900KS. However, there are slight variations in frequencies at specific points. Consequently, the 14900K offers enhanced performance compared to the 13900K, which is currently Intel's flagship CPU, given the exorbitant price tag of $730 for the 13900KS.

The lower base frequency of the 14900K with its E-cores is not a significant factor. What truly matters is that the 14900K's P-cores can boost up to 6GHz, just like the P-cores on the 13900KS. This results in a substantial improvement in both single- and multi-threaded performance. Additionally, the 14900K boasts a 100MHz higher boost on its E-cores compared to the 13900KS, providing an advantage in multi-threaded workloads.

However, it is important to note that the improvements in the 14900K are only a few hundred MHz over the 13900K. While this does make a noticeable difference in speed, it is not as impactful as enhancing cores on an architectural level, increasing the number of cores, or adding more cache. For instance, Raptor Lake, which essentially had more cores and cache than Alder Lake, demonstrated the difference that additional cores and cache can make. Unfortunately, due to the high power consumption and heat generation of the 13th-generation chips, Intel could not realistically implement these enhancements again for the top-end 14th-generation CPUs.

Test Bench Setup and Methodology

I have tested the 14900K, 13900K, and Ryzen 7 7800X3D in this review. While the choice of the 13900K is easily understood, comparing the upper midrange 7800X3D to these top-end CPUs may seem unusual. However, due to its core layout and 64MB of 3D V-Cache, the 7800X3D is currently the fastest gaming CPU overall. Although the 14900K should theoretically be Intel's fastest gaming CPU, as it lacks a similar cache technology, we will examine its performance. To ensure the utmost accuracy, all three CPUs were tested under the same conditions with identical hardware, except for the motherboard.

To optimize the performance of all CPUs, I have activated all available performance-boosting configurations without actually overclocking them. These include features like multicore enhancement and Precision Boost Overdrive. Although these settings are often considered as a form of overclocking in disguise, most motherboards have them enabled by default whenever possible. Therefore, it is advisable to enable them if you desire the best possible performance. It is important to note, however, that enabling these options will result in increased power consumption and heat generation, factors that should be taken into consideration when assessing efficiency and thermal performance.

Given the high-performance nature of the 13900K and 14900K processors, it is crucial to ensure adequate cooling for optimal functioning. While extreme measures are not necessary, I achieved satisfactory results by utilizing a Phantom Spirit cooler at its maximum fan speed in an air-conditioned room set to a temperature of 70F or 21C. Since my test bench is an open-air setup, this setup sufficed for the desired performance of the 13900K and 14900K. However, for a typical PC configuration, I recommend a 360mm AIO or a custom liquid cooling solution. While the Phantom Spirit is an exceptional air cooler and among the best, it may not be the most suitable choice for the 14900K.

In terms of gaming benchmarks, the graphics processing unit (GPU) can significantly influence the results, depending on the graphics settings applied. Generally, a faster GPU ensures more accurate testing. Currently considered a midrange GPU, I overclocked the RTX 3070 Ti by 200MHz on the graphics chip and 1700MHz on the memory to approximate the performance of an RTX 3080 or an RX 6800 XT. Although it falls short of the speeds offered by an RTX 4090, my testing methodology for games reduces the impact of raw GPU performance as a testing factor.

To ensure accurate comparisons, I adopt a different approach when testing games. Rather than randomly selecting presets or testing at the lowest settings, which is common for CPU benchmarking, I use my 7800X3D as a control or standard for comparing the 14900K and 13900K. The 7800X3D is widely regarded as the fastest CPU for gaming. I carefully choose a combination of settings that allow me to achieve a minimum of 120FPS in five games and over 240FPS in the remaining three. By testing the 14900K and 13900K at the same settings, I obtain more realistic data that is less influenced by the GPU.

Naturally, this approach may result in benchmarks where the performance is limited by the GPU rather than the CPU, known as GPU bottlenecking. However, modern CPUs, especially the high-end ones, excel in gaming performance. Since most games offer limited CPU-stressing settings, achieving a CPU bottleneck would require overwhelming the CPUs with hundreds of frames per second in numerous games. This, in turn, would lead to extremely low-quality graphics, far below expectations considering the testing hardware.

Real gaming enthusiasts prioritize superior graphics quality and framerates within the range of 60 to 120FPS, or higher for competitive games. It is highly unlikely that a CPU capable of pushing framerates from 300 to 400FPS would be significantly beneficial for the majority of gamers. This is why I allow for GPU bottlenecking during CPU tests, as it reflects real-world scenarios.

Regarding the software aspect, all the systems were updated with the latest versions of Windows, games, and drivers as of October 9th. The CPUs utilized identical versions of all software. Although VBS, which can potentially impact gaming performance even with ample CPU and GPU resources, was disabled (although it is enabled by default in Windows 11). Additionally, I activated the high-performance power plan, which may slightly enhance performance in certain cases.

Intel Core i9-14900K Performance: Winning by a Threadbare Margin

During this review, I have thoroughly evaluated three applications and eight games. Although it is not feasible to present an exhaustive analysis of how the 14900K (and other CPUs) will perform in every scenario, the gathered data encompasses a broad spectrum of workloads commonly encountered by the average user.

Cinebench R23, Cinebench 2024, and Blender

Close

The 14900K outperforms the 13900K by 2% and 4% in multi-threaded and single-threaded tests in Cinebench R23, respectively. These slight differences are expected. On the other hand, the 7800X3D falls significantly behind both CPUs in both tests. With only eight cores and a limited clock speed, the 7800X3D is not suitable for tasks that require high CPU performance. It is primarily designed for gaming and cannot compete with the 14900K or 13900K in the upcoming benchmarks.

The 14900K's lead narrows slightly in Cinebench 2024, but not by much. It's definitely a faster CPU though, even if it's just by the thinnest of margins.

Blender (a multi-threaded benchmark) shows just under a 3% lead for the 14900K, which is a just slightly bigger lead than seen in either version of Cinebench.

120+ FPS Gaming Benchmarks

In terms of average framerate, both the 13900K and 14900K performed marginally better than the 7800X3D in "Cyberpunk 2077" according to the in-game benchmark. However, the 7800X3D emerges as the superior CPU due to its significantly higher 99th percentile framerate. This metric indicates the consistency of the framerate and the smoothness of the gaming experience. Therefore, I consider the 7800X3D to be the winner in this comparison.

The performance of "Hitman 3" is commendable as it runs smoothly at a consistently high frame rate across various processors. My test setup included a 3070 Ti with the settings pushed to the maximum, except for ray tracing, and conducting the trial in the bustling Berlin map filled with non-playable characters (NPCs). Surprisingly, all CPUs delivered exceptional performance, making it difficult to distinguish between them.

The performance of each CPU was consistent in the crowded Cozumel area of "Shadow of the Tomb Raider," where numerous NPCs are present. Despite observing low GPU usage and power consumption, which often indicates a limitation in the CPU's capabilities, it is noteworthy that all CPUs, despite their distinctive features, yielded identical results. This suggests the possibility of an optimization issue rather than a bottleneck. Nevertheless, achieving a framerate of 183FPS is undoubtedly impressive.

In my benchmark test of "Total War: Three Kingdoms," the 14900K performed slightly lower than both the 13900K and the 7800X3D. However, the difference between the 14900K and the 13900K is only around 4%, which can be attributed to normal run-to-run variability. The 7800X3D seems to be the clear winner in this scenario, as the performance gap between it and the 14900K is quite significant. Although, considering the impressive performance of the 13900K, the 7800X3D might only have a slightly better edge.

In Novigrad, a city known for its demanding NPC population and intensive gameplay, one would expect "The Witcher 3" to heavily tax the CPU, especially when the graphics setting is set to Ultra+. Surprisingly, all CPUs performed equally well, although the 14900K gained a slight advantage in terms of its 99th percentile framerate. This victory could be attributed to the increased performance of the 14900K. However, it is worth mentioning that these results are based on tests conducted on the remastered DX12 version. It is possible that the original DX11 version may reveal different data and larger performance gaps between the three CPUs, as DX11 struggles to effectively utilize multiple cores and threads.

240+ FPS Gaming Benchmarks

"Counter-Strike 2" bears a striking resemblance to "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive" in terms of the importance of frequency. An interesting observation is that the 7800X3D lags behind the rest, while the 13900K and 14900K take the lead. Due to slight variations between each run, it becomes challenging to determine the exact improvement offered by the 14900K (possible GPU bottlenecking may be a factor here). Nevertheless, the 14900K's dominance in delivering exceptional performance in 99th percentile frames outweighs its loss in average framerate. Hence, this implies that the 14900K outperforms the 13900K by a modest margin.

At the very least, in the most recent installment of "Fortnite," the performance of all three central processing units (CPUs) is nearly identical. Whether it is due to a bottleneck in the graphics processing unit (GPU) or an optimization problem, the frame rate reaches almost 300, which is indeed quite high.

The performance of "Forza Horizon 5" significantly benefits from both a higher frequency and cache, with cache being particularly important. In terms of the 7800X3D, although its clock speed is lower, its cache size gives it a considerable advantage over both the 13900K and 14900K, especially in terms of the 99th percentile framerate. The 14900K, however, outperforms the 13900K by a significant margin and is much closer to the performance of the 7800X3D.

While I did not personally test the 7950X, its performance in Cinebench is widely documented, and it is safe to say that the 14900K is faster in core-heavy workloads like Cinebench. In gaming, the 14900K competes closely with the 7800X3D, performing on par in most games, winning in one, and losing in another. Overall, the 14900K appears to be the top-performing CPU available on the market today.

The 14900K's gaming victory is overshadowed by two factors: it shares first place and comes at a cost of $590 and 6GHz requirement. In comparison, the 7800X3D, priced at $400 or less, proves to be more cost-effective, efficient, and offers room for upgrades. Although the 7800X3D may not perform as well in other areas, it excels in gaming, making the 14900K's superior Blender performance irrelevant.

Overall, Intel's win with the 14900K is surprising. It falls behind AMD in terms of process technology, utilizes outdated Raptor Lake architecture, and lacks the 3D V-Cache response. However, Intel has mastered the art of refreshing and improving old CPUs during its 14nm era, resulting in the success of its 14th-generation CPUs.

Power Consumption and Thermals

Power consumption is a crucial aspect for the 14900K, as its performance is directly linked to its power usage. To gain a deeper understanding, I examined its power consumption during Cinebench 2024's multi-threaded test. I utilized HWInfo to gather the data, and although it may not be entirely precise like a hardware-based solution, it provides us with sufficient insights for analysis purposes.

The average power consumption of both the 14900K and 13900K was similar, with the former at 289 watts and the latter at 280 watts. However, the chart clearly indicates that the 14900K has a higher average power due to its initial test phase. During this phase, the 14900K reached a peak of 326 watts, while the 13900K only reached 312 watts. Furthermore, the 14900K was able to sustain its power boost of over 300 watts for a longer period of time. According to HWInfo, the 14900K should have been allowed to reach 350 watts, although the reason why it didn't is uncertain. I have a theory regarding this that I will explain shortly.

As a side note, the power consumption of both CPUs during idle and light load operations was impressive. I observed that the idle power consumption reached single digits, and it consistently stayed below 50 watts while performing basic tasks such as web browsing or file navigating. Most of the time, it remained within the 10 to 30-watt range.

Perhaps the reason why I didn't witness the 14900K's boost to 350 watts in Cinebench could be attributed to reaching its throttling temperature of 100C within just 11 seconds of commencing the test. Although 100C is an exceptionally high temperature, it has become a norm for the Core i9 chips since the 12900K, which ultimately allows for maximum performance, albeit slightly concerning. Had I possessed a superior cooler such as a high-end 360mm or 420mm liquid cooler, it is plausible that I could have achieved the desired 14900K performance of 350 watts. This would have resulted in higher clock speeds and improved multi-threaded performance. Alas, this remains unknown to me.

I did not document any power consumption figures during gaming sessions due to the variability across different games. However, it is worth noting a rather inefficient aspect of the 14900K (and 13900K). In this regard, the 7800X3D generally remains under 60 watts even during the most demanding games, whereas the 14900K consumes a minimum of 100 watts in every game, with a few surpassing 150 watts. This inefficiency is particularly disappointing considering the CPU's already lackluster performance in core-heavy workloads.

The new AI Assist feature in Intel's overclocking app, XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility), is the last topic of discussion. This AI-powered algorithm automatically overclocks the CPU within seconds. It successfully boosted my P-cores to 6.1GHz and my E-cores to 4.5GHz, while also increasing the multicore clock speeds. However, despite using Cinebench 2024 for both multi-threaded and single-threaded tests, I did not observe any performance improvement. Although my cooler may have been responsible for the lack of improvement in the multi-threaded test, I was still expecting some enhancement in the single-threaded test, which unfortunately did not occur.

Should You Buy the Intel Core i9-14900K?

Hannah Stryker

You should buy the Intel Core i9-14900K if:

You want the fastest CPU today for both work and games

You don't mind high power usage in pursuit of great performance

You shouldn't buy the Intel Core i9-14900K if:

You can wait about a year for something much faster and more efficient

You want an upgrade path

You want a more efficient CPU in general

The Core i9-14900K is now the top performer in the mainstream desktop category, and it comes at a more reasonable price compared to the Core i9-13900KS. However, it offers little innovation compared to the 13th-generation CPUs. It's essentially just overclocking, which users have already been doing with the 13900K for a year.

There are three main issues with the 14900K. First, it marks the end of the line for the LGA 1700 socket, as the next-generation Arrow Lake chips will be launching with a new socket. Second, the 7800X3D provides similar gaming performance at a lower cost and power consumption. Lastly, Arrow Lake is expected to be released in just a year and is likely to offer much better performance and efficiency than Raptor Lake, including the 14900K. Therefore, the 14900K will only hold the top spot for a short period of time.

Furthermore, the 14900K is priced at $590 while the 13900K is currently selling for around $540. It is likely that the price of the 13900K will decrease in the upcoming months, making the 14900K less cost-effective considering its slight performance advantage. Although it does offer a notable improvement over the 13900KS in terms of value, it fails to impress or innovate the desktop CPU market significantly. If you are willing to spend an additional $50 or more for a marginally faster processor, then the 14900K might be suitable for you. However, if you can wait for a year, I'd suggest considering Arrow Lake or Ryzen 8000, as those chips are expected to surpass the 14900K and render it outdated.

The Intel Core i9-14900K is the ultimate choice for LGA 1700 motherboards, providing unmatched speed and power. With exceptional single-threaded, multi-threaded, and gaming performance, it stands as the epitome of CPU excellence, achieving a remarkable 7/10 rating.

See at Intel