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

81–90 of 156 posts

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

#81

Post by omni »

dijit wrote: post #77
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.

> 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 additi…

> sometimes giving the appearance of better cooling when in actuality your system will throttle after 10 minutes of work.

If it throttles after 10 minutes instead of after 20 seconds, that is in fact better cooling. The higher thermal mass is one of the major benefits of water cooling over air cooling for this reason.

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

#82

Post by elzbardico »

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.

When we talk about current we are usually talking about the rate. So the question is: for how long can the chip sustain this level of current.

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

#83

Post by TheRealPomax »

crisdux wrote: post #34
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.

Sort of but also not really: performance per watt is not the complete measure of improvement, you need to look at "performance, per watt, per wasted watt": If your high performance CPU uses 75W just to stay powered on, then its almost certainly not an improvement over a slower CPU that burns through less energy just to power the cores at all.

For example, let's contrast the 13700k to the ancient 7920X. The 13700K benchmarks to 47106, with a TDP of 250, a performance per watt of 188. Compare that to a 7920X, which benchmarks to half that at 23607, with a TDP of 140W, a performance per watt that's less than 170. The 13700K is clearly an improvement if we stopped there!

Except we don't, because the wasted watts matter a lot: the 13700K needs 75W just to power its cores, whereas the 7920X needs 50W. Adjusting our performance per watt to performance per watt per wasted watt, we get 2.5 for the 13700K, but 3.4 for the 7920X. That old CPU is a lot better at turning energy into work.

The 13700K is unquestionably a higher performing CPU than the 7920X, and I doubt anyone would object to calling it a much, much better CPU, but it's very hard to--with a straight face--call the newer CPUs an improvement in terms of energy consumption. CPUs have gotten quite a bit worse =)

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

#84

Post by izzydata »

skyyler wrote: post #79
kitsunesoba wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was using about 60% of my cpu running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p 120fps. Maybe if you wanted to run it at 8k using an RTX 4090.

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

#85

Post by danbruc »

Dagger2 wrote: post #80
danbruc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but that's besides the point. The article talks about the peak current, why would you want to talk about the current gradient here? Not that the current gradient can not be important, it will determine how quickly the processor can change the clock frequency, but this seems to just be the same confusion that often happens between energy and power.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity I looked up what voltage regulator slew rates for modern processors are, and it seems to be on the order of 100 A/µs, in case someone is interested.

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

#86

Post by speculativename »

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.

Agreed, but just shouting out the brand new AMD 7900 non-x. 12 cores with a 65w tdp is pretty cool, if I was making a power efficient workstation or itx build right now that's almost certainly what I would use.

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

#87

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.

If you are measuring that correctly it means that your operating system or something about your platform is utterly broken. `turbostat` and `powertop` on my i7-13700K indicate that it is currently, at "true zero load", drawing 1.1W

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

#88

Post by kitsunesoba »

skyyler wrote: post #79
kitsunesoba wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are some that won't consistently stay above certain framerates in some circumstances. World of Warcraft for instance performs tangibly better on newer CPUs in settings like 40v40 team fights in battlegrounds for example due to how CPU-bound it is — on a 9600k it'll struggle to stay above 120FPS and occasionally dip below 60FPS.

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

#90

Post by belter »

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.

Not until a Startup will propose to sell you, a personal Workstation, that can double as your household warm water and central eating boiler... :-)
Post reply on HN