Today we're allowed to publish our performance results for Intel's new Raptor Lake Refresh processors. For our launch coverage we've posted reviews of all three new models released today: Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K and Core i5-14600K.

This year's Intel Core processor launch looks like it'll be the last one with the "Core i" branding. The company's next-generation Meteor Lake CPUs will use an updated naming scheme, and will just be called "Core" and "Core Ultra." Under the hood, 14th Gen uses the same Raptor Lake dies that we've seen in 13th Generation CPUs, with some improvements. During their briefings Intel confirmed that they have "optimized the design and process technology," but also that the same manufacturing node, core design, IPC and Thread Director capability is used. All the SKUs released today are based on a single die and revision (unlike 13th Gen). There are some new features like XTU AI Assist and Intel Application Optimization, more on those later.

While the other 14th Gen models only received clock frequency bumps, the Core i9-14700K actually comes with an improved core count configuration. While the 13700K features eight P-Cores and eight E-Cores with a total thread count of 24, the 14700K comes with an additional cluster of E-Cores, bringing the core count to 8+12, enabling a thread count of 28. On top of that you're getting higher clock speeds. We measured the 14700K to boost to 5.6 GHz with two or less cores active, and 5.5 GHz with three cores or more. This is a 200 MHz increase over the 13700K, which reached 5.4/5.3 GHz in the same test. Just to confirm, these are our own measurements of the actual CPU, not just an extract from Intel's specs list. Since it has more cores, the 14700K also has a slightly bigger cache of 33 MB, vs 30 MB on the 13700K.

Averaged over the 45 tests in our application test suite, the Core i7-14700K clearly beats the 13700K, with a gap or around 5.6%, which is not a lot, but more than what we've seen on the other SKUs released today. This performance increase helps the CPU to make up ground to the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which is now only 3.5% faster. The 13900K is only 5.7% quicker—close enough, especially when you consider the price difference. Intel's new flagship, the 14900K is 8.7% ahead, but 44% more expensive. AMD's various Ryzen 7 models really can't touch the 14700K when it comes to applications, they are considerably slower (7700X: -25%, 7700: -30%). The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a lean gaming machine, but in applications it's pretty far behind, by 28%. With these performance numbers there is little reason to consider an upgrade if you're on a modern 12th or 13th Gen processor, but it'll be an interesting option for owners of older machines.

Gaming on the Core i7-14700K works extremely well and is pretty much indistinguishable from the Core i9-14900K when not looking at FPS counters. We measured only a tiny 3% difference, 1% at 4K. What makes the 14700K a great choice for gaming is that it has the most P-Cores possible, eight, just like the 14900K. Compared to AMD's offerings, the 14700K is able to beat every single Ryzen processor out there, with the exception of the X3D models. A recent poll on TPU has shown that a lot of gamers are betting on AMD's 3D Vertical Cache Technology, and rightfully so. While the 7950X3D trades higher application performance for some compatibility issues in games, the 7800X3D is a pure gaming monster that tops our FPS charts. It consistently beats the 14700K on average at all our four tested resolutions, but at $400 it's only marginally cheaper than the $410 14700K. Overall it's important to realize that these performance differences are not that big, especially in subjective gameplay. All Intel 14th Gen, 13th Gen with large cache, and 12900K, 12700K, other Zen 4 CPUs and more will give you an outstanding gaming experience.

We've seen very high power consumption numbers in today's Core i9-14900K review, the Core i7-14700K isn't much different. In applications it uses 155 W vs 170 W on the i9. Gaming power draw is similarly high with 132 W vs 144 W on the i9. Both processors have virtually the same core configuration: 8+16 and 8+12. Four E-Cores aren't going to make a big difference. Just like the 14900K, the 14700K runs at PL1 = PL2 = 253 W. What's making most of the difference is that the 14900K is clocked a good deal higher, which increases its power consumption. AMD's energy efficiency is much better. The 7900X is just 86 W in applications, and the 7800X3D is only 49 W in gaming—a third (!) of the 14700K. While I don't think the power cost difference will be a dealbreaker (75 W @ 4 hours per day @ 30 cents/kWh = $33 per year), the added heat dumped into the case and eventually into your gaming cave might make you reconsider.

Cooling such high heat output isn't easy on the CPU cooler either. You'll be hitting 100°C very quickly, which will regularly result in thermal throttling with most air coolers. This is not a huge deal, as modern processors are very good at keeping a certain target temperature by slightly reducing clocks, without performance falling off a cliff—it's still not what you've spent all that money for. A watercooling solution will help, just like increasing the temperature limit, which goes up to 115°C. You could also undervolt the CPU or dial the power limit back. Things aren't that much better on the Zen 4 side though, because AMD wanted to keep cooler compatibility with Socket AM4, so they had to install an extra thick heat spreader on the AM5 CPUs, which make them difficult to cool, too, but it's easier due to the lower overall heat output.

Although the unlocked multiplier makes overclocking technically easy, it is limited by the cooling system. Even when the thermal limit is raised from 100°C to the maximum of 115°C, it is difficult to push voltage much further, even with an AIO. At least Intel is giving us the option to adjust the temperature limit, AMD has no such feature. My highest all-core OC was 5.5 GHz, which is gains a tiny bit performance over stock, but pushes power consumption up quite a bit. Not worth it.

On the Core i9-14900K we saw pretty decent results from Intel's AI Assist overclocking option in the XTU overclocking utility. At launch, this option is only available on the 14900K, Intel confirmed that they are looking into adding support for the other 14th Gen SKUs, too. AI Assist works surprisingly well, it takes less than a minute to run and will provide you with a good starting point that goes beyond just a fixed multiplier on all cores like we're doing in our OC testing. It's a shame that it doesn't work on the other models, but I understand the problem Intel is facing. AI Assist could also do with more love, right now saving the recommendations to BIOS isn't possible, so you'll have to reapply them with XTU on every restart, or manually copy them into your BIOS. A major issue is that XTU does not work with Windows VBS enabled, which is the default on all new OS installations. Still, it's good to see that Intel is making improvements for overclockers. On the other hand, I wish they gave us more manual controls with better BIOS integration, like AMD does.

Intel's biggest "new tech" announcement is their Intel Application Optimization technology, or just "APO." The promise is that Intel will release hand-optimized profiles for specific games to control the thread count and thread type in real-time, which goes beyond what Thread Director offers. Unfortunately Intel was unable to provide reviewers with access to APO, so we couldn't test the technology to verify Intel's claims. Intel did confirm that APO works only on two older games at this time, which is a surprisingly small number of titles for a new release, especially coming from a resourceful company like Intel.

Intel has announced an MSRP of $410 for the Core i7-14700K, which matches the current pricing of 13700K. If both processors are priced the same there is no reason to buy the 13700K over the 14700K. I'd even spend another $30-$40 for the additional four E-Cores, the extra cache and the frequency bump. AMD really doesn't have much to compete with the 14700K for applications. The Ryzen 9 7900 ($410) and 7900X ($450) are slower in applications, maybe relevant if power usage matters to you. Ryzen 9 7950X is too expensive at $590, just like 7950X3D ($685). While I would not pick the $400 7800X3D for a mostly-applications scenario, its capabilities as a gaming CPU definitely put it on the list. Price-wise both processors are evenly matched with just $10 separating them. While the 7800X3D offers better gaming performance, the 14700K wins in applications. As pure gamer I'd probably lean toward the 7800X3D, also because of its power efficiency, which helps keep case and room temperatures down. Once productivity comes into that mix, I'd probably pick the Intel CPU, but the differences will be small, especially subjectively.

At this time it looks like Meteor Lake isn't coming to the desktop space, mostly because it tops out at just six P-Cores, so Intel needed something they could sell this holiday season, which explains why 14th Gen is released as Raptor Lake Refresh. I think Meteor Lake could be an amazing release for entry-level and midrange PCs, which is where most of the sales are anyway. The next desktop release for Intel seems to be Arrow Lake, with core counts reaching 8+16, but that's scheduled not before 2024, possibly even later. AMD's Zen 5 is expected to release next year, but we don't know about the improvements yet, I'd still expect that AMD will defend the gaming crown for the foreseeable future. Performance isn't everything though, and if Intel adjusts their pricing, they could spoil AMD's party. It seems likely that we'll be seeing price cuts on 13th Gen processors, which could make them an attractive choice for people who know what they are buying, without looking at model numbers.