Sample Page Title

See full bio

Shehryar Khan

At HI Digital I test and write about different hardware configurations to show other PC users what they can expect from their build. My end goal is to educate the masses to make the right decision when they are looking for new PC parts to buy

See full bio

Pros & Cons

Key Takeaways

• Our tests at 1080p revealed the Core i9 14900K to be around 4% faster than the 14700KF in average framerate, which is a rather minute difference between the two.
• In our gaming tests, we also noticed the Core i9 14900K to be around 17.8% more power-hungry than its little brother.
• There is a huge price hike of approximately 53%, going from the 14700KF to the 14900K.
• For most people, the Core i7 14700KF provides performance close enough to the absolute best from Intel while being significantly cheaper.

Specification Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The Core i7 14700KF has a total of 20 cores, which include 8 performance cores and 12 efficiency cores, which come out to 28 threads. The Core i9 14900K, however, has 24 cores, including 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores, adding up to 32 threads.
2. Clock Speed: The performance cores on the i9 clock from 3.2GHz to 6GHx, whereas the 14700KF’s performance cores go from 3.4GHz all the way to 5.6GHz. The efficiency cores of the i9 have a frequency of around 2.4GHz to 4.4GHz, while the efficiency cores of the i7 have a range of 2.5GHz to 4.3GHz.
3. L3 Cache: There is a small difference between the cache of these two processors, with the i7 using around 33MB, while the i9 uses closer to 36MB.
4. Process Node: Both processors use the same 10nm processing node that Intel has used since the 12th-gen processors.
5. Other Differences: The F in 14700KF means that this processor does not include integrated graphics, which can be an inconvenience to anyone with a discrete graphics card.

Modern processors have become excessive in their pricing in recent years, which has urged consumers to get the cheapest high-performing processors possible. The Core i9 14900K vs Core i7 14700KF will see if the performance of a midrange chip is good enough for modern gaming or if people should go all out in their purchasing decisions.

Benchmarks – 1080p

Now that we know some grounding details of the Core i9 14900K vs Core i7 14700KF, this part of the comparison will entail our detailed testing of the two chips using the test bench we mentioned below:

Test Bench

• OS – Windows 11
• Motherboard – ASUS TUF Gaming Z790-Plus
• Graphics Card – Nvidia Geforce RTX 4090 FE
• RAM – XPG Lancer RGB 32GB 7200MT/s DDR5
• SSD – XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 2TB NVMe
• PSU – ENERMAX REVOLUTION D.F. X 1050W
• CPU Cooler – Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 – AIO Water Cooler

Cyberpunk 2077

• Our testing started with the remarkably demanding title of Cyberpunk 2077. It had an average framerate of 174 FPS on the Core i9, whereas the latest and greatest i7 was around 3.6% behind with a performance of 168 FPS. 
• 1% lows were also only slightly different between our two chips, with the i9 going down to a framerate of around 137 FPS, while the i7 got down a bit lower to around 131 FPS.

Assassin’s Creed Mirage

• The advantage of the i9 went down to around 3% in our test of AC Mirage, with an average framerate of around 165 FPS, while the i7 hovered around 162 FPS.
• The 1% lows held up nicer on the i9, around 102 FPS instead of the 96 FPS of the Core i7.

Starfield

• The difference between the two chips was slightly under 3% in Starfield, with an average of around 101 FPS for the i7, while the i9 had an average of closer to 104 FPS.
• 1% lows went down to the same number on both processors. They both held their minimums at around 76 FPS.

Remnant II

• Testing Remnant II showed a larger gap in performance between the average framerates of these two chips, with the i7 getting an average framerate of around 145 FPS, while the i9 was around 4% faster with an average framerate of close to 151 FPS.
• The 1% lows in this game showed us the most noticeable difference we’ve seen yet between these two chips, with the i7 going down to around 104 FPS while the i9 was significantly smoother, with lows of around 129 FPS.

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

• This game ran at a very high framerate on both of our processors, with the i7 averaging a framerate of around 294 FPS, while the i9 had lows closer to a round of 300 FPS.
• The 1% lows shot down to around 182 FPS on the midrange processor, while the high-end one had minimums closer to 190 FPS.

A Plague Tale Requiem

• The close battle continued in A Plague Tale Requiem, with the i9 getting an average framerate of around 152 FPS, around 2.7% higher than the 148 FPS average of the Core i7.
• The 1% lows switched the behavior we’ve seen so far from these processors, with the i7 getting 105 FPS at its low points while the i9 got a minimum of around 101 FPS.

F1 23

• There was a 3.7% advantage for the Core i9 in our test of F1 23, with an average framerate of around 223 FPS, while the i7 had an average of close to 215 FPS.
• The 1% lows once again differed substantially between these two processors, with the i7 going down to around 132 FPS, while the i9 had lows closer to 150 FPS.

Call Of Duty Warzone

• For the final game of our tests, COD Warzone had an average framerate of 199 FPS on the i9, 11% higher than the average of around 179 FPS on the 14700KF.
• The lows in this game were around 151 FPS on the 14900K, while the Core i7 hovered around minimum framerates of around 141 FPS.

Overall Gaming Performance

The details of the performance of these chips might have relieved a larger trend in the performance of the Core i9 14900K vs Core i7 14700KF. This part of our discussion will take a step back to look at the bigger picture of the performance of these two processors.

Here’s a sneak peak into our performance testing for this comparison:

Average Framerate

The average framerate of the Core i9 hovered around 185 FPS, while the Core i7 14700KF had an average of closer to 178 FPS. This entailed a 4% difference in the average performance of these cards. In general, the difference in performance between these two chips was rather unnoticeable at the high framerates both processors provide.

1% Lows

The 1% lows of these processors had a larger difference of around 7.5%, with the i9 hovering around 128 FPS while the i7 held its own at 119 FPS. The performance of the i7 was not bad, but it was noticeably slower, which can lead to this chip aging considerably quicker.

Overall, the Core i9 14900K wins in performance, but not by much.

Winner: Intel's Core i9 14900K

Editor`s Note

For some people, the decision between either card could boil down to the inclusion of integrated graphics on the higher-end processor. Though the performance of the iGPU on Intel’s chips is much better than in years past, please remember that they are not good enough to play modern games comfortably!

– Shehryar Khan

Gaming Power Consumption

We now know that the performance of these processors has not changed very drastically, so let us see if this translates to power consumption or if Intel has once again let us down in this regard.

The above table shows the Core i9 14900K to take around 17.8% more power than its slightly less performant brother, which disappoints us once again. Intel has had a history of being very power inefficient for a while, which did not change in the 14th generation of processors.

Temperatures

As with power consumption, temperature issues have also been a problem for some newer processors, which is why we will discuss the thermal performance of these processors in this section.

The above table shows an 8.85% increase in temperatures going to the higher-end chip, which is larger than its increase in power but not concerning in the slightest. Using these processors with any adequate power supply should yield good performance results and take thermal throttling out of the picture.

Price And Value

The Core i7 14700KF has an MSRP of $384, while the Core i9 14900K comes packing with a very high price tag of around $589. The price of the i9 comes out to be around 53% higher than the i7, which is unjustifiable for most consumers.

What We Recommend

Now that we’ve gathered a few data points on the Core i9 14900K vs Core i7 14700KF, this part of our discussion will involve the user demographic of both processors.

Core i9 14900K: This processor has a high price tag and little improvement, at least for gaming. For most users, we recommend waiting for the Core Ultra processors to come out early next year to be sure you’re getting the performance out there. As for right now, the performance of the lower-tier Intel chips makes the 14900K look like a bad deal.

Core i7 14700KF: For most consumers, the i7 14700KF makes a lot of sense. The omission of integrated graphics makes it cheaper than other offerings while having performance close to the highest tier possible. 

To conclude, we strongly believe that the lower price of the 14700KF and its similar performance give the i9’s value proposition a run for its money. However, the higher-tier processor can justify itself if you have a workload in which more productivity power would be useful.

More From Core i9 14900K

• Core i9 14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D
• Core i9-14900K Vs i7-13700K
• Core i9 14900K Vs Ryzen 9 7900X

Shehryar Khan

[How-To Guides Expert]

Laiba, our tech guru at HI Digital, simplifies and crafts How-To Guides with a Google IT Support Certificate. Beyond tech, she captures the city’s aesthetics through her lens. Join her journey where tech meets creativity!

Get In Touch: Laiba@hidgt.com