News Core i9-13900K Soars To 8.2 GHz, Leaving Ryzen 7000 In The Dust

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Is it a suicide run? Then it's useless to even compare what the max oc'ing potential would be on air.


spentshells said:
I overclocked my lapped q6600 on air to a stable 3.8Ghz. Thats 60% wake me up when the percentage gets that far.

Also though... gg im super jealous
Click to expand...

Its never going to happen with this type of silicon. We are at the max of what is possible for quite some time. Things are slowing down significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spentshells
Yeah, it is nice to hear about overclocking, but I am certainly one of those who are interested in the out-of-box performance only. And I don't plan to do any overclocking, with the reasons against it:
  • extra power consumption,
  • possibly voiding warranty and/or reducing life-span (if not done properly), and
  • if I would need that extra performance, I should go for a higher tier, or if I would get the highest tier, then not necessarily making full use of it. Specifically, if someone has e.g. the Odyssey Neo G8 screen, or a 360hz screen or recently even a 500hz screen, then they sure may be interested to push the FPS as far as they can get, for which some overclocking may be needed. But for me, some stable 120 frames per second (in most games) will be plenty good, and that should be achievable with out-of-box hardware.
 
Some of us have an overclocking addiction !!!!!
Been doing it since late/ fall of 96. when I was introduced to The original Thomas Pabst"s (hope I spelled it correct) website.
P75@90
P200@252 25%
P3 450@600 33%
P3 550e @869 63%
p3 750@ 997 33%
P31.26@1589. 12.5%
Then the P4 fiasco (to keep it family friendly). And I went to the dark side.
Now days without dry ice/ phase change/ LN2/ LHe2 those numbers are just memories.
 
Vanderlindemedia said:
Is it a suicide run? Then it's useless to even compare what the max oc'ing potential would be on air.




Its never going to happen with this type of silicon. We are at the max of what is possible for quite some time. Things are slowing down significant.
Click to expand...
What interests me is seeing just the e cores overclocked.
I'd like to see the others disabled and these e cores brought up as far as they can go.

When the ecores were first released I doubted thier capability and i'm clearly wrong.
 
CMIIW, isn't that RaptorLake still using 10nm and Ryzen 7 using 5nm ? How can processor that so much behind in production process can overtake the much more advanced production process ?
Is the 5nm not live up to its name or is the Intel Fabs so much superior than TSMC's ? 🤔

Somebody, enlighten me please
 
samopa said:
CMIIW, isn't that RaptorLake still using 10nm and Ryzen 7 using 5nm ? How can processor that so much behind in production process can overtake the much more advanced production process ?
Is the 5nm not live up to its name or is the Intel Fabs so much superior than TSMC's ? 🤔

Somebody, enlighten me please
Click to expand...
Maybe a little of both. Intel can afford, and has, the best engineers on the planet and in great numbers.
But the "nanometer measurement" hasn't been an accurate way to measure density, they abominated it into some kind of marketing BS. So Intel 10 is closer to Ryzen's 5nm than in sounds too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samopa
samopa said:
CMIIW, isn't that RaptorLake still using 10nm and Ryzen 7 using 5nm ? How can processor that so much behind in production process can overtake the much more advanced production process ?
Is the 5nm not live up to its name or is the Intel Fabs so much superior than TSMC's ? 🤔

Somebody, enlighten me please
Click to expand...
To make a very light paralel, it's the same reason why a V6 can make as much power and torque as a V8. You have different ways to build the block, pistons and mixture so the engine can perform differently according to whatever metric and goals you want.

The way Intel optimises their processes (and their goals) are different to TSMCs and other foundries. Materials they use, tools (asterisk here) and tunning; all that turns into hard measures of distance of different elements/parts that, back in the day (probably above 45nm?), were not as important as they are now and actually do affect things which did not before. To name one that's very common to find information about: electro-migration or "tunnel effect" (quantum tunneling) on super low voltages.

