Looking at that chart, it seems to me that the 7950 is still a much better option than this, even though it has a marginally lower boost clock. AMD is still killing Intel on perf/watt.
Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
61–70 of 156 posts
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
cries in climate change
My CPU is powered by nuclear energy
And a lot of datacenter CPUs are also on renewables that are helped by the kind of work done with these halo / flagship consumer products. After all, the power efficiency in datacenters is probably more important in aggregate given they're likely going to go into legacy power grids over time as hyper scalers switch generations (oftentimes due to greater power efficiency).
Some of the engine work done for drag racing cars did make its way into consumer cars and it's not like grandma and grandpa are going to be ever running these high end CPUs either.
Power efficiency gains in recent generations have been pretty incredible - somewhere around 95% aggregate performance with half the aggregate power consumption of these processors is really crazy.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#63Earlier 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.
I can't agree with you. The CPU will try to boost any time you are doing work, and these models are overclocked to a max at the expense of an insane power consumption overhead. My previous Intel laptop was getting spikes of 50+ watts for things like rendering a website or opening files and I can only imagine how bad it is with current desktop models. If it would be the case that the CPU enters it's maximal turbo once the system has detected that you are doing sustained, demanding work — you would be right, but all of these dynamic overclocking systems are opportunistic. As someone mentioned above, they are designed to win benchmarks.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#64300w 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 isn't a waste. Think about how many Electron apps you can run simultaneously now!
2?
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#65Earlier 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
When I’m gaming my cpu (11700k) puts out about 50 watts (some cores moderately busy). The gpu (3080) puts out 320 watts!!!
Tbh I like it in winter, warms my living room up nicely. In summer I just run my aircons more, but I also usually game less because the weather is nice.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#66Earlier 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.
My take is this:
If I see 90%+ CPU load (being "efficient"), I need a bigger CPU.
If I hardly see any CPU load, I am being effective.
Ergo, the biggest CPU I can afford is the best choice.
I don't consider unused CPU power as waste, I see it as relief from worrying about capping out.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#67These 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.
I use a Mac Studio with an M1 Ultra and I have never even heard the fan. I don't miss the white noise at all. I routinely use all 20 cores too.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#68Passmark says they're #1 in single thread : https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
At 6GHz, that should be a given.