Intel Core i3-14100

[Lew Zealand]

Is the spec chart wrong then ? Wizzard clearly states this is a Alder die yet the chart shows Raptor ?

The column could be labeled as "Generation" as Intel also lists the 14100 as Raptor Lake, as well as the Core i5-13400F in W1zz's chart which Intel also claims as Raptor though those cores are Alder-specced too.

 

[Qwerty101]

The i3-14100 is actually nice and cool running CPU for light everyday tasks today… but.

It locks you in a practically end of life platform. And worse with the latest intel issues, a platform where you can not confidently upgrade your processor to a higher powered SKU if need be.

If you go with low end AM5 CPU you get the ability to upgrade to a massively more powerful model later on. And better yet you can access processor generations that are yet to come (probably quite a bit better).

 

[Chrispy_]

Is the spec chart wrong then ? Wizzard clearly states this is a Alder die yet the chart shows Raptor ?

Lower-tier SKUs weren't updated for 13th/14th gen. They're just Alder Lake rebrands apparently.

AFAIK, the "new" Raptor Lake-S offering for 13th Gen was an 8P-16E part and all i9 and i7 are clearly Raptor Lake-S since they have too many E-cores to be Alder Lake dies. What's unclear to me is whether the 13th Gen i5 is actually Raptor Lake-S cut down, or old Alder Lake H0 die instead. L2 cache sizes are a clue so it's possible that the 13600K is the lowest-tier Raptor Lake die and everything below that is Alder Lake rebranded.

I'm guessing and haven't searched it extensively but that guess is based on my fuzzy memory of 13th gen rebranding Alder Lake as a news article and the unexplained L2 cache size differences that change between the 13600K(F) and the 13600 in this chart....

List of Intel processors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bug]

Reading the review, my eyes were drawn to how much mid-range CPUs have progressed. Just look at 14600k vs 11600k or 7600 vs 3600. It's amazing.

 

[Nostras]

Pricing in Europe of this thing is downright awful. 7500F is cheaper. Although it admittedly lacks an iGPU the amount of raw performance you get for that price in comparison is nothing to scoff at.
This chip has no reason for existing for this price when the 5600 and 12400F are cheaper and the 12400 is the same price.

Lower-tier SKUs weren't updated for 13th/14th gen. They're just Alder Lake rebrands apparently.

AFAIK, the "new" Raptor Lake-S offering for 13th Gen was an 8P-16E part and all i9 and i7 are clearly Raptor Lake-S since they have too many E-cores to be Alder Lake dies. What's unclear to me is whether the 13th Gen i5 is actually Raptor Lake-S cut down, or old Alder Lake H0 die instead. L2 cache sizes are a clue so it's possible that the 13600K is the lowest-tier Raptor Lake die and everything below that is Alder Lake rebranded.

Pretty sure cache size is a telltale sign of what generation in practice is at least. Most of the performance boons you're getting in gaming is the larger cache and extra clocks, not IPC. Considering anything below 1x600K has the same cache size as their Alder Lake contemporaries and mere mild clock bumps this discussion is a bit moot anyways.

Intel Core CPU Clock-for-Clock Benchmark Test

A clock-for-clock (IPC) test of Intel LGA 1700 processors: we're comparing the 12th-gen, 13th-gen, and "new" 14th-gen CPU models to offer insight into their architectural improvements, if any.

www.techspot.com

 

[Chrispy_]

Reading the review, my eyes were drawn to how much mid-range CPUs have progressed. Just look at 14600k vs 11600k or 7600 vs 3600. It's amazing.

yeah, it wasn't that long ago that the 3600 was an outstanding leap forward for the mainstream market at $200 and now it languishes right near the bottom of most review charts.

 

[Qwerty101]

Reading the review, my eyes were drawn to how much mid-range CPUs have progressed. Just look at 14600k vs 11600k or 7600 vs 3600. It's amazing.

If you remember the Pentium ll, Coppermine and so on times.

that was some seriously quick progress. A 5 year old pc was practically garbage compared to the new releases.

Now you can slap a Linux distro on an ancient Core 2 Quad, 16GB RAM with an SSD and have a perfectly usable internet machine.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Pretty bad, especially when compared to 8500G, which is superior in every way.

Aside from the fact that this is ~2.5 year old 12th Gen i3 rebadged (and one of the bones I have to pick with Intel this generation is reselling Alder Lake parts as Raptor and even going as far as bestowing this code name upon these refreshed units), the 8500G's higher price, higher platform cost, restriction to DDR5 and lack of expandability result in a system which cannot quite keep up when fully assembled and paired with a dedicated GPU.

This is not a very good processor, but it's not pretentious like the 8500G is.

Is the spec chart wrong then ? Wizzard clearly states this is a Alder die yet the chart shows Raptor ?

This is an Alder Lake part which has been rebranded by Intel as Raptor Lake. It does not contain Raptor Cove cores, and it is not a Raptor Lake processor - it's that just in name. Intel's lie.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

What is anyone opinion of difference in idle power consumption between 13100 and 14100? I can't get a clear picture of this as the 13400f seems here to have a higher idle
which normally with the 13100 should be top in idling pc.

When viewing attached picture is it correct to assume the 14100 idles at 2,36 Watt?

 

[Ayhamb99]

This CPU just reaffirms that the 12100F is still the budget king for people with very tight budgets, especially since Intel B660 boards are much cheaper and can be used with DDR4 in comparison with the 8500G and B650 combo.

Although it is hard to recommend Intel nowadays given the current fiasco.

 

[cellar door]

No editor's choice of this sucka - I'm proud of you guys!

 

[yfn_ratchet]

I can't really see this winning the 'an computer' segment at this price, nevermind it winning the middle hundreds gaming PC segment to its older brother the 12100(F) or a 5600. If this was like $90 and the 300 went down to like $70 I think this could have been groundbreaking, but as it is it's asking way too much for way too little.

 

[tussinman]

yeah, it wasn't that long ago that the 3600 was an outstanding leap forward for the mainstream market at $200 and now it languishes right near the bottom of most review charts.

Not to diss the 3600 but chart wise it will look even more dated since it wasn't even faster than the 2017 8600k on this site.

Don't get me wrong, it had amazing price, good power consumption, and was a drop in upgrade to an existing platform but it wasn't a trend setter chart wise.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Not to diss the 3600 but chart wise it will look even more dated since it wasn't even faster than the 2017 8600k on this site.

Don't get me wrong, it had amazing price, good power consumption, and was a drop in upgrade to an existing platform but it wasn't a trend setter chart wise.

It didn't need to be. It was $200 to the 8600K's $350 and was all of 5% slower at 1080p while being 14% faster in applications.

It clearly led in value which was always its role, and that's even before the inability to drop an 8600k into an i5-7400 socket.

 

[sLowEnd]

This product ($151) doesn't really make sense with the 12100 ($116) and 12400 ($139) still on the market

Edit: Added US Newegg prices as of time of posting

 

[tussinman]

It didn't need to be.

I'm not saying it needed to be. I noted the low price and drop in ability was the selling point in my post. I was merely pointing out that reality was (at least on this site) it offers midrange performance by 7-year-old standards so it will look even more dated on those specific charts in question.

It was $200 to the 8600K's $350 and was all of 5% slower at 1080p while being 14% faster in applications.

You might be confusing it with the 8700k. The 8600 was like $250 for the unlocked model and around $220-230 for the locked model. The 8 core 8700/8700k was the one that was around $330-350 price range.

 

[Lew Zealand]

You might be confusing it with the 8700k. The 8600 was like $250 for the unlocked model and around $220-230 for the locked model. The 8 core 8700/8700k was the one that was around $330-350 price range.

I grabbed the price from the R5 3600 review and the price there must be a typo as it's listed at $350. It's $260 in the i5-8600k review, my mistake. I should've noticed that as my first gaming CPU was the i5-8400 at $180 and there's no way the unlocked i5 could be that much more.

 

[R0H1T]

the 8500G's higher price, higher platform cost, restriction to DDR5 and lack of expandability result in a system which cannot quite keep up when fully assembled and paired with a dedicated GPU.

And it can be upgraded to zen6 (quite likely) you sure about that point? DDR5 isn't a negative today as it was say 1-2 years back!

 

[Dr. Dro]

And it can be upgraded to zen6 (quite likely) you sure about that point? DDR5 isn't a negative today as it was say 1-2 years back!

Positive, I maintain my opinion from the review thread, at $160 the 8500G is just highway robbery. AMD's done it all wrong, Phoenix APUs should have been released for - and alongside a spiritual successor to Socket AM1 platform

 

[R0H1T]

Just for the chips alone you're probably right, prices vary region to region so you could get it much cheaper a few months down the line. But "platform costs" are cheaper & have been for AMD for a good 1.5~2 decades now, possibly including the LGA 775 era!

 

[_roman_]

The 14100 is actually a very capable gaming CPU, which can be paired with any graphics card—it will run 1440p and 4K just fine.

I disagree to be honest, that this CPU is WHQD gaming ready. Below my experience.

I own a Ryzen 7600X, ASUS Prime X670-P Mainboard, Powercolor Radeon Hellhound RX7800XT, ASUS 27" PA278QV factory calibrated WHQD freesync max 75 Hz Monitor, W11 Pro - only used for gaming.

I experienced with those "garbage" "free" "giveaway" games from AMD (I decided to not buy games anymore because of the DRM / launcher / windows operating system restraint)

• the Last of Us
• avatar Pandora
• Star wars Jedi Survivor

That my hardware nearly hits those 75 FPS in WHQD. I do utilize the Freesync range from my calibrated monitor, I think its from 36-75 Hz. I'm well aware of that my hardware is entry class and therefore not more can be expected.

I mostly play those epic games giveaway. Recently some free games from the free amazon prime trial giveaway from the amazon gaming section.

 

[RaceT3ch]

Imagine the OC's you could get if this thing didn't have a locked BCLK

 

[JustBenching]

I don't get why we are still stuck at 4 core at that price range. Intel has given plenty of cores to every other segment except the low range.

The i3-14100 is actually nice and cool running CPU for light everyday tasks today… but.

It locks you in a practically end of life platform. And worse with the latest intel issues, a platform where you can not confidently upgrade your processor to a higher powered SKU if need be.

If you go with low end AM5 CPU you get the ability to upgrade to a massively more powerful model later on. And better yet you can access processor generations that are yet to come (probably quite a bit better).

It's not end of line, new cpus are coming out in 2025. And if the 5 year warranty you get on the high end i9s, no issue upgrading to them either.

 

[Godrilla]

Does this get a 2 year warranty boost as well?

 

[Nostras]

Does this get a 2 year warranty boost as well?

For what reason? It is neither affected by the voltage issue nor the oxidation issue.
We can be all like hurr intel lmao sucky sucky but I'd expect a bit better from a TPU forum poster.