Intel's new fastest gaming CPU spotted at multiple European retailers — Core i9-14900KS costs $100 more for this binned CPU

Core i9-14900K
(Image credit: Amazon)

The Intel Core i9-14900KS has surfaced at multiple retailers across Europe, and listings with price tags indicate that the flagship CPU will have a significantly higher price than the Core i9-14900K. Although it's hard to trust pre-launch pricing for listings that clearly weren't supposed to go public yet, one listing in particular may have plausible pricing, and would put the 14900KS a little above €700 or $750.

Retail leaks for upcoming hardware usually don't happen at big sites like Amazon or Newegg, but at small regional stores that can be hard to track down. One such listing was leaked by @momomo_us on X, showing two different listings for the Core i9-14900KS on a French retailer we couldn't identify. However, we were able to find several other listings for the 14900KS; one was at the Austrian site Singer and another three were all from Swiss retailers. We've compared these prices below (except for Singer's which is priced unrealistically for over €1,000), and converted the Swiss sites' Francs to Euros.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Core i9-14900KS Pricing Comparison
RetailerCore i9-14900KSCore i9-14900K
Unknown French Retailer Box€640.29 (€768.34 after tax)?
Unknown French Retailer Tray€627.19 (€752.62 after tax)?
Orderflow€714.69€582.37
freecall24€718.48€603.64
Scheuss & Partner€689.99 (€745.88 after tax)N/A

Euro pricing implies U.S. price tag of $699 for the Core i9-14900KS

Although it's usually hard to trust pre-launch pricing, in this case the prices are so close together (especially for the Swiss retailers) that they seem very plausible. At around €700, the Intel Core-14900KS would have a price bump of roughly €100, which is about $100. That's more or less the same as what we saw with the Core i9-13900KS, which launched for $699, while the regular Core i9-13900K came with a $589 price tag. That would also imply a U.S. price tag of $699 for the 14900KS.

The existence of these listings also strongly implies that the rumored March launch date for the Intel Core i9-14900KS could be accurate as well. Premature listings usually go up shortly before the intended launch date, though the 14900KS was first spotted very early in November at an Israeli retailer.

As for whether the Core i9-14900KS will be particularly competitive, it's hard to say. We think it'll sport a 6.2 GHz boost clock, a record-breaking out-of-the-box frequency for any CPU. When it launches it will be Intel's fastest CPU and could be the fastest gaming CPU on the market, though it's unclear if it will be all that much faster than the 14900K, which hits a clock speed of 6.0 GHz. Additionally, Zen 5-based Ryzen CPUs are expected later this year, making it unlikely that the 14900KS will stay competitive for long.

Matthew Connatser

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

  • Amdlova
    699 for a winter pc it's not bad. That thing will heat the entire house. Less energy from heating sources
    Reply
  • pug_s
    Amdlova said:
    699 for a winter pc it's not bad. That thing will heat the entire house. Less energy from heating sources
    I hate to see the electric bill for the guy who buy these cpu's.
    Reply
  • aberkae
    Meanwhile Microcenter has the i9 14900k $519.
    i7 14700k for $369.99 for reference. These seem to be a freefall.

    Original 13900k is $499.99.
    Reply
  • foxrox
    The problem is there are few good silicon samples of the 14900K since they have been culling them for a higher-priced KS release. That makes losing in the silicon lottery more likely than ever. The same scenario has happened with prior generations. If you don't buy a "K" near launch day chances are good you'll get a turd sample that uses too much voltage and runs hotter.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    foxrox said:
    The problem is there are few good silicon samples of the 14900K since they have been culling them for a higher-priced KS release. That makes losing in the silicon lottery more likely than ever. The same scenario has happened with prior generations. If you don't buy a "K" near launch day chances are good you'll get a turd sample that uses too much voltage and runs hotter.
    Yeah no, there have been plenty of sites that show that the K versions often are just as good or the differences being extremely small.
    You are just paying extra for the testing.
    Also if they would be doing that then they would lose a lot of money since the ks is selling a lot fewer units, at least that's what I would think.
    Reply
  • Nyara
    foxrox said:
    The problem is there are few good silicon samples of the 14900K since they have been culling them for a higher-priced KS release. That makes losing in the silicon lottery more likely than ever. The same scenario has happened with prior generations. If you don't buy a "K" near launch day chances are good you'll get a turd sample that uses too much voltage and runs hotter.
    Silicon is made in huge waffers that can make a couple dozen to hundred CPUs, a waffer gets tested and viewed in detail before deciding for which CPU or part of CPU it can become. Waffer production quality starts mediocre at the start of the life of a node process, and the engineers gradully figure on the fly how to improve the % of functioning yields, the older a process node, the closer to 100% of succesful yields you reach.

    CPU cores are designed with a minimal success rate achieved in the wafer in mind, outside meeting the minimum, it can be anything higher randomly, say 60% is the minimum, it can easily be made of a 60% waffer or 100% waffer. Intel takes months to figure out how low in a waffer % they can go for a determined product, so they play it safe, say a 14900K could easily be produced with a 65% waffer, but Intel will go with 75% since that is the lowest they had time to test.

    And here comes KS, KS is just the realization in more detail that they high balled the minimum waffer % success, so all 14900K could squish out a bit extra performance than what they were defaulted for, this is, common sense, as all CPUs can be overclocked, KS is just they up the default to a point where they are 100% sure the waffer quality assigned for K was up for the task. In this regard KS is just relabeled K with a small overclock default, and all K can be overclocked to this point safely usually.

    Additionally, when making CPUs from a waffer, one CPU gets picked in the lot and gets tested for a while in a PC, instead of getting packaged. This is just quality control to ensure all process working, but since they are actually testing a CPU, they can just press further the test and guarantee the KS default clocks instead are working stable, then it gets manual packaged and sold as a KS. All the untested CPUs get sold as K instead, even if all shares the same silicon, mostly because KS demand is low, and they better err safe with an already tested CPU to reduce warranty redemption chance a bit.

    KS and K are the same, just KS was tested and defaulted a bit more clocks. Honestly most i7 have same p-core performance too, since 10nm+ Intel is likely yielding 80%+ consistently, so if you do not mind giving away 4 e-cores, you will get almost the same silicon lottery there for half the price. This is what benchmarkers did, too, and hence why KS is not record breaking usually when overclocking.

    TL;DR: If running a CPU at default, there is no silicon lottery, whole default purpose is setting up a consistent minimum. Silicon quality improves the older is the process node, for all tiers, which by now is close non-existent variance for Intel 10nm+. KS is just manually tested K. If paying the extra for more quality control and higher default is worth for you, good, aside that no difference with non-K.
    Reply