Editor’s take: The Core i9-14900KS is a really delicate enchancment over the 14900K. The 14900K itself is principally only a 13900KS, which is principally only a 13900K, so the new 14900KS is Intel’s fourth flagship “quickest ever” processor to make use of principally the identical silicon.
Looking at the spec sheet offered by Intel, 14900KS versus 14900K: the new KS mannequin has a brand new most clock velocity of 6.2 GHz, up from 6.0 GHz for the “Thermal Velocity Boost,” which is the frequency on the quickest few P-cores underneath ideally suited thermal situations. The customary Turbo Boost 3.0 clock is additionally up 100 MHz, as is the E-core increase frequency. To accommodate this, the base energy ranking has elevated from 125 to 150W, whereas the max turbo energy stays at 253 watts.
Everything else is an identical to the 14900K. It’s the identical 24 core design with 8 P cores and 16 E cores. Architecture is the identical. L3 cache and L2, the identical. Base frequencies, unchanged. Memory specs, an identical. It’s essentially the identical processor besides that in ideally suited conditions it will possibly clock about 3% increased and it’s probably utilizing higher binned silicon.
The 13900K began out with a most P-core frequency of 5.8 GHz, that jumped to six.0 GHz for the 13900KS and 14900K, now it’s 6.2 GHz. So in complete, we have seen a 400 MHz enhance throughout these 4 merchandise, or simply 200 MHz when Intel’s fundamental turbo spec (and simply 100 MHz on the E-cores).
Now, for those who had been anticipating this new CPU with a 3% increased clock velocity to price simply 3% greater than the 14900K, you would be badly mistaken. Intel says the new half, which is occurring sale right this moment, will price a whopping $700. Right now, you may choose up a Core i9-14900K for $545, making the KS variant 20+% costlier. Yikes.
Or even worse, as a result of the 14900KS is similar to the 13900K, which may be bought for as little as $520. So potential consumers could be paying 34% extra for basically the identical chip, simply clocked barely increased and with a barely higher bin.
From our testing, we all know that the 14900K is ~2% quicker than the 13900K resulting from its 3 % frequency enhance, so we’re anticipating one thing comparable once more (if we find yourself re-reviewing the identical chip, we’ll see). This is not the first time Intel has launched a KS processor: they did so with the 9900KS, 12900KS and 13900KS.
The sample is repeated right here with a re-release of the silicon with a small frequency enhance and a a lot increased price ticket. In our 13900KS evaluation we stated the CPU made no sense and was a rip-off, and in the 12900KS evaluation we stated it was a dumb product for individuals with more cash than sense.
As a part of Intel’s slide deck, there are a number of questionable efficiency slides. For instance, we now have this one evaluating the 14900KS with the 13900KS, a CPU that is similar to the 14900K. Across the seven video games proven, on common Intel is claiming a 7% efficiency enhance. Except there’s a vital footnote: Intel’s Application Optimization function was enabled on the 14900KS, implying this function was not enabled on the 13900KS.
Along with the 14900KS, Intel is updating the record of APO enabled video games to incorporate 14 titles. If we cross reference this record with the earlier efficiency slide, we see that 5 of the seven titles are APO video games, the outliers being Starfield with only a 3% efficiency enchancment, and League of Legends with a 5% enchancment. Intel claims that Metro Exodus sees an 11% acquire from APO alone, suggesting the 15% acquire seen in the graph comes largely from that function as a substitute of uncooked efficiency.
This is necessary to notice as a result of Intel has stated that APO is coming to twelfth and Thirteenth-gen processors, which would come with the 13900KS.
Intel additionally spends a variety of their slide deck evaluating the 14900KS to the 7950X3D in video games, slightly than the 7800X3D they admit is the quickest Ryzen processor for gaming. The chart under, for instance, reveals the 14900KS as being 4% quicker than the 7950X3D on common throughout 18 video games, however in a comply with up slide they really admit the 7800X3D is 1.4% quicker of their testing.
When we examined the 7800X3D vs the 14900K in 21 video games, we discovered the Ryzen processor is 5% quicker on common, so the 14900KS closing that hole barely is sensible, although it’s unlikely to be outright quickest.
Of course, Intel could also be evaluating the 7950X3D and 14900KS as a result of they’re much nearer in value, although the 7950X3D is presently accessible for $590, which is nonetheless 15% cheaper than the 14900KS. The 7950X3D is additionally the nearer match for productiveness workloads, the place the Core i9 processors are likely to shine because of their excessive core depend. Intel is claiming a ten% common efficiency benefit to the 14900KS over the 7950X, although the 7950X is simply $550, making the 14900KS a full 27% costlier. These are additionally simply first social gathering benchmarks and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Intel is additionally claiming higher body consistency with the 14900KS, which they’re measuring utilizing the 99th percentile body time. They present the 14900KS 2.7% forward of the 7800X3D on common, although it’s unclear why on this check the recreation choice is lowered from 9 video games to 7 video games. Possibly some cherry choosing there.
So what else are you able to say about the 14900KS? It’s not an thrilling processor launch. Most individuals most likely should not purchase one. It may supply one thing barely higher for excessive overclockers, taking out a small quantity of guesswork concerning CPU high quality and binning, however for on a regular basis customers it is not sensible.
This may need been considerably thrilling if Intel was in a position to retake the gaming efficiency crown from AMD’s Ryzen 7 7800X3D, even when it was a slim lead for file functions slightly than for offering stronger worth or tangible efficiency to customers. But even that appears unlikely as Intel’s first social gathering benchmarks present the 7800X3D usually forward, and primarily based on our benchmarks, the hole between the 7800X3D and 14900K is too pronounced to shut with a greatest case 3% frequency bump.
