Intel Core i9-13900KS

[Dr. Dro]

You have the option in bios to remove the thermal limit or raise it to 115c from the normal 100c. I assume that's what w1z did. The only other time I managed to exceed the 100c limit was when I was testing 5.6ghz all core on my 12900k @ 1.64 volts, the moment I launched a game it raced to 107c degrees.

That's insane. On the flip side, 5.6 all core with occasional boosts to 6.0 are the clocks I've observed with the 13900KS while I've been playing Fallout 76 on it yesterday. Quite amazing. The E-cores run at 4.3, all 16 of them.

 

[watzupken]

I'd like to know how this was achieved, my motherboard at least throttles the CPU down when it reaches 100 and it only touched such a temperature during torture testing with OCCT and XTU, where the CPU has exceeded 300W. I'm using an id cooling Frostflow X 360 with Kryonaut Extreme (the giga expensive pink one). Worth mentioning I suppose that I've also installed a thermalright contact frame, so it's an aftermarket socket ILM.

I didn't run Prime95 small FFT because I did not overclock the processor (nor do I have any real need to - it'll live a comfy life playing my Todd Howard classics), but the large FFT for RAM testing didn't get it much above 70.

In any case, on the MSI Z690 ACE, you're offered three presets for power the first time you enter BIOS, a "boxed cooler" preset with a 125W PL1, a high end tower cooler at around 250 watts limit (which imo realistically serves this processor well) and a water cooler preset which is fully unrestricted.

I only wish I could figure out why Windows 11 is so uncooperative with my system, as my thread detailed.

I believe this is not the only review that shows that the CPU is thermal throttling with a capable 360mm AIO. So the question is how much difference does it make when you use a high end thermal compound, and more importantly the benefits of correcting the mounting with the after market contact frame. I believe the benefit of the contact frame will be significant in this case simply because there is such a high power requirement, and poor contact between the CPU and cooler is going to drastically increase the temp.

 

[fevgatos]

I believe this is not the only review that shows that the CPU is thermal throttling with a capable 360mm AIO. So the question is how much difference does it make when you use a high end thermal compound, and more importantly the benefits of correcting the mounting with the after market contact frame. I believe the benefit of the contact frame will be significant in this case simply because there is such a high power requirement, and poor contact between the CPU and cooler is going to drastically increase the temp.

This is a 13900k under a u12a, no contact frame. Despite common belief, they are pretty easy to cool cause it's a huge die.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I believe this is not the only review that shows that the CPU is thermal throttling with a capable 360mm AIO. So the question is how much difference does it make when you use a high end thermal compound, and more importantly the benefits of correcting the mounting with the after market contact frame. I believe the benefit of the contact frame will be significant in this case simply because there is such a high power requirement, and poor contact between the CPU and cooler is going to drastically increase the temp.

Agreed. My question was quite genuine, since I certainly missed such a setting in my motherboard's BIOS, not that I'd increase this limit. 100 is already beyond my personal comfort zone, if anything I'd lower it to 90.

As for the BCF, that was my logic when purchasing it. I knew this CPU would be high wattage from the get go, so any contact improvement that I could get I deemed it worth pursuing.

 

[fevgatos]

Agreed. My question was quite genuine, since I certainly missed such a setting in my motherboard's BIOS, not that I'd increase this limit. 100 is already beyond my personal comfort zone, if anything I'd lower it to 90.

As for the BCF, that was my logic when purchasing it. I knew this CPU would be high wattage from the get go, so any contact improvement that I could get I deemed it worth pursuing.

I found out that the best method to run 13th gen is undervolt and then thermal limit to 85c. Of course you can also power limit them - which is advisable if you are running hour long heavy mt workloads, but I don't so i didnt need to.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I found out that the best method to run 13th gen is undervolt and then thermal limit to 85c. Of course you can also power limit them - which is advisable if you are running hour long heavy mt workloads, but I don't so i didnt need to.

I noticed you got 7600 working on the Unify-X, my ACE doesn't seem to like anything above 6400, I understand it's a 4 DIMM one and won't go as high but I'm curious.

What SA and VDDQ/VDD2 did you use for that? Maybe I could get the 6800 XMP out of my board

Using 0.9 SA, 1.35 on both VDDs here. Something I've noticed is that the higher the SA voltage the quicker it will error out...

 

[fevgatos]

I noticed you got 7600 working on the Unify-X, my ACE doesn't seem to like anything above 6400, I understand it's a 4 DIMM one and won't go as high but I'm curious.

What SA and VDDQ/VDD2 did you use for that? Maybe I could get the 6800 XMP out of my board

Using 0.9 SA, 1.35 on both VDDs here. Something I've noticed is that the higher the SA voltage the quicker it will error out...

