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
Add your own comment

228 Comments on Intel Core i9-14900KS Draws as much as 409W at Stock Speeds with Power Limits Unlocked

#51
Vya Domus
AusWolfRumour says that the next gen won't have HT anyway. I'm curious if it's true and how it'll do. I'm so used to seeing HT/SMT on every CPU by now that I can't even imagine what life is like without it.
That's a really bad sign, it means they're clutching at straws trying to limit power draw any way they can. Since turning SMT off reduces utilization and makes everything less efficient doing this only ever makes sense if you are trying to limit power consumption at all costs.
Posted on Reply
#52
phanbuey
Vya DomusThat's a really bad sign, it means they're clutching at straws trying to limit power draw any way they can. Since turning SMT off reduces utilization and makes everything less efficient doing this only ever makes sense if you are trying to limit power consumption at all costs.
That's true if you have a homogenous design. If you have a ton of efficiency cores that are faster than a logical thread, and your primary cores are faster without sandwitching in threads during idle time, then in theory HT isn't necessary.
Posted on Reply
#53
Vya Domus
phanbueyIf you have a ton of efficiency cores that are faster than a logical thread, and your primary cores are faster without sandwitching in threads during idle time, then in theory HT isn't necessary.
It doesn't make sense to compare an E core to a logical thread, if you disable SMT you are inevitably making that core less efficient, I don't mean just power wise but also performance wise. It's a serious regression architecturally. The whole purpose of SMT was to increase the utilization of resources that would otherwise be idle.
Posted on Reply
#54
bug
Vya DomusIt doesn't make sense to compare an E core to a logical thread, if you disable SMT you are inevitably making that core less efficient, I don't mean just power wise but also performance wise. It's a serious regression architecturally. The whole purpose of SMT was to increase the utilization of resources that would otherwise be idle.
It goes both ways. It can help use idle resources, if available. But it can also cause resource starvation under heavy load.
Intel engineers are not dumb. They know the usage patterns much better than you and I.
Posted on Reply
#55
AnotherReader
bugIt goes both ways. It can help use idle resources, if available. But it can also cause resource starvation under heavy load.
Intel engineers are not dumb. They know the usage patterns much better than you and I.
It varies from application to application so from a performance perspective, the current situation is the right one where the user has the option to disable it. If the rumour is true, then it's more likely driven by the idea of reducing the attack surface in shared environments like the "cloud".
Posted on Reply
#56
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Has Intel just not learned that people dont want high wattage CPUs?
Posted on Reply
#57
Chrispy_
Does anyone care any more?

Gamers - one of the few remaining demographics who care about single-theaded or low-threaded performance are buying X3D chips that are just better despite far lower power draw.

Everyone else who needs more performance will just add cores; 7950X, ThreadRipper (Pro), EPYC, Xeon.

Pushing so far beyond the point of diminishing returns of efficiency is stupid. It has always been stupid, and it will remain increasingly stupid as the environmental and monetary cost of energy usage increase exponentially.
Posted on Reply
#58
Vario
Outback BronzeWell by the sounds of it im going to have to buy a case that supports at least 5 rads lol
How about a 1080 external rad, go big. That should be able to dissipate 400 watts. You could even do a 1260.
Posted on Reply
#59
Unregistered
yet an optimized 7800x3d with 30-40 watts in gaming equals it. who the fuck is still buying intel for gaming who has clue?
Posted on Edit | Reply
#60
Vario
Nosferatu666yet an optimized 7800x3d with 30-40 watts in gaming equals it. who the fuck is still buying intel for gaming who has clue?
Product is more for non gamers that are limited to an intel ecosystem. I don't think most people will be buying this.
Posted on Reply
#62
Sabotaged_Enigma
Well who's using water cooling can try connecting it to room heater and use 14900KS to make through winter lol
Posted on Reply
#63
Chrispy_
VarioProduct is more for non gamers that are limited to an intel ecosystem. I don't think most people will be buying this.
I'm curious if such a demographic even exists any more.

Just about the only possible answer would be hardcore AVX-512 users and just about every situation I can imagine where heavy AVX-512 is needed, you also need gobs of bandwidth. Consumer i9's are godawful for that which is why they're all using Xeons for AVX-512 workloads.

Am I missing something, is there a productivity workload that doesn't work on Zen4 and needs AVX-512, but not with significant memory quantities or bandwidth? AMD are ahead of intel in just about everything except AVX-512 which is already pretty niche outside of the datacenter and ECC-equipped HEDT pro-tier workstations running Xeons already.
Posted on Reply
#64
Ferrum Master
Chrispy_I'm curious if such a demographic even exists any more.

Just about the only possible answer would be hardcore AVX-512 users and just about every situation I can imagine where heavy AVX-512 is needed, you also need gobs of bandwidth. Consumer i9's are godawful for that which is why they're all using Xeons for AVX-512 workloads.

