Intel Core i5-14600K

[W1zzard]

Intel Core i5-14600K is the most affordable new processor released today. While it may look weaker on paper it still packs an impressive punch, especially for gaming. In our review we reached an impressive 5.7 GHz on all cores, which unlocks quite a bit of additional performance.

Show full review

 

[colossusrageblack]

I was expecting the 14700K to be the go to for this round of Intel CPUs, but I think the 14600K came out as the more impressive chip.

 

[V3ctor]

I agree... 14600K is the chip to go

 

[Selaya]

13605k

 

[shk021051]

cooler than 13600k

 

[L'Eliminateur]

i'd love to see a small test with some apps/games with win11 vs win 10 to put those optimization claims to test.

Because win11 is an utter unpopular and slower abortion and i'm baffled on why reviewer sites keep using it instead of keeping it to the OS most everyone uses which is win10 and keeping win11 as "some couple of benchs".

Also, even at higher prices i will go to AMD because they have true cores which you pay for, no e-core nonsense garbage which i'd disable even before installing the OS

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

I'm just gonna use an 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU in comparsion because this is the CPU I use in my Mini-ITX computer build now and because it's the AMD CPU that is about the same in price as the 14600K.

The 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU is a WHOLE 4.4% better in gaming under the 1440p resolution and only 9.7% better in apps / programs performance over my 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU that has half of the TDP (watt) to what the 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU have.

And the matter of fact that using an 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU in a Mini-ITX computer case is a bad idea, not only for the CPU temp wise, but for the temp on the other components as well. So this is nothing more than..........

That is a super fail on another level from Intel.

 

[Chrispy_]

How much of the "impressive overclocking potential" is just silicon lottery and improvements to Intel's manufacturing over time?

Presumably (this is a guess) a recently-manufactured 13600K would have near-identical headroom, when averaged over enough samples to negate silicon lottery.

 

[HD64G]

Heat of the power consumed and dissipated into the case is MUCH MORE important for the system's stability and life expectancy of the components than the cpu's temp itself.

 

[wheresmycar]

From a gaming perspective... the 14600K marginally beats 13th gen in perf whilst chewing up 15% less power + 10% lower temps.... nice!

Leaving the pricier X3D on the side for now, the 14600K also beats the 7700/7600X with a 5% margin.

It's definitely got something going for it, especially the e-cores which will be useful for some workloads.

Personally i'd bank on Zen 4 this time around but i think its a lost opportunity for Intel not competing more heavily on the price for a more appealing alternative option. Then again, with new releases we hardly ever see any real price challenging compo (incl. AMD of late). Maybe secondary options without e-cores but maintaining the perf for $250?

 

[Luke357]

13605k

13690k Haswell Refresh Style.

 

[PapaTaipei]

What you smoking to claim it has big OC potential?

There is no OC headroom on intel chips since some time now.

 

[W1zzard]

There is no OC headroom on intel chips since some time now.

 

[PapaTaipei]

Yes there is no OC headroom, your test shows it extensively. And the power spikes for 2% gains (remember 10 years ago the OC gave us up to 30%+) and cpu degradation is clearly not worth it.

 

[Yafei]

In several of your tests the reduction in power usage is quite sizable compared to 13600k. Is it caused by some unspecified improvements on Intel side, or you just won a silicon lottery?

Also how is the memory overclock capability?

 

[lexluthermiester]

What you smoking to claim it has big OC potential?

There is no OC headroom on intel chips since some time now.

Are you kidding?

Yes there is no OC headroom, your test shows it extensively.

Oh ok, so you're trolling. I say that because a quick 10% bios adjusted OC is a respectable bump and is not "no headroom" as you say. Something is not nothing. As a rule W1zzard only OC's with casual BIOS settings. This means that with a bit more effort and improved cooling a more substantial OC is going to be easy.

And the power spikes for 2% gains (remember 10 years ago the OC gave us up to 30%+) and cpu degradation is clearly not worth it.

There is nothing that will OC like that anymore. AMD doesn't OC any better than Intel. This has to do with how small the process for lithography is getting. We're getting down to the near atomic ranges of physical size. This means the days of CPU pushing the massive 50% OC's of yesteryear are long behind us.

Just an FYI, if you're going to disagree with a reviewer, make sure your claims have merit. Spouting drivel that is EASILY disproven only serves to be an embarrassment for you.

 

[sLowEnd]

Yes there is no OC headroom, your test shows it extensively. And the power spikes for 2% gains (remember 10 years ago the OC gave us up to 30%+) and cpu degradation is clearly not worth it.

Nothing will OC like the stuff from a decade ago. Both companies have gotten much better at squeezing out performance, leaving very little left on the table.

 

[JustBenching]

I'm just gonna use an 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU in comparsion because this is the CPU I use in my Mini-ITX computer build now and because it's the AMD CPU that is about the same in price as the 14600K.

The 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU is a WHOLE 4.4% better in gaming under the 1440p resolution and only 9.7% better in apps / programs performance over my 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU that has half of the TDP (watt) to what the 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU have.

And the matter of fact that using an 'Intel Core i5-14600K' CPU in a Mini-ITX computer case is a bad idea, not only for the CPU temp wise, but for the temp on the other components as well. So this is nothing more than..........

That is a super fail on another level from Intel.

Utter nonsense. The 14600k is faster than the 7700x even when they both are limited to the same wattage. Try to match t he 14600k's MT performance and tell us how much power your 7700x used. You are going to need an ln2 canister to cool it.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

There is no OC headroom on intel chips since some time now.

I tested at least 5 different 13th gen CPUs and each of them (including 13600K, 13700K and 13900K) had at least 200 Mhz headroom. I made one 13900K run at 6200 MHz and pass single thread cinebench run.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Utter nonsense. The 14600k is faster than the 7700x even when they both are limited to the same wattage. Try to match t he 14600k's MT performance and tell us how much power your 7700x used. You are going to need an ln2 canister to cool it.

Was there something in 4.4% faster in games under 1440p and 9.7% faster in apps and programs in general that wasn't clear enough that the Core i5-14600K is faster, but at a massive cost of 100% more power usage over the Ryzen 7 7700' CPU?

This is the insane absurdity about the Intel's 13th and 14th series of CPU's. You gain so little over AMD here for an insane amount of power usage.

And lastly, i'm not talking about the 'Ryzen 7 7700X', i'm talking about the 'Ryzen 7 7700' (non-X) (65 watt) version.

Is it really worth it to have an Intel Core 15-14600K CPU in a small Mini-ITX case when it's only 4.4% better in games and 9.7% better in programs over an 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' CPU when you have to take into consideration that you need a damn iceberg / big freezer to cool off the Intel CPU here and a nuclear reactor to power the CPU alone?

 

[JustBenching]

Was there something in 4.4% faster in games under 1440p and 9.7% faster in apps and programs in general that wasn't clear enough that the Core i5-14600K is faster, but at a massive cost of 100% more power usage?

And secondly, i'm not talking about the 'Ryzen 7 7700X', i'm talking about the 'Ryzen 7 7700' (non-X) version.

It doesn't matter which version you are talking about. Try to make your 7700 close that 9.7% gap and it will consume more power than the 14600k. Or vice verse, lock the 14600k to the same power as your 7700 and it will absolutely smack it across the room. The 14600k is much more efficient than the 7700, period. Just try to make your 7700 hit 24k score in cbr23 and tell us how much power it needed. I'd assume something around 300-350 watts.

Is it really worth it to have an Intel Core 15-14600K CPU in a small Mini-ITX case

Yes it is, cause you can power limit the 14600k on the same 90w your 7700 consumes and it will still be faster and consume way less power when idling. You'd only buy the 7700 if it was considerably cheaper.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

It doesn't matter which version you are talking about. Try to make your 7700 close that 9.7% gap and it will consume more power than the 14600k. Or vice verse, lock the 14600k to the same power as your 7700 and it will absolutely smack it across the room. The 14600k is much more efficient than the 7700, period. Just try to make your 7700 hit 24k score in cbr23 and tell us how much power it needed. I'd assume something around 300-350 watts.


Yes it is, cause you can power limit the 14600k on the same 90w your 7700 consumes and it will still be faster and consume way less power when idling. You'd only buy the 7700 if it was considerably cheaper.

Watch this:

Just a Waste of Time - Raptor Lake R̶e̶f̶r̶e̶s̶h̶ Renamed

As an example, the 'Intel Core i9-14900K' gets demolished if you cap the power usage on it to 80 watt like the 'AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D' uses for example.

Intel stands no chance AT ALL if you cap the power on it's 14th gen CPU's to the same power usage as AMD's 7000 series CPUs.

The same applies when it comes to the 'AMD Ryzen 7 7700' against the 'Intel Core i5-14600K' as well.

 

[JustBenching]

Watch this:

Just a Waste of Time - Raptor Lake R̶e̶f̶r̶e̶s̶h̶ Renamed

The 'Intel Core i9-14900K' gets demolished if you cap the power usage on it to 80 watt like the 'AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D' uses for example.

Intel stands no chance AT ALL if you cap the power on it's 14th gen CPU's to the same power usage as AMD's 7000 series CPUs.

Why are you changing the subject? You compared a 14600k to a 7700. The 14600k wins in everything at same power draw. It's not even a contest. Just stop with the misinformation please.
You have a 7700 just freaking test it already, try to hit 24k in cbr23 and tell me how much wattage it needed.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Why are you changing the subject? You compared a 14600k to a 7700. The 14600k wins in everything at same power draw. It's not even a contest. Just stop with the misinformation please.

Read my post again. It was an example on how poorly the new Intel 14th gen CPU's are when you cap them to the same power usage as AMD's AM5 CPUs.

 

[JustBenching]

Read my post again. It was an example on how poorly the new Intel CPU's are when you cap them to the same power usage as AMD's CPUs.

It's a bad example cause you are comparing different cpus. Computer base has tested a bunch of applications in different power limits, a 13600k @ 65w is faster than a 7700 @ 88w across the board. The 14600k will just widen the gap. Please, stop with the misinformation.

You have a 7700. Try to get a cbr23 score of 24k and tell me how much wattage was needed.