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.
I have an NH-D15, it's still extremely audible in a quiet room.
Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
71–80 of 156 posts
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No. That's just the modern web. If a person needs to use the modern web, he/she needs to use a browser. If he/she needs to use a browser, it is almost always going to be Chrome (or something built on Chrome). Chrome is heavy on Linux, BSD, and macOS as are many of the pages it loads. The web can spin up fans on Intel, AMD, and ARM when I am running NetBSD, Slackware, or Intel Clear Linux.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#73I love people saying its a waste and too much power blahblah.
It isn't going to pull /320w/ all the time. It will periodically, under certain loads, briefly.
My i9-13900K happily slams into 6.4ghz across multiple cores when doing things. And power usage rarely actually hits ~230w doing that. I only ever see absurd power usage under really heavy work loads. Most of the time, itll hit its peaks on a couple of cores when I am doing something and thats that. I would rather slightly higher peak-y power usage for a more performance.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#74> 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
my i9-13900K can sustain 6.4ghz on 4 cores with just a Noctua air cooler for a minute or two before having to throttle down some due to heat.. And that is just a decent air cooler.
People have this weird view of modern chips. Yeah, they /can/ use a lot of power and produce a lot of heat.. Under terrible loads most people dont actually hit for any sustained period. even gaming, you arent going to be pegging all 24 cores.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#75Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#76These 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 have a i9-13900K with just a noctua air cooler and itll happily churn along with cores loaded at 5.5-5.8ghz on the performance ones and whatever peak is on the efficiencies (I have forgotten off the top of my head) and it sits around 89C.
so... don't get a top end model or undervolt/underclock it if you care that much?
I don't get all the weird complaining about /halo products/ and /highest end models/ potentially using a lot of power and producing a lot of heat.
It's like, OK? and?
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#77These 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.
> It seems like you definitely need at least an AIO watercooler
There is another problem with watercooling, which is that once the water warms up (which it will under sustained loads) your CPU temperature will begin to climb.
Then it becomes a game of "do I have thermal mass enough to run my job before throttling", and often it can be the case that radiators are unable to effectively cool down the CPU; but the additional water becomes thermal capacity; sometimes giving the appearance of better cooling when in actuality your system will throttle after 10 minutes of work.
Your heatsink is one of the better ones, an NHD-15 might be better but only slightly, after which point: I don't think it can be expected to cool a CPU at a sustained load with any AIO system, even the triple fan ones.
I'm probably not communicating this terribly well, I went down this rabbit hole when I was watercooling my old GPU and CPU in a custom loop by EK, I ended up discovering that if I wanted to do sustained work (which I did) then a direct airflow system would have worked better, so I ripped out the loop and it did work better for sustained loads.
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
90%+ CPU load at... what frequency? That rule doesn't make a lot of sense unless you are meaning "90%+ load while sustaining maximum core clocks"
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are there any games out right now that an i5-9600k would struggle with?
Re: Intel Launches $699 Core I9-13900KS, the First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now
#80> 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
Nitpicking. And 400 A ? Per nanosecond or what ? Ampere are already coulomb per second.
It's okay for a unit to have multiple "per second"s in it. A/ns is simply a measure of how fast the current ramps up or down.