Intel Core i9-14900KS Pricing Confirmed to be $749

[btarunr]

Pricing of Intel's upcoming enthusiast-segment desktop processor, the Core i9-14900KS, has been confirmed to be $749, according to a MicroCenter listing. This price is identical to what the company asked for the previous generation i9-13900KS and i9-12900KS. As a Special Edition SKU, the i9-14900KS may not be available in all markets you'd normally find the i9-14900K in, also the chip is expected to have higher cooling- and power requirements. Based on the "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon, this 8P+16E core processor is expected to come with maximum boost frequencies of 6.20 GHz, and generally better overclocking headroom than the regular i9-14900K. The Core i9-14900KS is expected to go on sale this Thursday, March 14, 2024. Whether it beats the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D at gaming is the $749 question we'll answer soon.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[P4-630]

No thanks..I'm fine with my i7....

 

[Daven]

You would really need a good reason to buy this over a $593 7950X3D.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D - Ryzen 9 7000 Series 16-Core 4.2 GHz Socket AM5 120W CPU - Newegg.com

Buy AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D - Ryzen 9 7000 Series 16-Core 4.2 GHz Socket AM5 120W AMD Radeon Graphics Desktop Processor - 100-100000908WOF with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

 

[bug]

I don't care about 14900KS at all, but I'm glad to see consumer CPUs not going for $1,000+ a pop anymore. GPUs, are you paying attention?

 

[gffermari]

This is a joke on the opposite side. It should cost 999$, not 749.

This is not a normal cpu that competes with the rest of the lineup and the AMD alternatives.

It's a niche product, targeting only people who want the best yields of the gen so they can break OC world records.
Also, there is no alternative from AMD. It's this KS and nothing else.

 

[Dr_b_]

$749 for the CPU, and $74.90/month in extra electricity costs each month to power it, for negligible performance gains. Intel should be binning CPUs for power efficiency instead.

 

[phints]

This CPU is basically the equivalent of wanting performance so you buy a Dodge Viper with the 8.4L V10 using their ancient SOV push-rod technology and getting 9 mpg.

 

[Veseleil]

This CPU is basically the equivalent of wanting performance so you buy a Dodge Viper with the 8.4L V10 using their ancient SOV push-rod technology and getting 9 mpg.

And have a pig in the corners as well.

 

[bug]

$749 for the CPU, and $74.90/month in extra electricity costs each month to power it, for negligible performance gains. Intel should be binning CPUs for power efficiency instead.

I know people think peak power draw is what happens most of the time. But the reality is:

Less than 50W between stock 14900K and stock 7950X. It's still a 40% difference, just not as big, in absolute numbers, as some people think.
And while I like my CPUs well behaved (I run my 12600k power constrained), I imagine that wouldn't be a concern for someone buying the absolute highest end.

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

That's fair when it's considered as paying for pre-binning.
btw for this money why not consider 7800X3D and MB kit?

 

[Vario]

I agree in principle with these comments but the Viper doesn't deserve the vitriol.

This CPU is basically the equivalent of wanting performance so you buy a Dodge Viper with the 8.4L V10 using their ancient SOV push-rod technology and getting 9 mpg.

Frankly the Viper gets similar gas mileage to other cars of that performance segment. All gas sports cars of that performance level get terrible gas mileage. Supras, Corvettes, Porsches, etc.

And have a pig in the corners as well.

That really isn't the case on these cars, they handle pretty well, its just a powerful and lightweight RWD car so skill is required with the accelerator, especially on early gen models without traction control (before 2014).

 

[mb194dc]

Unlock the power and you get the CPU and a 400w space heater as a bonus. What's not to like?

Actually, there are almost no use cases that actually need the top CPUs anyway...

 

[Dr_b_]

I know people think peak power draw is what happens most of the time. But the reality is:

Less than 50W between stock 14900K and stock 7950X. It's still a 40% difference, just not as big, in absolute numbers, as some people think.
And while I like my CPUs well behaved (I run my 12600k power constrained), I imagine that wouldn't be a concern for someone buying the absolute highest end.

I dont think peak power draw happens all the time, but here is another reality check and why this is an absolute embarrassment for intel:
-The 7950X has all P Cores and is doing all this more efficiently, but probably not at idle which matters too
-Heat and power consumption matter, monitoring power consumption by the hour and on a daily basis, just gaming jacks up the usage, all that heat gets dumped into the room and its very noticeable
-The 14900KS is going to have worse stock and limit removed power usage than 13900KS if leaks are to be believed

 

[Fahad]

Sometimes, things that are more expensive, are worse.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

This is a joke on the opposite side. It should cost 999$, not 749.

