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: 1080p
Moving along, here's a look at a more balanced gaming scenario, running games at 1080p with maximum image quality.
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
Moving onto 1080p with the maximum settings applied this brings the graphics power into the equation, but CPU core performance is also important here. As we saw at 720p resolutions, the Core i9-14900K again performs similarly to our results with the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-13900KS. In situations where the Core i9-14900K beats its predecessors, it's only marginal.
Not surprisingly, the Core i9-14700K also performs well compared to Intel's Core i9 chips and against AMD's Ryzen 7000 series processors. Outside of World of Tanks, which is optimized for chips with a higher core count, the Core i5-14600K is also very capable, and with a cheaper MSRP, it represents good value for money where the title can't utilize or is poorly optimized for higher numbers of cores.
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.