News Intel Core i9-13900KF QS Benchmarked at 6.1 GHz Using Liquid Cooling

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Enough tweaking and playing loose with the voltages, sure. But I do wonder at the power consumption of all those cores.

I think the i7 is going to once again be the popular choice. All those efficiency cores are neat, but you would need some seriously threaded applications to make use of them.
 
Reactions: purple_dragon

Specter0420

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
106
18
18,685
0
Let's be honest with ourselves here... If you are shelling out the money for one of these rigs with something like an RTX 4090, you could NOT care less if your PC's electricity and heat costs you $22 per year vs $40 per year, or if your loop holds $0.01 of water vs $0.03.
You just care if it can provide 90FPS+ with modern VR (Reverb G2 or above) in flight simulators like DCS World, MSFS, IL2, XP12, etc. Nothing on Earth can can do this yet at great-to-max settings, especially in multiplayer DCS and MSFS.

I'm not sure why VR Flight Sims get ignored by Toms' benchmarks, they're one of the only home workloads that hardware will fail to provide an artifact free (90 FPS+) VR experience, with any available overclocked CPU\RAM. Sure VR flight simmers are a niche group, but VR simming is a single-to-two core CPU taxing workload that is on the bleeding edge as far high raw CPU performance requirements\CPU frametimes. Below 90FPS (or 80 depending on HMD) in flight sims is simply unacceptable if you notice the ASW\Motion Smoothing artifacts like most of us. ASW\MS is designed for common VR game distances of less than a 200M. Less than a 200M is nothing in a flight simulator so we get bad artifacts everywhere at less than 90 FPS.

It's just frustrating waiting for the world to catch up to our needs and all the professional hardware benchmarking sites pretending like we don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: bit_user

escksu

Reputable
Aug 8, 2019
831
328
5,260
0
How many hundreds of liters/gallons were used to cool this thing? :D

Reminds me of the infamous Intel presentation for the... What was it? The i7 7800X? I can't remember xD

Regards.
The article only say chilled liquid cooler. Didn't mention LN2 or DICE... So, I guess they are simply throwing ice into a large pail... Nothing new. When I used to OC alot back then, I will use an aquarium pump in a pail then throw in lots of ice. The water will stay chilled at around 2-3C. CPU will be around 10-15C.....

Once the ice melts, just drain some water and throw in more ice.

Of course, its nowhere as cold as DICE or LN2 but its a cheap way and it can last a few hours. Enough for several rounds of benchmarking.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: bit_user

spongiemaster

Reputable
Dec 12, 2019
2,011
1,077
4,560
0
The article only say chilled liquid cooler. Didn't mention LN2 or Dry Ice... So, I guess they are simply throwing ice into a large pail... Nothing new. When I used to OC alot back then, I will use an aquarium pump in a pail then throw in lots of ice. The water will stay chilled at around 2-3C. CPU will be around 10-15C.....

Once the ice melts, just drain some water and throw in more ice.
I think "liquid loop chiller" is a bad automated translation and the tester was using a simple liquid loop cooler. Everywhere else in the article it just says liquid cooled. The recent leak of an "ultra turbo" mode from the factory would indicate you should not need some exotic cooling to get above 6GHz, or the feature would be pretty useless. 350W should be fine with a typical custom loop cooler.
 

spongiemaster

Reputable
Dec 12, 2019
2,011
1,077
4,560
0

escksu

Reputable
Aug 8, 2019
831
328
5,260
0
I think "liquid loop chiller" is a bad automated translation and the tester was using a simple liquid loop cooler. Everywhere else in the article it just says liquid cooled. The recent leak of an "ultra turbo" mode from the factory would indicate you should not need some exotic cooling to get above 6GHz, or the feature would be pretty useless. 350W should be fine with a typical custom loop cooler.
Hmm, you are right. Its likely that its just a normal liquid cooler. There is also an Intel Cryo cooler with an additional peltier. But if it can really hit 6GHz, it would be awesome.

Long ago, 5GHz was like the "holy grail" for overclockers. For a very very long time, the barrier seems unbreakable except for a few golden chips.

Its only till more recently when chips could consistenly hit above 5GHz. So, it will be really nice to see 6GHz barrier breached!!
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
Its only till more recently when chips could consistenly hit above 5GHz. So, it will be really nice to see 6GHz barrier breached!!
Are you sure about that? I don't keep track of this stuff, but I think 6 GHz has been breached for a while. I think they even got close with a Pentium 4.

Anyway, while searching for that, I tripped over this: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/fx-6300-breakes-8ghz

Definitely the fastest overclock I've ever heard of.
 

spongiemaster

Reputable
Dec 12, 2019
2,011
1,077
4,560
0
Hmm, you are right. Its likely that its just a normal liquid cooler. There is also an Intel Cryo cooler with an additional peltier. But if it can really hit 6GHz, it would be awesome.

Long ago, 5GHz was like the "holy grail" for overclockers. For a very very long time, the barrier seems unbreakable except for a few golden chips.

Its only till more recently when chips could consistenly hit above 5GHz. So, it will be really nice to see 6GHz barrier breached!!
It was confirmed in the comments of the video that a compressor was used keeping the CPU temperature at 0-10C.
 
Reactions: bit_user

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
Was that on 8 cores ?
Number of cores plays a big part of OC, single core overclocking is a whole different category.
Eh, I think the criteria should be "all core". If the overclock happened during the single-core era, then the overclock was just as legitimate as an all-core overclock these days.

Put another way, single-core is only a meaningful distinction in the era of multi-core CPUs.

BTW, the link I posted about the FX-6300 says "Impressively, the overclock was also done with all six cores enabled as well ", though I don't see what they benched it on, as the workload still could've been single-threaded.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I think the criteria should be "all core". If the overclock happened during the single-core era, then the overclock was just as legitimate as an all-core overclock these days.
It's not about the legitimacy, but overclocking more, and more complex, cores is naturally more difficult than on fewer and simpler cores, 6Ghz on a modern CPU with just liquid cooling is still a big deal even if older CPUs have already hit it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY