Tuesday, September 5th 2023

Intel Core i9-14900K Tested in Geekbench & CPU-Z

by
T0@st
 Discuss (72 Comments)
An alleged Intel Core i9-14900K engineering sample CPU was tested out recently in CPU-Z, with results leaked onto the internet earlier this week—courtesy of wnxod—978 points in single-core and 18117.5 points in multi-core. This particular sample of the flagship Raptor Lake Refresh processor managed to surpass its predecessors quite handily—with 9.7% SC/8.4% MC gains over the i9-13900K (Raptor Lake), and an uplift of 19.4% SC/59% MC over the i9-12900K (Alder Lake). Thanks to the i9-14900K's Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) capability, it is able to hit a maximum 6.0 GHz clock speed (with P-cores) on 1.385 volts according to the leaked CPU-Z info.

Another example was put through the ringer via Geekbench 6.1.0 on Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 64-bit. The database entry popped up this morning, and several PC hardware news outlets were quick to pounce on the figures. In terms of single core performance, the benched Core i9-14900K achieved a score of 3121—blowing past a previous record holder—3089 set by a Core i9-13900KS CPU. Intel's 14th generation contender looks to be the fastest single-threaded chip out there, despite a less than optimal test system configuration—16 GB of DDR5-4800 memory on a Biostar Z790A-Silver mainboard, with Windows running a balanced power plan. The Core i9-14900K's multi-core score lagged behind its main rival—19032 versus 21678 (respectively). It would be nice to witness some nicer test builds materialize as we get closer to Intel's Innovation September event, and the rumored launch of K-series Raptor Lake Refresh processors around late October.
The Geekbench database entry and VideoCardz comparison chart are visible below:
Sources: VideoCardz #1, VideoCardz #2, Wccftech

Related News

Add your own comment

72 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900K Tested in Geekbench & CPU-Z

#51
yannus1
RandallFlaggWell, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.
Hardcore gamers do productivity ? 1% ? They sometimes watch movies, though and I don't think they need extra cores for that.
RandallFlaggWell, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.
Average users don't feel a Java pain while using their PC, nor SQL pain, nor Blender rendering pain and the like. Some rare users fit in this niche scenario and its fine.
Posted on Reply
#52
lexluthermiester
RandallFlaggStill working on those (poor) critical thinking skills Lex? Let me help you.
Oh, please will you? I mean, go slow...
RandallFlaggStep 1 would be to actually look at the benchmarks in the articles you link to.

You're welcome.

13900K - more than twice as fast, 13600K 50% faster :


MySQL - 13900K is 40% faster, 13700K is 24% faster :



Java: 13900K is 75% faster, a 13600K is 22% faster.



.Net web hosting - pretty important for someone making\debugging\testing MVC web apps on their PC
13900K is 87.4% faster, 13600K is 21.7% faster :


7-Zip decompress, 13900K is 68.2% faster, 13700K is 27% faster. This one favors AMD, it's even worse with WinRAR.



AES, used almost everywhere, 13900K is 84.4% faster, 13600K is 11% faster :

Oh... Ok... So what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. It's misleading, narrowminded and disingenuous. Such is the trappings of small thinking. It is of benefit to no-one.

Now look at all of the OTHER benchmark results in that review. Yes, yes.

Go on, we'll wait...
Posted on Reply
#53
RandallFlagg
lexluthermiesterOh, please will you? I mean, go slow...


Oh... Ok... So what you're doing there is called cherry-picking. It's misleading, narrowminded and disingenuous. Such is the trappings of small thinking. It is of benefit to no-one.

Now look at all of the OTHER benchmark results in that review. Yes, yes.

Go on, we'll wait...
I have obviously already looked. I know you're a troll Lex, but do try a little harder.
Posted on Reply
#54
MarsM4N
RandallFlaggWell, after reading all those links to the 7800X3D review, I'll just say that it's poorly balanced. When I look at a fairly common resolution for higher end gaming, 1440p, it's a whopping 2.8% faster than a 13900K. And that's if you fork up for a 4090.

By contrast, when you look at most of the productivity scenarios that same 7800X3D is getting walloped by much cheaper CPUs and demolished by similar priced ones. Many situations where the difference is in the vicinity of 20%. And they're not edge cases, java for example a 12700K beats the PBO'd 7800X3D. Java is used all over the place. Any kind of development, database, modelling / science software - this is a chip that often performs alongside Zen 3.

So yeah, if the *only* thing you are concerned with is gaming *and* you have a 4090, then the 7800X3D is an easy win.

But I don't really think there are many people around who actually have that use case. Even hard core gamers like to do other things.

IMO it's not worth it to sacrifice double-digits % performance on multiple productivity use cases to get a paltry 2.8% FPS bump at 1440P with a 4090. These are just one trick pony chips, interesting yes but there's a huge trade-off.
Pretty sure there are way more G4M3R's out there than those who do "hardcore productivity" all day. ;) And it's not like a 7800X3D can't do productivity stuff. It might take a few seconds longer to complete. Just get a cup of tea.

Games that can make use of the X3D get a massive boost:

Power consumption / gaming. 7800X3D (49W) vs. 13900K (143W):
Posted on Reply
#55
JustBenching
MarsM4NPretty sure there are way more G4M3R's out there than those who do "hardcore productivity" all day. ;) And it's not like a 7800X3D can't do productivity stuff. It might take a few seconds longer to complete. Just get a cup of tea.

Games that can make use of the X3D get a massive boost:

Power consumption / gaming. 7800X3D (49W) vs. 13900K (143W):
A few seconds longer? I mean come on, a 13900k is twice as fast in anything that scales with cores.

The 7800x 3d is a good gaming CPU, but pretty terrible on anything else. I mean it's mostly slower than an i5 13600k. I mainly game on my PC but i'd never buy something that underwhelming. The 7950x 3d looks much more appealing to me.
Posted on Reply
#56
MarsM4N
fevgatosThe 7950x 3d looks much more appealing to me.
Surely a 7950X3D is the better "allrounder". :) You get what you pay. But only if you actually need it.
Posted on Reply
#57
JustBenching
MarsM4NSurely a 7950X3D is the better "allrounder". :) You get what you pay. But only if you actually need it.
Yes but currently if I'm spending 450 the 13700k is a no brainer. I'll lose 6% gaming performance at 320p with a 4090, but I get a much faster cpu with way better longevity.
Posted on Reply
#58
MarsM4N
fevgatosYes but currently if I'm spending 450 the 13700k is a no brainer. I'll lose 6% gaming performance at 320p with a 4090, but I get a much faster cpu with way better longevity.
If gaming is not your priority, sure. :) So you're buying a 4090 to play at "320p"?
Posted on Reply
#59
JustBenching
MarsM4NIf gaming is not your priority, sure. :) So you're buying a 4090 to play at "320p"?
Exactly, I'm not. The 7800x 3d is as fast as the 13600k in normal resolutions, much lower in everything else and almost 50% more expensive. Sounds like a horrible deal to me
Posted on Reply
#60
lexluthermiester
fevgatosThe 7800x 3d is as fast as the 13600k in normal resolutions
The 7800X3D handily beats the 13600k in ALL resolutions.
fevgatosmuch lower in everything else
No it isn't. You need to read that review again and pay careful attention to the following;
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/27.html

You're either deliberately spewing misinformation or you are not contextually comprehending the information presented in reviews. Regardless, just stop.
Posted on Reply
#61
JustBenching
lexluthermiesterThe 7800X3D handily beats the 13600k in ALL resolutions.

No it isn't. You need to read that review again and pay careful attention to the following;
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/27.html

