EUR489,32
Intel Core i9-14900K
LGA 1700, 3.20 GHz, 24 -Core
A classic refresh: the i9-14900K is basically an i9-13900KS
17.10.2023
Translation: Patrik Stainbrook
The 14th Intel Core generation is the dictionary definition of a refresh. The i9-14900K has changed little, if anything, from its predecessor.
The seemingly refreshed Raptor Lake with its initially enticing Intel Core i9-14900K leaves a dusty aftertaste. In truth, it’s basically just an i9-13900KS in 14th Intel Core generation garb. Unless you need a new high-end CPU right now, you can safely ignore this pretending predator. It’ll go extinct next year anyway. Like its namesake 65 million years ago, a meteor will knock it off the evolutionary chart. Because the next generation is coming out soon. Codename – wait for it – Meteor Lake.
As you can see in the table below, the i9-14900K and the i9-13900KS differ in two ways. The new processor has a higher clock rate in the efficiency cores and its processor base power is lower. Still, the latter only matters for the data sheet anyway. Motherboard manufacturers usually ignore Intel’s power limits. In truth, a much higher power consumption is possible, as the test also shows.
To find out what other 14th generation processors there are, check out our report on the reveal.
Test setup and method
I use the following components for my test:
The system runs on Windows 11 in version 22H2 (22621.2134). I’m using BIOS version 1402 and enable XMP. Otherwise, I leave everything on default and Resizable BAR is activated. For the graphics card, I use version 537.58 of the driver.
Here’s an overview of the various benchmarks:
- Cinebench R23
- 7-zip
- Blender Benchmark
- UL Procyon Photo Editing Benchmark
- UL Procyon Video Editing Benchmark
- 3DMark: Fire Strike, Fire Strike Ultra, Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme
- Games: «Anno 1800», «Forza Horizon 5», «Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla», «Civilization VI», «Cyberpunk 2077», «Far Cry 6», «Gears of War 5», «Red Dead Redemption 2», «Shadow of the Tomb Raider»
I run all benchmarks three times and take the best result. For the games, I use the highest possible presets. Otherwise, I leave everything at default except for the resolution. I left DLSS, XeSS and FSR deactivated.
Results in productivity applications
On the following slides, you can see a comparison of the arithmetic mean of the six productivity benchmark results, comparing the predecessor i9-13900K and i9-13900KS as well as the competitor Ryzen 9 7950X3D. If you click through the gallery, you’ll see the results of the individual benchmarks.
The average value of the 7950X3D is somewhat misleading. The processor is namely behind the 14900K in four of six applications. Only in the 7-zip benchmark does the new Intel processor clearly have to admit defeat to the AMD processor. It’s also noticeable that the 14900K is only two per cent ahead of the 13900K and just under one per cent behind the 13900KS.
This difference to the 13900KS is easy to explain. The new 14900K clocks 100 MHz higher in the efficiency cores in Cinebench R23, namely at 4.4 GHz. In return, the 13900KS clocks 100 MHz higher at 5.5 GHz in the performance cores. The thread director, which distributes load to the individual cores, doesn’t yet appear optimally adjusted to the new processor. As a result, the old one achieves better results.
Results in games
The 3DMark benchmarks provide a first look at the results in the games. The graphic shows the mathematical mean of the four 3DMark benchmarks, followed by the individual results.
The 14900K’s poor average score is down to the abysmal result in the Time Spy Extreme benchmark. I’ve already had such outliers in previous CPU tests. They achieved much better results later in their life cycle. I dismiss the poor performance, the processor can’t yet unleash its full power in that benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks don’t reveal much about the actual performance in games anyway. Things look better in-game for the 14900K.
On the following slides, you can see the arithmetic mean of frames per second (FPS) in the nine benchmark games compared to the other three processors. Starting with 1080p, followed by 1440p resolution. If you click through the gallery, you’ll see the results of the individual games in the same order.
