News Intel's 5.5 GHz Core i9-12900KS Has Record Max Turbo Power Consumption, Lands in March

[Admin]

Intel's Core i9-12900KS will have record performance and power consumption.

Intel's 5.5 GHz Core i9-12900KS Has Record Max Turbo Power Consumption, Lands in March : Read more

 

[helper800]

So we looking at a 1200w PSU for one of these and a 3090? Sounds ridiculous that single GPU and CPU consumer systems have gotten so energy intensive at the ultra high end.

 

[King_V]

Ho'boy....

So, a push of 51W for MTP to go from the 12700K's 5.0GHz to the 12900K's extra 200MHz... though it also adds 4 more E cores.

Then push 19W more on top of that to be able to get 300MHz more.

I mean, I get it, pushing clocks into the "killing your performance/watt to reach some arbitrary performance goal" was practically the raison d'être for Rocket Lake.

But, do they really need to try to re-live that with the high end Alder Lake CPUs? At which point, I wonder what the purpose of the Efficiency Cores even is. Or, maybe I should wonder how much higher both PTP and MTP would be if they didn't have E-cores.

 

[wifiburger]

Ho'boy....

So, a push of 51W for MTP to go from the 12700K's 5.0GHz to the 12900K's extra 200MHz... though it also adds 4 more E cores.

Then push 19W more on top of that to be able to get 300MHz more.

I mean, I get it, pushing clocks into the "killing your performance/watt to reach some arbitrary performance goal" was practically the raison d'être for Rocket Lake.

But, do they really need to try to re-live that with the high end Alder Lake CPUs? At which point, I wonder what the purpose of the Efficiency Cores even is. Or, maybe I should wonder how much higher both PTP and MTP would be if they didn't have E-cores.

have you seen/used a rtx 3090 with an unlocked vbios ?
The thing uses 600w-700w in Quake2 RTX, PortRoyal, etc to hold 2115 freq

You can just drop 200mhz on the clock to get to 400w... so that extra 70w is nothing

 

[escksu]

Wow 5.5GHz, its really incredible.

 

[escksu]

Ho'boy....

So, a push of 51W for MTP to go from the 12700K's 5.0GHz to the 12900K's extra 200MHz... though it also adds 4 more E cores.

Then push 19W more on top of that to be able to get 300MHz more.

I mean, I get it, pushing clocks into the "killing your performance/watt to reach some arbitrary performance goal" was practically the raison d'être for Rocket Lake.

But, do they really need to try to re-live that with the high end Alder Lake CPUs? At which point, I wonder what the purpose of the Efficiency Cores even is. Or, maybe I should wonder how much higher both PTP and MTP would be if they didn't have E-cores.

Thats what overclocks have been doing for decades and are still doing it today. Not everyone is after performance/watt. Anyway 260W TDP is nothing.... Manually overclocked CPUs uses way more power.

 

[watzupken]

Ho'boy....

So, a push of 51W for MTP to go from the 12700K's 5.0GHz to the 12900K's extra 200MHz... though it also adds 4 more E cores.

Then push 19W more on top of that to be able to get 300MHz more.

I mean, I get it, pushing clocks into the "killing your performance/watt to reach some arbitrary performance goal" was practically the raison d'être for Rocket Lake.

But, do they really need to try to re-live that with the high end Alder Lake CPUs? At which point, I wonder what the purpose of the Efficiency Cores even is. Or, maybe I should wonder how much higher both PTP and MTP would be if they didn't have E-cores.

While Intel calls them efficiency cores, I feel the intention of adding E-cores is not for efficiency, at least not the main reason. Intel likely chose not to (for whatever reasons) to add more P-cores. With only 8 Golden Cove cores, they are clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to multithreaded performance. They may close the gap significantly due to the great performance from the Golden Cove cores, but unlikely to beat say the 5950X with 16c/32t. So to me, the E-cores is meant to address this lack of core issue to beat the competition in multithreading, and not to make the system more efficient. Power saving is likely just a secondary benefit.

 

[jacob249358]

Wow. Imagine this bad boi and a 3090 ti. You're talking a 1200w or even 1600w if you wanna overclock the snot out of them. Crazy that 2 generations ago the top tier card could run on a $650 watt psu with an overclocked 7700k. I joined this PC community too late. As ridiculous as this sounds apple should get into the custom PC space. Desktop m1 could be a legend. i think they cream intel in performance:watt. Plus they already have the apple bias.

 

[jp7189]

I have a 12900K that hits 5.6 on 2 cores, 5.3 all core, but it burns 300+watts to do it - making it hard to stay under 100C under water. So I guess the point of the KS binning is less power/heat. (I can't believe i just said that.)

 

[King_V]

Thats what overclocks have been doing for decades and are still doing it today. Not everyone is after performance/watt. Anyway 260W TDP is nothing.... Manually overclocked CPUs uses way more power.

225W was mock-worthy in the FX-9590 days . . and certainly Rocket Lake earned the ridicule it got from its power consumption.

BUT... I don't know . . This 10% increase in clocks, from the i7-12700 to the i9-12900KS, going from 5.0 max to 5.5 max, results in a MTP increase of 70W... so, going from 190W to 250W is a 31.6% increase in power consumption. To get a 10% increase in clock rates.

I don't think that when I overclocked my Pentium 133 to 166Mhz, which is a 25% increase in clocks, that it used anything close to that kind of extra power, proportionally speaking.

What is confounding me, though, is that it seems like the extra E-cores are contributing the bulk of it, moving from the i7... but that seems strange.

If we look only at the boost rates of the non-KS i9 vs i7, that's a 51W jump, a 26.8% increase in power, for only 200 extra MHz, only a 4% increase in clock speed. BUT . . the i9 has 4 more E-cores.

Now, the 12900KS vs 12900K... like vs like, that's 260 vs 241W, only a 7.8% increase on power draw, for 5.8% increase in clocks. That's actually not bad.

So, now I'm wondering if the big jump in power draw vs the i7 isn't as much from turning up the wick, but from having extra E-cores. It seems kind of counter-intuitive to me, though, I think that @watzupken 's explanation probably covers this.

 

[helper800]

Imagine they dropped the act and just released an 8 P core 0 E core alder lake chip that was as highly binned. It would probably "only" pull 210w. I wonder if anyone is going to deactivate their e cores on the 12900KS to see what the power draw is like "stock?"

 

[King_V]

Imagine they dropped the act and just released an 8 P core 0 E core alder lake chip that was as highly binned. It would probably "only" pull 210w. I wonder if anyone is going to deactivate their e cores on the 12900KS to see what the power draw is like "stock?"

I'll admit that I am pretty curious about that. Though, I find it hard to believe that the addition of 4 E-cores can be responsible for so much of the extra power draw when jumping from i7 to i9.

It's bizarre.

 

[helper800]

I'll admit that I am pretty curious about that. Though, I find it hard to believe that the addition of 4 E-cores can be responsible for so much of the extra power draw when jumping from i7 to i9.

It's bizarre.

Aside from the obviously better silicon quality the asic quality on the chips must be super good to.

 

[jacob249358]

Imagine they dropped the act and just released an 8 P core 0 E core alder lake chip that was as highly binned. It would probably "only" pull 210w. I wonder if anyone is going to deactivate their e cores on the 12900KS to see what the power draw is like "stock?"

that would be interesting. Maybe like the i7 12700x or something. Would be difficult to name.

 

[cyrusfox]

Pre-bin to make the most money as well as stay on top of AMD with Zen 3D whenever that lands. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[Blackink]

So how do you cool this monster?!? Liquid cooler only or will a high end air cooler work also?

 

[escksu]

225W was mock-worthy in the FX-9590 days . . and certainly Rocket Lake earned the ridicule it got from its power consumption.

Not really. FX-9590 didn't have the performance to go along with its ridiculous power consumption. 12900KS do have it. Of course, 12900KS is not for everyone. ITs only for entuhsaist overclockers who want the fastest.