Am I missing something, is there a productivity workload that doesn't work on Zen4 and needs AVX-512, but not with significant memory quantities or bandwidth? AMD are ahead of intel in just about everything except AVX-512 which is already pretty niche outside of the datacenter and ECC-equipped HEDT pro-tier workstations running Xeons already.
AVX512 in general is useful only for some json, limited simulations and PS3 emulation and benchmarks. The gains in daily user tasks are minuscule as desktop CPU ain't really meant for that, AVX2 was more or less enough.
Posted on Reply
#65
phanbuey
Vya DomusIt doesn't make sense to compare an E core to a logical thread, if you disable SMT you are inevitably making that core less efficient, I don't mean just power wise but also performance wise. It's a serious regression architecturally. The whole purpose of SMT was to increase the utilization of resources that would otherwise be idle.
That's true but it adds a ton of latency, so while you're increasing the utilization, you're actually decreasing the ability of the core to respond, and decreasing the single thread IPC -- if you have a ton of efficiency cores sitting idle while that's all happening, then you're sub-optimizing for the hybrid architecture.

Turn off SMT on the 7800X3D, and games that aren't threadbound get 5-10% boost.

So if you can limit the wait times, make a more efficient and responsive P core, while offloading the HT style work that would happen in-between high priority instructions to e cores, you're actually making the overall process much faster. -- less theorhetically efficient at full thread load from the point of view of a single P core, but more specialized and more responsive overall.

If eliminating HT hardware also allows you to fit more P cores on the die with a space and a TDP reduction then that win is compounded further.
Posted on Reply
#66
GhostRyder
I mean, I am all for it for the overclocking enthusiast! Give us a chip that can handle crazy power limits. My biggest concern is going to be cooling because its already a struggle on the 14900K. Even with a really good 3x120mm AIO it will throttle when told to unlock max performance so I can imagine needing heavy custom cooling for this (Which is really what you should run anyway on something like this). My question will be how good these will be on the P-Core overclocking and how much further without ridiculous power scaling they will go.
Posted on Reply
#67
bonehead123
Spend more, burn more, yea, ok, right....hehehe :)
Posted on Reply
#68
bug
Яid!culousOwOWell who's using water cooling can try connecting it to room heater and use 14900KS to make through winter lol
Neah, winter's almost over. By next winter, we'll have a newer, better heat source ;)
Posted on Reply
#69
AnotherReader
phanbueyThat's true but it adds a ton of latency, so while you're increasing the utilization, you're actually decreasing the ability of the core to respond, and decreasing the single thread IPC -- if you have a ton of efficiency cores sitting idle while that's all happening, then you're sub-optimizing for the hybrid architecture.

Turn off SMT on the 7800X3D, and games that aren't threadbound get 5-10% boost.

So if you can limit the wait times, make a more efficient and responsive P core, while offloading the HT style work that would happen in-between high priority instructions to e cores, you're actually making the overall process much faster. -- less theorhetically efficient at full thread load from the point of view of a single P core, but more specialized and more responsive overall.

If eliminating HT hardware also allows you to fit more P cores on the die with a space and a TDP reduction then that win is compounded further.
The cost of SMT is far less than its detractors think. The designers of the unreleased EV8 with 4-way SMT reported a 6% increase in die area over a single threaded equivalent. This was over twenty years ago and today the cost is likely to be even smaller. SMT is useful in the case where IPC is low due to low cache hit rates or other non-execution related bottlenecks.
Posted on Reply
#70
Chrispy_
AnotherReaderThe cost of SMT is far less than its detractors think. The designers of the unreleased EV8 with 4-way SMT reported a 6% increase in die area over a single threaded equivalent. This was over twenty years ago and today the cost is likely to be even smaller. SMT is useful in the case where IPC is low due to low cache hit rates or other non-execution related bottlenecks.
Yeah, from what I read of Zen 1's architectural deep dive (where SMT was closer to Intel's HT than Bulldozer's huge amount of pipeline sharing) the actual implementation is almost free in terms of die area.

It should be something the OS scheduler can turn off and on at will, rather than this dumb all or nothing approach we have now where we have to choose to cut our thread count in half just to get some latency gains. We only need those latency gains on ONE thread :)
Posted on Reply
#71
HBSound
ITX motherboards with 24-pin and 8-pin connectors shouldn't have issues powering this CPU at full capacity.
Posted on Reply
#72
dalekdukesboy
So much for new and improved in reference to efficiency….
Posted on Reply
#73
marios15
You can run a 128core EPYC at 360W, that's 16x more (real) cores
Posted on Reply
#74
BoggledBeagle
I wonder if the chip in my 14900K is aware how lucky it is to end up in my system running nice, cool and efficient at 5.2 GHz, and not 1 GHz quicker as in the chipmelter edition CPU!
Posted on Reply
#75
InVasMani
marios15You can run a 128core EPYC at 360W, that's 16x more (real) cores
Hardly the same price range however.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 05:17 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts