Tuesday, February 6th 2024

Intel Core i9-14900T Geekbenched - Comparable to AMD Ryzen 9 7900

Intel's Core i9-14900T processor was "officially" released last month alongside an expanded population of "Raptor Lake Refresh" products—the T-class alternative to Team Blue's flagship desktop Core i9-14900 CPU is a less glamorous prospect, hence almost zero press coverage and tech reviews. Its apparent lack of visibility is not helped by non-existent availability at retail, despite inclusion in Team Blue's second wave of 14th Generation Core processors (Marketing Status = Launched). The Core i9-14900 (non-K) is readily obtainable around the globe, as a lower-power alternative to the ever greedy Core i9-14900K, but their T-class SKU sibling takes frugality to another level. TPU's resident CPU tester, W1zzard, implemented six distinct power limit settings during a i9-14900K supplemental experiment, with the lowest being 35 W—coincidentally, matching the i9-14900T's default base power.

His simulated findings were not encouraging, to say the least, but late last week BenchLeaks noticed that a lone test system had gauged the T-class part's efficiency-oriented processing prowess. Geekbench 6.2.2 results were generated by an ASRock Z790 PG-ITX/TB4 build (with 64 GB of 5586 MT/s DDR5 SDRAM)—scoring 3019 in the overall single-core category, and 16385 in multi-core stakes. The latter score indicates a 22% performance penalty when referenced against Tom Hardware's Geekbenched i9-14900K sample. The publication reckons that these figures place Intel's Core i9-14900T CPU in good company—notably AMD's Ryzen 9 7900 processor, one of the company's trio of 65 W "non-X" SKUs. Last March, W1zzard was suitably impressed by his review sample's "fantastic energy efficiency"—the Geekbench 6 official scoreboard awards it 2823 (single-core) and 16750 (multi-core) based on aggregated data from multiple submissions.

The Tom's Hardware analysis of the rival chips stated: "Though the Core i9-14900T has an overall performance advantage thanks to its single-core solid score, it would appear to have higher power consumption, uses a platform that won't receive new CPUs, and has an MSRP of $549 compared to the $400 that the Ryzen 9 7900 often goes for." The AMD processor is the better value proposition, and is widely available at retail outlets in the West—the article's conclusion notes that the Core i9-14900T SKU is not listed by any North American merchants.
Sources: BenchLeaks Tweet, Geekbench Browser, Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

5 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900T Geekbenched - Comparable to AMD Ryzen 9 7900

#1
phints
Intel deseperately needs to get desktop parts out on Intel 4 lithography. They have fallen hopelessly behind the rest of the industry with 13th/14th gen. Looking forward to what 15th gen offers.
Posted on Reply
#2
pressing on
phintsIntel deseperately needs to get desktop parts out on Intel 4 lithography. They have fallen hopelessly behind the rest of the industry with 13th/14th gen. Looking forward to what 15th gen offers.
There is no 15th gen. The gens were the monolithic chips. Meteor Lake is called Series 1, Arrow Lake might be Series 2.

The T CPUs like the 14900T tend to be sold by OEMs as part of complete systems, it is not usual to find them in the retail channel.
Posted on Reply
#3
kondamin
phintsIntel deseperately needs to get desktop parts out on Intel 4 lithography. They have fallen hopelessly behind the rest of the industry with 13th/14th gen. Looking forward to what 15th gen offers.
Difference isn't big enough to matter as long as it's only TSMC that can provide performance silicon.
Posted on Reply
#4
Wirko
Regardless of price and availability, what's the point of a desktop processor with a maximum number of cores and threads but with extreme power constraints?

Even the 14600T seems a far more sensible choice - at half the price.
Posted on Reply
#5
pressing on
WirkoRegardless of price and availability, what's the point of a desktop processor with a maximum number of cores and threads but with extreme power constraints?

Even the 14600T seems a far more sensible choice - at half the price.
The 35W TDP is the whole point, with the associated power consumption and cooling requirement. Corporate IT departments with thousands of desktop PCs don't look much beyond this. There is obviously a user case for a 8P + 16E processor otherwise they would not be buying them. Businesses can write off the cost of computer equipment against taxes so the incentive to buy cheaper is not really there.
Posted on Reply
May 21st, 2024 22:56 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts