Intel to Debut Non-K (65 W) 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" Desktop Processors Next Month

[btarunr]

Retailers are beginning to put up placeholder listings for Intel's upcoming 14th Gen Core (65 W), non-K desktop processor models. Based on the "Raptor Lake Refresh" silicon, these chips offer generational uplifts in clock speeds over the 13th Gen Core series, although their feature-set remains nearly identical to the 13th Gen. These chips will run on all Socket LGA1700 motherboards, based on 600-series and 700-series chipset, with a UEFI firmware update. The full lineup already leaked out in marketing material this September (read here), but we're getting confirmation of these chips as retailer listings. The lineup begins with the 4P+0E Core i3-14100F and i3-14100; followed by the Core i5-14400F and i5-14400; the Core i7-14700F, i7-14700; and leading the pack being the i9-14900 and i9-14900F. These chips, particularly the -F extension ones, could provide good value to gamers.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Hyderz]

Thought the 14th i3 would have at least 2 ecores but apparently not

 

[JohH]

Thought the 14th i3 would have at least 2 ecores but apparently not

Current e-cores come in clusters of 4.

 

[RayneYoruka]

I would love to use some "small" Intel cpus in something like a router and stuff but with their mess of pcores-ecores it's like why bother? I guess I will just get Ryzen and dump som registered ram and call it a day.

 

[Macro Device]

but with their mess of pcores-ecores it's like why bother?

Any i3 and i5-12400/12500/12600 (non-K) are without E-cores. They are as straightforward as it gets. Their power efficiency is also really not bad, at least better than in Ryzen 3000 and mostly Ryzen 5000 (not to mention how challenging it is to cool Ryzens compared to the same wattage Intel CPUs). I can't make my i5-12400F consume above 65 W in games for example.

Yet only having 4 cores in 14th gen i3s is a daytime robbery. Unless they make them unlocked for any OC whatsoever but it's Intel we're talking about so i3s are just a total why.

 

[Selaya]

locked SA voltages.
doa.

 

[L'Eliminateur]

why can't intel make a PROPER 8C processors with none of that e-core low performance incompatible rubbish?
They don't even have a proper 6C one!, the only true pure cpu is the i3

i don't feel like paying for useless silicon that i will have to disable

 

[FoulOnWhite]

why can't intel make a PROPER 8C processors with none of that e-core low performance incompatible rubbish?
They don't even have a proper 6C one!, the only true pure cpu is the i3

i don't feel like paying for useless silicon that i will have to disable

Why the need to disable them? I have had my 12700k since nov 21, and never felt the need to disable the E-cores. I run it stock, mostly for gaming and at most it is about 60 wats gaming while my 3080 uses 3 or 4 times that. Oh and it is 8core/16thread if you did want to disable the E-cores

 

[L'Eliminateur]

Why the need to disable them? I have had my 12700k since nov 21, and never felt the need to disable the E-cores. I run it stock, mostly for gaming and at most it is about 60 wats gaming while my 3080 uses 3 or 4 times that. Oh and it is 8core/16thread if you did want to disable the E-cores

because i don't want any of that e-core rubbish that has problems with software(does not even have the same ISA as the P cores) and requires special OS support, i want homogeneous high performance cores and i don't give a rat's hairy ass about power consumption past a reasonable level(why do i care if cpu eats 10W more when GPU is eating 250W as you say). Even less i want to be at the mercy of a black box intel/MS "scheduler" that decides where software will land or having to use esoteric pining.
Yes i could disable them, but intel charged money for that and i'm not paying something i will not use, that's why intel is dead for me

 

[wNotyarD]

But will they now have proper cache, instead of the 13th gen non-K's?

 

[Haile Selassie]

(1)65W?

 

[Sithaer]

Any i3 and i5-12400/12500/12600 (non-K) are without E-cores. They are as straightforward as it gets. Their power efficiency is also really not bad, at least better than in Ryzen 3000 and mostly Ryzen 5000 (not to mention how challenging it is to cool Ryzens compared to the same wattage Intel CPUs). I can't make my i5-12400F consume above 65 W in games for example.

Yet only having 4 cores in 14th gen i3s is a daytime robbery. Unless they make them unlocked for any OC whatsoever but it's Intel we're talking about so i3s are just a total why.

i3s have their place, sure they could be cheaper/maybe with more threads by now but its still the cheapest 'budget' range CPU since AMD kind of left that market. 'main reason why I went back to Intel in 2022'
If all you do is play single player games or maybe the average MMOs on a 60-75 Hz monitor and you don't stream nor do productivity stuff on your PC then those i3s are pretty much your best bang for your buck deals.

Thats why I went with the 12100F in 2022 february cause most of the games I was playing did not multi thread well 'ahem Lost Ark at the time..' but depended more on single core/thread IPC and the diff between single thread 12100 and 12400 is insignificant so I just saved my money and budget.
Fact is that even after daily driving this thing for more than 1 and half year while playing a variety of games I see no real reason to replace it, it runs pretty much everything I play/ed at least at my monitor's refresh rate IF my GPU can keep up cause in newer games its actually my GPU thats limiting me. 'Ahem Immortals of Aveum currently straight out murdering my GPU first and even Starfield can push 60+ FPS in Atlantis after the update/fix'
If I do an upgrade it wont be for real need I guess but more likely to scratch that itch. '13400-500/14400 maybe sometime in 2024'

 

[Macro Device]

cheaper/maybe with more threads

Just unleashing the clocks would be enough but Intel never do that. i3-7350K and Pentium G3258 were the outliers and sadly, they will stay that way.
13100 provides about 2 percent more performance than the 12100 and doesn't overclock even on special motherboards, thus losing in versatility.
14100, being a 4C8T CPU, won't be a different story. Just puny 2 or, best case scenario, 4 percent more. 12400 looks awesome compared to them.

Fact is that even after daily driving this thing for more than 1 and half year while playing a variety of games I see no real reason to replace it

Yeah, it's a very capable CPU but time flies and i3s don't get much love. Heck, Pentiums are still dual core. It was about time to give them another two cores more than 3 years ago...

 

[Sithaer]

Just unleashing the clocks would be enough but Intel never do that. i3-7350K and Pentium G3258 were the outliers and sadly, they will stay that way.
13100 provides about 2 percent more performance than the 12100 and doesn't overclock even on special motherboards, thus losing in versatility.
14100, being a 4C8T CPU, won't be a different story. Just puny 2 or, best case scenario, 4 percent more. 12400 looks awesome compared to them.

Yeah, it's a very capable CPU but time flies and i3s don't get much love. Heck, Pentiums are still dual core. It was about time to give them another two cores more than 3 years ago...

I mean I don't disagree with that, if one really has to go for a i3 currently then the 12100 is still the best buy cause 13/14100 is hardly worth the extra.
Back in the days I've used to roll with a i3 4160 so ye I'm aware of the progress of the i3s.

I only wish that AMD wouldn't abandon CPUs/budget ranges like the short lived 3300X was.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

because i don't want any of that e-core rubbish that has problems with software(does not even have the same ISA as the P cores) and requires special OS support, i want homogeneous high performance cores and i don't give a rat's hairy ass about power consumption past a reasonable level(why do i care if cpu eats 10W more when GPU is eating 250W as you say). Even less i want to be at the mercy of a black box intel/MS "scheduler" that decides where software will land or having to use esoteric pining.
Yes i could disable them, but intel charged money for that and i'm not paying something i will not use, that's why intel is dead for me

I guess you know better than me eh bud.

 

[Zareek]

Wait, isn't a refresh "Snake Oil"! Intel's own marketing said so, oh wait it's only if AMD re-releases an old architecture under a new name. Sorry, my bad!

 

[R0H1T]

Current e-cores come in clusters of 4.

Interesting observation, it holds true for laptop/mobile form factor as well?

 

[JohH]

Interesting observation, it holds true for laptop/mobile form factor as well?

There are a few products where they disable half the cluster:
Intel N50
Intel Atom x7211E and x7213E
These are Alder Lake N parts which only have 2 e cores and no P cores.

 

[Minus Infinity]

because i don't want any of that e-core rubbish that has problems with software(does not even have the same ISA as the P cores) and requires special OS support, i want homogeneous high performance cores and i don't give a rat's hairy ass about power consumption past a reasonable level(why do i care if cpu eats 10W more when GPU is eating 250W as you say). Even less i want to be at the mercy of a black box intel/MS "scheduler" that decides where software will land or having to use esoteric pining.
Yes i could disable them, but intel charged money for that and i'm not paying something i will not use, that's why intel is dead for me

Then buy Xeon.

 

[watzupken]

why can't intel make a PROPER 8C processors with none of that e-core low performance incompatible rubbish?
They don't even have a proper 6C one!, the only true pure cpu is the i3

i don't feel like paying for useless silicon that i will have to disable

I understand your frustration as I too feel the same. The E-cores are not completely useless, but having them creates problems as well. For my use case, the E-cores don't really cause problems, so I leave them running on my 12700K. The worst part, these are cheap cores, that Intel is selling to consumers at a premium price nowadays.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I understand your frustration as I too feel the same. The E-cores are not completely useless, but having them creates problems as well. For my use case, the E-cores don't really cause problems, so I leave them running on my 12700K. The worst part, these are cheap cores, that Intel is selling to consumers at a premium price nowadays.

Do a MT test with and without E cores though and you will see, they certinly add something to the overall performance. I have left mine alone since i bought it in nov 21 and seen no detriment at all. The 12700k is a pretty good 8/16 core CPU with the added MT performance of the E cores that do not take up the same space if it had been a pure 16core CPU with no e cores. They certainly add something and are in no way worthless like a lot of non owners of them seem to think.

 

[chrcoluk]

I would love to use some "small" Intel cpus in something like a router and stuff but with their mess of pcores-ecores it's like why bother? I guess I will just get Ryzen and dump som registered ram and call it a day.

Their small CPUs aren't hybrid.

I recently purchased a N100 unit to use for pfSense.

 

[Arco]

Their small CPUs aren't hybrid.

I recently purchased a N100 unit to use for pfSense.

I feel like an older intel build would be better there than buying an equal chip.

 

[Readlight]

Silent ventilator.

 

[FrostWolf]

I would love to use some "small" Intel cpus in something like a router and stuff but with their mess of pcores-ecores it's like why bother? I guess I will just get Ryzen and dump som registered ram and call it a day.

For that you use an Intel N-series processor. Usually in a small appliance or a mini-ITX/pico board. They’re very good for it, and exactly the small you’re looking for.

Products formerly Alder Lake-N

ark.intel.com