News Intel Launches $699 Core i9-13900KS, the World's First 6 GHz CPU: Available Now

[ottonis]

Quite the opposite, AMD isn't rational, they just have a low power server part that they are trying desperately to make it work as a desktop part.

With a EKWB EK-AIO Elite 360 D-RGB 360mm,
the 7950x can't even reach the power limit set by AMD because it already hits the ~95 degree heat limit.
The 13900k reaches 330W, and stays well below the temp limit, at 86 degrees.
So which company pushes their CPUs more?
The one that tries to make their CPUs use more power than they can handle or the one that leaves a good 30% power headroom?
(If people would actually respect the limit that intel sets. )
You are not supposed to use a desktop part for server workloads that would make your CPU run at 100% power all the time anyway.

Professionals like designers, architects, video editors and so on, they do need the grunt for the final renders but they also have to deal with effects or calculations that only run single threaded so if that can go even a little bit faster it's going to be a good reason for them to get an KS.

spot

With all due respect, with the new released 7600, 7700 and 7900, AMD is delivering Zen4 at its architectural sweet of performance per Watt. They provide almost the same high performance at 50-60% less power consumption.
This is rational t

 

[TerryLaze]

spot

With all due respect, with the new released 7600, 7700 and 7900, AMD is delivering Zen4 at its architectural sweet of performance per Watt. They provide almost the same high performance at 50-60% less power consumption.
This is rational t

How is 50-60% higher power then what the CPU needs to get almost the same performance the sweet spot?
(There aren't enough ??? that I could put behind that phrase)

 

[Unolocogringo]

Both of my AMD processors ran at too high of voltage at stock settings.
Since they run 24/7/365 for folding I started experimenting.
After many hours of tweeking my 3600 settled in at 4.4ghz all core boost @1.28v.
5600x is a different story.
After many many more hours of tweeking curve optimizer in bios my best cores run 1.22 and worst cores 1.36 to hit 4.5 - 4.6 ghz all core boost depending on workload.
Both resulted in lower full load temps with much higher performance.
Both AMD and Intel push there processors close to the limit with clock speeds and voltages.
If you are somewhat lucky in the silicone lottery and thake the time you can tame the regular processors ,but their halo products are AEHGWEANTYIKL????????? for most consumers.
Before any one claims bios I have Intel systems also. Just not K series.
PPD/WATT is important for me. Hence my middle of the road systems.

 

[lmcnabney]

I believe AMD said that their new X3D chips are about 25% faster than the 5800X3D in games. Simple math means that puts them on par or a bit better than the 13XXX intel CPUs. It will be interesting to see what they can do when they come out and get benched. I personally went from a 3900X to a 5800X3D and it was a massive boost in FPS even at 1440p with a lot of games I was/am playing.

There are two slides making the rounds. One shows the slow 7800X3D having between 20-30% uplift over the 5800X3D. The other shows the 7900X3D and 7950X3D (that have the much higher clock speeds and more cores) exceeding the 13900K by 10-20%.

I take the data as biased since they are picking the games, but I think all of the review sites can shift performance averages based upon game selection. Going X3D is a two-edged sword. It will deliver the best gaming performance, but if you use multicore applications only the 7950X3D will remain competitive as the impact of cache becomes less critical.

 

[TerryLaze]

If you are somewhat lucky in the silicone lottery and thake the time you can tame the regular processors ,but their halo products are AEHGWEANTYIKL????????? for most consumers.

Most users don't have, or don't want to spend, many many hours to get a bit of an improvement, also most users don't mistreat their systems with folding or mining or 24/7 rendering.
Most users just want a system that gives them the best stable performance possible.

 

[-Fran-]

Most users don't have, or don't want to spend, many many hours to get a bit of an improvement, also most users don't mistreat their systems with folding or mining or 24/7 rendering.
Most users just want a system that gives them the best stable performance possible.

Isn't that just any computer nowadays? GPUs and some RAM types being some sort of exception.

Point is, the KS is not "for the masses", so that particular statement makes zero sense for the KS. Well, unless you're a person that just gets the most expensive thing without understanding what they're getting. Those people exist! xD

Regards.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

AMD's 7x series throttle by design at 95c.

Brilliant! We're not talking about that CPU, at least I've not talked about it. But, yeah, okay..

 

[Unolocogringo]

Most users don't have, or don't want to spend, many many hours to get a bit of an improvement, also most users don't mistreat their systems with folding or mining or 24/7 rendering.
Most users just want a system that gives them the best stable performance possible.

My systems are not mistreated at all.
Even with all of my tinkering, my systems are 100% stable and perform well above their stock values.

If we do not have any power outages they run 3 months, I install windows updates and shut down. They get taken outside for a good air/paintbrush cleaning and put back to work.
Video cards are fan curved to run with temps so they might reach 75c between cleanings in late spring or early fall when we are not running AC.
My GTX 960 FTW 4 gig is still running strong, same as the 1060 and 1070. My 3060TI only has 2 years use under its belt and is sitting at 70c @98% load.
I did have an old server board die after 10 years of use. But it is a common failure of the south bridge chipset.
It was also overclocked! Not possible they say.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

 

[Alan Alan]

Oh sure, with liquid nitrogen cooling a processor can easily run at 6 ghz.

 

[rtoaht]

Because if nothing else, I can count on Windows to put my one timing-critical-speed thread on one of the slower cores. ...

My grandma is scared of technologies. She is still using old feature phone because modern smartphones don't have keypads. She writes down phone numbers in her notebook and then dial those in the keypad to call someone. Modern smartphones also have big-little cores by the way.

 

[rtoaht]

How so? Even if given the full power, it's only 0.2 Ghz more.

That's only a 3.4% increase from the K model.

You think that giving it LESS headroom, power-wise, thus LESS than the 3.4% increase (and that's NOT on all cores) will give a NOTICEABLE increase?

How? Assuming you're COMPLETELY bound by the CPU, who do you know that can tell the difference between 100fps and 103fps?

Hothardware recently conducted some early benchmarks on 13900KS on a small form factor small form factor Falcon Northwest FragBox and published the data comparing it to other CPUs including 13900K. Needless to say it was much more impressive than the 3.4% you are suggesting.

 

[COLGeek]

Civility and respect for others are required at all times. Please keep that in mind. Thank you.

 

[King_V]

Hothardware recently conducted some early benchmarks on 13900KS on a small form factor small form factor Falcon Northwest FragBox and published the data comparing it to other CPUs including 13900K. Needless to say it was much more impressive than the 3.4% you are suggesting.

I haven't seen the video you're referring to . . but, given what you're saying, now I have to ask, beyond my previous question: how does a 3.4% increase in clock speed, not even on all cores, give you MORE than a 3.4% improvement in performance?

There have to be other factors involved in their test, then. A 3.4% increase in CPU speed can ONLY give you, at most, 3.4% performance gain, and that percentage is ONLY if it's CPU bound. Getting more out of it is just not possible.

 

[TerryLaze]

I haven't seen the video you're referring to . . but, given what you're saying, now I have to ask, beyond my previous question: how does a 3.4% increase in clock speed, not even on all cores, give you MORE than a 3.4% improvement in performance?

There have to be other factors involved in their test, then. A 3.4% increase in CPU speed can ONLY give you, at most, 3.4% performance gain, and that percentage is ONLY if it's CPU bound. Getting more out of it is just not possible.

That 3,4% would be if everything would be kept at stock, also the difference in all core boost might be more than that.

With every reviewer choosing out-of-the-box so they can use the wildest mobo with the craziest settings those stock settings don't count for anything.
If the KS has better silicon and/or is better binned it will boost higher under 'unlimited everything' sorry I meant out-of-the-box.