Intel Core i5-14600K and Core i7-14700K Show up in the Wild

[TheLostSwede]

Multiple leakers on Twitter/X have posted screenshots or pictures of Intel's upcoming Core i5-14600K CPU and it appears that some earlier rumours about this specific SKU weren't entirely accurate. It was believed that the Core i5-14600K was to get a core bump over the Core i5-13600K, but apparently this isn't the case, if the new leaks hold true. However, it also appears that the CPU will boost higher than expected, as earlier rumours suggested 5.3 GHz max boost clock and now it appears it'll go all the way up to 5.5 GHz, which is still lower than its Core i7 and Core i9 peers. The i5 also lacks Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, so it won't be possible to squeeze some extra performance out of this chip without overclocking it the good old fashioned way.

@9550pro posted a screenshot of CPU-Z in Chinese showing the Core i5-14600K running in a Gigabyte Z790 Gaming X AX motherboard, but it's unknown what the rest of the system configuration was. However, it does show the CPU having a clock multiplier ranging from 8 to 55, confirming the 5.5 GHz max CPU clock speed. @wxnod posted a picture of an MSI Z690 Edge TI WiFi DDR4 motherboard with a Core i7-14700K paired with 16 GB of DDR4 memory running at 4600 MHz on Gear 1, which in itself is a feat, although it's unknown if this was stable. The CPU was shown as running at 6.3 GHz, which is most likely a manual overclock of the CPU, as the Core i7-14700K isn't expected to be a 6 GHz plus part. We're getting close to the launch of Intel's 14th gen Core processors, so we won't have to wait too long to find out the full specs of these CPUs.

Update 07:17 UTC: Twitter/X bot Benchleaks has found some Geekbench results for the Core i5-14600K which @harukaze5719 made a nice graph of that we've added below. This suggests that Intel has managed to eke out quite a bit of extra performance from these "refreshed" CPUs.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Space Lynx]

i wonder if this will be a 2500k moment for Intel, where we can get a 14600k, turn off ecores, and oc it to all core 6.5ghz

that would be wild to see. the performance on that would be bonkers for so many games that just use a couple cores.

 

[ixi]

i wonder if this will be a 2500k moment for Intel, where we can get a 14600k, turn off ecores, and oc it to all core 6.5ghz

that would be wild to see. the performance on that would be bonkers for so many games that just use a couple cores.

Doubt. On 2500k i was able to achieve stable OC with hyperpūper 212. To cool down 14600k most likely you will need two trucks with holy water.

 

[Hyderz]

i wonder if this will be a 2500k moment for Intel, where we can get a 14600k, turn off ecores, and oc it to all core 6.5ghz

that would be wild to see. the performance on that would be bonkers for so many games that just use a couple cores.

i dont think the 14th gen is the cpu to break barriers like the sandy bridge, but its the new cpu coming after 14th gen on a new socket that got rid of the i branding

 

[evernessince]

i wonder if this will be a 2500k moment for Intel, where we can get a 14600k, turn off ecores, and oc it to all core 6.5ghz

that would be wild to see. the performance on that would be bonkers for so many games that just use a couple cores.

Given it's the exact same architecture, I expect a bump in the frequency and the power consumption. A 14600K at 6.5 GHz? Not on anything but exotic cooling. I guess if someone wanted an air fryer build they can pair that with a 4090 and put some chicken behind their system.

 

[ir_cow]

If this DDR4-4600 Gear 1 is for real and stable on normal cooling, we are in for a treat. 13th Gen is like 4133 on a good day. DDR5-10000 here I come!

 

[Space Lynx]

Doubt. On 2500k i could achieve stable OC with hyperpūper 212. To cool down 14600k most likely you will need two trucks with holy water.

13600k is actually not hard to keep cold when you turn off ecores, i had one oc'd 5.5 all core fairly easily with ecores off and temps were fine on air.

 

[Dyatlov A]

In overclocked condition i don’t expect here any performance improvement over 13600K.
Would have been better something different core arrangement, like 8P 4E Cores.

 

[Dristun]

Meh. Initially rumoured 8+8 for $300 maybe could've swayed me but I think I'll stick with 12600K until Arrow Lake.

 

[ixi]

13600k is actually not hard to keep cold when you turn off ecores, i had one oc'd 5.5 all core fairly easily with ecores off and temps were fine on air.

What are the temps with ecores enabled and disabled while oc'ed and playing game which pushes cpu? What cooler do you use?

 

[chrcoluk]

Doubt. On 2500k i could achieve stable OC with hyperpūper 212. To cool down 14600k most likely you will need two trucks with holy water.

Yeah they are very different, also the idea e-cores suck up enough power and generate enough heat to allow such a miracle I think is wrong as well. Usually loads will use e-cores or p-cores not both at same time, the exceptions are all core encode/compile type stuff which isnt a gamer workload.

Turning off e-cores running at low load I think might save 10w or so. Those do serve a nice purpose of taking care of background processes and system interrupts (scheduling capacity), so I suggest you dont do it.

If one is willing to dive into the hidden power settings in windows (a lot of which are cpu scheduler related), you can do quite a lot of tweaking. Thats better than just going turn off e-cores in bios, but still not a game changer in terms of doing some kind of miracle overclock, I think those days are over as now the manufacturers almost maximise the potential out of the factory. For me I now concentrate on power efficiency instead, as the current factory focus is winning performance reviews no matter the cost temp/power wise. (essentially the same thing overclockers traditionally did).

