Wednesday, February 14th 2024
Intel Core i9-14900KS Draws as much as 409W at Stock Speeds with Power Limits Unlocked
Intel's upcoming limited edition desktop processor for overclockers and enthusiasts, the Core i9-14900KS, comes with a gargantuan 409 W maximum package power draw at stock speeds with its PL2 power limit unlocked, reports HKEPC, based on an OCCT database result. This was measured under OCCT stress, with all CPU cores saturated, and the PL2 (maximum turbo power) limited set to unlimited/4096 W in the BIOS. The chip allows 56 seconds of maximum turbo power at a stretch, which was measured at 409 W.
The i9-14900KS is a speed-bump over its predecessor, the i9-13900KS. It comes with a maximum P-core boost frequency of 6.20 GHz, which is 200 MHz higher; and a maximum E-core boost frequency of 4.50 GHz, which is a 100 MHz increase over both the i9-13900KS and the mass market i9-14900K. The i9-14900KS comes with a base power value of 150 W, which is the guaranteed minimum amount of power the processor can draw under load (the idle power is much lower). There's no word on when Intel plans to make the i9-14900KS available, it was earlier expected to go on sale in January, along the sidelines of CES.
Source:
HKEPC
The i9-14900KS is a speed-bump over its predecessor, the i9-13900KS. It comes with a maximum P-core boost frequency of 6.20 GHz, which is 200 MHz higher; and a maximum E-core boost frequency of 4.50 GHz, which is a 100 MHz increase over both the i9-13900KS and the mass market i9-14900K. The i9-14900KS comes with a base power value of 150 W, which is the guaranteed minimum amount of power the processor can draw under load (the idle power is much lower). There's no word on when Intel plans to make the i9-14900KS available, it was earlier expected to go on sale in January, along the sidelines of CES.
228 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900KS Draws as much as 409W at Stock Speeds with Power Limits Unlocked
Even you aren't entirely fond of the 14700K on stock power draw without power limits it's hard to not concede I didn't get amazing value for dollar and at the same time it's easy enough to readily tame power pretty significantly and w/o sacrificing huge amounts of performance especially depending on intended usage. It's pretty much a breeze to drop MT or ST if you need a lot of either and bring down general power draw a good bit by focusing on one or the other when you understand how to go about it.
I capitalized on a handful of great deals much like 1080Ti GPU owners did those were pretty killer value for a high end GPU at that point in time. As the saying goes seize the day. It was the parts I needed to update more and at bargain pricing why would I have chosen differently and worse value for dollar just to appease brand loyalists or a negligible different in power draw in scenario that isn't typical in the first place for daily usage. That would've been a really dumb decision quite honestly and it can sip performance with some easy enough bios tuning and with what I saved very readily I can afford to do so and sacrifice a bit of performance. It can consume a lot in the worst case scenario while performing a lot of work or it can easily sip power as well plus it's ST performance in particular is outstanding and can still be while sipping power.
I'd drop in a 14900KS in a heartbeat if I didn't have to pay for it even with 240 AIO that would struggle more to keep it cool and not throttle. It wouldn't be hard to tune 4 to 8 of the E cores to keep power consumption fairly in line with a 14700K. I could easily do that and stretch the ST/MT higher than 14700K at the same power limits because it's better silicone quality and has 4 additional core/thread with more cache available. It doesn't need to consume that much peak and still perform better than a 14700K. It's not a whole lot different than a 14900K in reality just a continuation and higher power draw in turn for a bit more performance. It could probably actually beat the 7950X in both ST and MT with a 14900KS and same power limits I'm running on the 14700K I'm presuming, but might struggle to do so on a 240 AIO to be fair. The package temps with another 4E cores has to be a little more dicey at load for a 240 AIO, but it does have more cache and threads so it's got upside in those area's and more to work with on tuning that a savvy tech users can leverage.
It's not a chip aimed at tech users that aren't a bit tech savvy in the first place anyway really. It's a high end chip which is generally aimed at more tech savvy users that can afford such technology and willing to pay a bit more for it. You don't need to be tech savvy to buy one, but I don't think a over abundance of not so tech savvy people are going to buy a chip that high end in reality. I mean some will naturally, but majority won't.
Why the hell anyone would buy a 400w CPU over AMDs current offerings I'll never know as AMD is still damn fast but sips power so less heat to deal with and far easier to cool.
Don't need much more than a chiller hehe
I think its quite impressive intels manufacturing process is capable of handling this level of power. I like seeing things pushed to the max as a window shopper but not equally enthused to get my hands wet with it (or burnt). A nice collectors piece at best.
I'd be shocked if most 14700K chips can't do at least 6600MT/s on average with decent memory kit and board and that's across 4 DIMM's let alone 2 DIMM's. Who knows maybe I struck silicone lottery on IMC on my 14700K with 7000MT/s CL30 on 4 DIMM's, but perhaps not that might be typical or even below average provide you know how to tune the memory timings and voltages to run 7000MT/s in the first place and tighten things up to CL30.
It is a bit excessive at 400W and I just probably get a 14900K if anything myself because it's probably modestly cheaper and isn't as extreme on the power draw and cooling requirements, but still has the additional 4E cores and cache upside over a 14700K. I don't plan to upgrade my 14700K to 14900K mind you because it would be foolish, but if offered to 14900K to replace the 14700K I'd 100% do so because it's the better CPU chip and silicone bin quality between the two and power limits exist and CPU ratio's are adjustable and I know how to do so just fine. I could maintain the same power draw usage and have higher performance and at the same time if performance at higher power draw it's fully capable and can provide it.
I mean more work performed tends to consume more power in general though node advancements and things can offset that issue so the future will always tend to look brighter with technology advancements until we really slam are heads against the wall with low hanging fruit and we're getting closer and closer to that point unless we have break thru that changes things pretty significantly.
It's a lot of wattage, but that's at peak power and performance and if you omitted cache driven scenario's or AVX-512 name better a performing CPU for consumer desktops. Sure there is the much more expensive ThreadRipper and Epyc's that aren't in the same price tier, but that's not saying a lot. Raptor Lake crushed at ST and a 14700K's MT really isn't too far beyond a 7590X let alone a 14900K or 14900KS with additional 4E cores and more cache along with better binning.
What it offers for what it costs relative to competition and not simply in one scenario like gaming or more appropriately rendering is a important factor. Also that scenario is GPU driven anyway and I can easily see stacked cache on GPU's negating much of the need for CPU stacked cache along faster VRAM and more capacity. There amazing chips for DAW's larger projects at lower ASIO settings and higher mixer playback quality and quicker rendering time are all good perks.
It's also not as if both Nvidia and AMD aren't literally chugging power at the high end of GPU's more so than with CPU's and haven't been known to. Hell we use to have quad SLI/CF systems for FFS so it's a bit ironic given the overall level of criticism pointed at Intel on power draw. A CPU tends to by more multipurpose than GPU overall, but all some individuals care about is gaming, but that isn't the case for everyone. Get the technology that best suits yourself and worry a bit less about others.
It's fine enough to say 400W is pushing it a bit and excessive, but that applies just as much to GPU's. These chips generally won't be running at that wattage for extended periods anyway by most people buying them. If anything a GPU is more liable to run at full power draw more of the time than a CPU because gamer's have a bit of a unhealthy obsession with having the highest levels of performance in general which is why quad SLI/CF existed for so long a period of time.
This cpu has the same value to the specific target group as a ....11900KS (it doesn't exist).
It's not about performance. It's about the best performance from the specific gen/SKU for the records, charts and benchmarks.
So, you would pay the ridiculous amount of money they request, if you look to break a, let's say, 8.5Ghz frequency record.
Either way, unit margins are much stronger with the 14900k and 14900ks, especially when you consider a lot of the lower end skus are going to system integrators who get an additional discount. The 14900ks doesn't have to move in big numbers nor does the 14600k have to be sold at a loss for the 14900ks to be good for those buying the 14500 or something like it. It gives room for flexibility in pricing, that wouldn't necessarily be there without the higher end and more profitable skus.
If people want to spend ridiculous amounts of money for the best of the best binning, I really don't see the problem with that. As long as bottom feeders like me can continue to buy the middle of the road stuff and still get most of the performance.
The reality is: the best and fastest is the best and the fastest. That's what this chip is. It ISN'T for everyone..
Or The best in 1 000 000 with heavy gold plated silver heatspreader, wooden presentation box, wall plaque, cap and pin.
How much could they cost and do you think that Intel would have problems selling them?
See the point there? Intel, AMD, NVidia, video card and motherboard makers all market products to that sector of consumers.