I’m aware that the differences in fps get smaller at higher resolutions because the graphics card takes on more computing power. In my opinion, however, testing lower resolutions than 1080p makes little sense, as you hardly ever buy a CPU that costs more than 600 francs/euros to play in 720p resolution. Testing higher resolutions than 1440p also makes little sense, since at 2160p resolution the GPU becomes the bottleneck, not the CPU.
As expected, differences between the processors vanish at higher resolutions. While the i9-14900K is still three per cent behind the front-runner 7950X3D at 1080p, it’s only one per cent behind at 1440p resolution. Compared to the predecessor 13900K, a maximum of two per cent more fps is possible. At 1080p, however, the 14900K lags one fps behind the 13900KS. At 1440p resolution, it’s the other way round. However, any differences between the processors are minuscule.
Same goes for the percentiles. The percentile values are usually frame times measured in milliseconds. These are the time intervals from image to image, or frame to frame. 99th percentile means that 99% of all data is faster than the value provided.
The new Intel processor doesn’t succeed in beating the 13900KS here either. Even worse, at 1440p resolution, it falls behind particularly at the 99.9th percentile.
Temperature and power consumption
Despite sporting efficiency cores, the i9 processors aren’t frugal. This doesn’t change for the 14900 K. It draws over 300 watts in the Cinebench R23 benchmark, reaching over 100 degrees Celsius in the process. Certain computing cores have to clock down during the test as a result. I get an average of 5.4 GHz in the performance cores and 4.4 GHz in the efficiency cores.
However, Cinebench is an extreme case. When gaming, the processor draws an average of 83 watts at 1080p resolution across the entire benchmark suite. In doing so, it only reaches 62 degrees Celsius. However, it gets surprisingly warm when watching Netflix, browsing and doing office work at 51 degrees Celsius. It only draws 40 watts here in contrast to in-game. When idle, it’s 25 watts and the temperature stays around 37 degrees Celsius. Here are the values in a table, as well as a comparison to the other three processors.
Compared to the 13900K and 13900KS, the values are about the same. What’s striking, however, is the stark difference between the Intel CPUs and the AMD when gaming. The AMD processor draws less than half the power of the i9. This also affects the required watts per fps, as the following chart shows.
Verdict: minimal evolution
The Intel Core i9-14900K isn’t a bad processor in itself. In terms of raw power, it’s currently among the fastest available. However, little has changed compared to its predecessor. Just two per cent more performance when gaming and using applications.
There’s no new features compared to the 13th generation. Yep, the 14th generation is a classic refresh with a slightly higher clock rate. It also can’t beat the i9-13900KS, released at the beginning of the year, let alone its AMD rival, the Ryzen 7950X3D – at least in gaming. Intel is ahead with the i9-14900K in most applications.
Not much has changed in terms of efficiency either. The 14900K only draws slightly less power than its predecessors. And compared to the competition, the Intel processor is extremely wasteful. When gaming at 1080p resolution, it draws twice as many watts as the 7950X3D.
Only the price remains. At least the i9-14900K can score here. For around 640 francs/euros at launch, it’s twelve per cent cheaper than the i9-13900KS. So per frame at 1080p resolution, you pay 3.05 francs/euros as opposed to 3.45 francs/euros. The frame is also cheaper compared to the 7950X3D. The AMD chip will run you 3.15 francs/euros. In other words, the 14900K costs five per cent less for an only three per cent less performance.
Still, I can only conditionally recommend the 14900K. The 14th generation will be the last to use the LGA 1700 socket. The next generation – Meteor Lake, releasing for desktop sometime in 2024 – will use the LGA 1851 socket. If you want to upgrade from the 14900K in future, you’ll also have to change your motherboard.
Kevin Hofer
Senior Editor
kevin.hofer@digitecgalaxus.chFrom big data to big brother, Cyborgs to Sci-Fi. All aspects of technology and society fascinate me.