OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i9-14900K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark multi-core score:58537N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:6.0 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core i9-14900K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 55 expert and video reviews and 17 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-14900K
8.3/10

Overall score

Score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

40%

8.6

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

25%

8.7

List score

10%

7.1

Sentiment score

★Better than 98% of processors
8.3

Value for money

Value for money
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

70%

8.3

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

★Better than 95%
8.6

Technical score

Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components

60%

9.5

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

★Better than 97%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 61% of models

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

9.9

Popularity

Grades by review (55)
35 reviews: 23 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 20 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 61%
8.7

List score

List score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (17)
List score: in 17 of 85 lists (20%)
★Better than 99%
  • intel-core-i9-14900k
  • intel-core-i9-14900k
  • intel-core-i9-14900k
  • intel-core-i9-14900k
  • intel-core-i9-14900k
intel-core-i9-14900k
intel-core-i9-14900k
intel-core-i9-14900k
intel-core-i9-14900k
intel-core-i9-14900k
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i9-14900K

Based on 9 · 21

Fast in both productivity and gaming, but it draws a lot of power and barely improves on the previous generation.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i9-14900K

Based on 183 owners sharing their experience in online comments

43%positive13%mixed44%negative

Owners praise its speed for games and demanding work, but many struggle with heat, crashes, and heavy tuning.

What owners dislike

  • With default power limits it can reach 90 to 100 °C in games and rendering, so owners add large AIO or custom cooling.35
  • Owners report random crashes, blue screens and WHEA errors, mostly at 300 W-plus power draw or while idle; some turned off hyper-threading.23
  • Owners say chips failed within months to two years, and some replacement chips became unstable again.18
  • Motherboard default voltage and power limits are set too high, so owners must undervolt, cap power limits or set core ratios manually.17
  • Owners returned the chip or switched to AMD after instability or failures, and say the Intel purchase was a mistake.16
  • Motherboard defaults can push the chip to about 1.76 V and 300 W or more, far above the 253 W Intel spec.10
  • Owners say memory overclocks cause instability, and some boards spike voltage to 1.5 V with XMP enabled.7
  • Some owners get lower fps than expected in certain games, and say minimum frame rates improve only after memory overclocking.4
  • Owners say Intel support dragged on, asked for repeated testing, and delayed refunds or replacements.4
  • Owners say high power use makes all-day workloads costly, and replacement chips and boards add to the total cost.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #22 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-14900K

Technical score
Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

9.5

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

8.6
Reviews score
7.8
List score
8.7
Value for money
Value for money
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components:

70%

8.3

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

8.3
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680
This processor supports Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 82.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
24
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 24 CPU cores, which is more than 96.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
CPU threads
32
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 94.9% of processors and equal to 3.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 6 GHz which is higher than that of 99.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.2 GHz & 16x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.2 GHz & 16x2.4 GHz which is higher than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
58,537
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 58,537 in PassMark, which is higher than 97.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
36 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 92.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
L2 cache
32 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L1 cache
2,176 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,176 KB which is larger than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.9% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 770
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 770 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 57.8% of processors and equal to that in 4.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW deco
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
253 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 253 W which is higher than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i9-14900K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.1x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (58,537 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    58,537 vs 11,469
  • 4.07x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (21,175 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    21,175 vs 5,209
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 83.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,693 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,693 vs 2,558
  • 5.61x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,725 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,725 vs 2,804.5
  • 98.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,048 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,048 vs 1,535
  • 36.4% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    6.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (55)
    35 reviews: 23 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 20 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 11.5% higher list score
    List score
    8.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (17)
    List score: in 17 of 85 lists (20%)
    8.7 vs 7.8
  • 14.4% better value for money
    Intel Core i9-14900K has better value for money than the average processor (8.33 vs 7.3).
    8.33 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    October 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 5.1x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (58,537 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    58,537 vs 11,469
  • 4.07x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (21,175 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    21,175 vs 5,209
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 83.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,693 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,693 vs 2,558
  • 5.61x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (15,725 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    15,725 vs 2,804.5
  • 98.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,048 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,048 vs 1,535
  • 36.4% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    6.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 24 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 84.1% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (902 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    902 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.2 GHz & 16x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.2 GHz & 16x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 6
    6 vs 4
  • 31.3% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (522.6 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    522.57 vs 398.015
  • 53.7% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (522.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    522.57 vs 340.075
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 4x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared by 4 cores
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    36 MB vs 9 MB
  • 5.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2,176 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,176 KB vs 384 KB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 75% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 3.95x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (253 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    253 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW deco vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW deco vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 45.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 60% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-14900K is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 45.2% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW deco vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW deco vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 3.95x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (253 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    253 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
22/02/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming, temperatures, power
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is recommended despite higher power draw and an immature optimisation app, though it is not a clear winner over AMD.
8.0
TechPowerUp
≈ estimated
19/10/2023
Benchmark review · gaming, applications, power and thermals
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is a very good choice for business users who want the fastest chip, but gaming favours the 7800X3D.
5.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
18/10/2023
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and power benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is barely different from the 13900K, so only a lower price makes it worth buying.
6.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
18/10/2023
Hands-on test · integrated graphics gaming performance
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is usable for esports and lighter games at low settings, but it is not worth upgrading to.
5.0
Techtesters
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Hands-on review · 36 games and power tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is disappointing: barely faster than the 13900K and not worth upgrading to from current high-end chips.
6.0
A2K
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is a powerful chip for many-core work, but a poor choice for gaming given its heat and power draw.
7.0
Venom's Tech
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Initial impressions · gaming FPS and temperature tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is a small step over the 13900K, so it suits new flagship builds better than upgrades.
6.0
Tech Critter
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power and temperature tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K performs strongly, but it is a poor upgrade from recent Intel or AMD chips and is best for upgrading older systems.
8.0
Weshi Plays
≈ estimated
02/07/2024
Unboxing and benchmark · Cinebench multicore and temperatures
Verdict
Intel Core i9-14900K is recommended for buyers with strong liquid cooling, since the chip runs very hot.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Shop video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
theverge.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Benchmark review · Creative and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K leads creator apps and video export, but AMD's 3D V-Cache chips win in games and it runs very hot.
6.7
techradar.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Lab test · Productivity and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is the top chip for video editing and productivity, but gains over the i9-13900K are barely noticeable and gaming trails AMD.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Lab test · Raptor Lake refresh
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is nearly identical to the Core i9-13900K, and it runs very hot, so it needs a robust cooler to perform well.
7.9
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Hands-on test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is Intel's best desktop chip, but its small gain over the i9-13900K rarely shows in games, where AMD's 3D V-Cache chips still lead some titles.
9.5
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Benchmark review · Raptor Lake Refresh
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a small step up from 13th Gen, with better efficiency and slightly faster gaming, but it needs decent cooling.
7.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
18/10/2023
Lab review · 13th Gen refresh
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is fast in multi-threaded work and single-core speed, but it runs hot and draws heavy power, so it needs a robust cooler.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
19/01/2024
Hands-on test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K tops most tests, but its heat and power draw are extreme, so it suits buyers who want the strongest all-round chip.
9.0
cogconnected.com
✓ explicit
06/05/2024
Hands-on test · Gaming and editing
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K handles gaming and DaVinci Resolve editing well, but it needs a powerful graphics card and board to get the most out of it.
8.0
digitalcitizen.life
✓ explicit
08/10/2025
Hands-on test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a very fast desktop chip for demanding games and heavy workloads, but its heat and power draw make it hard to recommend.
6.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Lab test · Raptor Lake Refresh
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a near-copy of the 13900K with consistent performance, but it runs very hot and draws heavy power for small gains.
8.2
custompc.com
✓ explicit
26/06/2024
Hands-on test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a strong all-rounder for gaming and multi-threaded work, but its heavy power draw and lack of an upgrade path count against it.
5.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
07/12/2023
Lab test · Heat and power
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K performs almost the same as its 13900K predecessor and draws a lot of power, so it needs a high-end liquid cooler.
C
club386.com
17/10/2023
≈ estimated
6.0
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-14900K review – 13900KS deja vu Would you like to see a comparison table of the benchmark scores from these specific reviews?
10
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
01/12/2023
Lab test · Gaming and power draw
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is fast in applications and solid in games, but it runs hot, draws a lot of power and barely improves on its predecessor.
8.0
ginjfo.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Lab test · Power and heat
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K tops the chart for everyday and multi-core tasks, but it draws up to 388W and needs strong cooling to avoid slowing down.
8.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Review · Overclocking and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is strong at gaming and offers automatic overclocking through XTU, but it draws about as much power as the 13900K and needs strong cooling.
8.6
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
03/11/2023
Hands-on test · Synthetic benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K reaches 6GHz and scores well in memory and cache tests, but it is only a few percent faster than the 13900K.
9.0
gameit.es
≈ estimated
29/11/2023
Hands-on test · Cooling and performance
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a high-end chip, but it needs a 280–360mm liquid cooler and gains only about 5% over the previous generation.
9.0
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
17/10/2023
Review · Refresh with heat limits
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is a modest refresh that needs a 360mm liquid cooler to avoid throttling, and it trails AMD's 3D V-Cache chips in games.
7.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
17/10/2023
Benchmark test · Flagship desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-14900K is the most powerful consumer chip in the test, but it needs a triple liquid cooler and draws about 300W under load.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-14900K

  • Elite single-core performance with a 6.0GHz peak boost clock out of the box.
  • Strong multi-threaded capability with 24 cores (8 Performance, 16 Efficiency) and 32 threads.
  • Excellent for intensive professional workloads like 4K video editing, 3D rendering, and multitasking.
  • Native support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, plus PCIe 5.0 compatibility.
  • No price increase at launch compared to its predecessor, the i9-13900K.
  • Maintains compatibility with existing LGA 1700 motherboards (600 and 700 series chipsets).

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-14900K

  • Extreme thermal output that frequently leads to throttling, even with high-end 360mm AIO liquid coolers.
  • High power consumption, with peak draws often exceeding 300W-330W under heavy loads.
  • Well-documented stability issues and crashes (BSODs) reported by many users, often requiring BIOS microcode updates to mitigate.
  • Reports of permanent CPU degradation over time due to high voltages and heat, sometimes leading to RMA requests.
  • Minimal performance gains over the previous generation i9-13900K, making it a poor value for those already on 13th gen.
  • Often requires manual BIOS tuning (undervolting or power limits) by the user to ensure long-term stability and manageable temps.

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-14900K is a high-end 14th-generation desktop processor based on the Raptor Lake Refresh architecture, featuring 24 cores (8 Performance-cores and 16 Efficient-cores) and 32 threads. It boasts a world-first mass-produced boost clock of up to 6.0 GHz, supported by 36MB of Intel Smart Cache, 32MB of L2 cache, and compatibility with both DDR5-5600 and DDR4-3200 memory. Its main strengths include industry-leading single-core performance for gaming and massive multi-threaded power for professional creative workloads like 4K video editing and 3D rendering. However, it faces notable drawbacks such as extreme power consumption peaking over 300W, high operating temperatures reaching 100°C that require premium liquid cooling, and minimal performance gains over its predecessor, the i9-13900K.

Compare Intel Core i9-14900K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i9-14900K and other processors

No results found