You're either deliberately spewing misinformation or you are not contextually comprehending the information presented in reviews. Regardless, just stop.
Handily beats? There is a 2.4% difference between a 13600k and a 7800x 3d at 4k. Yeap incredible, I'll pay 50% extra for that while being slower in everything else. Where do I sign?
Posted on Reply
#62
lexluthermiester
fevgatosHandily beats? There is a 2.4% difference between a 13600k and a 7800x 3d at 4k. Yeap incredible, I'll pay 50% extra for that while being slower in everything else. Where do I sign?
Seriously?
720p 100%-84.9%=15.1%
1080p 100%-85.9%=14.1%
1440p 100%-89.9%=10.1%
2160p 100%-97.3%=2.7%
Those are the numbers CLEARLY shown. Where is your 2.4% coming from eh? Or do you not know how to math?
Posted on Reply
#63
JustBenching
lexluthermiesterSeriously?
720p 100%-84.9%=15.1%
1080p 100%-85.9%=14.1%
1440p 100%-89.9%=10.1%
2160p 100%-97.3%=2.7%
Those are the numbers CLEARLY shown. Where is your 2.4% coming from eh? Or do you not know how to math?
Ah, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k. I'll buy a slower cpu for 50% extra money for 2.7% gaming performance with a 4090. Lol, are you serious? I can't tell.
Posted on Reply
#64
lexluthermiester
fevgatosAh, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k.
Such a number is NOT an indication of a CPU limitation. 720p performances show such a metric. 2160p(4k) is a GPU bottlenecking situation. So quoting 4k gaming performance as a qualification for the basis of CPU overall value is not only cherry-picking at it's worst, but it seems like deliberate dishonestly..
fevgatosLol, are you serious? I can't tell.
Look in a mirror when you say that.
Posted on Reply
#65
MarsM4N
fevgatosAh, gotcha, it's 2.7% at 4k. I'll buy a slower cpu for 50% extra money for 2.7% gaming performance with a 4090. Lol, are you serious? I can't tell.
Obviously the performance differences are getting smaller at higher resolutions where you're running into the GPU bottleneck. :rolleyes: What's next? Are you coming around the corner with 8k benchmarks to further cement your baseless claims? You're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.
Posted on Reply
#66
lexluthermiester
MarsM4NYou're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.
Right? I can't tell which one.
Posted on Reply
#67
JustBenching
MarsM4NObviously the performance differences are getting smaller at higher resolutions where you're running into the GPU bottleneck. :rolleyes: What's next? Are you coming around the corner with 8k benchmarks to further cement your baseless claims? You're either trolling or you don't understand how benchmarking works.
A moment ago you asked me if I'm playing on 320p... Now you are flipping the script again. Dude... The 7800x 3d is great, but it should cost half of what it currently does. At the current prices the 13600k or the 13700k is a no brainer.
lexluthermiesterSuch a number is NOT an indication of a CPU limitation. 720p performances show such a metric. 2160p(4k) is a GPU bottlenecking situation. So quoting 4k gaming performance as a qualification for the basis of CPU overall value is not only cherry-picking at it's worst, but it seems like deliberate dishonestly..

Look in a mirror when you say that.
I was using 320p numbers 3 posts ago and marsman told me I shouldn't cause you don't game on 320p with a 4090. Now we are changing the argument again... Guys make up your mind?
Posted on Reply
#68
MarsM4N
fevgatosA moment ago you asked me if I'm playing on 320p... Now you are flipping the script again. Dude... The 7800x 3d is great, but it should cost half of what it currently does. At the current prices the 13600k or the 13700k is a no brainer.
You said you're gaming at 320p with a 4090, wasn't me. :laugh: Also nobody said the 13600K and 13700K are a bad deal, but they just stink in gaming compared to the 7800X3D. As well as the 13900K. Fact.

I guess it's time for bed, mate. Take a nap.
Posted on Reply
#69
JustBenching
MarsM4NYou said you're gaming at 320p with a 4090, wasn't me. :laugh: Also nobody said the 13600K and 13700K are a bad deal, but they just stink in gaming compared to the 7800X3D. As well as the 13900K. Fact.

I guess it's time for bed, mate. Take a nap.
No, I said that even at 320p the difference between a 13700K and a 7800x 3d is negligible.
Posted on Reply
#70
lexluthermiester
fevgatosNo, I said that even at 320p the difference between a 13700K and a 7800x 3d is negligible.
Ok, so you are being a troll. Fair enough.
Posted on Reply
#71
JustBenching
lexluthermiesterOk, so you are being a troll. Fair enough.
Yes, I'm the troll for suggesting a cpu that's slower in everything bar 320p gaming and costs 50% more isn't a great value. Rofl
Posted on Reply
#72
chrcoluk
MarsM4NNo matter how much Intel squeezes out of their chips with extra power & clocks, AMD's X3D chips will still wipe the floor with them in gaming. :laugh: And for half the price & a fraction of power consumption.


Btw. is 1.385 volts a stock voltage for Intel chips?
The stock is based on binning quality of chip, I dont know what the median value is.

The inconsistencies on bios quality makes it hard as well as some bios's seem to apply an offset to the SVID.

Based on reports I seen, if you have a RL with a 1.385 stock, thats an indicator of a lottery loser, pretty high.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 12:27 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts