Friday, December 29th 2023

Intel's non-K 65W 14th Gen Core Processors Listed on European Retailer

CES by
btarunr
 Discuss (11 Comments)
Ahead of its rumored January 8 announcement, various unreleased 14th Gen Intel Core desktop processors got listed on European e-tailer CoolMod. These are non-K (65 W) processor models. The lineup begins with the Core i3-14100F, a 4P+0E processor without integrated graphics, priced at €124.94. If you need the iGPU, it will cost you at least €25 more, for the i3-14100 at €149.96. The most hotly anticipated chip among the lineup, the Core i5-14400F is priced at €219.95. A notch up is the i5-14500, going for a steep €249.95. Interestingly, the store has the i5-14400 (witth the iGPU) listed at the same exact price. There is no i5-14600 listed.

The Core i7-14700F is priced at €384.95. This chip has an 8P+12E configuration, which is the same as the i7-14700K, but with lower base frequency, and tighter power limits. It lacks an iGPU, and if you need one, then the i7-14700 is listed at €409.95. At the upper crust of the lineup you have the Core i9-14900F at €574.96, which has the full 8P+16E core configuration, but lower clock speeds than the i9-14900K, and no iGPU, which can be had for €25 more, with the i9-14900 at €599.95. All prices are inclusive of taxes.
Sources: CoolMod, momomo_us (Twitter)

Related News

Add your own comment

11 Comments on Intel's non-K 65W 14th Gen Core Processors Listed on European Retailer

#1
Onasi
Honestly, I am not sure why they even bothered? The 14900 non-K seems like a completely pointless SKU, for example. The 14900K is only faster than its predecessor due to more power being fed to it and (assumedly) tighter binning. So a 13900KS, essentially. Seeing how a 13900 also was a 65W part and had the exact same die, would there even be a performance difference between the two?
At least with the other CPUs in the lineup you get more E-cores, so that’s nice, I suppose. But the 14900 is genuinely baffling to me in its existence.
Posted on Reply
#2
Sabotaged_Enigma
Finally finished printing number "14" to cover "12" or "13"? What took them so long?
Posted on Reply
#3
FoulOnWhite
So glad i sat on my 12th till 1851 comes around, fingers crossed it was worth the wait.
Posted on Reply
#4
MaMoo
OnasiHonestly, I am not sure why they even bothered? The 14900 non-K seems like a completely pointless SKU, for example. The 14900K is only faster than its predecessor due to more power being fed to it and (assumedly) tighter binning. So a 13900KS, essentially. Seeing how a 13900 also was a 65W part and had the exact same die, would there even be a performance difference between the two?
At least with the other CPUs in the lineup you get more E-cores, so that’s nice, I suppose. But the 14900 is genuinely baffling to me in its existence.
They are not cheaper than the K models, so my guess is that they are for system integrators who want a lower TDP to get away with system, CPU and power cooling requirements. I think Intel's TDP is tied to recommended heatsink capacity. This way, OEMs can stuff a newest and shinyest chip into their compact towers and charge a markup.
Posted on Reply
#5
Darmok N Jalad
OnasiHonestly, I am not sure why they even bothered? The 14900 non-K seems like a completely pointless SKU, for example. The 14900K is only faster than its predecessor due to more power being fed to it and (assumedly) tighter binning. So a 13900KS, essentially. Seeing how a 13900 also was a 65W part and had the exact same die, would there even be a performance difference between the two?
At least with the other CPUs in the lineup you get more E-cores, so that’s nice, I suppose. But the 14900 is genuinely baffling to me in its existence.
It’s for system builders to update their stickers for their next line of PCs. They can’t sell “last generation” CPUs alongside “current generation,” even if they are the exact same thing.
Posted on Reply
#6
Lionheart
These seem expensive or am I high?

