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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by blangk »

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?

Yes, definitely. Many FPS gamers as a matter of visual advantage wish to run their FPS game at the highest possible framerate, or at least as fast as their display. This usually means 144-300+ fps. And it needs to be pegged at a consistent rate (so even in the most graphically intense moments). Achieving this even on low settings and with a high end GPU is not always possible, and a high end CPU and high end RAM are required to be consistent, especially for 1440p and 4k.

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

#142

Post by rkagerer »

izzydata wrote: post #31
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.

Meanwhile I have an i5-9600k in a case that is smaller than a Playstation 5 using a cooler that is only a bit bigger than those old stock coolers. It comfortably idles around 40c and peaks at 70c. What are people even doing on these newest CPUs? Video rendering? Servers? Because if they are playing games it is a huge waste of power.

Some games are still single-thread CPU bound, eg. KSP (even after the multithreading enhancements were implemented my understanding and anecdotal sense is most of the bottlenecking math is still sequential in one thread).

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

#144

Post by rkagerer »

rbanffy wrote: post #56
grogenaut wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> For me it's about how much heat they put out. I have to crack a window I'm winter when gaming. Back in the Amiga era, I inverted the PSU fan of a very loaded 2000 (lots of memory, SCSI, Video Toaster, etc) and piped in the output of an air-conditioner directly to it (with a little bit of epoxy sculpting). It stopped crashing and worked happy for a long time until being replaced by a boring Windows box running NT.

You never had condensation issues?

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

#145

Post by _piif »

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?

Cities Skylines once you get to a fairly large city size. Arma 3 can also get extremely cpu heavy depending on the map.

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

#146

Post by Dalewyn »

helf wrote: post #78
Dalewyn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

At whatever maximum frequency.

Let me put it a different way: If I'm playing a game and I'm barely using 20~40% CPU, I'm doing good. That 60~80% unused CPU processing headroom is my ability to be worryfree about capping out.

Which is to say: Yes, my 12700K is massive bloody overkill for my day to day activities, but it is 300% adequate for my needs and concerns and I love it. I'll probably upgrade it to a 13700K or 13900K(S) depending on the price a year or two down, since my mobo can accept it (thanks Intel!).

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by AB1908 »

helf wrote: post #74
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

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 cor…

What do you use it for?

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

#149

Post by moogly »

eightysixfour wrote: post #93
speculativename wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The non-X line just obsoleted the X line due to PBO, as long as they're priced lower.

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

#150

Post by rthomas6 »

phonon wrote: post #127
rthomas6 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a grad school processor design course. There was an equation for calculating the approximate power draw of a processor, and there was a f^4 or something in there, f being frequency. The 6 GHz clock speed has a lot to do with the power consumption.

No, it's linear with frequency, and proportional to the square of the voltage. Outside of the frequency "sweet spot" you have to crank up the voltage though....and leakage increases as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_power_dissipation

Guess I'm misremembering
Post reply on HN