I've always had a personal amazement to Intel's fabbing capability and I still do. I mean, we all meme about 14nm, but even with that anchor, the process actually held them for quite a while until they sorted what they called "true 10nm" (caveats, yes). Now they're trying to tweak 10nm and transition to higher density keeping the same overall metrics and goals as always, which is good.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samopa
Colif said:
Get back to me when any of this is useful or possible on air. Its rather meaningless otherwise.
Click to expand...
You know the sad truth about this is, Intel can and will advertise to mass consumers with the usual "Upto XX numbers" saying their product is that much more powerful than the competition acting like it's a reality for average users. They might have to add a tiny * at the end of that line and then a footnote in very small text that says, it "may" be possible to achieve "upto" that number using extremely high cooling methods.

They will technically be within the boundaries of consumers law when it comes to false advertisement. 😈😈
 
Sounds really great. A10 second run I am guessing just enough to get the processor speed verified.

Of course one has the money for a nitrogen collection and compression and heat release system to keep the system running 24x7 under a steady stream. It sounds like a really cool (pun intended) exercise. I am guessing the equipment will be in the 100's of thousands of dollars if not millions. Let's face it, if Google can skip a few generations of processors and motherboards by using liquid nitrogen cooling and it was economically viable, I am sure they would.

I am not convinced running under those conditions are not harmful to the long term operation of the CPU.


I am personally hoping for the cooling in the chip processors such as those being tested.

https://blog.rittal.us/what-is-direct-to-chip-liquid-cooling
www.extremetech.com

TSMC Mulls On-Chip Water-Cooling for Future High-Performance Silicon

TSMC takes its turn at the chip-cooling water fountain.
www.extremetech.com www.extremetech.com
arstechnica.com

Researchers demonstrate in-chip water cooling

Chip is designed so that water channels are next to its hottest components.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
www.asetek.com

Asetek Direct to Chip (D2C) liquid cooling technology - Asetek

Asetek Direct to Chip (D2C) liquid cooling technology increased data center density and enabled maximum sustained CPU throughput.
www.asetek.com www.asetek.com
singularityhub.com

This Microchip Has Its Own Built-In Cooling System

The key to the new approach is that the cooling system has been designed into the chip right from the start to maximize heat transfer.
singularityhub.com singularityhub.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csoahf6SkuM

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdUgHxxVZcU

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=377417603364095
 
TheOtherOne said:
You know the sad truth about this is, Intel can and will advertise to mass consumers with the usual "Upto XX numbers" saying their product is that much more powerful than the competition acting like it's a reality for average users. They might have to add a tiny * at the end of that line and then a footnote in very small text that says, it "may" be possible to achieve "upto" that number using extremely high cooling methods.

They will technically be within the boundaries of consumers law when it comes to false advertisement. 😈😈
Click to expand...
Intel already released the info for the 13900k and all they advertise is 5.8 on a single core and 100% of CPUs will be able to hit that even with simple cooling.
Single core power draw is at like 50-60W for the 12900k,
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-36m-cache-up-to-5-80-ghz/specifications.html

You are confusing intel with AMD, it was them that advertised boost clocks that only 50% of the CPUs would hit, and that 50% was the best case scenario, for some skus it was only 5-10% of CPUs that managed to hit the advertised boost clocks.
View: https://youtu.be/DgSoZAdk_E8?t=576
 
Last edited:
spentshells said:
I overclocked my lapped q6600 on air to a stable 3.8Ghz. Thats 60% wake me up when the percentage gets that far.

Also though... gg im super jealous
Click to expand...
Gotta remember that the way CPUs are marketed is different now. They bake OC into the CPU now. Technically, the base clock on the 13900k is 3GHZ. The 13900k all-core factory OCs to 5.5ghz. That's 183% over base clock. Beat that.. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: spentshells
Xenx said:
Gotta remember that the way CPUs are marketed is different now. They bake OC into the CPU now. Technically, the base clock on the 13900k is 3GHZ. The 13900k all-core factory OCs to 5.5ghz. That's 183% over base clock. Beat that.. ;-)
Click to expand...
That's not just technically, if you can only provide 125W of power or cooling then it will only run at 3Ghz under heavy load.
anything above that is auto OC if you can provide what the CPU needs to do it.

Also that is 183% of the performance but "only" 83% over base clock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom