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 i9-14900T review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£510PassMark multi-core score:38413N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:5.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Core i9-14900T Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-14900T
8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 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 94% of models
Score components

40%

8.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

8.0

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 94% of processors
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

▲Better than 81%
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%

9.2

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

★Better than 97%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
8.0

List score

List score
8.0/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 83 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-i9-14900t
  • intel-core-i9-14900t
intel-core-i9-14900t
intel-core-i9-14900t
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.
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #44 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-14900T

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%

9.2

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

8.6
Reviews score
7.2
List score
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

7.9
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
Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series
This processor supports Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 81.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
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
5.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.5 GHz which is higher than that of 97% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 1.1 GHz & 16x 0.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x1.1 GHz & 16x0.8 GHz which is higher than that of 68.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
38,413
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 38,413 in PassMark, which is higher than 91.4% of processors.
Show more
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
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
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)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85.4% of processors and equal to 5.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
106 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 106 W which is higher than that of 65.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i9-14900T vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.15x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,385 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,385 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
  • 3.35x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,413 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,413 vs 11,469
  • 96.7% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,019 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,019 vs 1,535
  • 62.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,164 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,164 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 25% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 8.8% better value for money
    Intel Core i9-14900T has better value for money than the average processor (7.93 vs 7.3).
    7.93 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.15x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,385 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,385 vs 5,209
  • 3.35x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,413 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,413 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 96.7% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,019 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,019 vs 1,535
  • 62.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,164 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,164 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 25% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 84.3% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (903 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    903 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x1.1 GHz & 16x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x1.1 GHz & 16x0.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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.
    6 vs 4
  • 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
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost Technology
    3 vs 2
  • 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.
    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.
  • 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
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 65.6% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (106 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    106 W vs 64 W
  • 2.04x more expensive
    Intel Core i9-14900T is more expensive than the average processor (£510 vs £250).
    £510 vs £250
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 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
  • 2.04x more expensive
    Intel Core i9-14900T is more expensive than the average processor (£510 vs £250).
    £510 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 65.6% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (106 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    106 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-14900T

  • Impressive energy efficiency for its class with a low 35W base TDP
  • Strong single-core performance, achieving approximately 95% of the i9-14900K's speed
  • High core count (24 cores / 32 threads) makes it ideal for multitasking and professional workloads
  • Compatible as a 'drop-in' upgrade for existing LGA 1700 motherboards
  • Integrated UHD Graphics 770 useful for troubleshooting and secondary display output

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

  • Significantly lower multi-threaded performance compared to the 'K' variant (roughly 22-34% slower)
  • Higher MSRP ($549) and lower availability compared to more efficient AMD rivals like the Ryzen 9 7900
  • Maximum turbo power can still reach 106W, which may require better cooling than the '35W' rating suggests
  • Limited future-proofing due to the end-of-life status of the LGA 1700 socket
  • Performance in cache-sensitive games trails behind AMD's X3D alternatives

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-14900T is a 14th Gen Raptor Lake Refresh desktop processor featuring 24 cores (8 Performance-cores and 16 Efficient-cores) and 32 threads, designed with a focus on high efficiency and low power consumption. It operates with a low 35W processor base power and 106W maximum turbo power, reaching boost frequencies of up to 5.5 GHz with 36MB of Intel Smart Cache and 32MB of L2 cache. Key pros include its exceptional energy efficiency for a flagship-tier chip, support for both DDR5-5600 and DDR4-3200 memory, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 770, making it ideal for powerful yet compact or fanless builds. However, its main cons include a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking and significantly lower base and multi-core performance compared to its 125W K-series counterparts due to strict power limits.

Compare Intel Core i9-14900T 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 i9-14900T and other processors

No results found