Intel Core i7-14700K

[W1zzard]

Intel Core i7-14700K is the only processor released today with an upgraded core configuration. Thanks to an additional four E-Cores, more cache and a 200 MHz frequency bump, the 14700K reaches performance quite close to the 13900K, at much better pricing.

Show full review

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

Okay then at least 14700K has four more E-cores... Intel has released a new (14th) gen that makes our last (13th) gen the current gen lol

 

[Ruru]

So four additional useless Atom cores but practically the same CPU as 13700K.

Okay then at least 14700K has four more E-cores... Intel has released a new (14th) gen that makes our last (13th) gen the current gen lol

Well, Skylake was practically the latest gen when 10th gen came out. Same architecture with moar cores, higher clocks and some fine-tuning.

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

Well, Skylake was practically the latest gen when 10th gen came out. Same architecture with moar cores, higher clocks and some fine-tuning.

Skylake/Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Coffee Lake Refresh, and Comet Lake were like more "properly refreshed", at least during Skylake era 6/7700K, 8700K, 9900K, 10900K were getting two more cores per generation. But 12900K, 13900K and 14900K are the same 8 P-cores... (I don't care how many E-cores there are)

 

[mahanddeem]

It seems you always get good samples.
All cores 5.5ghz at 1.288v is alright.
My microcenter 13700k needs 1.356v for all cores 5.5ghz stable (all 10 CPUs I had from MC were duds).
Otherwise it makes more more confident about the 13700k I bought last April. Basically same performance maybe a hair of a difference.

 

[theouto]

This one seems to warrant existing, actually not that bad.

I don't think it warrants being a new generation though, that seems a bit excessive

 

[tommys]

How come temperatures are higher than the 14900k? is this an error?

 

[W1zzard]

How come temperatures are higher than the 14900k? is this an error?

That's correct. Let me retest to confirm

Edit: just retested it, the 14900K really runs a few degrees cooler, both sit in their 253 W power limit. Exact same BIOS settings, removed cooler, removed one CPU, put in the other, put on the cooler, within like 10 minutes or so

 

[Upgrayedd]

Any idea why the minimum fps for Mount and Blade is so mediocre? Getting beat by an 11900K.

Forget to enable XMP or ReBAR or something?

 

[W1zzard]

Any idea why the minimum fps for Mount and Blade is so mediocre? Getting beat by an 11900K.

Forget to enable XMP or ReBAR or something?

No idea.. the game generally has very random frametimes and I'll drop it for next rebench

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Honestly that xeon with 8 P cores and 5.6 ghz boost is more exciting. Intel really screwed the pooch this gen.

 

[tommys]

the 14900K really runs a few degrees cooler

Hmm, that's really interesting. Watts should equal watts, so that suggests a somewhat special IHS or STIM.

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

Hmm, that's really interesting. Watts should equal watts, so that suggests a somewhat special IHS or STIM.

Could be that although they draw the same power, 14900K has more cores so each core is drawing less power (total power draw divided by more cores), and heat is produced more evenly, resulting in better thermal performance.

 

[EatingDirt]

Out of the 3 reviewed today, the 14900k, 14700k & 14600k, this 14700k is the only one that has somewhat of a justification for having a 14xxx name. It at least changes something with the additional ecores, giving it a 5% lead over the 13700k in productivity.

The others are an embarrassing ~1-3% faster than their 13xxx series counterparts on average. A throwback to the early intel core-series generational improvements during the dark AMD Bulldozer years.

 

[W1zzard]

Hmm, that's really interesting. Watts should equal watts, so that suggests a somewhat special IHS or STIM.

I also confirmed power draw externally, the CPUs/mobos aren't cheating power reporting

 

[AteXIleR]

Kabylake-like fake gen. It is for maintaining consumer buzz.

 

[FrostWolf]

What this review told me more than anything else is that Intel 13xxxK CPUs will likely be the best bargain for a year. Including the 13700k over the 14700k; I didn’t see enough benefit in the extra E-cores to justify the increase in power.

Based on multiple reviews, I’m just not seeing enough benefit, and maybe I’ll also wait to see if the 14700 non-K has most of the performance, with better efficiency and lower price.

 

[Upgrayedd]

No idea.. the game generally has very random frametimes and I'll drop it for next rebench

The other two new cpus charted fine. Maybe a game setting gets reset?

Now that I looked a little closer at that game, cpus really are all over the place. I don't think you should drop it, unless you take want to, single CCD X3D chips seem to be fine.

 

[Random_User]

Thanks for the review.
Can't say this is bad CPU. It's fine for some workloads. But someone who has the previous gen i7 or i9, this is no go.
For gaming... 7800X3D is more strong contender, with fraction of power and for less money. And for long workloads, 7950X seems might be a better purchase, as it, again- uses much less power. I don't see the usage of this CPU without undervolt, let alone OC. Which is absolutely pointless.
BTW what the point of getting 6GHz, when the opponent beat it with even lower clocks, power usage, and less heat? I could get, when 10700K was going 5+GHz, while massively surpassing AMD rivals at gaming, and other applications, while being hot furnace. But here.... I think stock clocks still look fine.

Overall, the 14600K is much better choice. But this intel discouraging CPU release, looks like the chance for AMD to start milking again.

Hmm, that's really interesting. Watts should equal watts, so that suggests a somewhat special IHS or STIM.

There's nothing surprising here. This may be the case of worse binned crystal. The top silicon goes to i9 anyway. Much like R9 5950/7950 use much less power, and has less heat than their twelve and octa core counterparts. But that's my guess.

 

[THU31]

Why is this drawing twice as much power as the 14600K in gaming???

The performance gain is less than 10%. Is the extra 200-300 MHz causing the voltage to skyrocket? It can't be the extra cores, as they're not even utilized.

This is some utter nonsense. Either the voltage curve is extremely steep, or there's some other technical issue. Only a crazy person would consider using this CPU at such high power consumption.

 

[sKam]

"editor's choice" ? rly ?

 

[Gradius2]

Can get a 13900K for $450, so NO WAY I'll get a 14700K

Or 7950X3D for $500

 

[lexluthermiester]

So four additional useless Atom cores but practically the same CPU as 13700K.

I wouldn't say that. A CPU with only 12 ECores would still be a decent CPU. Calling them useless is a bit much.

I also confirmed power draw externally, the CPUs/mobos aren't cheating power reporting

And that is an easy thing to do.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Out of the 3 reviewed today, the 14900k, 14700k & 14600k, this 14700k is the only one that has somewhat of a justification for having a 14xxx name. It at least changes something with the additional ecores, giving it a 5% lead over the 13700k in productivity.

The others are an embarrassing ~1-3% faster than their 13xxx series counterparts on average. A throwback to the early intel core-series generational improvements during the dark AMD Bulldozer years.

I agree, but even in productivity other than in a few cases, the extra 4 e-cores make little difference and for gaming it's a useless update and the power consumption is a disgrace. So much for the DLVR that yet again is MIA. These should have been called the 13x50 series, total joke calling them 14th gen. I think Steve at Gamers Nexus cynical attitude was spot on and he called this update out for what it is, a farce. Too bad the rest of the media like to stroke Intel's ego.

 

[Gica]

So four additional useless Atom cores but practically the same CPU as 13700K.

These "useless" E cores lead an i5-13500 to outperform a 7700X in many multi-core applications. Bonus: at a lower consumption. It costs almost $100 less and has support for DDR 4.
Reviewers test the extremes.
Gaming: how many PC owners have RTX 4090?
Applications: how much time is allocated to editing the project and how much time is allocated to rendering or encoding? The reviewers only test the final part, but the first part, the most important and time-consuming, does not keep the processor at 100% load. Those who measured the consumption during the Puget tests found that there are no big differences between the 13900K and the 7950X in terms of energy efficiency.

Instead of conclusion:
If you need that extra power, for a short time, it is welcome.
If you want to save the planet, buy an i3 or r3.