Btw, its 220W TDP for FX9590 is very conservative. I did have a FX-9590 oc to 5.2GHz on all cores back then. Even a custom loop with triple 120mm rad and powerful fans isn't quite enough. IF you are wondering why I opt for FX9590, it was because I was a hard core AMD supporter. I was using a pair of Fury X with the FX9590. I have to say performance is not that bad.

 

[escksu]

So how do you cool this monster?!? Liquid cooler only or will a high end air cooler work also?

Liquid cooler will work fine, so will high end air cooler. 300W is nothing....Manually overclocked CPUs already consume more power than that.

 

[Math Geek]

i'll go to my grave never understanding why anyone would bother with such crazy power draw when there is an alternative available for much less cash.

i'm not a fanboy of any company but given the options right now, the amd chips are a no brainer. can't imagine paying a premium for the chip, the mobo, very high end cooling etc etc just because... well i don't really know what you get for the extra expense with the current intel chips..... maybe a couple frames more or something like that???

other than fanboy fanaticism, i don't see any positive with going with these chips at this time.

i don't like to throw accusations around but even when amd not only had the performance lead but at like 1/3 the power draw over intel, tom's still produced these articles saying "it's not really such a big deal..." love this site and have for many years but it is hard to defend it when they put out stuff like this over and over.

almost as bad as the "just buy it" article from not too long ago to me...

 

[King_V]

i don't like to throw accusations around but even when amd not only had the performance lead but at like 1/3 the power draw over intel, tom's still produced these articles saying "it's not really such a big deal..." love this site and have for many years but it is hard to defend it when they put out stuff like this over and over.

almost as bad as the "just buy it" article from not too long ago to me...

I don't know . . only because there's also the accusations of Tom's being AMD shills at times.

I suspect that maybe it's specific authors...?

 

[Math Geek]

yah that's more likely. never really kept track of who was writing what cause they def swap back and forth at times.

but i can't imagine writing this article and not at least pointing out the obvious, but that's just me i guess. something like

"in conclusion, if you absolutely must spend a lot more for a couple more fps, then this is the thing for you. otherwise, simply get the ryzen 5000 series and spend the savings on peripherals or more storage or more ram or whatever."

 

[helper800]

yah that's more likely. never really kept track of who was writing what cause they def swap back and forth at times.

but i can't imagine writing this article and not at least pointing out the obvious, but that's just me i guess. something like

"in conclusion, if you absolutely must spend a lot more for a couple more fps, then this is the thing for you. otherwise, simply get the ryzen 5000 series and spend the savings on peripherals or more storage or more ram or whatever."

I think the reason not a lot of emphasis is put on perf per watt is because the only sector that actually matters is in mobile. The difference between my parts pulling 450 and 900 watts means very little to me if I know its the best performance I can buy and I am an enthusiast. Compare that to a casual builder who probably does not even know the rated TDP or PL2 ratings or anything they are building beyond what the minimum PSU they can get away with and it still power on.

 

[thomjohn98]

I have a FX9590 and I cool it with a Deep Cool Assassin II, it runs cool and outperforms my I5 6600K with 32GB of 2133, so I don't know where some of you get your info from, but talk to the people who own this chip or multiple computers in our home, that we have built and maintain..

 

[Darkbreeze]

I have a FX9590 and I cool it with a Deep Cool Assassin II, it runs cool and outperforms my I5 6600K with 32GB of 2133, so I don't know where some of you get your info from, but talk to the people who own this chip or multiple computers in our home, that we have built and maintain..

https://imgur.com/7GVEmxc

 

[Rogue Leader]

I have a FX9590 and I cool it with a Deep Cool Assassin II, it runs cool and outperforms my I5 6600K with 32GB of 2133, so I don't know where some of you get your info from, but talk to the people who own this chip or multiple computers in our home, that we have built and maintain..

No it doesn't, unless you're compressing and uncompressing files. Otherwise no chance you are out benching a 6600k with a 9590.