Intel Core i5-14600K Benchmarked

[T0@st]

An Intel Core i5-14600K processor has been benchmarked roughly a month before its expected rollout at retail—previous leaks have this particular model placed as the most wallet friendly offering within a range of 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" CPUs. A total of six SKUs, with K and KF variants, are anticipated to launch on October 17. An official unveiling of new processor product lineups is scheduled for tomorrow at Team Blue's Innovation event. China's ECSM has managed to acquire an engineering sample (ES) of the aforementioned i5-14600K model, and put it through the proverbial ringer in Cinebench R23, Cinebench 2024, and CPU-Z. The brief report did not disclose any details regarding exact testbench conditions, so some of the results could be less than reliable/accurate.

ECSM's screenshot from CPU-Z re-confirms the Core i5-14600K's already leaked specs—six high-performance Raptor Cove cores running at a 3.50 GHz base clock, going up to 5.30 GHz (a 200 MHz gain over its predecessor: Core i5-13600K). Eight efficiency-oriented Gracemont cores running up to 4.0 GHz—100 MHz more than on the predecessor. The Core i5-14600K and i5-13600K share the same designations of 24 MB L3 cache and 125 W PBP—the leaked engineering sample was shown to have a core voltage of 1.2 V. The previous gen CPU operates on 1.14 V. ECSM noted that CPU package power consumption reached 160 W, and: "currently, the burn-in voltage is still quite out of control, especially for the two 8P models, both of which are at 1.4 V+. However, there is still a lot of room for manual voltage reduction."




Tom's Hardware and VideoCardz have produced some comparison charts based on ECSM's data, and external material from Guru3D and CGDirector:



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[phanbuey]

160 W full stress at 5.3 GHZ....

That's actually really good.

 

[fevgatos]

160 W full stress at 5.3 GHZ....

That's actually really good.

I'd like to see the comparison between this and the R5 7600x. Will be interesting

 

[phanbuey]

I'd like to see the comparison between this and the R5 7600x. Will be interesting

I'm assuming you're talking about the perf/watt, since the 7600x will get absolutely shellacked in everything else. This is likely sitting between 7700x and 7700x3D in games with much better MT and workstation performance.

 

[Selaya]

yeah this will go up ... against the 7900x?

 

[Upgrayedd]

Think that's the first time I've ever seen any mention of "burn-in" for a CPU.

 

[lexluthermiester]

yeah this will go up ... against the 7900x?

Not really. It'll go up against the 7800X. Maybe..

 

[fevgatos]

I'm assuming you're talking about the perf/watt, since the 7600x will get absolutely shellacked in everything else. This is likely sitting between 7700x and 7700x3D in games with much better MT and workstation performance.

Im sure the 7600x will get smacked in everything, perf / watt included. I just want the naming schemes to make sense and for that to happen, we need to see some shellacking. The R5 should be called an R3 and the R7 an R5. Feels like they are trying to scam people with these names.

 

[Aerpoweron]

160 W full stress at 5.3 GHZ....

That's actually really good.

The 160W only seems to be the intel stability test. The 14600K also has an MPT of 253W, which i assume was hit for cinebench.
To put that into perspective, A Threadripper 3960X with 24 cores (smallest TR3000 with the worst performance per watt) reaches 30k points in Cinebench R23 at 280W, vs the 25k for the 14600K at assumed 253W.
Also interesting to see a 10% increase in Cinbench 2024, when the other benchmarks only see single digit improvements.

Note for the TR 3000 chips, the IO-die usually just eats up 100W at any power state.

So the comparison performance per watt for the Ryzen 7000 would be interesting. Keep also in mind the 14th gen chips are only slight reworks of the 13th gen chips, if you ignore the lower end 13th gen which are still 12th gen chips renamed.

 

[Object55]

These prices are ridiculous

 

[fevgatos]

The 160W only seems to be the intel stability test. The 14600K also has an MPT of 253W, which i assume was hit for cinebench.
To put that into perspective, A Threadripper 3960X with 24 cores (smallest TR3000 with the worst performance per watt) reaches 30k points in Cinebench R23 at 280W, vs the 25k for the 14600K at assumed 253W.
Also interesting to see a 10% increase in Cinbench 2024, when the other benchmarks only see single digit improvements.

Note for the TR 3000 chips, the IO-die usually just eats up 100W at any power state.

So the comparison performance per watt for the Ryzen 7000 would be interesting. Keep also in mind the 14th gen chips are only slight reworks of the 13th gen chips, if you ignore the lower end 13th gen which are still 12th gen chips renamed.

That is not how you compare efficiency. At all. Unless you run everything at same wattage, any efficiency comparison is just nonsensical.

 

[Why_Me]

These prices are ridiculous

 

[PapaTaipei]

The burn in is very troubling. Will pass this gen. Btw it's still only 6 cores for mainstream Intel really does what it wants with its monopoly.

 

[Upgrayedd]

The burn in is very troubling. Will pass this gen. Btw it's still only 6 cores for mainstream Intel really does what it wants with its monopoly.

I had to think about it and I have heard it but its been quite a while. Its really just a synonym for stress test and synthetic benching here, highest possible workload situations. 1.4 isn't unheard of for synthetics either. P95 is what I usually see when I see "burn-in" mentioned, which is unrealistic for everyday users honestly.

This was linked in the article https://www.techpowerup.com/313688/...core-i9-14900k-i7-14700k-i5-14600k-cpu-prices

 

[Selaya]

Not really. It'll go up against the 7800X. Maybe..

no, this will absolutely destroy the 7700x (then again, so did the 13600k so there's that)
same would be w/ a 7800x
as for the 7800x3d, that's something else entirely but thats competing against i9s (on gaming only tho) but yea

 

[PapaTaipei]

I had to think about it and I have heard it but its been quite a while. Its really just a synonym for stress test and synthetic benching here, highest possible workload situations. 1.4 isn't unheard of for synthetics either. P95 is what I usually see when I see "burn-in" mentioned, which is unrealistic for everyday users honestly.


This was linked in the article https://www.techpowerup.com/313688/...core-i9-14900k-i7-14700k-i5-14600k-cpu-prices

Alright I initially feared it might be another fiasco like the skylake processors having a very bad thermal design in the on chip memory controller which would result in frying the memory controller and thus killing the CPU over time after using XMP profile, Intel at that time changed their RMA to announce XMP would void warranty. Notice how none of the big tech reports website NEVER talked about the mem controller issues on skylake because they are all sell outs.

 

[fevgatos]

Notice how none of the big tech reports website NEVER talked about the mem controller issues on skylake because they are all sell outs.

Because there were no issues. I had multiple skylake CPUs, clocked the mem controller within an inch of it's life. No problems at all

 

[Vayra86]

6 real cores at 125W.

That's just about the way I ran my 8700K early on. Such progress

 

[Mussels]

160 W full stress at 5.3 GHZ....

That's actually really good.

If P and E cores are used, sure.
P only? not good for 6 cores.

That could be their PL1 throttle state as well, rather than peak values - or limited by the testers motherboard/BIOS.

 

[las]

6 real cores at 125W.

That's just about the way I ran my 8700K early on. Such progress

Yeah because ST and MT performance has not gone up immensely.. Oh wait

 

[lexluthermiester]

no, this will absolutely destroy the 7700x (then again, so did the 13600k so there's that)
same would be w/ a 7800x
as for the 7800x3d, that's something else entirely but thats competing against i9s (on gaming only tho) but yea

Until the benchmarks are actually done, no one can definitively make any statements about performance.

 

[theouto]

Considering how we expect the i9-14900K to be incredibly similar to the i9-13900K, I don't expect the i5 to be much different, really just a nothing generation focused on anything BUT the cpus themselves, really just filler until they move on to the next socket.

This gives AMD a good chance to perhaps take the lead? Or maybe nothing real will happen, who knows, I clearly don't

 

[fevgatos]

6 real cores at 125W.

That's just about the way I ran my 8700K early on. Such progress

The 14600k should be around 4 times faster than your 8700k.

 

[phanbuey]

Yeah because ST and MT performance has not gone up immensely.. Oh wait

vs 8700K? yeah it's almost doubled performance (60-80% faster) on ST and over doubled on MT...

If P and E cores are used, sure.
P only? not good for 6 cores.

That could be their PL1 throttle state as well, rather than peak values - or limited by the testers motherboard/BIOS.

None of the above - 100% CPU usage and no Throttle state

My undervolted 13700K pulls 210W @ 5.3Ghz (stock) during cinebench, so these chips are actually pretty efficient if you don't yeet them at 1.4v at 5.9ghz.

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah because ST and MT performance has not gone up immensely.. Oh wait

Synthetic performance, yes. Theory vs practice. How often can you actually extract that perf I wonder... when it comes to gaming, we see plateaus of performance more so than a major jump. And of course I was part joking about it...

But now consider the fact these turbo to double the wattage too. I doubt there are many real perf/w improvements in a vast number of workloads when both CPUs run stock.