No. You make the mistake of only comparing single-threaded turbo boosts. But the additional power is not for that. The additional power is for the all-core turbo boost which goes from 4.9GHz on the 13900K to 5.6Ghz for the 13900KS. That’s 700MHz, not just 200MHz. And, yes, due to thermal throttling in cases of insufficient cooling the all-core of the 13900KS may drop to 5.4GHz but so does the power consumption from 320W to 280-295W. Still even in the worst case it is 500MHz for an extra 30-40W.67 watt for 200MHz higher boost clock is crazy and surely not innovative!
It would be better if Intel had the same speed as the last 13 cpu but with 67W less power.
It only uses those high watts when you're bench-marking, how often does a normal person do that, an hour every couple of months?That power consumption @.@
Thank goodness no normal consumer needs a thing like that...
The problem with high-end gaming CPU is that there are no games for them. Most i5 are good enough nowadays to run anything.
It's only a $110 premium over the K series. For a ~2% gain. Gen-to-Gen it's actually cheaper.
Not a value proposition to be sure but, in a high-end system where else are you going to spend $110 and get a much better return ?
DDR5 over DDR4 seems similar - A few percent for a few hundred $.
Premium SSD over Main Stream SSD - Same
3rd party GPU card over a reference GPU - Similar
AIO over Big Air - Close
Water cooling vs AIO - ?
I'm not sure why there is a lot of hate for this chip ?
It sure took a while, but we got there:
2004 - first chip pushed past 6GHz using LN2, extreme overclocking world record.
2023 - 6 GHz from an off-the-shelf chip with an off-the-shelf cooler, not even subambient.
But in normal consumer use it would be more effcient than other chips. It will actually use less power.
The problem with high-end gaming CPU is that there are no games for them. Most i5 are good enough nowadays to run anything.
Bulldozer deja vu but from team Blue.
If you buy this CPU for anything else than actual high-end tasks, you are doing something fundamentally wrong, sorry. Speaking solely of Intel here. If all you do is browsing the web, you want a low-end CPU like an i3 or lower, not this thing. If you game, you want an i5 or i7, not this thing. The only use case for this CPU is high-end computing. And there, AMD is significantly more power efficient for similar results. In almost all scenarios, for that, not just Prime 95 or power viruses. Don't believe me, go back and take a real close look at the charts again.Yes - and everything else up to the capabilty of the standard K chip.
My response is to the post that implied that such a chip is power wasteful especially if an "average person" were to use it. For those really concerned about power consumption it might be a very appropriate purchase based on the "Task effcientcy".
Is it cost effcient ? Probably not.
My Take -
Does your build plan already include a mid-to-high end Z board, generously sized power supply and a AIO CPU cooler? If yes, Then the KS may be for you.
If you aren't doing stuff that needs this performance why the heck do you buy a 12900K/KS or similar CPUs in the first place?!?It only uses those high watts when you're bench-marking, how often does a normal person do that, an hour every couple of months?
That power consumption @.@
Thank goodness no normal consumer needs a thing like that...
Are you just going to call me a sheep, or making actual arguments to why I'm wrong here, especially also taking into account my second post? I'm really looking forward to your opinion.
Well said!If you buy this CPU for anything else than actual high-end tasks, you are doing something fundamentally wrong, sorry. Speaking solely of Intel here. If all you do is browsing the web, you want a low-end CPU like an i3 or lower, not this thing. If you game, you want an i5 or i7, not this thing. The only use case for this CPU is high-end computing. And there, AMD is significantly more power efficient for similar results. In almost all scenarios, for that, not just Prime 95 or power viruses. Don't believe me, go back and take a real close look at the charts again.
No, just because you have a "mid-to-high end Z board, generously sized power supply and a AIO CPU cooler" in your build already, it does not mean this CPU "might be for you". As it is, the only reason for you to buy this CPU is if for whatever reason you want an Intel-CPU. Or maybe if you do a lot of high-end stuff that require single-core performance that isn't gaming. And before you call me an AMD-fanboy or some bs like that... 2/3 of my systems are Intel and the only one that isn't is a laptop. It's just, there is sensible, and then there is bonkers. This thing is bonkers.
If you aren't doing stuff that needs this performance why the heck do you buy a 12900K/KS or similar CPUs in the first place?!?
If you do, AMD provides better performance/watt.
so let’s see if AMD will get it right the third time around with the 7000X3D!
He explained it pretty well, bad things come in threes.Eh, I'm not quite following you here? Third time around? The 5800x3d is the first iteration. The 7xx0x 3d etc is the second time around, and IMO the first round was a win!
Care to elaborate?