News Intel Core i9-14900KS tipped for mid-March release – touted timeframe wouldn’t be a surprise

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are some people who haunt this place who will try and justify products like this until they're blue not only in the face but also in other extremities too.

But this doesn't change the fact that the darn thing is just stupid. Sure, most people won't be engaging in workloads that make use of the absurd power consumption for a performance increase that can best be described as 'margin of error', but the fact that it is possible to use that much power is just ridiculous!

This will be yet another example of marketing overriding basic common-sense.
 
Roland Of Gilead said:
Fascinating! I would have said more of a yawn fest!! I mean, these CPU's are ridiculous. 70w extra for 200mhz!? MEH
Click to expand...
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It's not 70w extra for 200 MHz, it's 70 watts less for the same MHz. Meaning, it will be considerably more efficient than the 13900k at same clockspeeds. Im thinking about buying the 14900ks for the efficiency alone, it will crazy good. Locked to 5.5 ghz it will probably pull 100 watts less than the 13900k
 
Neilbob said:
There are some people who haunt this place who will try and justify products like this until they're blue not only in the face but also in other extremities too.

But this doesn't change the fact that the darn thing is just stupid. Sure, most people won't be engaging in workloads that make use of the absurd power consumption for a performance increase that can best be described as 'margin of error', but the fact that it is possible to use that much power is just ridiculous!

This will be yet another example of marketing overriding basic common-sense.
Click to expand...
Whats wrong with being able to use as much power as humanly possible? You realize you don't need to run it at 600 watts, 500 watts, 400 watts, right? You realize you can limit it to 200 watts and have the same performance as the 13900k at 300 watts, right? Right?
 
TheHerald said:
Whats wrong with being able to use as much power as humanly possible? You realize you don't need to run it at 600 watts, 500 watts, 400 watts, right? You realize you can limit it to 200 watts and have the same performance as the 13900k at 300 watts, right? Right?
Click to expand...
I hesitated to respond to you because I'm sure it is a pointless exercise in this echo chamber you seem to have going on (22 posts in less than 24 hours almost all in rebuttal of any critique of xx900k/ks products), but whatever...

To be clear I've been critical of the power consumption of not just Intel, but AMD and Nvidia too. I wasn't born yesterday; I am perfectly well aware that efficiency of these products generally increases as you drop back down the clock-speed and wattage scale, but you seem to overlook the fact that, just like overclocking, the VAST majority of people using these things will not underclock/undervolt etc. and will be running them as they come out of the box and depending on the motherboard: with their atrocious power-guzzling characteristics. Not all countries have such affordable energy that those characteristics don't quite cost a lot over time.

There are countless articles regarding processors, including right here, showing that default Intel (to stress again, what most people will be using) is just bad when it comes to power usage with more than one or two cores. Default AMD (not X3D) are less excessive, but still pretty bad. There's no way you can deny either of these points, there's a ton of coverage all over the place.
 
Neilbob said:
I hesitated to respond to you because I'm sure it is a pointless exercise in this echo chamber you seem to have going on (22 posts in less than 24 hours almost all in rebuttal of any critique of xx900k/ks products), but whatever...

To be clear I've been critical of the power consumption of not just Intel, but AMD and Nvidia too. I wasn't born yesterday; I am perfectly well aware that efficiency of these products generally increases as you drop back down the clock-speed and wattage scale, but you seem to overlook the fact that, just like overclocking, the VAST majority of people using these things will not underclock/undervolt etc. and will be running them as they come out of the box and depending on the motherboard: with their atrocious power-guzzling characteristics. Not all countries have such affordable energy that those characteristics don't quite cost a lot over time.

There are countless articles regarding processors, including right here, showing that default Intel (to stress again, what most people will be using) is just bad when it comes to power usage with more than one or two cores. Default AMD (not X3D) are less excessive, but still pretty bad. There's no way you can deny either of these points, there's a ton of coverage all over the place.
Click to expand...
I've never denied that out of the box settings are wonky. But I don't think most people will actually run them out of the box. And even if they do, that's their own problem. Especially for a ks type of cpu, who in their right mind will buy such a cpu to run it out of the box? That's crazy and a bad purchasing decision.

And in any case your criticism should be about the settings the cpu ships with, or the settings the motherboards apply out of the box, not with the product itself. The product will be extremely efficient, only losing to the 7950x in efficiency at heavy workloads. On the contrary the posts I reply to seem to imply that there is an inherent efficiency problem with the cpu itself, which is flat out false.

And since you seem to imply I'm an Intel fan, will it help if I post this from any of my 4 full amd laptops or my amd desktop?

The point is all of these CPUs, amd ones included are incredibly more efficient than anything we had 5-3 or even 2 years ago. Take the 5950x for example, it was a super efficient cpu. The 13900k,a cpu heavily criticized for how inefficient it is, is running laps around the 5950x in efficiency. I'm talking 40-50% more efficient at iso wattage. In what other product range do we have huge increases like that? Imagine air conditioners or cars increasing their efficiency by 50% per year....

Btw, in case you don't know, reviewers choose to run unlimited. Motherboards don't even allow you to enable xmp without choosing one of the 3 power limit options. They specifically choose the "remove all limits" option and then run.... efficiency tests. How does that make sense to you?
 
Last edited:
Neilbob said:
but you seem to overlook the fact that, just like overclocking, the VAST majority of people using these things will not underclock/undervolt etc. and will be running them as they come out of the box
Click to expand...
The VAST majority of people will not buy the KS and not even the K, they will buy the locked CPUs. If you are one of the few that is going to buy a K or KS CPU you are required to know what you just bought, you can't just claim that "Oh, I didn't know that knives cut people too... "
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHerald
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom