Intel launches 14th-gen Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, Core i5-14600K CPUs with same...

midian182

Posts: 9,589   +120
Staff member
What just happened? After months of rumors and leaks, Intel has finally announced the 14th-gen Raptor Lake Refresh family of processors, starting with the Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, and Core i5-14600K. The big takeaway is that contrary to previous claims, the chips will mostly be the same price as their predecessors when they launch on October 17.

Rumors that the Raptor Lake Refresh CPUs could cost up to 15% more than their 13th-gen counterparts have thankfully been proved wrong. The Core i9-14900K comes in at $589 with the KF variant at $564. The Core i7-14700K is $409 or $384 if you opt for the KF model without integrated graphics, and the Core i5-14600K is $319 or $294 for the KF chip.

As previously reported, the Core i9-14900K can boost to 6 GHz, making it the "fastest desktop processor at volume," according to Intel; the special-edition 13900KS could pass 6 GHz at stock, but it didn't ship at volume.

Intel is positioning the 24-core (8 performance, 16 efficiency) / 32-thread Core i9-14900K as a direct competitor to the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, as shown by a recently leaked set of (Intel picked) benchmarks. Team Blue only comes out ahead by a slight margin in games at 1080p: a 2.5% lead overall, though it says the CPU offers up to 54% faster performance in creator workflows.

What has turned out to be accurate is the rumor that these 14th-gen chips don't offer a massive performance uplift over their 13th-gen counterparts, but Intel would likely argue that this is because they're an optimized and refined refresh. Team Blue says to expect "mid-to-upper single-digit percentage" performance improvements compared to last-gen Raptor Lake products.

The Core i7-14700K (8P + 12E Cores / 28 threads) is the only one of the three CPUs to see an upgrade in the number of cores (four extra E cores) over its predecessor, along with extra L2/L3 cache (61MB vs. 54MB). Out of all the new chips, this one could be of most interest to those looking at upgrading.

Finally, there's the Core i5-14600K. Its 14 cores are comprised of six P cores and eight E cores (20 threads). It can boost to 5.3 GHz.

Elsewhere, Intel says its new AI Assist program inside the popular XTU tuning utility will use machine learning to offer custom one-click overclocking settings for the Core i9 models. There's also a new Application Optimization (APO) program that detects games and optimizes the CPU for specific titles.

Raptor Lake Refresh uses the LGA 1700 socket and will work in both 600- and 700-series motherboards. They support Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, DDR5 5600, and DDR4 3200. The chips will be available from retailers and system builders tomorrow (October 17), when our review will be live.

Permalink to story.

 
Aside from the 14700 model having a few extra e-cores over the 13700, isn't it basically the same CPU as 13th gen with maybe a slight clock speed bump?

Oh....wait, I see the big difference. They mention "AI" with this one. That's the key selling point here folks. Awesome work, Intel! /s
 
Aside from the 14700 model having a few extra e-cores over the 13700, isn't it basically the same CPU as 13th gen with maybe a slight clock speed bump?

Oh....wait, I see the big difference. They mention "AI" with this one. That's the key selling point here folks. Awesome work, Intel! /s
It reminds me of the worst of the Lake era where each generation brought a ~100/200MHz base/boost clock speed bump and maybe a 5% IPC boost.

It is telling that Intel don't compare the 14th gen to the 13th gen in their press pack, except for the 14700K which is a i9 in disguise.
 
It reminds me of the worst of the Lake era

This is Raptor lake, so we are still in the Lake era, and my how I wish Intel would stop using those codenames. Skylake was the first, and that's about the only one I can remember in terms of positioning. Cascade, Arrow, Raptor, Ice, Meteor, I dunno. Just use 1, 2, 3, .....

Nvidia is getting to the point where it's the same (Volta, Turing, Ada, Hopper), but at least they don't release at such a cadence that you have to remember which one is current. But it's getting there.
 
This is Raptor lake, so we are still in the Lake era, and my how I wish Intel would stop using those codenames. Skylake was the first, and that's about the only one I can remember in terms of positioning. Cascade, Arrow, Raptor, Ice, Meteor, I dunno. Just use 1, 2, 3, .....

They do use 1, 2, 3

This is 14 following 13 ...

Look at the model #s if you can’t remember the internal code names tech blogs like to reference.
 
They do use 1, 2, 3

This is 14 following 13 ...

Look at the model #s if you can’t remember the internal code names tech blogs like to reference.
I'm referring to their architecture. AMD uses Zen, Zen+, Zen 2, etc. and RDNA, RDNA 2, etc. Why can't Nvidia and Intel do the same?
 
I'm referring to their architecture. AMD uses Zen, Zen+, Zen 2, etc. and RDNA, RDNA 2, etc. Why can't Nvidia and Intel do the same?
Yes, and before that, they had "Bulldozer" plus some other crap. I can remember when AMD numbered its dual core CPUs at what they felt their equivalence was against Intel single core product.

I mean really, how hard id iX-6xxx, iX-7xxx, iX-8xxx, iX-9xxx, and so forrh to figure out?

All your whimpering about Intel's xxxxlake code names tells me, is that yo're an AMD fanboy.

Maybe Intel should use "Zenish" as their code names. Would that make you happy?`

All AMD's recent success tells me, is how well TSMC is doing.
 
Yes, and before that, they had "Bulldozer" plus some other crap. I can remember when AMD numbered its dual core CPUs at what they felt their equivalence was against Intel single core product.

I mean really, how hard id iX-6xxx, iX-7xxx, iX-8xxx, iX-9xxx, and so forrh to figure out?

All your whimpering about Intel's xxxxlake code names tells me, is that yo're an AMD fanboy.

Maybe Intel should use "Zenish" as their code names. Would that make you happy?`

All AMD's recent success tells me, is how well TSMC is doing.
Yes, AMD wasn't always so enlightened as to use numbers for their architecture. I'm glad they are now, but it isn't universal (Rome, Milan, etc for their Epyc lineup).

I take issue with not using numbers because it is marking fluff, and it makes it harder to track down detailed specifications. Intel is especially egregious because the word "Lake" is in every single one of them. At least with the other companies you can remember which one is current since they don't sound alike at all.

You're assuming that I'm working off of product names like "iX-9xxx" and the like. As long as I have product numbers I completely ignore whatever architecture naming convention is used for it. But, you're not always given the processor names when working with cloud and other vendors, instead you're given descriptions like "4th Generation Intel Xeon Scalable processor (Sapphire Rapids 8488C)". Now, a bit of research and that "8488C" number does relate to a (custom) CPU. And thank goodness there isn't a Lake in that anywhere. But you wouldn't expect that a Sapphire Rapids 6455B to outperform the 8488C because it is a lower number. However, it does, so even when Intel uses numbers they don't always make sense.

All I ask is for names that don't sound alike and for numbers to be consistent.
 
All I ask is for names that don't sound alike and for numbers to be consistent.
Intel's numbers are completely consistent. "Category", i3, i5, i7, i9, "Generation". 6xxx, > 14xxx. "Capability escalation", xx100 > xx900.

Now what's so difficult about that?

Anything "else" you need to know, just type, Intel Ark i5-12400 (or whatever numbers are confusing you), into a Google search page, hit enter, and you'll be blessed with more information than you'll likely be able to handle.

Hint, the Ark link will be at the top of the stack. Here's the search results for "Intel Ark i3-12100"
 
@human7 Using the samr logic., you wouldn't expect an i3-12100 to outperform an i5-6600 either. But it does, and quite handily.

You should either take these concerns directly to Intel with respect to gainful employment as an, "official CPU namer/numberer", or stick with AMD.

FWIW, I've humored you as much as I plan to on this topic.
 
@human7 Using the samr logic., you wouldn't expect an i3-12100 to outperform an i5-6600 either. But it does, and quite handily.
Yes, you would expect it to, the 12100 is six generations newer. The 6455B and 8488C are from the same generation, the same architecture. You've been had by Intel's naming convention too, it would seem.
You should either take these concerns directly to Intel with respect to gainful employment as an, "official CPU namer/numberer", or stick with AMD.
This has nothing to do with choosing which manufacturer to use. Products can be poorly named and labeled, making it difficult to know at-a-glance what you are dealing with, and it is especially so when presenting that information to non-technical people.

FWIW, I've humored you as much as I plan to on this topic.
You've been condescending this entire conversation, and you haven't told me anything I don't already know, so that is fine by me.
 
Last edited:
Back