Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#31

Post by izzydata »

pram wrote: post #26

These processors are getting ridiculous. It seems like you definitely need at least an AIO watercooler with a 360mm radiator for the i9 these days. I have the i7-13700k, and it immediately goes up to 100C with the stock boost/tvb settings. This is with a dual tower Dark Rock Pro 4 heatsink, that was more than adequate to cool an i9 9900K.

Meanwhile I have an i5-9600k in a case that is smaller than a Playstation 5 using a cooler that is only a bit bigger than those old stock coolers. It comfortably idles around 40c and peaks at 70c.

What are people even doing on these newest CPUs? Video rendering? Servers? Because if they are playing games it is a huge waste of power.

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#32

Post by danieldisu »

ajross wrote: post #28
eightysixfour wrote: post #17

300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are cranking power through the roof to get the smallest of marginal gains. Such a waste.

The NVIDIA A100 is like 400W and being dumped by the truckload into datacenters as fast as the fabs can deliver them. I don't think a little "waste" in premium desktop CPUs that are going to struggle to sell more than a half million units is worth crying over. For sure this is more fun to watch than another liquid cooling overclocking rig.

cries in climate change

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#33

Post by jeffbee »

TylerE wrote: post #21
jeffbee wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but either you need your computer to work and therefore you are willing to accept the fact that energy=work, or you don't need the computer to do anything in which case it will just sit there silently drawing ~1W.

Your second case is rather...optimistic given the amount of background work any modern OS does. My i9 desktop will start to spin the fans up with light web browsing. To be precise, even at true zero load, an i9-10850k (what I've got) draws 25-30w. Any sort of load at all and it gets to 60+w. A gaming type load is well over 125w.

Maybe you should choose a better operating system?

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#34

Post by crisdux »

eightysixfour wrote: post #17

300w PL1/PL2 limits compared to 253 on the 13900k. I know these chips are made for specific reasons - to win benchmark crowns - but both Intel and AMD are cranking power through the roof to get the smallest of marginal gains. Such a waste.

It is not a waste. These halo products help drive performance and efficiency improvements to mainstream products. With every generation, CPUs become more efficient when looking at performance per watt. Intel and AMD CPU's are more efficient than ever.

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#35

Post by dboreham »

NobodyNada wrote: post #18
hulitu wrote: post #10

> Intel recently demoed the chip hitting 6 GHz on two cores with standard off-the-shelf Corsair AIO water cooling So only 2 cores. They forgot to say for how many microseconds can the chip sustain this speed. And 400 A ? Per nanosecond or what ? Thank god it will mainly wait for I/O and has enough time to cool itself. /s

> 400 A ? Per nanosecond or what ? Amps are already over time — 1 amp is 1 coulomb (6e18 electrons) per second.

That was funny.

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#36

Post by danbruc »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #23
NobodyNada wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 400 A ? Per nanosecond or what ? Amps are already over time — 1 amp is 1 coulomb (6e18 electrons) per second.

I think the parent comment was saying "how long was 400a sustained for".

That is what they were asking in the sentence before.

They forgot to say for how many microseconds can the chip sustain this speed.

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#37

Post by selectodude »

danieldisu wrote: post #32
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NVIDIA A100 is like 400W and being dumped by the truckload into datacenters as fast as the fabs can deliver them. I don't think a little "waste" in premium desktop CPUs that are going to struggle to sell more than a half million units is worth crying over. For sure this is more fun to watch than another liquid cooling overclocking rig.

cries in climate change

My CPU is powered by nuclear energy

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#38

Post by dbspin »

izzydata wrote: post #31
pram wrote: post #26

These processors are getting ridiculous. It seems like you definitely need at least an AIO watercooler with a 360mm radiator for the i9 these days. I have the i7-13700k, and it immediately goes up to 100C with the stock boost/tvb settings. This is with a dual tower Dark Rock Pro 4 heatsink, that was more than adequate to cool an i9 9900K.

Meanwhile I have an i5-9600k in a case that is smaller than a Playstation 5 using a cooler that is only a bit bigger than those old stock coolers. It comfortably idles around 40c and peaks at 70c. What are people even doing on these newest CPUs? Video rendering? Servers? Because if they are playing games it is a huge waste of power.

Not sure how this generalises, but for video editing - less rendering, which is already fast for most workloads, but the actual tasks of editing, grading etc - CPUs are still nowhere near fast enough. You can easily bring a modern machine to its knees realtime editing 4K or 6K H264 / H265 video with grading at native resolution. Let alone 8K video. Dedicated pipelines for decompressing various video codecs on the fly (including ProRes) are part of the reason Macbook Pros sell so well for video tasks. Another is that you can run them unplugged without slowdown, which is incredibly useful for video editors (good luck editing on a train, plane or back seat of a cab with a windows laptop).

All that said, DaVinci Resolve which is increasingly taking over from Premiere for many commercial editors, is more GPU than CPU bound. Lots of sales of the current fastest GPU Nvidia's RTX 4090 to this market.

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#39

Post by grogenaut »

izzydata wrote: post #31
pram wrote: post #26

These processors are getting ridiculous. It seems like you definitely need at least an AIO watercooler with a 360mm radiator for the i9 these days. I have the i7-13700k, and it immediately goes up to 100C with the stock boost/tvb settings. This is with a dual tower Dark Rock Pro 4 heatsink, that was more than adequate to cool an i9 9900K.

Meanwhile I have an i5-9600k in a case that is smaller than a Playstation 5 using a cooler that is only a bit bigger than those old stock coolers. It comfortably idles around 40c and peaks at 70c. What are people even doing on these newest CPUs? Video rendering? Servers? Because if they are playing games it is a huge waste of power.

Why is rendering video (likely for entertainment) not a waste of power, where playing video games (entertainment) is?

Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

#40

Post by grogenaut »

doublepg23 wrote: post #22
mrcwinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the concern is scalability. A very high performance per watt is a signal that it the processor design will be difficult to scale practically. Beyond that, at scale, is it good to have high-consumption computers all over the world before we have widespread renewable energy? Probably not ideal.

They are usually sipping power is my point. The high boosts being possible is a bonus if you need it but won’t hurt if you don’t. It’s the best of both worlds. As far as energy use we’re it’s such a tiny amount of energy compared to any given appliance.

For me it's about how much heat they put out. I have to crack a window I'm winter when gaming.

I think others are concerned with a trend that extrapolates to something insane power consumption where power use grows exponentially to megawatts where clock speed is growing asompotically to say 10ghz

Post reply on HN