Core Core i5-14600 and Core i3-14100 Geekbenched and Specs Leaked

Core i9-13900K QS tested
(Image credit: Intel)

This week, Intel introduced three overclockable 14th Generation Core 'Raptor Lake Refresh' processors aimed at enthusiasts. However, many people will wait for the cheaper, locked, mainstream 14th Generation Core parts that are months away. Fortunately, well-known leaker ECSM_Official has added benchmark scores of Intel's pre-production Core i3-14100 and Core i5-14600 to the Geekbench 6 database (via @Benchleaks), revealing their specifications and performance.

Judging by the listed specifications, Intel's Core i3-14100 and Core i5-14600 are Raptor Lake CPUs that did not gain much compared to their direct 13th-generation predecessors. The Core i3-14100 retained four high-performance Raptor Cove cores, but this time around, they run at 3.50 – 4.70 GHz (up from 3.40 – 4.50 GHz), which is not a big difference. The situation is worse with the Core i5-14600, which retained its 6P + 8E cores configuration, but at 2.70 – 5.20 GHz, this part is slower compared to the Core i5-13600, which runs at 2.70 GHz – 5.30 GHz, at least on paper. The Refreshed part can likely defeat its predecessor by running at high clocks for longer periods, but such periods heavily depend on cooling systems and thus are never guaranteed.

Of course, we are dealing with presumably pre-production hardware, and the specifications of both parts can change. But if the specs are final, then it hardly makes sense to wait for the refreshed parts if you expect tangibly higher performance.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Core i5-14600Core i5-13600Core i3-14100Core i3-13100
General specifications6C + 8E | 2.70 – 5.20 GHz6C + 8E | 2.70 – 5.30 GHz4P | 3.40 - 4.50 GHz4P | 3.50 - 4.70 GHz
Single-Core | Score2785267425092444
Multi-Core | Score161101590688818846
Linkhttps://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3144307https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/2671842https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3144100https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/2609672

Surprisingly, despite the lower maximum clocks, the new Core i5-14600 is slightly faster than its predecessor both in single-thread and multi-thread workloads, possibly because it operates at higher clocks for longer periods. Meanwhile, the difference between Intel's Core i3-14100 and Core i3-13100 looks negligible.

As it turns out, while Intel's Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, and Core i5-14600K processors with unlocked multipliers prove to be among best CPUs for gaming, but are only faster than their predecessors by slim margins, and their lower-end counterparts are also not going to bring any substantial performance gains.

Of course, we are dealing with presumably pre-production hardware, and the specifications of both parts can change. Furthermore, we have only seen the performance numbers of two CPUs, so we cannot draw any definitive conclusions for now. But if the specs are final, then it hardly makes a lot of sense to wait for the refreshed parts if you expect tangibly higher performance. Still, 14th Generation Core can be faster than their direct predecessors — just only slightly.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Order 66
    I feel like it is about time for the i3 to get 6 cores, because the next step up from the i3 13100 is the i5 13400. quite the difference in cores 4 vs 10.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    I find it interesting that the 14600 has a 100MHz slower clock on boost but still manages small performance gains. The K serious didn't show much of any IPC improvements. Is there a typo or is there some other difference in these parts (larger cache)?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I think it would've been interesting for Intel to have released an unlocked CPU with the 6P + 0E die. I was hoping for a Gen 13 or Gen 14 refresh of it, as well, since it could help us appreciate the impact of the additional ring bus stops, on the bigger dies. I guess they're walking away from that smaller die and just using binning of the big-die CPUs for the low-end SKUs.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    JamesJones44 said:
    I find it interesting that the 14600 has a 100MHz slower clock on boost but still manages small performance gains.
    If they made it by disabling cores on a big die, then it'd be faster due to the larger L2 caches & other improvements from Raptor Lake. The i3-13100 still uses the same silicon as the i3-12100, I'm pretty sure.

    As for why clocks were reduced, maybe that was necessary for them to stay within the power budget, using a big Raptor Lake die.
    Reply
  • Devoteicon
    Order 66 said:
    I feel like it is about time for the i3 to get 6 cores, because the next step up from the i3 13100 is the i5 13400. quite the difference in cores 4 vs 10.
    Or just retire it all together.
    Reply
  • Order 66
    Devoteicon said:
    Or just retire it all together.
    Why would they retire the i3? They would give up that segment of the market to the Ryzen 3.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    I rather like my 12100F, makes a nice quiet living room PC.

    I want a socketable Oops! All E-Cores CPU™ for the desktop. But so far only on the server for both Intel and AMD.

    Also that short-lived 1P core 4E core mobile chip.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Eximo said:
    I want a socketable Oops! All E-Cores CPU™ for the desktop.
    Socketable because why? Are you dissatisfied with the I/O of Alder Lake-N? You can get it on a mini-ITX and I think even micro-ATX board!

    I guess another disadvantage of BGA is the lack of a standard heatsink mount. I had to rig something ad hoc, for my ASRock Gemini Lake-R board.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    bit_user said:
    Socketable because why? Are you dissatisfied with the I/O of Alder Lake-N? You can get it on a mini-ITX and I think even micro-ATX board!

    I guess another disadvantage of BGA is the lack of a standard heatsink mount. I had to rig something ad hoc, for my ASRock Gemini Lake-R board.

    Mostly so I don't have to toss the board when it starts to show its age. But I also like to run discrete GPUs so I can upgrade the display outputs as things change.

    The market is probably too small for it to happen.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Eximo said:
    Mostly so I don't have to toss the board when it starts to show its age. But I also like to run discrete GPUs so I can upgrade the display outputs as things change.
    If the board is cheap enough, you won't mind tossing it (price-wise, at least).

    The SoC only has x9 PCIe 3.0 lanes, total. So, the practical upshot of that is you're unlikely to get more than x4 PCIe lanes for the GPU. That would also come at the expense of lanes for the M.2 slot.

    If you really want a cheap, low-ish power socketed system, then consider a i3-12100F. It's 4c/8t @ 58W and Newegg has them for $95. You can cut power considerably by reducing the max frequency in software. It shouldn't be much trouble to get it down around 35 W. Going much lower wouldn't seem to make sense when you're running a dGPU.
    Reply