This is not a normal cpu that competes with the rest of the lineup and the AMD alternatives.

It's a niche product, targeting only people who want the best yields of the gen so they can break OC world records.
Also, there is no alternative from AMD. It's this KS and nothing else.

I'm pretty sure it's just so they can brag about hitting certain clocks and maybe being the fastest CPU for games or whatever.

I agree in principle with these comments but the Viper doesn't deserve the vitriol.

Frankly the Viper gets similar gas mileage to other cars of that performance segment. All gas sports cars of that performance level get terrible gas mileage. Supras, Corvettes, Porsches, etc.

That really isn't the case on these cars, they handle pretty well, its just a powerful and lightweight RWD car so skill is required with the accelerator, especially on early gen models without traction control (before 2014).

Completely OT, but I thought some of those other cars got pretty good mileage for what they offer, but you had to drive them more reasonably. I think they got like mid-20s MPG under traditional driving. Like the 1995 ZR1 is rated at 15/23, which was really not too bad for that era, when gas was still under $1/gal.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't care about 14900KS at all, but I'm glad to see consumer CPUs not going for $1,000+ a pop anymore. GPUs, are you paying attention?

Yeah, now they're 3/4th of 1K for something that was new 3 generations ago. Such improvement

GPUs in unison: "No, we're not, did you buy that 4090D yet at $2400,-?"

 

[Veseleil]

I agree in principle with these comments but the Viper doesn't deserve the vitriol.

Frankly the Viper gets similar gas mileage to other cars of that performance segment. All gas sports cars of that performance level get terrible gas mileage. Supras, Corvettes, Porsches, etc.

That really isn't the case on these cars, they handle pretty well, its just a powerful and lightweight RWD car so skill is required with the accelerator, especially on early gen models without traction control (before 2014).

I respect the Carroll Shelby for driving and actively participating in making one of the greatest racing cars, the GT40. But consensus between many petrolheads about Viper's suspension is that it just can't handle the power and torque of its engine. It's just not up to the task. The weight distribution on Viper is 50% front, 50% rear. A lot of skill is required to drive any powerful RWD car without TC, and it doesn't make a valid argument in a muscle car discussion.

Way offtopic, so I'm done here. I'll gladly discuss it in a proper thread, so please take no offense. Cheers.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm pretty sure it's just so they can brag about hitting certain clocks and maybe being the fastest CPU for games or whatever.

You know, you could say the same about any high end desktop CPU. Probably anything over a 7800X / 14700K has a lot more to do with hubris than need. For that matter, there aren't too many people who wouldn't be perfectly fine working with a 12600K / 5600X.

 

[freeagent]

Betcha this would run SuperPi 32M pretty quick

 

[Geofrancis]

The sole purpose of this CPU is for benchmarks to bump Intel up the CPU performance charts. It will get sent to reviewers, who will benchmark it and add it to their charts, making intel look faster. nvidia used to do this like the special edition 2060 KO that was really a 2070 that Nvidia suggested to be used for benchmarking.

 

[maxfly]

Complaining about power usage and a KS, then gas mileage and cornering with a Viper. Brilliant.

 

[GhostRyder]

The big question to me is not going to be the performance of the chip at its stock speeds, its whether it really is binned well enough to overclock a bit better than the 14900KF at least enough to make a performance difference that is worth while (Not speaking LN2, I know its going to be better in those scenarios if its binned). Because for the price difference over the KF, it needs more than the 200mhz boost it comes with on the P cores to really justify its price at least in my opinion.

 

[TheDeeGee]

Peanuts if you have a business and need the horse power.

For 4K Gaming all you need is a 14600 or 14700 (non-K).

 

[dgianstefani]

I know people think peak power draw is what happens most of the time. But the reality is:

Less than 50W between stock 14900K and stock 7950X. It's still a 40% difference, just not as big, in absolute numbers, as some people think.
And while I like my CPUs well behaved (I run my 12600k power constrained), I imagine that wouldn't be a concern for someone buying the absolute highest end.

Plus the idle or low load draw is much better than Zen, which never goes below 30-40 W, depending on your IF/RAM settings. It's only balls to the wall, all 24 cores loaded etc, that the 300 W+ numbers people like to throw about wantonly show up. But then it's also faster (and often running cooler) than a 7950X/X3D in that case too, so...

 

[fevgatos]

$749 for the CPU, and $74.90/month in extra electricity costs each month to power it, for negligible performance gains. Intel should be binning CPUs for power efficiency instead.

This is exactly what it is. A cpu binned for power efficiency. Lock it to the same clockspeeds as a 13900k for example and it will drop power draw probably by around 100 watts.