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

131–140 of 156 posts

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

#131

Post by Maursault »

coldcode wrote: post #67
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.

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.

The Ultra Studio doesn't make sense to me because it costs as much as two Max Studios, which together will outperform one Ultra, and the difference isn't negligible.

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

#132

Post by csomar »

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…

Does power usage really matter for a desktop computer? This power efficiency thing/environmental concern is really a gimmick. There are other industries/things that have way more damage than your computer CPU. Your old car included.

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

#133

Post by nixpulvis »

daveguy wrote: post #92
TheRealPomax wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Easy(ish) solution. Just have two CPUs. Turn off the fast one when idle. This is what some architectures already do at various levels.

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

#135

Post by neogodless »

jml7c5 wrote: post #134

Do any review sites do multiple benchmarks at more than a few different power limits? I'd love to see a graph of power limit vs benchmark result for any given CPU.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power...

Is this what you're looking for?

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

#136

Post by wincy »

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…

The top overclocker right now isn’t even using water cooling, he’s using The Ice Giant coolers which uses a thermosiphon with fans to cool the CPU. They’re chunky and can only work if your motherboard is sideways or flat on the ground (otherwise it messes up the tech), but they’re really excellent, with no risk of water damage like a loop would have.

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

#137

Post by broknbottle »

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.

Just buy the X and set the TDP for 65w in the BIOS..

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

#140

Post by sitkack »

javajosh wrote: post #49
ajross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No one pays retail
Post reply on HN