Thursday, March 16th 2023

Intel Xeon W9-3495X Can Pull up to 1,900 Watts in Extreme OC Scenarios

Intel's latest Xeon processors based on Sapphire Rapids uArch have arrived in the hands of overclockers. Last week, we reported that the Intel Xeon W9-3495X is officially a world record holder for achieving the best scores in Cinebench R23 and R20, Y-Cruncher, 3DMark CPU test, and Geekbench 3. However, today we have another extreme overclocking attempt to beat the world record, with little more details about power consumption and what the new SKU is capable of. Elmor, an overclocker working with ASUS, has tried to break the world record and overclocked the Intel Xeon W9-3495X CPU to 5.5 GHz on all 56 cores. What is more impressive is the power that the processor can consume.

With a system powered by two Superflower Leadex 1,600 Watt power supply units, the CPU consumed almost 1,900 Watts of power from the wall. To manage to cool this heat output, liquid nitrogen was used, and the CPU stayed at a cool negative 95 degrees Celsius. The motherboard of choice for this attempt was ASUS Pro WS W790E-SAGE SE, paired with eight GSKILL Zeta R5 DDR5 R-DIMMs modules. And results were incredible, as the CPU achieved 132,220 points in Cinebench R23. However, the world record of the previous week has remained intact, as Elmor 's result is a bit behind last week's score of 132,484 points. Check the video below for more info.
Source: via HardwareLuxx.de
Add your own comment

60 Comments on Intel Xeon W9-3495X Can Pull up to 1,900 Watts in Extreme OC Scenarios

#1
lexluthermiester
Good grief! Seriously? There are homes in North America that couldn't run that CPU at that speed and have enough power left over for the rest of the system. Everytime you'd get close, you'd blow a breaker.
Posted on Reply
#2
Minus Infinity
How ironic if a farm of these were used for climate modeling :roll:
Posted on Reply
#3
Bwaze


That's... Impresive how far you can push the small conductive traces inside CPU and motherboard!

Practicallity of this achievement is of course zero.
Posted on Reply
#6
kondamin
Minus InfinityHow ironic if a farm of these were used for climate modeling :roll:
Wouldn't be much of an issue if it were powered by hydro wind or nuclear
Wish they never stopped building nuclear plants so energy efficient electrical outlet connected computers never became a thing.
Posted on Reply
#7
Tsukiyomi91
it can pull almost 1900W if it wants to. =O
Posted on Reply
#8
Denver
They should be proud to achieve such efficiency...The FX 9590 must be jealous
Posted on Reply
#10
TheoneandonlyMrK
They're getting close to Cerberus territory with only 56 cores, ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
#11
ratirt
Oh wow. I wonder if Intel can make a CPU that would pull as much with only 28 cores which is half of what that CPU has. Any bets?
Posted on Reply
#15
TumbleGeorge
kondaminWouldn't be much of an issue if it were powered by hydro wind or nuclear
I disagree. More expenses* of energy=more thermal pollution.
*In the cause from CPU.
Posted on Reply
#16
terroralpha
john_Intel and the Environment

i know you're meme-ing, but sustainability is more about the power draw of a product. things like ethical raw material sourcing, making products recyclable and efficient production facilities are more important.

having said that, i don't have any confidence in intel doing any of that correctly either.
Posted on Reply
#17
zlobby
PSU vendors are leaking their new designs that can feed intel's:
Posted on Reply
#18
N/A
extreme OC scenarios are not your typical power, so why are you overobsessing over that. CPU is meant to run at 3.5Ghz 450W at quarter the power and only for a brief moment.

the motherboard handles it very well, but this is meaningless torture, i'd like to see the test run for 10 mins like it was meant to. couldn't care less for those 1 second 1 trick ponies.

but not bad at all 10 times faster than my 2690V4. see you in 10 years 56 core.
Posted on Reply
#19
PLAfiller
Ohh...the sarcasm in this thread....delicious :D Can't wait a few years down the lane, youtubers going: best bang for the buck/gaming on the cheap! with used Dell Optiplex/ HP/ Lenovo Thinkpad workstation...going...ohh it pulls 1900W from the WALL!! Emotional DAAMAGE! :D
Posted on Reply
#20
Panther_Seraphin
TumbleGeorgeI disagree. More expenses* of energy=more thermal pollution.
*In the cause from CPU.
Not sure if sarcastic but ill bite

The amount of heat radiated by the planet when not facing the sun is more than enough to keep up with this "thermal pollution" if the CO2 levels are kept in moderation.

The fact we are pumping out so much CO2 and other greenhouse gases at a growing rate basically means we are coating the earth in a lovely thick layer of insulation. Problem is that it does nothing to stop the heat from the sun etc coming in but stops it pretty much dead leaving the earth at night.
Posted on Reply
#21
zlobby
Panther_SeraphinNot sure if sarcastic but ill bite

The amount of heat radiated by the planet when not facing the sun is more than enough to keep up with this "thermal pollution" if the CO2 levels are kept in moderation.

The fact we are pumping out so much CO2 and other greenhouse gases at a growing rate basically means we are coating the earth in a lovely thick layer of insulation. Problem is that it does nothing to stop the heat from the sun etc coming in but stops it pretty much dead leaving the earth at night.
True. And let's thank intel for their fair contribution and misleading labeling (TDP, etc.)
john_Intel and the Environment

Oddly familiar...


It's only a matter of time before they summon Cthulu!
Posted on Reply
#22
TumbleGeorge
Panther_SeraphinThe amount of heat radiated by the planet when not facing the sun is more than enough to keep
I can already see you justifying some inefficient 19000 watt CPU with this defective argument. :(
Posted on Reply
#23
Daven
Another day another story about the incredible waste of power that seems to permeate all Intel products.
Posted on Reply
#24
john_
AssimilatorYes, because liquid nitrogen overclocking is something that Intel recommends and endorses :rolleyes:
Defending Intel (Nvidia in other cases) again?

Well. They are pushing power consumption to retain the first spot on benchmarks, or in other case just remain as much competitive as possible. That's a fact. They do this out of necessity of course. If they had 3nm or even 5nm ready, power efficiency would have been one of their advantage and the jokes would have been on AMD (AMD been in the same spot in the past, 220W AMD FX CPUs, AMD R9 Fury just a couple examples).
Posted on Reply
#25
zlobby
Now we know what the naming scheme means - the number in the name means the power draw of the said CPU. :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 21st, 2024 20:58 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts