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

91–100 of 156 posts

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

#91

Post by TylerE »

jeffbee wrote: post #87
TylerE wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

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

Not my measures… measurements by people who run hardware websites.

i9 is much hotter than i7, especially the high end ones. When I bought the cpu the only thing higher (without getting into server grade stuff) was the 10900k which was basically unobtanium.

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

#92

Post by daveguy »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #83
crisdux wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ben…

I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it.

If you take it to an extreme the flaw is apparent. Let's say "bogomips" is the name of a real world accurate benchmark.

If a CPU at full performance gives 100 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at 1 watt by your metric the score is 50.

On the other hand, if a CPU at full performance gives 200 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at a small fraction under 2 watts, your metric also gives a score of ~50.

It's obvious the 200 bogomips processor is way more efficient than the 100 bogomips processor. Something is missing.

I think both idle watts and TDP are somewhat irrelevant. Maybe it should be bogomips / actual watt draw (different from nominal TDP) at full speed. Assuming you can keep the processor busy. Not being able to keep the processor busy doesn't really reflect on processing efficiency. Except that it is better for the wasted watts to be as low as possible.

A true efficiency, like a true benchmark is elusive, because what is "normal use"? Somewhere between "no work, all waste" and "full use, maximum efficiency".

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

#93

Post by eightysixfour »

speculativename wrote: post #86
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.

The non-x products make it clear that the “x” products are just way out of line on the performance/power scale.

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

#94

Post by eightysixfour »

danbruc wrote: post #85
Dagger2 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It isn’t besides the point, it is like saying a car can do 250mph, but can only do it for 1 second before the tires explode.

A CPU that can hit 6ghz while pulling 400amps but can only do that for a few milliseconds before throttling itself is not particularly impressive.

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

#95

Post by gpapilion »

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…

Basically it sounds like your water cooling system was undersized. You didn’t have a good method to cool the water, so you just built up heat in your working fluid.

The air did a better job because it was open. So you average initial temp was higher but could be sustained, because you always had cool air.

If you had a radiator with a fan it’s like the water solution would have still worked better.

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

#96

Post by dijit »

gpapilion wrote: post #95
dijit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Basically it sounds like your water cooling system was undersized. You didn’t have a good method to cool the water, so you just built up heat in your working fluid. The air did a better job because it was open. So you average initial temp was higher but could be sustained, because you always had cool air. If you had a radiator with a fan it’s like the water solution would have still worked better.

i understand how you can come to that conclusion, but it was really oversized for what it was cooling.

2x 240mm rads

1x pump

1x 80mm reservoir

the gpu was a AMD firepro K2000 (not a epic GPU by any standards)

the cpu was a i7-4930k, which is pretty paltry by todays cooling standards.

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

#97

Post by spicymaki »

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

400A (amps) is icc_max which is how much current the CPU allowed to pull when working at 100%.

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

#98

Post by alfalfasprout »

helf wrote: post #73

I 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 whe…

Right? There's a reason supercars/hypercars exist and not every car is a boring tesla.

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

#99

Post by danbruc »

eightysixfour wrote: post #94
danbruc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It isn’t besides the point, it is like saying a car can do 250mph, but can only do it for 1 second before the tires explode. A CPU that can hit 6ghz while pulling 400amps but can only do that for a few milliseconds before throttling itself is not particularly impressive.

Look at the original comment again, they address this very point.

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

This is exactly what you are saying, they are asking how long can it run at 6 GHz before they have to throttle. Then they continue with the sentence I originally responded to.

And 400 A ? Per nanosecond or what ?

I see mainly two possibilities. The first one is that they made a typo and what they actually wanted to write is »And 400 A? For one nanosecond or what?« which would essentially be repeating the exact same question as in the sentence before, just in terms of current instead of clock frequency.

But this is not what they wrote, they wrote »And 400 A? Per nanosecond or what?« which leads to the second possibility and the one I consider more likely. They were confused about the unit, the equivalent of responding to »The average US citizen consumes 10 kW of power.« with the question »Per day? Per month? Per year? In its lifetime?« which obviously makes no sense. That would be an appropriate response to the statement »The average US citizen consumes 89 MWh of energy.«

Without the author telling us, we will never know for sure, but I find it more likely that they were confused about the unit than that they repeated the exact same questions twice and made a typo in the second one that just makes it look like they were confused about the unit.

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

#100

Post by eightysixfour »

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.

Turns out it isn’t even 300 watts, it is 320!
Post reply on HN