Intel's 13th Generation Raptor Lake processors are already some of the best CPUs for gaming. The chipmaker's following up with Raptor Lake Refresh, rumored for an October launch. Shortly after seeing the first Raptor Lake Refresh listings, we now have the alleged MSRP for the upcoming trio of K-series processors.
According to momomo_us, a reputable hardware leaker, the 14th Generation Raptor Lake Refresh lineup could cost up to 16% (if rounded up) more than the existing Raptor Lake portfolio. However, the price comparison is strictly for Intel's K-series SKUs, such as the Core i9-14900K, Core i7-14700K, and Core i5-14600K.
Starting from the top, the Core i9-14900K and Core i9-14900KF are reportedly 15.8% and 13.8% more expensive than the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-13900KF, respectively. A nearly 16% price hike is significant and pushes the Core i9-14900K a hairline from entering the $700 category. Pricing-wise, the Core i9-14900K would be on the same level as the special-edition Core i9-13900KS. The price tag makes sense since rumored specifications showed that the Core i9-14900K is fundamentally a slightly overclocked Core i9-13900KS.
Meanwhile, the Core i7-14700K and Core i7-14700KF may have 14.1% and 15.2% higher MSRPs than the Core i7-13700K and Core i7-13700KF, respectively. The price increase is somewhat defensible since the Core i7-14700K has four more E-cores than the Core i7-13700K. It doesn't sound like an insignificant amount, but at least there's an upgrade in the cores and L3 cache, unlike the other SKUs that are essentially higher-binned parts of their predecessors.
Intel 14th Generation Raptor Lake Refresh Pricing*
| Processor | Pricing |
|---|---|
| Core i9-14900K / Core i9-14900KF | $695 / $660 |
| Core i9-13900K / Core i9-13900KF | $600 / $580 |
| Core i7-14700K / Core i7-14700KF | $485 / $470 |
| Core i7-13700K / Core i7-13700KF | $425 / $415 |
| Core i5-14600K / Core i5-14600KF | $380 / $345 |
| Core i5-13600K / Core i5-13600KF | $330 / $305 |
*Pricing is unconfirmed.
The Core i5-13600K is the best mid-range processor for gaming. However, if the leaked pricing is accurate, Core i5-14600K may lose that appeal. The Core i5-14600K and Core i5-14600KF seemingly have 15.2% and 13.1% higher pricing than the Core i5-13600K and Core i5-13600KF. We'll have to put the Core i5-14600K through our labs to see whether the 15.2% price increase is worth it, considering that preliminary specifications show the Core i5-14600K with just a 200 MHz higher max turbo boost clock.
Gamers with a discrete graphics card can probably forgo the Core i5-14600K and opt for the Core i5-14600KF, which lacks integrated graphics. They'll save 10.1% by buying the Core i5-14600KF instead of the vanilla Core i5-14600K.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
According to alleged Intel internal CPU performance projections, Raptor Lake Refresh delivers between 1% and 3% higher performance than Raptor Lake. MSI has a similar 3% estimation as Intel. In the case of the Core i7-14700K, the vendor observed up to 17% higher multi-threading performance thanks to the four extra E-cores.
A 3% performance improvement for a 15% higher cost is hardly justifiable, even if you're a hardware enthusiast who wants the best performance out of your system. If you already own a Raptor Lake chip, you may be better off waiting for Arrow Lake, estimated to be up to 21% faster than Raptor Lake, with over twice the iGPU performance. Even if you're putting together a new system, Raptor Lake could save you a lot of money, but then again, this is probably the last ride for the LGA1700 platform. So that's something to keep in mind, too.
Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
Elusive Ruse This is completely understandable, OEMs are forcing Intel's hand through their constant demands for new CPUs at higher prices.Reply -
Alvar "Miles" Udell That's pretty much the same thing Intel did while AMD was languishing with Phenom and Bulldozer, release a new model that's marginally faster than the old one but costs more.Reply -
rluker5 Reply
2700k was $332 and 7700k was $339 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processorsThat sounds like a price decrease after inflation.Alvar Miles Udell said:That's pretty much the same thing Intel did while AMD was languishing with Phenom and Bulldozer, release a new model that's marginally faster than the old one but costs more.
But it is $7 more after over 5 straight years of monopolistic market dominance.
If only all evil, exploiting corporations could be so benevolent. After I finished up using my 4770k in it's dead socket it went to my daughter where she still doesn't want an upgrade. 10 years of me being shamelessly exploited by a CPU that still plays almost every game at 60 fps (but it does also have 2400c10 ram). -
TCA_ChinChin Reply
That just proves how groundbreakingly amazing Sandy/Ivy Bridge was and how lackluster the following generations were that they couldn't charge more for it. They sure as hell didn't keep prices similar out of the goodness of their hearts. I would actually argue that Intel keeping the i7s at 4 cores 8 threads kept game devs focused on that target (or lower) specifically, allowing Sandy Bridge and older 4c8t processors to last longer than they would have, compared to if Intel actually increased core counts.rluker5 said:2700k was $332 and 7700k was $339 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processorsThat sounds like a price decrease after inflation.
But it is $7 more after over 5 straight years of monopolistic market dominance.
If only all evil, exploiting corporations could be so benevolent. After I finished up using my 4770k in it's dead socket it went to my daughter where she still doesn't want an upgrade. 10 years of me being shamelessly exploited by a CPU that still plays almost every game at 60 fps (but it does also have 2400c10 ram). -
hotaru251 intel: "you guys see what Nvidia charging for that 4060 compared to the 3060? Why don't we start charging crazy amounts for single digit cpu increases!"Reply -
atomicWAR Guess it will be best to buy 12th or 13th gen on sale or go AMD. I just wish Intel would wait to launch a new arch at this point but oems need new chips even if they aren't (for the most part).Reply -
rluker5 Reply
You are right. Even though each CPU generation was faster, games at the time were completely GPU bottlenecked even at 4c4t Sandy so you couldn't tell the difference in a practical sense.TCA_ChinChin said:That just proves how groundbreakingly amazing Sandy/Ivy Bridge was and how lackluster the following generations were that they couldn't charge more for it. They sure as hell didn't keep prices similar out of the goodness of their hearts. I would actually argue that Intel keeping the i7s at 4 cores 8 threads kept game devs focused on that target (or lower) specifically, allowing Sandy Bridge and older 4c8t processors to last longer than they would have, compared to if Intel actually increased core counts.
But it wasn't just Intel, consoles and AMD also stuck to the 4c8t model: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/28/20837336/amd-12-million-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-bulldozer-chips so it was an industry wide thing.
Intel could have raised prices more at the time. AMD surely would have followed. Whether they didn't due to the goodness in their hearts is hard to prove. It could have been. What matters is that they didn't. -
bit_user Reply
It should be!rluker5 said:2700k was $332 and 7700k was $339 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processorsThat sounds like a price decrease after inflation.
The i7-2700K was made on 32 nm, while the i7-7700K was made on 14 nm. The die sizes are 216 mm^2 and 126 mm^2. In other words, Kaby Lake was only 58.3% as big as Sandybridge, letting them fit up to 71.4% more per wafer! While Intel's 14 nm node was likely more expensive, it wasn't that much more.
And that 5 years is what let Intel keep selling quad-cores to mainstream desktop users, while the server CPUs increased core counts on an exponential curve.rluker5 said:But it is $7 more after over 5 straight years of monopolistic market dominance.
Kaby Lake launched against Zen 1. Do you think it's any coincidence that was Intel's last upper/mainstream quad core?
🤣rluker5 said:If only all evil, exploiting corporations could be so benevolent. -
Sluggotg Reply
Chip Fabs do charge much more for the newest nodes. Yes, you can make many more smaller chips on a single wafer, but it is also more expensive. As to the overall change cost. I don't know. Maybe it was still cheaper, (not counting the continued cost of developement), but it might have been more expensive or a wash.bit_user said:The i7-2700K was made on 32 nm, while the i7-7700K was made on 14 nm. The die sizes are 216 mm^2 and 126 mm^2. In other words, Kaby Lake was only 58.3% as big as Sandybridge, letting them fit up to 71.4% more per wafer! While Intel's 14 nm node was likely more expensive, it wasn't that much more.
Love My two Sandy Bridges.. still rocking with a great Overclock after all these years! -
YSCCC given the early torture of the instability of Alder lake, especially the ram side lingering for me until half a year later a bios update fixed those issue, I am more inclined to upgrade the 12700KF to 14700k, but if the greed is that high for intel.... I am not sure they can earn my money. Re-releasing something with better picked IC but with a higher price after the original thing launched for a year isn't a good idea IMOReply