so with stock power limits in place it actually consumes less then a 12900k?
If so that is pretty damn good.

wait correction, I seem to have my data from whole system power draw instead of just the cpu, my bad.
From what I found real quick it seems the 12900k peaks at 238 watts so the 13900k does actually draw a bit more power.

"With the power limits unlocked in the motherboard's UEFI setup program (i.e. PL1/PL2 set at an impossible 4096 W)" - What??? from where on earth this is possible? are intel folks mad? some unrealistic PL values :D

Jimmy_"With the power limits unlocked in the motherboard's UEFI setup program (i.e. PL1/PL2 set at an impossible 4096 W)" - What??? from where on earth this is possible? are intel folks mad? some unrealistic PL values :D

Alderlake has this as well, its not that crazy, you basically just say "no limit" by saying the limit is some insane number, it might as well say 100.000.000 Watt.

ZoneDymoso with stock power limits in place it actually consumes less then a 12900k?
If so that is pretty damn good.

i don't think it will consume less power than the 12th.
if I remember the PL for 12900K was set to 241W but here its 254W!

ZoneDymoAlderlake has this as well, its not that crazy, you basically just say "no limit" by saying the limit is some insane number, it might as well say 100.000.000 Watt.

i agree!

The score difference between the 13900K and 12900K seems to be almost entirely down to the doubled e-core count. Look up the TPU review of the 12900K and note the difference in the CB results with the e-cores and without them. Then add that difference to the score again, and you get almost exactly the result they're getting here with the 13900K with stock power limits. That they can achieve this without additional power creep is impressive, though.

ZoneDymoso with stock power limits in place it actually consumes less then a 12900k?
If so that is pretty damn good.

With stock power limits it consumes less than 12900K with it's limits disabled, and thay's "pretty damn good"?

Really?

BwazeWith stock power limits it consumes less than 12900K with it's limits disabled, and thay's "pretty damn good"?

Really?

It is demonstrably more power efficient than the 12900K, so yes, that's good. Put in a lower power limit if that's what you're after.

345 watts!!!!!!!!!!!
And they thought Rocket lake was bad.... :twitch:

Jimmy_"With the power limits unlocked in the motherboard's UEFI setup program (i.e. PL1/PL2 set at an impossible 4096 W)" - What??? from where on earth this is possible? are intel folks mad? some unrealistic PL values :D

That's what my MSI Z590 Unify does too if you select water cooler option.

Problem I see with efficiency situation is AMD is moving to a smaller node and I believe is also shrinking the I/O die down to a lower node so some SKU's could certainly be more powerful and efficient than it's previous top of the line 5950x that was already a real champ on efficiency relative to MT workhorse. It least it should be more efficient than a 12900K with defaults on both. That's at least progress. The real issue is without the power limits this thing can really drink the kool-aid and it'll need it.

redacted

Ufff, over 40k!!! :eek: While that is admittedly at a high power draw, considering how well 12900k responds to power optimization, this makes me think you'll be able to tune this bad boy to 7950x's level of power use while retaining at least the same multi thread and still notably better single thread all on a (potentially, depending on ram choice, significantly) cheaper platform to boot! What's not to like, except of course, if your're team red fanboy, then there will always be something... :D

I guess this chip will not be feasible for most users, and given that it is the flagship, it likely won't be on the want list of most people. Consider the review performed by Anandtech on the 12900KS, it is likely that no AIO cooler in the market will keep this chip cool. At 270+W, the 2 360 AIOs being tested were unable to keep temps below 100 degree celsius and throttling. At 350W, you need no less than a custom water cooler. Looks like Intel also won the title of delivering a first consumer processor that needs at least a custom water cooling solution. It shows that they have pushed their 10nm and processor architecture beyond its sane point. Even the supposed efficient core is no more efficient since Intel is likely going to pushed the clockspeed higher just so that they get better benchmark results. Having said that, AMD is going down the same path, though a little slower than Intel.

The Intel Core i9-12900KS Review: The Best of Intel's Alder Lake, and the Hottest (anandtech.com)

My predictions are right,
13700k 280W + 8 more e cores = 350W

So, overclocked this 24-core chips is as fast as my overclocked 24-core Threadripper using about the same amount of power? Nice!
hwbot.org/submission/4693187

Intel must be taking power usage lessons from Nvidia. This could add up to $525($43/mo) to your electric bill per year. Thats a big bump for the budget conscious.

toaster

noel_fstoaster

more like a space heater, industrial size

Bomby569more like a space heater, industrial size

I used space heater, before I saw desktop in the list, as the appliance in the electricity bill calculator.. :laugh:

DeathtoGnomesI used space heater, before I saw desktop in the list, as the appliance in the electricity bill calculator.. :laugh:

it's a bit worst, because with a space heater you only use the space heater when you need a space heater. Here if it's summer you have a space heater and you need a AC unit, it should be a combo in the summer. Or you get a free sauna included in the deal :D

DeathtoGnomesI used space heater, before I saw desktop in the list, as the appliance in the electricity bill calculator.. :laugh:

Says someone with a (supposedly) FX 9370... :roll: That thing uses north of 200W just opening more demanding web pages :laugh:

HenrySomeoneSays someone with a (supposedly) FX 9370... :roll: That thing uses north of 200W just opening more demanding web pages :laugh:

220W is the spec. :D

I for one welcome our new terrible perf/W overlords.

Bomby569it's a bit worst, because with a space heater you only use the space heater when you need a space heater. Here if it's summer you have a space heater and you need a AC unit, it should be a combo in the summer. Or you get a free sauna included in the deal :D

It just dawned on me. We need a PC that un-calculates solutions to turn it into an AC unit!

I guess the stock settings are like Alder Lake, PL1=PL2= circa 255W. It is 5-6% higher than 12900k, but the MT performance improves by almost 30%, so it looks like a (better than expected?) efficiency boost, especially with 8 more small cores and the added cache. On the other hand overclocking, as expected, with few exceptions isn't worth it, except for fun;).

345W?


I'm speechless

Jimmy_"With the power limits unlocked in the motherboard's UEFI setup program (i.e. PL1/PL2 set at an impossible 4096 W)" - What??? from where on earth this is possible? are intel folks mad? some unrealistic PL values :D

That's just a binary value - they double every time like with RAM
They never expect that value to be reached, but doing so lets them have finer control (every extra number could be used for a decimal point, etc)