Intel Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K and Core i5-14600K Review: Raptor Lake Refreshed
by Gavin Bonshor on October 17, 2023 9:00 AM ESTGaming Performance: 720p And Lower
The reason we test games in CPU reviews at lower resolutions such as 720p and below is simple; titles are more likely to be CPU bound than they are GPU bound at lower resolutions. This means there are more frames for the processor to process as opposed to the graphics card doing the majority of the heavy lifting.
There are some variances where some games will still use graphical power, but not as much CPU grunt at these smaller resolutions, and this is where we can show where CPU limitations lie in terms of gaming.
We are using DDR5 memory on the Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, Core i5-14600K, and Intel's 13th Gen at the relative JEDEC settings. The same methodology is also used for the AMD Ryzen 7000 series and Intel's 12th Gen (Alder Lake) processors. Below are the settings we have used for each platform:
- DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 14th & 13th Gen
- DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
- DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen
Civilization VI
World of Tanks
Borderlands 3
Grand Theft Auto V
Red Dead Redemption 2
F1 2022
Hitman 3
Total War: Warhammer 3
Looking at CPU performance without GPU bottlenecks at 720p and lower resolutions, we can see that the Core i9-14900K performs very similarly to the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-13900KS. In scenarios where games can use more L3 cache, the AMD Ryzen 7000 with 3D V-Cache (X3D) chips are the victors. In Civ V, we can see that the game prefers AMD cores as opposed to Intel's, but overall, none of the new Intel 14th Gen Core series chips perform badly.
The interesting CPU is the Core i9-14700K, which is closer to the Core i9-14900K than we've seen from going from an i7 to an i9 or an i5 to an i7 within previous generations. The gap between the Core i9-14900K and Core i7-14700K is as close as we were expecting, given it only has four fewer E-cores than the Core i9 and with slightly slower core clock speeds.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
DabuXian - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
so basically a mere 6% better Cinebench MT score at the cost of almost 100 extra watts. I dunno in what universe would anyone want this instead of a 7950x.yankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
At platform level it is over 200W difference. Impressive.And I agree, nobody in teh right mind should get Intel over AMD, unless they have very specific workload in which that 6% makes a difference worth hundreds/thousand of dollars in electricity per year.
schujj07 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
If you have a workload like that then you run Epyc or Threadripper as the task is probably VERY threaded.shaolin95 - Thursday, December 21, 2023 - link
😆😆😆😆😆😆 AMDrip fanboys are hilarious and delusionalAnd what bullshit connect about the electricity bill per year... thousands.. really???? Dang kid, you are hilariously sad
lemurbutton - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Who cares about CInebench MT? It's a benchmark for a niche software in a niche.powerarmour - Wednesday, October 18, 2023 - link
Wouldn't buy the 7950X either, not interested in any CPU that draws >200W unless I'm building a HEDT workstation.shabby - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Lol @ the power usage, this will make a nice heater this winter.yankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
I find it amazing. It takes more than 200W MORE to beat the 7950.The difference in efficiency is unbelievable.
Buying Intel today still makes no sense unless that extra 5-10% in some specific benchmark really make a huge difference. Otherwise it'll cost you dearly in electricity.
bug77 - Thursday, October 19, 2023 - link
While Anand has a policy of testing things out-of-the-box, which is fine, it is well known ADL and RPL can be power constrained to something like 125W max, while losing performance in the single digits range.It would be really useful if we had a follow up article looking into that.
yankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
So, 6% faster than previous gen, a bit (10%?) faster than AMD's 7950.Consuming over 200W *more* than the Ryzen 7950.
I'd say Intel's power efficiency is still almost half that of the ryzen. It's amazing how far behind they are.