News Intel Core i9-14900KS Review: The Last Core i9 Hits Record 6.2 GHz at Stock Settings

[Admin]

We put Intel's Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, and Core i5-14600K through our extensive battery of gaming and productivity benchmarks.

Intel Core i9-14900KS Review: The Last Core i9 Hits Record 6.2 GHz at Stock Settings : Read more

 

[cknobman]

Intel just flat out sux now.
Also it seems like the limits of the x6 architecture's performance are getting close to the limit.
Besides the hundreds of watts it consumes to run this fast the heat output is getting out of control.

 

[ingtar33]

so basically 400+W of power draw and still second place... technically further back then that depending on how many x3D amd chips you want to benchmark.

seems like there is another bottleneck in the system then clock speed, they barely got any extra performance out of it.

whats hilarious is the AMD chips killing it are doing it while sipping power at like 80W and lower. this is just like the old piledriver days. remember the 9000 series piledrivers? 200W and 5ghz out of the box. still a distant second place to sandy/ivybridge sipping power at like 80W? same basic show going on this time only the tables have been flipped.

this is intel's 9000 series piledriver.

 

[JasonovichClone]

so basically 400+W of power draw and still second place... technically further back then that depending on how many x3D amd chips you want to benchmark.

seems like there is another bottleneck in the system then clock speed, they barely got any extra performance out of it.

whats hilarious is the AMD chips killing it are doing it while sipping power at like 80W and lower. this is just like the old piledriver days. remember the 9000 series piledrivers? 200W and 5ghz out of the box. still a distant second place to sandy/ivybridge sipping power at like 80W? same basic show going on this time only the tables have been flipped.

this is intel's 9000 series piledriver.

Tough for Intel at the moment. Its thrown the kitchen sink plus the farmers cow to wrest back the gaming crown from 7800X3D but failed miserably.
There is Lunar Lake on the horizon and Intel are buoyant that it will do well against AMD's latest offering. Though I have heard from the rumour mill, Zen 5 is going to be a monster. Best to wait until the official benchmarks are released.

 

[bit_user]

There is Lunar Lake on the horizon

I believe Lunar Lake is set to replace Meteor Lake, for laptops.

On the desktop we have Arrow Lake to look forward to. Both should launch later this year, but I think Lunar Lake won't ship in volume until Q1 2025.

Regarding Intel's struggles with the Gen 14 CPUs, let's not forget that the original plan was to have Meteor Lake (made on the Intel 4 (EUV) node) to replace Raptor Lake-S. That didn't happen, so the Raptor Refresh is Intel's plan B.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

Sounds like you did about everything you could to make this sound appealing to enthusiasts, when it really is just the fourth release of the same part: the i9 13900K. Literally exactly the same silicon except 400MHz higher boost clock and 200MHz higher base clock. But hey: let's compare using ridiculous speed RAM to AMD processors that don't have OC RAM so we can make it look like it trades blows. Why not add in the Intel Xeon Platinum 8558U for comparison? I'm sure it blows AMD's 7800X3D out of the water at multithreading.

 

[JasonovichClone]

I believe Lunar Lake is set to replace Meteor Lake, for laptops.

On the desktop we have Arrow Lake to look forward to. Both should launch later this year, but I think Lunar Lake won't ship in volume until Q1 2025.

Regarding Intel's struggles with the Gen 14 CPUs, let's not forget that the original plan was to have Meteor Lake (made on the Intel 4 (EUV) node) to replace Raptor Lake-S. That didn't happen, so the Raptor Refresh is Intel's plan B.

Yes you are correct, laptop replacement not desktop.
Really stretching it though, Intel calling Raptor Lake 14 Gen?
It's very much an Intel modus operandi, to incentivize people to upgrade, Intel had to create pretext to make it their worthwhile, 13+ Gen doesn't quite cut it.

 

[TheHerald]

Curious how much better it is compraed to the 13900k. Both locked to 5.5 ghz, the ks will probably drop power draw by around 100 watts.

 

[peachpuff]

When is the 500w 14900ks+ coming out? Gotta beat that $369 7800x3d somehow...

 

[UnforcedERROR]

But hey: let's compare using ridiculous speed RAM to AMD processors that don't have OC RAM so we can make it look like it trades blows.

That's a distinction between Intel and AMD at the moment. It would be oddly unfair to test a component below its theoretical performance barrier, wouldn't you agree?

If anything it does Intel a disservice, as they aren't outperforming AMD on anything except absurd power consumption.

 

[-Fran-]

I liked der8auer's name for this thing: "13900KSSS".

Seems accurate enough.

Regards.

 

[bit_user]

Really stretching it though, Intel calling Raptor Lake 14 Gen?

I agree. I wish they would have at least made a new stepping. However, I think their plans with Meteor Lake-S fell apart too late for them to do a proper iteration of Raptor Lake, comparable to how Raptor Lake improved on Alder Lake.

 

[PEnns]

"The Core i9-14900KS will need the highest-end motherboard and PSU to pump 400A and 320W+ of power to the processor, along with a potent liquid-cooler to handle the 100C operating temperatures when the chip is under heavy load. If you're buying this class of chip,
you'll also want to buy a quality XMP memory kit to eke out a bit more performance. Overall, you'll pay a high price for a few percentage points (at best) of extra performance over the standard 14900K, not to mention that AMD's competing 7000X3D chips still hold the lead in gaming."

I am glad you mentioned that.

Please be kind enough to share this info with your colleagues at TH, especially those who are certain to mention pricey components as a negative only in AMD reviews!!

 

[bit_user]

It would be oddly unfair to test a component below its theoretical performance barrier, wouldn't you agree?

I think there are roughly 3 ways to test performance products:

1. "Stock" - According to official specifications.
2. Typical configuration for this market tier.
3. Extreme, max performance setup.

If we're interested in theoretical questions about underlying improvements or native efficiency comparisons, then #1 is the best option.

If you'd like to know what's actually possible to achieve, in real world conditions, then #3 is what you want to see.

For the substantial majority of readers, #2 is the best choice. This would be a modestly tuned setup of reasonable and balanced cost, including RAM, motherboard, and cooler.

 

[mac_angel]

I'd be curious on an updated comparison article about using hyper-threading vs not, now that we have all these P cores and E cores.

 

[Eximo]

I recall another poster saying they like the KS chips because when you match them clock for clock with their lesser binned relatives they can use a lot less power after some tuning.

It would be interesting to see a thorough line up of all of those chips locked at 5.7Ghz or something and see how low the voltage/power for each can go.

But then who wants to spend $700 on just the CPU.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

I think there are roughly 3 ways to test performance products:

1. "Stock" - According to official specifications.
2. Typical configuration for this market tier.
3. Extreme, max performance setup.

If we're interested in theoretical questions about underlying improvements or native efficiency comparisons, then #1 is the best option.

If you'd like to know what's actually possible to achieve, in real world conditions, then #3 is what you want to see.

For the substantial majority of readers, #2 is the best choice. This would be a modestly tuned setup of reasonable and balanced cost, including RAM, motherboard, and cooler.

Theoretical may have been the wrong wording here, as I was essentially trying to demonstrate what you're referring to in #2. Currently Intel and AMD share different recommended speeds between RAM, so comparing them at the same speed will ultimately do one of them a disservice. They need to be compared at whatever seems to be the most likely configuration of use, as that's technically the more "level" playing field.

That said, I think a compromise between #2 and #3 makes sense. Standard vs. Extreme, and the reason I say this is because the chip is marketed to the extreme crowd, but that doesn't always mean top-dollar is the correct course for purchase.

Of course, in this case, I don't think there is any correct course for purchase for Intel...

 

[Lucky_SLS]

I believe Lunar Lake is set to replace Meteor Lake, for laptops.

On the desktop we have Arrow Lake to look forward to. Both should launch later this year, but I think Lunar Lake won't ship in volume until Q1 2025.

Regarding Intel's struggles with the Gen 14 CPUs, let's not forget that the original plan was to have Meteor Lake (made on the Intel 4 (EUV) node) to replace Raptor Lake-S. That didn't happen, so the Raptor Refresh is Intel's plan B.

the performance difference between the raptor cove and redwood cove cores in the laptop chips was underwhelming. Lets hope thats not the case with Lion cove cores in Arrow lake.

 

[atomicWAR]

This makes me sad for Intel. Seriously a 14th gen chip with zero stepping changes compared to 13th gen. Again sad.

I look forward to Intel clawing back some performance without the need of a nuclear reactor and excotic cooling. When AMD/team red can out perform Intel at a fraction of the wattage, something is very wrong with team blue's approach and execution.

I think there are roughly 3 ways to test performance products:

1. "Stock" - According to official specifications.
2. Typical configuration for this market tier.
3. Extreme, max performance setup.

I couldn't agree more. Stock testing is great for testing base tier prebuilds. While typical configs test cover what most DIY users will do/higher end prebuilds. And extreme covers overclockers and many high end diy users.

I liked der8auer's name for this thing: "13900KSSS".

Seems accurate enough.

Regards.

Right reminds me of the 14nn++++ era. What is it with Intel, the number 14 and flopped HW?

Curious how much better it is compraed to the 13900k. Both locked to 5.5 ghz, the ks will probably drop power draw by around 100 watts.

Sounds about right. Worst case its more like 50-75watts which would still be nice unless your PC is intentionally your space heater...then It could be a down side. I am sure team blue's marketing can spin that.

 

[TheHerald]

When AMD/team red can out perform Intel at a fraction of the wattage, something is very wrong with team blue's approach and execution.

They can't. Going from 400 watts down to 200 watts reduces performance by like 5%. Just because it's pushed to go as fast as possible doesn't mean that amd can do the same at a fraction of the power. It can't.

The 7950x in cbr24 already needs 65% more power than the 7950x 3d for 5% more performance. The 14900ks is 15% faster than the 7950x. Doing some simple arithmetic in order for the 7950x to hit the same CBR24 score as the 14900ks it would need - I don't know - gazilions of power.

Amd isn't more efficient, it just has a hard power limit out of the box. Intel K cpus don't. You can get a non K or T cpu that has power limits in place.

 

[atomicWAR]

They can't. Going from 400 watts down to 200 watts reduces performance by like 5%. Just because it's pushed to go as fast as possible doesn't mean that amd can do the same at a fraction of the power. It can't.

The 7950x in cbr24 already needs 65% more power than the 7950x 3d for 5% more performance. The 14900ks is 15% faster than the 7950x. Doing some simple arithmetic in order for the 7950x to hit the same CBR24 score as the 14900ks it would need - I don't know - gazilions of power.

Amd isn't more efficient, it just has a hard power limit out of the box. Intel K cpus don't. You can get a non K or T cpu that has power limits in place.

Fair but I meant generally speaking of their opposing architectures (zen 4 vs 12/13/14th as a whole) at a given wattage not the i9 14900ks in particular. But I was not clear on that so your not wrong here to call it out.

That said you take Intel at 170 watts vs AMD at 170 watts (ST and MT) and the picture isn't pretty for team blue. Team red has the efficancy lead no matter how you slice it. This is not a good thing, for Intel.

 

[TheHerald]

Fair but I meant generally speaking of their opposing architectures (zen 4 vs 12/13/14th as a whole) at a given wattage not the i9 14900ks in particular. But I was not clear on that so your not wrong here to call it out.

That said you take Intel at 170 watts vs AMD at 170 watts (ST and MT) and the picture isn't pretty for team blue. Team red has the efficancy lead no matter how you slice it. This is not a good thing, for Intel.

If you match wattages Intel wins in most segments, and not by a small margin. R5 7600x vs i5 13600, 7700x vs 13700 etc. I mean Intel's i5 lineup even beats AMD's ryzen 7.

The only segment AMD has a small (literally single digit) win is in the high end, the 7950x is indeed 5-10% more efficient than the 14900k. It's really not that big, but people get confused cause reviewers are removing power limits and then yeah, obviously the CPU that will draw more power will be a lot less efficient.

TPU has done some testing with power limits, a 14900k @ 200 watts is in fact more efficient than a stock 7950x. At 125w it's more efficient than the 7950x 3d as well.

So MT and ST, intel is more efficient in general. It's only gaming that amd has the advantage with the 3d cpus, but that's also not as big as it shows. People don't play games with a 4090 at 1080p or 720p, and for sure they shouldn't buy a 14900k to play games, especially out of the box. i9 is terrible for gaming out of the box, since power draw is absurd. I've managed to drop power draw from 200 watts down to 95w with 0 performance loss.

This is TLOU, the game with by far the highest power draw out of any other. Never goes above 95 watts. Yes I dropped clocks and turned off HT, still with those settings it's faster in MT than a 7950x 3d for example.

Spoiler

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCV5-i9lDcU

 

[JamesJones44]

If you really want to go Intel I'm not sure why you wouldn't just sit tight at this moment. Arrow Lake coming down the pipe in 6 to 9 months. Might as well see what that has to offer before pulling the gun.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you really want to go Intel I'm not sure why you wouldn't just sit tight at this moment. Arrow Lake coming down the pipe in 6 to 9 months. Might as well see what that has to offer before pulling the gun.

And in only about 12 months after that they will release yet another something...you have to pull the trigger at some point.
Also especially for gamers it doesn't even matter, if you buy a CPU with decent performance today it will last you for many years.

 

[UnforcedERROR]

If you match wattages Intel wins in most segments, and not by a small margin. R5 7600x vs i5 13600, 7700x vs 13700 etc. I mean Intel's i5 lineup even beats AMD's ryzen 7.

These comparisons seem incorrect in terms of pricing, just throwing that out there. the 7600x is $215 to the 13600K at $297. The 7700x is $287 vs the 13700K at $369.

Obviously there's other costs incurred, and I'm not arguing what's better/worse here. Just that the distinction should be made.