• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Expands 14th Gen Core Desktop Processor Series with 65W Mainstream Models

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,670 (7.43/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel today concluded its client-segment processor launch series with the introduction of the new 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" desktop processor family with 65 W (non-K) models. These would fill the gaps between the various unlocked "K" 125 W SKUs Intel launched in October 2023. All processor models in the series come with base power values of 65 W, with maximum turbo power ranging between 110 W for the Core i3 4P+0E processors, to roughly 154 W for the Core i5 6P+8E processors, to 220 W for the Core i7 8P+12E processors, and as high as 225 W for the top Core i9 8P+16E models.

The Core i9-14900 and i9-14900F offer a maximum P-core boost frequency in line with their K and KF counterparts, of 6.00 GHz, although their base frequency is lowered in line with their reduced base power. The Core i7-14700 and i7-14700F tick at speeds of up to 5.60 GHz. The Core i9 and Core i7 series processor models make use of the "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon that has 2 MB of L2 cache per P-core, 4 MB of L2 cache per E-core cluster, and up to 36 MB of L3 cache; while the 65 W Core i5 series is based on the smaller silicon that has 1.25 MB of L2 cache per P-core, 2 MB of L2 cache per E-core cluster, and up to 30 MB of L3 cache.



The 14th Gen Core i5 series sees 6P+8E as the core configuration across the line, along with 24 MB of L3 cache. The top Core i5-14500 ticks at up to 5.10 GHz for the P-cores, and up to 3.90 GHz on the E-cores. The entry-level Core i3 series continues to be 4-core/8-thread, and lacking in E-cores. These chips are based on the smallest desktop silicon that lacks an E-core cluster, and only has up to 6 P-cores, and up to 18 MB of L3 cache. The Core i3-14100 is carved out of this by enabling four the P-cores, along with 12 MB of L3 cache. It ticks at speeds of up to 4.70 GHz. All Core i9, Core i7, and Core i5 processor models being launched today feature the same Intel UHD 770 integrated graphics, with 2 Xe cores (32 EU), while the Core i3 gets a smaller iGPU with just one Xe core, branded as UHD Graphics 730.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
The laptop CPUs just got refreshed too, the 14-series get Thunderbolt 5 which is honestly the most exciting thing about them.
 
What is all this Wifi 7 branding all of a sudden? Wifi 6E hasnt even been widely adopted in most peoples home and 7 is being pushed already?
 
What is all this Wifi 7 branding all of a sudden? Wifi 6E hasnt even been widely adopted in most peoples home and 7 is being pushed already?
WiFi 6E is not that useful since the 6GHz wireless spectrum uses shorter wavelengths, so only really useful if you have the router in the same room, like for wireless VR headset usage. WiFi 7 is the main upgrade that should improve upon both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz spectrums for range and extra bandwidth.
 
Those T-series CPUs almost dipped below 1GHz base clock....
 
The Core i9-14900 and i9-14900F offer a maximum P-core boost frequency in line with their K and KF counterparts, of 6.00 GHz
At 65W? This is impressive! Near top tier performance but without all the massive power draw? Very cool!

I was thinking they'd be able to do this with the 14700, but the 14900 is a surprise.

All basically the same as Alder Lake and Raptor Lake.
Miss out on some context did we?
 
will tpu review some of these cpus?
 
At 65W? This is impressive! Near top tier performance but without all the massive power draw? Very cool!

I was thinking they'd be able to do this with the 14700, but the 14900 is a surprise.
with maximum turbo power ranging between 110 W for the Core i3 4P+0E processors, to roughly 154 W for the Core i5 6P+8E processors, to 220 W for the Core i7 8P+12E processors, and as high as 225 W for the top Core i9 8P+16E models.
 
At 65W? This is impressive! Near top tier performance but without all the massive power draw? Very cool!

I was thinking they'd be able to do this with the 14700, but the 14900 is a surprise.


Miss out on some context did we?
crazy we are?
65w is base usage only..
Power is strong in Intel Cpus

U cant read? 5y old we are?
He was trying to tell u how wrong u are..

Well, yeah, but this is still something very promising.
ummm...what?
its was allways this way, intel was marketing base power this way, theres nothing new and nothing promising at all.
 
At 65W? This is impressive! Near top tier performance but without all the massive power draw? Very cool!

I was thinking they'd be able to do this with the 14700, but the 14900 is a surprise.
Hi,
225w for 6GHz though.
 
