Intel Officially Announces The Core i9 13900KS With 6.0GHz Max Turbo Frequency

[coder]

The "S" is for Space heater edition.

[tildearrow]

It's likely a "clever" marketing exercise designed to milk a certain crowd and (re)build brand awareness around intel's products.

The crowd of numbers.

"I paid for my sweet 6.0GHz!"

[coder]

Most people shouldn't even look at K serie CPUs (or AMD X) and just go for non-K and non-X series CPUs as they have a ton more reasonable power consumption and way better ratio performance-power (and performance-price as well)

For single-threaded performance, the power limit is irrelevant (although K-series still have a higher turbo limit, just because).

However, depending on the number of cores, the situation is very different for multi-threaded performance:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641...13900k-7950x/2

The 16-core 7950X indeed has a big jump between 65 W and 105 W. Though, going above 125 W is pretty nuts, for the tiny gains you get. As for Intel... well, it's indeed a power-hungry beast.

However, if we compare performance at 8-cores, we can see the Ryzen 7700X delivers rather little additional performance above the 7700 -- its 65 W sibling.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/am...600-cpu-review

7% more performance for 62% more power.

So, for AMD CPUs with 8 cores or less, go ahead and buy the 65 W non-X version. However, for Intel CPUs or AMD CPUs above 8 cores, you might still get the K or X-version, but tweak your BIOS settings to stay in a good efficiency range.

[qarium]

does anyone brainwashed believe that a Core i9 13900KS With 6.0GHz is faster than an AMD 7950X3D ?

this cpu gives you 1-3%faster result than the normal 13900K and the 7950X3D gives you up to 23% faster performance in some games.

the TDP of the 7950X3D is 120watt the 13900KS is 150wat...

what most people miss is this: both cpus are asymetric but intels big.bigger design is very hard to write a scheduller for thats why many apps run slower than theoreticall possible because the scheduller does not know where the task should run... compared to this the 7950X3D is asymetric to but to write a scheduller for this is very simple: any app with a lot of L3 Cache miss go to the cpus with large cache and all others go to the cpus with high clock speed...

in my point of view the 13900KS will be the last highend intel desktop cpu on an intel node their 10nm is EOL End of Life and their 7nm node is not ready yet means intel is forced to move the highend desktop cpus to an TSMC node...and intel ARC gpus proof even if they move to 6nm TSMC they still lose.

AMD already produce in 4nm TSMC their technology partner IBM does have a 2nm node...

intel roadmap even shows the 14000 series cpus will only have 6 performance cores instead of 8 because they can not effort waste chip space for 8 performance cores... and games do not use the effiency cores at all.... all the years they told gamer they need 8core instead of cheap 6core cpus.

i can unterstand any and every gamer who buys a 6core amd 7600 non X or with X or the 7700X3D but for gamers these intel cpus with many fake cores thats nonense... there are even gamers who deactivate all the efficiency cores and only play with performance cores.

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

It's the P4 Prescott all over again. High clocks with high power consumption. And with very little tangible benefit to the user over more mainstream sku's. No thanks.

What, your house is heated for free ?

[dkasak]

LOL I remember this trick when they were the "first" to 1GHz too. Super limited edition ... check. Massive power draw ... check. Marketing claiming "first to X Ghz" ... check.

[DanL]

150W energy consumption !!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it's very high, but it's a "halo" product and liquid cooling is a lot more common these days. It's better than the days of Prescott/Smithfield when mainstream products drew 130W. It's also better than some of AMD's high end Bulldozer parts that sucked 220W.

[coder]

It's better than the days of Prescott/Smithfield when mainstream products drew 130W. It's also better than some of AMD's high end Bulldozer parts that sucked 220W.

Um, no. 150 W is merely its base power. Its turbo power is 253 W, and you can run it at up to 320 W without even voiding the warranty.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/in...-available-now

This is the W16 Bugatti Veyron engine of CPUs, for when you want to go as fast as possible and you don't care how many dinosaurs you have to burn to get there.


BTW, that article has a bonus, which was a hilariously over-ambitious prediction made by Gelsinger, back in 2002:

Not only had they not even made it to 4 GHz by 2010, they were still only at 32 nm.

[t.s.]

According to Hardware Unboxed you get a 1-3 % performance increase for a hefty price premium. Thermals and power consumption look terrible, and Steve even used a 420 mm AIO this time. I don't get a point for such a product which doesn't bring us forward in any meaningful way (in contrast, the 4090 might also come with an absurd price tag but it at least enables 4k high refresh rate gaming).

It certainly not for me, you, or sane (seasoned) people. It's for amateurs and layman, plus rich people that don't know where to burn their money. Experienced people know that this is just a gimmick. But layman and amateurs like these kind of thing. And why your Joe and Jane like it too? Cause our amateurs brainstorming them with these kind of information: The higher the CPU clock and moar core, the better.

[t.s.]

This is specifically binned SKU for extreme overclockers and just them or extreme enthusiasts who just want the best.

Most people shouldn't even look at K serie CPUs (or AMD X) and just go for non-K and non-X series CPUs as they have a ton more reasonable power consumption and way better ratio performance-power (and performance-price as well)

Well, your average Joe and Jane usually will go with K and X series, cause their not-so-geek friends/families recommend it to them. Or if they go to the store themself, of course the seller would sell the pricier one to them.