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

41–50 of 156 posts

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

#41

Post by izzydata »

grogenaut wrote: post #39
izzydata wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ah, that is not what I meant. Such a powerful CPU is a "waste" in a computer meant for gaming because it can never be utilized. It will never be the bottleneck of such a system and you can run your games just as well on a less powerful CPU.

The energy used for such activities is another question.

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

#42

Post by grogenaut »

doublepg23 wrote: post #16
TylerE wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

power = heat = noise. I don't like noise.

That’s more related to fan choice (Noctua is the pro move) but it’s still going to be idling most of the time.

In a closed room heat isn't down to fan, that heat may not be in the case but it's not getting pumped out of my room quickly. I'm basically running a 900 watt heater whenever I'm doing hangouts or gaming

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

#43

Post by kitsunesoba »

kamranjon wrote: post #20
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.

Or you choose a CPU that does more work per unit of energy because you value silence

I really wish perf per watt would catch on as the metric to chase for enthusiast/prosumer-oriented desktop CPUs. Or be advertised at all, really.

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

#44

Post by IronWolve »

Tomshardware also says the KS is 10% faster than the K model.

Processor Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score

Core i9-13900KS 2,319 26,774

Core i9-13900K 2,227 24,311

Ryzen 9 7950X 2,192 22,963

Core i9-12900KS 2,081 19,075

Core i9-12900K 1,988 17,324

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

#45

Post by doublepg23 »

grogenaut wrote: post #42
doublepg23 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s more related to fan choice (Noctua is the pro move) but it’s still going to be idling most of the time.

In a closed room heat isn't down to fan, that heat may not be in the case but it's not getting pumped out of my room quickly. I'm basically running a 900 watt heater whenever I'm doing hangouts or gaming

But the new chips are already shipping with an “ECO mode” for small-form factor computers. That just makes it easy though, undervolting was already popular.

The alternative is shipping a power constrained for…no gain? Letting the cpu boost this high is only a boon for people who want it and is an imagined negative.

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

#46

Post by kitsunesoba »

izzydata wrote: post #41
grogenaut wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, that is not what I meant. Such a powerful CPU is a "waste" in a computer meant for gaming because it can never be utilized. It will never be the bottleneck of such a system and you can run your games just as well on a less powerful CPU. The energy used for such activities is another question.

It depends on the game, settings the user is running it at, and desired framerate and resolution. A number of games are partially CPU-bound and not well multithreaded, which means the only way to get them consistently at or above certain framerates is to pump IPC, which usually means buying the higher end CPUs.

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

#47

Post by jeffbee »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #43
kamranjon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you choose a CPU that does more work per unit of energy because you value silence

I really wish perf per watt would catch on as the metric to chase for enthusiast/prosumer-oriented desktop CPUs. Or be advertised at all, really.

Perf per watt isn’t interesting to users who want the job finished. Work done per joule is extremely interesting but Intel is near the top of the game on that metric. Many CPUs that are viewed as low power are not energy efficient.

On an energy basis the “performance” cores in an Intel CPU are more efficient than the “efficiency” cores.

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

#48

Post by doublepg23 »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #43
kamranjon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you choose a CPU that does more work per unit of energy because you value silence

I really wish perf per watt would catch on as the metric to chase for enthusiast/prosumer-oriented desktop CPUs. Or be advertised at all, really.

They already are though. The currently shipping Intel and AMD chips perform similarly at 65W.

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

#49

Post by javajosh »

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.

DC's are paying $11k apiece for the A100 do ya think?

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

#50

Post by doublepg23 »

grogenaut wrote: post #40
doublepg23 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

the alternative is lower performance for those who do want it. You can very easily undervolt a cpu if the heat is genuinely uncomfortable.
Post reply on HN