But how many people are going to 6Ghz all-core? Remember, 6Ghz is an overclock that requires a voltage bump.
Hi,
Not even intel boost all p cores to 6GHz unless you're in Antarctica and can keep the core temps well under a programed temp although this number has been stretched to not exceed 100c right lol
But boost timers keep the boost clocks just a couple minutes 144 seconds or some silly ass number which won't last all the way through cb23 or now 24 before dropping.
It's just a numbers game e-peen I believe is the saying.
 
But how many people are going to 6Ghz all-core? Remember, 6Ghz is an overclock that requires a voltage bump.
You think it's 225w for 6 GHz all core? :eek:

Not a chance, more like 450w.
That's probably for single or lightly-threaded app, 1 to 2 threads.

The T and non K bins are worse than K bins, so its power draw would be even worse than that in 14900k.
 
You think it's 225w for 6 GHz all core? :eek:

Not a chance, more like 450w.
That's probably for single or lightly-threaded app, 1 to 2 threads.
Can we be done with this silliness? Context is important people. Very few who buy these 65W locked variants will be OCing them, assuming they can. No one will be getting these chips anywhere near 150w, let alone 225w or more..

The T and non K bins are worse than K bins, so its power draw would be even worse than that in 14900k.
Exactly! That's my point and that is why these CPU models are going to be great for those wanting near top tier performance without all the hassle and heat.
 
Last edited:
Can we be done with this silliness? Context is important people. Very few who buy these 65W locked variants will be OCing them, assuming they can. No one will be getting these chips anywhere near 150w, let alone 225w or more..


Exactly! That's my point and that is why these CPU models are going to be great for those wanting near top tier performance without all the hassle and heat.
Have you lost it? It’s already rated for 225w without an overclock. It will never see 5.0 sustained all-core because to do that would take those 225w constantly, which is exactly what you don’t want. It’s going to lose massive amounts of all core performance in sustained loads.

mahirzukic is saying the opposite of what you are. That the non-K will be *worse* for power at higher clocks because they’re just parts that failed at being a K model.
Are you trolling? Am I going crazy?
 
I don't think you are crazy. He said that I (we) are missing the context. We are not though.

It has low base clock of 2Ghz at a low wattage of 65w, and a pretty high PL2 wattage of 220w at 5.8 Ghz. How high of a sustained all-core clock can be had at 220w is not yet known, but it is certainly lower than what could be had with a 14900k, which is about 5 Ghz all-core.
 
As further support for this argument, here’s a power-limited 13900k, which is basically a 13900, which is basically a 14900. It is losing over 20% performance going from ~250w to ~65w. That 20% may be worth losing for a 75% power reduction but I wouldn’t call it ‘near top tier performance’ anymore.


Once the 14900 non-k is out I would love to see a comparison somewhere even if it isn’t a full review. I think finding a chip’s efficiency zone isn’t often done and is still a viable test for things like NAS and home servers.
 
As further support for this argument, here’s a power-limited 13900k, which is basically a 13900, which is basically a 14900. It is losing over 20% performance going from ~250w to ~65w. That 20% may be worth losing for a 75% power reduction but I wouldn’t call it ‘near top tier performance’ anymore.


Once the 14900 non-k is out I would love to see a comparison somewhere even if it isn’t a full review. I think finding a chip’s efficiency zone isn’t often done and is still a viable test for things like NAS and home servers.
I would suspect that 14900 non-k would have a similar v-f (voltage-frequency) curve like 14900k just pulled downwards a little bit, meaning lower clocks for the same voltage, or higher voltage for the same frequency due to being worse bins than K bins.

That might translate into 22 - 25% lost performance compared to 14900k.

Which would still put it in
That 20% (25% in this case) may be worth losing for a 75% power reduction but I wouldn’t call it ‘near top tier performance’ anymore.

Not to call it bad, it's just a different processor for different crowd, nothing wrong with that.
 
Have you lost it? It’s already rated for 225w without an overclock. It will never see 5.0 sustained all-core because to do that would take those 225w constantly, which is exactly what you don’t want. It’s going to lose massive amounts of all core performance in sustained loads.

mahirzukic is saying the opposite of what you are. That the non-K will be *worse* for power at higher clocks because they’re just parts that failed at being a K model.
Are you trolling? Am I going crazy?
:rolleyes:
I don't think you are crazy. He said that I (we) are missing the context. We are not though.

It has low base clock of 2Ghz at a low wattage of 65w, and a pretty high PL2 wattage of 220w at 5.8 Ghz. How high of a sustained all-core clock can be had at 220w is not yet known, but it is certainly lower than what could be had with a 14900k, which is about 5 Ghz all-core.
Considering that none of these new models have been tested and benchmarked yet, we don't and can't know their nominal operating specs.
 
Back
Top