I tested the Intel Core i9-14900K against the Core i9-13900K…

Intel’s new Core i9-14900K is a difficult processor to evaluate. It brings the same number of cores and the same architecture as the previous generation Core i9-13900K, but Intel claims the new chip offers some performance improvements. Is this true, and is it fair to abandon the previous generation flagship in order to claim to have Intel’s best processor?

The Core i9-14900K fixes some of the weak areas of the Core i9-13900K. However, as you can read in our Intel Core i9-14900K review, the new processor more than justifies spending the higher price for similar performance.

Pricing and Availability

The Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K both come at Intel’s same recommended price: $590. These are flagship chips, and you should expect to spend around $600 for either processor. However, the Core i9-13900K has the advantage of being older.

You can usually find it for around $560, with it sometimes dropping to $540 during sales. There’s a good chance that the Core i9-14900K will drop in price further in the weeks following its release. We see it all the time with last-gen parts. For example, Intel’s Core i9-12900K, despite being a $550 processor a year ago, is now readily available for $375.

The Core i9-14900K is listed at $590, but it’s already selling for a higher price. As we’ve seen with Intel’s last two flagships, the Core i9-14900K will likely sell between $620 and $640 for at least a few months. Currently, the processor is selling for $630.

As is usually the case when comparing two processors, you have to weigh the performance of each chip against its price. There’s a $10 to $100 difference between the Core i9-13900K and the Core i9-14900K, depending on what happens after the launch dust settles. If only $10 or $20 separate the chips, it’s worth getting the new processor. However, in the potential case there is a difference of $70 or more, you are already getting most of the performance with the less expensive Core i9-13900K.

Glasses

There isn’t much to talk about in terms of the specs of the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K because, on paper, they look almost identical. Both processors use the Intel 7 node, and they come with 24 cores divided into eight performance cores and 16 efficiency cores, with a total of 32 threads.

The only difference is the clock speed. The Core i9-14900K can clock up to 6GHz out of the box, while the Core i9-13900K tops out at 5.8GHz. Additionally, the Core i9-14900K comes with a 200 MHz boost for both the base and boost clock speeds of the Performance Core and Efficiency Core.

Everything else remains the same, including 36MB L3 cache, 32MB L2 cache, and 253 watts of max turbo power. It’s a shame there wasn’t at least a bump in cache, especially as AMD’s 3D V-Cache processors still dominate the gaming charts. In that case there’s likely a better incentive to spend for the Core i9-14900K.

productivity performance

For raw CPU power, the Core i9-14900K doesn’t improve much over the Core i9-13900K. In our tests, there were some cases where it was a little worse. In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Core i9-14900K was about 3% slower than the Core i9-13900K. Not a very good start.

To be clear, this is probably due to differences in silicon – based on other tests, it appears that we have a particularly fast Core i9-13900K. But even that explanation only puts the Core i9-14900K on par. It’s hard to justify more expense for the same performance, much less a drop in performance. There was no regression in single-core performance, but both processors delivered basically the same results.

This isn’t the only test where we saw largely similar performance. In Blender 3.4, there are only minor differences between the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K. You can change the name on this chart and there will be no difference in the conclusions. This is not good for the Core i9-14900K either.

However, those are the weakest tests for the Core i9-14900K. In a transcoding test like Handbrake, the Core i9-14900K managed to complete the task 8% faster than the Core i9-13900K. This is probably the higher boost clock speed at work. It’s not a huge improvement, but the extra boost may be worth it if you do a lot of video editing.

In 7-Zip, the Core i9-14900K shows clear improvements. Due to better compression performance, it became 15% faster than Core i9-13900K. Decompression is usually more important, especially in tasks like gaming, but it’s good to see Intel making some improvements in this benchmark, which is usually dominated by AMD processors.

Another area where the Core i9-14900K shows an edge is Y-Cruncher, although it’s not as strong as 7-Zip. In a calculation of 500 million digits of Pi, the Core i9-14900K was able to complete the task 9% faster when using a single core, and 14% faster when using each core.

The biggest jump in performance came in Jetstream 2. This web-based benchmark showed the Core i9-14900K to be about 16% ahead of the Core i9-13900K. This is a huge leap forward for web-based applications, but you don’t typically buy flagship CPUs for web apps.

This is the biggest problem for the Core i9-14900K. It shows some improvement, but not in the areas where it matters most. For example, in Pugetbench for Photoshop, the Core i9-14900K posted almost identical numbers to the Core i9-13900K.

gaming performance

Intel has highlighted the gaming improvements of the Core i9-14900K compared to the previous generation, which are likely to narrow the gap with chips like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. And there are some clear improvements here, even if they’re not big enough to justify a new flagship CPU.

At the high end, the Core i9-14900K was 20% faster than the Core i9-13900K in 3DMark Time Spy. We’re also looking specifically at the CPU scores of this test. That’s a huge leap forward, but unfortunately, it only applies to this synthetic test.

if we see hitman 3, That lead shrinks by about 10%. That’s still a respectable jump in gaming performance, but it’s a far cry from what we saw in 3DMark. Similarly, in f1 2022, The Core i9-14900K showed an improvement of about 9%.

The biggest boost comes far cry 6, Where we saw that the Core i9-14900K outperformed the Core i9-13900K by about 33%. It’s worth pointing out that the Core i5-13600K also showed higher scores than the flagship, so there may be something wrong with how tasks were scheduled in the performance and efficiency cores. We’ve seen this before with Intel’s hybrid architecture.

Although the Core i9-14900K shows performance improvements at 1080p with higher graphics settings, you probably won’t use this processor for 1080p gaming with lower settings. if we see red dead redemption 2 With its Ultra preset, you can see that the Core i9-14900K is actually a few frames slower than the Core i9-13900K. This graphically demanding game is a good reminder that as you increase your resolution and graphics settings, your graphics card will play a more important role in overall gaming performance.

Which one is best?

Currently, those upgrading from a 12th generation or older CPU should go with the Core i9-14900K. It’s about $50 more expensive than the Core i9-13900K, and it brings some solid performance improvements. However, this is the limit for the Core i9-14900K.

When the price of Core i9-13900K inevitably drops further, it is the better choice. It offers most of the performance of its 14th generation counterpart at a lower price. Furthermore, those who are already using the Core i9-13900K have little reason to upgrade. The Core i9-14900K is fast, but not enough to warrant spending more than $600 on a new CPU.