I do plan to release my schemes (power plans) on TPU with documentation of how they configured, dont know when will be though, they aim to be optimised for specific types of use.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Meh. Initially rumoured 8+8 for $300 maybe could've swayed me but I think I'll stick with 12600K until Arrow Lake.

that or upgrade to a 14900k or so later when they are much cheaper, all depends on the landscape at that moment

 

[chrcoluk]

If this DDR4-4600 Gear 1 is for real and stable on normal cooling, we are in for a treat. 13th Gen is like 4133 on a good day. DDR5-10000 here I come!

Yeah it wouldnt surprise me if the IMC gets a boost, I couldnt clear 3200mhz on 4 dimms without gear 2 lol.

 

[Deleted member 232534]

 

[bonehead123]

The CPU was shown as running at 6.3 GHz

On LN2 maybe, but otherwise, I'll believe this when I see it tested & confirmed in some unbiased, 3rd party reviews

 

[Daven]

So its looks like we are getting three things with this revision, refresh, rebrand:

1. 5% higher clocks
2. Maybe better memory support
3. Core i7 getting four more E-cores

Did I miss anything?

 

[chrcoluk]

So its looks like we are getting three things with this revision, refresh, rebrand:

1. 5% higher clocks
2. Maybe better memory support
3. Core i7 getting four more E-cores

Did I miss anything?

Potentially the new internal voltage regulator, which is what has my interest, but I expect that wont be known until the reviews hit.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Yeah they are very different, also the idea e-cores suck up enough power and generate enough heat to allow such a miracle I think is wrong as well. Usually loads will use e-cores or p-cores not both at same time, the exceptions are all core encode/compile type stuff which isnt a gamer workload.

Turning off e-cores running at low load I think might save 10w or so.

Try 6w per E core

The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity

www.anandtech.com

for something with 8 e cores, that's 48w. Not exactly a small number. More importantly, turning them off turns that silicon into an extended die for the P cores to sink heat into, and into the IHS for cooling, helping to somewhat alleviate the issue of tiny transistors shedding heat.

Those do serve a nice purpose of taking care of background processes and system interrupts (scheduling capacity), so I suggest you dont do it.

As if the P cores cannot handle that. AMD manages to compete with intel without using such E cores.

 

[chrcoluk]

Try 6w per E core

The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity

www.anandtech.com

I did say not encoding/compiling type tasks. I own one of these chips so I do have the experience of using one at hand, rather than just pulling stuff from articles.

The Persistence of Vision Raytracer is a high-quality, Free Software tool for creating stunning three-dimensional graphics.

 

[MaMoo]

Try 6w per E core

The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity

www.anandtech.com

for something with 8 e cores, that's 48w. Not exactly a small number. More importantly, turning them off turns that silicon into an extended die for the P cores to sink heat into, and into the IHS for cooling, helping to somewhat alleviate the issue of tiny transistors shedding heat.

As if the P cores cannot handle that. AMD manages to compete with intel without using such E cores.

I use my motherboard's feature that parks the e-cores when the scroll lock is on to disable them. For my main workload, the difference in performance between the e-cores and p-cores makes it so that if I enable the e-cores, additional threads assigned to them takes longer to finish than those on p-cores. So my tasks actually take a lot longer. This is scientific computing.

I am going to test turning them off in the bios completely and see if there is a lower power draw.

 

[pressing on]

13600k is actually not hard to keep cold when you turn off ecores, i had one oc'd 5.5 all core fairly easily with ecores off and temps were fine on air.

In Windows 10/11 another option is the Processor Affinity setting under Task Manager. This enables E-cores to be turned off on an individual application basis.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I leave my e cores on, don't have a problem cooling CPU, and i am sure they are some use.

 

[dyonoctis]

I use my motherboard's feature that parks the e-cores when the scroll lock is on to disable them. For my main workload, the difference in performance between the e-cores and p-cores makes it so that if I enable the e-cores, additional threads assigned to them takes longer to finish than those on p-cores. So my tasks actually take a lot longer. This is scientific computing.

I am going to test turning them off in the bios completely and see if there is a lower power draw.

That's a weird behavior. You mean that your P cores are just sitting there doing nothing while they wait for the e-core to finish their task ?

 

[Fouquin]

If this DDR4-4600 Gear 1 is for real and stable on normal cooling, we are in for a treat. 13th Gen is like 4133 on a good day. DDR5-10000 here I come!

DDR4-4600 at 1.624v. I've pushed 1.5v on DDR4 in the past, but I've never seen a kit built to take more than 1.6v. That's DDR3 levels of voltage. Does current gen Intel stuff still base DDR_VREF at the system agent voltage for the IMC? Could this be pushing 1.4v+ at the IMC to achieve these speeds?

 

[Leshy]

i wonder if this will be a 2500k moment for Intel, where we can get a 14600k, turn off ecores, and oc it to all core 6.5ghz

that would be wild to see. the performance on that would be bonkers for so many games that just use a couple cores.

OC is dead ... days with Q6600 are gone ... btw back in the days i was overclocking to run stable 60 fps .. now if its 200 or 250 it doesnt matter