Intel's new 35W CPUs aren't much slower than their 65W counterparts — Core i5-14600T exhibits 6% lower performance than Core i5-14600 in Geekbench 6 benchmark

Intel Core CPU
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel's Core i5-14600T has been benchmarked in Geekbench 6 ahead of its arrival on store shelves, and its performance is very close to the regular Core i5-14600 (via BenchLeaks). The 35-watt CPU is one of the 18 Raptor Lake refresh CPUs Intel announced earlier this week, with the Core i5-14600T being the third fastest chip in the low-power T-series.

With six P-cores and eight E-cores, the Core i5-14600T is identical to the Core i5-14600 and the Core i5-14600K in everything but clock speed. The Core i5-14600T is limited to 5.1 GHz and 3.6 GHz on its P- and E-cores, while the Core i5-14600 can do 5.2 GHz and 3.9 GHz; the 14600K is even higher at 5.3 GHz and 4 GHz. The Core i5-14600T also features a shallow base TDP of 35 watts, compared to the 65 watts on the Core i5-14600 and 125 watts on the Core i5-14600K.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Core i5-14600TCore i5-14600
Single-Core Score2,6262,785
Multi-Core Score15,35416,110

Using performance data from an earlier leak of the regular Core i5-14600, we can see that the Core i5-14600T is very close in overall performance. Granted, we don't know the exact settings of each CPU since the TDP is somewhat configurable, but the Core i5-14600T can only go to 92 watts, while the Core i5-14600 is allowed to hit 152 watts. At a minimum, it would seem that the Core i5-14600T's efficiency improvement is likely in the double digits.

One notable improvement the Core i5-14600T brings over the Core i5-13600T is the use of Raptor Lake. Believe it or not, the generation number for 13th and 14th Gen CPUs doesn't correlate to the architecture, and CPUs like the Core i5-13400 and Core i3-13100 use the older Alder Lake chip. So, while the Core i5-13600K used the new Raptor Lake chip design with an extra cache, the Core i5-13600 and Core i5-13600T didn't. The Core i5-14600 and Core i5-14600T have as much cache as the Core i5-14600K this time.

It's unclear when you'll be able to buy a Core i5-14600T. Technically, it's already launched and available, but we couldn't find it on Amazon, and there was just one listing at Newegg that would ship from Israel. When it does arrive, you should be able to get one for around $255, though considering T-series chips have always been niche and low in supply and demand, the price could be significantly higher or lower.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • nogames
    So you're saying, the 65W counterparts are not very fast ;)
    Reply
  • ezst036
    I like 35w chips, they're very easy to turn into fan-less operation.

    Give it a cooler that's rated for like 180w or some seemingly absurdly rated number, remove the fans, and keep right on going. Your case choice can't be a total after-thought, but you can generally do it with ease.

    Those fanless PSU like the seasonic titanium put out virtually no heat at all.

    This is not a gaming rig.
    Reply
  • CelicaGT
    More proof the standard components are too far outside the efficiency curve. Perf/Watt really suffers on the high end and most gamers would probably be just fine with the lower TDP option especially at higher resolutions. (Or just set a reasonable frame limiter and stop bouncing off the power limit on either component.)

    (Edit: spelling)
    Reply
  • healthy Pro-teen
    CelicaGT said:
    More proof the standard components are too far outside the efficiency curve. Perf/Watt really suffers on the high end and most gamers would probably be just fine with the lower TDP option especially at higher resolutions. (Or just set a reasonable frame limiter and stop bouncing off the power limit on either component.)

    (Edit: spelling)
    With some tinkering, 65 watt CPUs can be easily made into 35W CPUs. Before overclocking was worth it, now underclocking or UV is. If we are willing to give up on a few fps.
    Reply
  • usertests
    14600T turbo TDP = 92W.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    usertests said:
    14600T turbo TDP = 92W.
    Non-t 14600 turbo TDP=154 ,what's your point?!
    It's still more than 50% more power than the non-t uses.
    (At full load)
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    CelicaGT said:
    More proof the standard components are too far outside the efficiency curve.
    No they are not, at least not if you use them as intended, if you do overclock them to infinity then yes.
    Stock/default settings 14900k = 139 points 7950x = 158 points, that's a """huge""" difference of ~13% !
    And that is only if you are doing any rendering or other full load job on the system.
    That might not be on the peak of the efficiency curve but it is definitely not "too far" off.
    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/8.html
    Reply
  • usertests
    TerryLaze said:
    Non-t 14600 turbo TDP=154 ,what's your point?!
    It's still more than 50% more power than the non-t uses.
    (At full load)
    The efficiency curve. If it was actually 35W vs. 65W where the power really counts, there might be a bigger difference. By the time you get to 92-154 W there are diminishing returns.
    Reply
  • JTWrenn
    This is an unfortunate consequence of the who has the fastest CPU race. Efficiency should be our top line question nowadays but people gotta go full v12 turbo idiot on it all.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    usertests said:
    The efficiency curve. If it was actually 35W vs. 65W where the power really counts, there might be a bigger difference. By the time you get to 92-154 W there are diminishing returns.
    That's why base power is base power and max turbo power is max turbo power.
    Most of the time you will be around base power even with moderate to high workloads. You only hit max turbo power if you run all of the cores at all of the clocks at all of the time running the heaviest of workloads.
    Reply