Honestly Intel buyers nothing beats the 12600k & 13600k, Fantastic all rounders for the price.
Posted on Reply
#7
watzupken
These "65W" Intel i7 and i9 processors are so far off from the actual power requirement that its very misleading. Sure you can limit it to 65W, but at a significant cost to performance. As an Alder Lake user, I find Intel's strategy of spamming cheap E-cores very troubling. These cores are much cheaper to produce, but Intel charges quite a lot when moving up the SKUs where the P-core counts don't differ by much. So other than some better binned P-cores, one is mostly getting just more E-cores as they "upgrade". And it does not look like Intel will change this strategy looking at Meteor Lake. I guess in the near future we may see SKUs with 6 P-cores, and 24/ 32 E-cores at the rate Intel is spamming E-cores. As always, do we need that many "efficient" cores?
Posted on Reply
#8
MaMoo
watzupkenThese "65W" Intel i7 and i9 processors are so far off from the actual power requirement that its very misleading. Sure you can limit it to 65W, but at a significant cost to performance. As an Alder Lake user, I find Intel's strategy of spamming cheap E-cores very troubling. These cores are much cheaper to produce, but Intel charges quite a lot when moving up the SKUs where the P-core counts don't differ by much. So other than some better binned P-cores, one is mostly getting just more E-cores as they "upgrade". And it does not look like Intel will change this strategy looking at Meteor Lake. I guess in the near future we may see SKUs with 6 P-cores, and 24/ 32 E-cores at the rate Intel is spamming E-cores. As always, do we need that many "efficient" cores?
The base clocks are really low. Those cores are power starved. You should see the PL2 to PL1 ratios of the mobile chips. FYI there are also 35w versions of these chips.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vader
watzupkenThese "65W" Intel i7 and i9 processors are so far off from the actual power requirement that its very misleading. Sure you can limit it to 65W, but at a significant cost to performance. As an Alder Lake user, I find Intel's strategy of spamming cheap E-cores very troubling. These cores are much cheaper to produce, but Intel charges quite a lot when moving up the SKUs where the P-core counts don't differ by much. So other than some better binned P-cores, one is mostly getting just more E-cores as they "upgrade". And it does not look like Intel will change this strategy looking at Meteor Lake. I guess in the near future we may see SKUs with 6 P-cores, and 24/ 32 E-cores at the rate Intel is spamming E-cores. As always, do we need that many "efficient" cores?
These chips are crazy efficient at 65 W though, almost ryzen level. Arguably not the sweet spot, but not far off either. Anyway, I heavily doubt these will be used with default power settings, even in OEM implementations.
Posted on Reply
#10
Wirko
MaMooI think Intel's TDP is tied to recommended heatsink capacity.
That's exactly it! Or used to be.
Posted on Reply
#11
Gica
watzupkenThese "65W" Intel i7 and i9 processors are so far off from the actual power requirement that its very misleading. Sure you can limit it to 65W, but at a significant cost to performance. As an Alder Lake user, I find Intel's strategy of spamming cheap E-cores very troubling. These cores are much cheaper to produce, but Intel charges quite a lot when moving up the SKUs where the P-core counts don't differ by much. So other than some better binned P-cores, one is mostly getting just more E-cores as they "upgrade". And it does not look like Intel will change this strategy looking at Meteor Lake. I guess in the near future we may see SKUs with 6 P-cores, and 24/ 32 E-cores at the rate Intel is spamming E-cores. As always, do we need that many "efficient" cores?
First of all, AMD 65W TDP = 65 x 1.35 = 88W maximum real power consumption.
So, an Intel processor must be set to 88W Power Limit for the same power consumption. It is enough to keep its single core performance intact and fight with the top class in multicore. Thanks to these E-cores, i5 competes with ryzen 7 and i7 with ryzen 9.
Below are some benchmarks with the i7-14700K@88W. If you find a ryzen 7 that achieves the same performance at the same power consumption, hats off to you.
From what I've seen so far in reviews, ryzen 7 is fighting with i5-13500/13600 non k in multi-core. And he loses many times.
I don't know what you have with these E-cores because they are the main culprits that AMD can no longer sell ryzen 5 for $300+, ryzen 7 for $400+ and ryzen 9 for $750.
Something says that AMD is also working on a similar solution.

Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 04:27 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts