Ryzen 5 9600X vs. Intel Core i5-14600K, who wins in this battle of the entry-level CPUs?  

Budget builds are a big part of the tech community, and the announcement of the Ryzen 5 9600X got the gear rolling. However, AMD decided to delay the launch as some initial units were experiencing quality issues, and the fans were okay with the delay. 

That said, we also believe it is better to wait for a bit than to purchase a processor that hasn’t cleared quality checks, which would’ve led to a mass uproar and returns. However, this also gives us more time to complete our budget builds, and the question is: Should you wait for the 9600X or go for the 14600K?

In this article, we’ll explore their differences and answer that question. If you want to get your hands on the 9600X as soon as it hits the markets, visit our Where to Buy 9600X page, which has different retailers in one place to help you save time and effort. 

AMD Ryzen 5 9600X

Cores

6

Threads

12

Boost clock speed

5.4 GHz

Base clock speed

3.9 GHz

L3 Cache

32 MB

TDP

65 W

Platform

AMD Socket AM5

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

Intel Core i5 14600K

Cores

14 (6P-8E)

Threads

20

Boost clock speed

P-Core 5.3GHz / E-Core 4.0GHz

Base clock speed

P-Core 2.6GHz / E-Core 3.5GHz

L3 Cache

24 MB

TDP

125W

Platform

Intel Socket 1700

Shop on Amazon

CHECK PRICE

Specification

To see the hardware difference between the two processors, we’ve listed their specifications below.

Foundations and cores

These processors, from Intel and AMD, have vastly different architectures. This means the 9600X is powered by 4nm processes, while the 14600K has a 10nm CPU process technology. This is most likely the reason Intel included more cores in their processors, as 10nm transistors take more space, so more cores are needed to increase the transistor count. 

This isn’t the case with the 9600X; even its predecessor, the 7600X, which we’ve reviewed, has a transistor count of 6,570 million with 5nm processes. Another benefit of smaller transistors is that less energy is required to power them, but the CPU is more efficient as more of them work simultaneously. 

That said, the 14600K has eight more cores, but as mentioned before, if it had six cores, its performance would’ve dropped. So, thanks to the Zen 5 architecture, the Ryzen 5 9600X is the winner in round 1.   

Clock speed

The clock speed tells how fast a CPU can execute an instruction and how many of them it can execute in a second. For example, the base clock speed of the 9600X is 3.9 GHz, meaning it can handle 3.9 billion instructions in a second. 

This is much higher than the base clock speeds of 14600K’s E—and P-cores because the added output is much greater when you factor in that each core runs 0.4 GHz faster. 

We see a similar case with boost clock speeds, even though the 9600X only has a 0.1 GHz lead over 14600K. That said, both of these processors come unlocked for overclocking from the manufacturer, meaning you can take these clock speeds even higher. That will increase the performance as well as the TDP and thermal output. So, we recommend using the best thermal paste combined with the best CPU cooler for 9600X and 14600K. 

Cache and TDP

The 9600X has 32 MB of L3 cache, while the 14600K has a 24 MB Intel Smart Cache, which can be accessed by all cores, increasing efficiency and processing. However, the 9600X has 8 MB extra, and its L1 and L2 cache levels are faster, as the Ryzen 9000 series received a cache buff. 

So, combined with extra onboard storage, the 9600X should have the edge in processing efficiency. As if that wasn’t enough, it delivers all this with a low TDP of 65W, compared to 14600K’s base and maximum TDP of 125W and 181W.

This TDP is really high for an entry-level processor, but it makes sense, given that the transistors are bigger and require more power to operate. So, the 9600X is a much better option if energy efficiency is one of your main concerns. 

Graphic capabilities

Both processors come with integrated graphics. The 9600X has AMD Radeon Graphics, while the 14600K has Intel UHD Graphics 770. These graphics should be enough to perform basic tasks like browsing the web, using the Microsoft Office suite, or playing non-demanding games at low resolution. 

For UHD gaming with high FPS, you will need to pair them with a discrete GPU. If you’re interested in exploring some options, we recommend using the best GPU for Ryzen 5 9600X and 14600K to complete your build and experience the best performance. 

9600X price estimation 

With AMD delaying the release of this processor, we’ll have to wait until 8 August to get the official price, but we can make an informative guess based on previous launches and pricing trends. 

On top of that, there are some leaks that claim the 9600X could launch with a price tag of $279, which is decent for an entry-level processor. That said, take these leaks with a pinch of salt, as prices are susceptible to change, and we only have to wait for a couple more days. 

How have these CPUs changed from the last generation?

We compared the 9600X with the 7600X and the 5600X, and the biggest difference between the three is that they are based on different architectures. All of them have the same core count, threads, and cache, but the 7600X has the highest TDP of 105W, which is weird for an entry-level CPU. 

The 9600X has the highest boost clock speed, while the 7600X overtakes it with its much higher 4.7 GHz base clock speed. 

We compared the 14600K to its predecessors, the 13600K and 12600K.

On paper, the 14600K and 13600K are exactly the same, with the former having a 0.2 GHz higher boost clock speed. The 12600K has lower specifications, but this hardware was plenty for a processor launched in 2021.  

Alternatives to the 9600X and the 14600K

There are some processors that you could opt for instead of the 9600X and the 14600K, and we’ve listed them below. We’ve reviewed some of these alternative options, and you can also check out their in-depth reviews. 

9600X alternatives 

14600K alternatives

Which one should you go for?

The Ryzen 5 9600X has much more going on than the 14600K. It has 4n CPU process technology, making it faster and more efficient. It is based on the AM5 platform that is supported till 2027, and it has a much lower TDP of 65W. 

The 14600K has a higher core and thread count, meaning it might be better for multi-threaded workloads, but this performance comes with a high TDP. It also sits on the LGA1700 socket, which is most likely getting replaced with Intel’s 15th-generation processors, making the 14th-generation CPUs the last to use it. 

So, there won’t be many options to upgrade to other than operating in the 14th-generation domain. Considering all these factors, the 9600X is the better overall choice, but if you’re running a 12th-gen processor, it means you already have an LGA1700 motherboard and won’t need to purchase a new one to run the 14600K. 

When I talked to Jack Howarth and Seb Kozlowski, our resident hardware experts, about what they thought of this match-up, this is what they had to say:

Tier wise the AMD and Intel CPUs sit on par with each other, and if the pricing of the 9600X is correct it comes in as a lower pick. Which would also put it at a better value especially considering the lower TDP that is nearly half of the Intel processor. That is if the performance is up to par, which we expect the AMD to be.

For the cores AMD offers up 6 standard options whereas Intel splits up 14 cores split between efficiency and performance ones that might make it a more reasonable solution in some parts. But with the faults of Intel’s chips makes it harder to recommend. But AMD is a great value choice for gaming, whilst neither really excel in productivity tasks.

Seb Kozlowski

These two CPUs may seem evenly matched in the naming convention sense, but there’s a lot going on here under the curtain that makes this comparison a little tricker to predict.

The 14600K features 14 cores and 20 threads, made up of 6 P-cores and 8 E-cores, this is all in an attempt to lower TDP and increase efficiency of Intel chips. Despite all this effort, the lowest base entry on the 14th gen platform still consumes 181W at it’s second power level, with a 125W TDP to boot.

If we compare that to the 9600X, which only has a TDP of 65W and a PPT of 88W. We can see who wins in terms of efficiency, However, the 9600X only has 6 cores and 12 threads. almost nothing compared to the likes of the 14600K. And because of that, the performance is severely reduced.

We only have leaks to go off, but the 9600X only manages around 18,000 points in the CB R23 multi-core test, whereas the 14600K dominates with a score in the 24,000s.

It’s safe to say that the efficiency of the 9600X is it’s only saving grace at this point, better suited for lower power builds or PCs that are confined to a tight space, as it’s low TDP allows it to be easily cooled.

The 14600K on the other hand, is far more suited to processing demanding workloads. There are better options out there, but pretending these are the only two CPUs in the world, the 14600K is a much better choice in terms of power.

Both of the platforms offer up to date and advanced connectivity depending which chipset you choose, However, AMD may be edging ahead soon thanks to the imminent release of the 800 series AM5 motherboards. So if longevity is a concern to you, you might want to opt for the AMD pick. Since LGA 1700 is about to reach EOL. (because Arrow Lake will use socket LGA 1851, it’s not falling out of support)

Jack Howarth