I don't think you can go over 7k with 4 dimmers, especially z690. My X hits a hard wall at 7600. I was using 1.2 on SA and 1,4 / 1,35 on vddq / vdd2. Probably could go lower but didn't really care about optimizing the voltages

 

[Outback Bronze]

5.6ghz all core on my 12900k @ 1.64 volts

Yeah, lol I can imagine.

Any time I get near 1.55v it's all over unless I got me custom water going.

 

[fevgatos]

Yeah, lol I can imagine.

Any time I get near 1.55v it's all over unless I got me custom water going.

Surprisingly it worked, managed to play hogwarts with that, but yeah temps and power draw were nutty

 

[beedoo]

My 5500W electric clothes dryer laughs at all CPUs padawan wattages.

My 29,000W air conditioner laughs at your paltry electric clothes dryer.

In all seriousness though, as an enthusiast who really wants to build two new machines, this isn't it.

 

[InVasMani]

CPU 4 sale runs a lil hot...

 

[xSneak]

I wish there was more information on overclocking this chip such as if you can do per core overclocking and voltage control to tune 2 cores to boost higher than the stock 6.0 ghz instead of an all core oc; also what kind of oc you can get if you tune it for game stability and disregard prime95 thermal throttling.
I am also interested to know if it has better memory oc support than a 13900k and if it can reliably run ddr5-7800 - ddr5-8200 mhz.
It seems like a waste not to include that information when you are reviewing an exotic binned silicon chip.

 

[SL2]

It's basically a sign that Intel needs to go back to the damn drawing board already and design a whole new architecture from the ground up because this is just beyond stupid already. The power usage is, as the meme on the previous page says...

That's what Arrow lake is supposed to be, IIRC. Jim Keller was involved in developing it.

If Meteor lake actually have 6 P-cores maximum then I'd guess it's not everything Intel hoped for, or anyone else for that matter. It could still be a great 13600 successor, tho.

 

[Broken Processor]

A competent (NH-D15 or similar heavyweight) air cooling solution will handle this CPU.

You're also given the option to configure its power limit manually.

If you configure the power limit down are you not loosing performance, also is it safe to run at 115 degrees? I'm not currently using intel so haven't payed much attention.

What temperature do the 13900ks run at full load on a NH-D15?

 

[Chrispy_]

I skipped straight to the power consumption page of this review because there's absolutely nothing of interest here apart from how far Intel have pushed their silicon this time.

I was not disappointed, it's truly an embarrassing shit-show:



404W is damn near triple the power consumption of the 7950X3D and it's not even 5% faster in a best-case scenario.

As for Intel's own lineup, it's really hard to see what the point of this is over an i7-13700K. Even ignoring the cost, the only benefit to the extra four E-cores is rendering, and those additional 150W over the already-toasty 13700K are going to make longer-duration workloads a cooling nightmare. At 400W+ it's no longer about how good your cooling is - the very real problem is the IHS bottlenecking 400W as it attempts to leave a 250mm2 die area. The IHS works fine for 125W, it's not too much of an issue at 250W (though a de-lid does make a lot of sense by this point). At 400W we're into stupid territory - and you're not going to do stupid cooling like a warranty-invalidating de-lid and liquid metal for the sole application (rendering) where it even has a tangible advantage over the less crazy alternatives you could drop into the same socket.

 

[SL2]

I think the 13900KS needs some power justice here from what I've been reading in the comments.

Not really. The fact that settings can be changed, regardless of brand, isn't really news.

Also, it's hard to make any conclusions from a single game.

 

[Drash]

I'm noticing a distinct lack, here and across the web, of comparisons that include *BOTH* 7800X3D and 7900X3D. For me (looking to build a completely new rig soon (ish)) the 13700K is a contender - great gaming, way better productivity (than most AMD), but crappy efficiency. I'd like to get a feel of how the mix of X3D when it's useful and MHz when it's not compares. The 7800X3D is only 5GHz, so when no cache benefit it is slower than the other main players. I know there is the 7950X3D, but it costs more, and quite simply put, you can guess all you want but without the data they're just guesses. Having benches takes everything to the next level. When you have data *THEN* you can make reasoned judgements; price/performance, performance/effiency etc. I don't believe you can dismiss an option without actually testing that option, no matter what your gut tells you - I feel that is just sloppy practice, speaking as a (retired) researcher/engineer.

 

[fevgatos]

I skipped straight to the power consumption page of this review because there's absolutely nothing of interest here apart from how far Intel have pushed their silicon this time.

I was not disappointed, it's truly an embarrassing shit-show:

View attachment 292630

404W is damn near triple the power consumption of the 7950X3D and it's not even 5% faster in a best-case scenario.

As for Intel's own lineup, it's really hard to see what the point of this is over an i7-13700K. Even ignoring the cost, the only benefit to the extra four E-cores is rendering, and those additional 150W over the already-toasty 13700K are going to make longer-duration workloads a cooling nightmare. At 400W+ it's no longer about how good your cooling is - the very real problem is the IHS bottlenecking 400W+ trying to leave a 250mm2 die area. The IHS works fine for 125W, it's not too much of an issue at 250W (though you'll see increased benefits to de-lidding with liquid metal. At 400W we're into stupid territory.

Can you tell me - who on their mind would run any CPU regardless of brand at 300 or 400w for multithreaded hour long workloads? If I had to guess, id say no one. So what exactly is the point of the chart you just pulled? It's completely irrelevant. It just generates clicks and that's about it pretty much. If you are running that type of software you power limit the CPU to 130-150-180 watts or something around that area. That applies to both intel and amd, since the 7950x also gulps down over 230 watts of power in such scenarios..

13700K is a contender - great gaming, way better productivity (than most AMD), but crappy efficiency

That's totally not true. Define crappy efficiency. What workloads are you talking about?

For most day to day tasks Intel is much more efficient than AMD, due to that high idle / light load power draw of the multiple chiplets. You can watch 2 videos while browsing the web and working on excel with 6 to 10 watts usage on an Intel cpu, amd will need 5 to 10 times that..

 

[Chrispy_]

Can you tell me - who on their mind would run any CPU regardless of brand at 300 or 400w for multithreaded hour long workloads? If I had to guess, id say no one. So what exactly is the point of the chart you just pulled? It's completely irrelevant. It just generates clicks and that's about it pretty much. If you are running that type of software you power limit the CPU to 130-150-180 watts or something around that area. That applies to both intel and amd, since the 7950x also gulps down over 230 watts of power in such scenarios..

My point exactly.

The only workload where a 13900KS makes any sense, from a performance perspective, is utterly ruined by the fact nobody rendering will be prepared to accept that power draw. Not from a cooling perspective, and not from a power-use perspective.

If you're buying one for work, rather than gaming, it's just a 13900K pushed way to far to make it viable - so you'd just buy a 13900K (or maybe even a non-K)
If you're buying one for gaming, then intel is currently the wrong platform, but even then a 13900K is within margin of error and a 13700K is barely 3% below that.

 

[fevgatos]

My point exactly.

The only workload where a 13900KS makes any sense, from a performance perspective, is utterly ruined by the fact nobody rendering will be prepared to accept that power draw. Not from a cooling perspective, and not from a power-use perspective.

If you're buying one for work, rather than gaming, it's just a 13900K pushed way to far to make it viable - so you'd just buy a 13900K (or maybe even a non-K)
If you're buying one for gaming, then intel is currently the wrong platform, but even then a 13900K is within margin of error and a 13700K is barely 3% below that.

Why? The 13900ks is a better binned - aka - more efficient 13900k. Put both at let's say, 200 watts, the 13900ks will be faster.

Why is Intel the wrong platform for gaming? That doesn't make sense to me

 

[Chrispy_]

For most day to day tasks Intel is much more efficient than AMD, due to that high idle / light load power draw of the multiple chiplets. You can watch 2 videos while browsing the web and working on excel with 6 to 10 watts usage on an Intel cpu, amd will need 5 to 10 times that..

Irrelevant for a desktop.
Two screens at 40W each, 15W of case fans, At least 25W more for general motherboard/chipset/storage/LED power draw, and all of that is running through a PSU.

Sure, a monolithic Intel CPU will draw maybe 15-25W less than an AMD at idle, but only in a system that's already ridiculously wasteful in the first place.

 

[fevgatos]

Irrelevant for a desktop.
Two screens at 40W each, 15W of case fans, At least 25W more for general motherboard/chipset/storage/LED power draw, and all of that is running through a PSU.

Sure, a monolithic Intel CPU will draw maybe 15-25W less than an AMD at idle, but only in a system that's already ridiculously wasteful in the first place.

Not talking about idle, but light loads. My work for example involves multiple browsers, excels etc. Intel does that at 6w, my 3700x PC does it at around 40 to 55.

 

[Chrispy_]

Why? The 13900ks is a better binned - aka - more efficient 13900k. Put both at let's say, 200 watts, the 13900ks will be faster.

Why is Intel the wrong platform for gaming? That doesn't make sense to me

You're guessing that 13900KS is binned for efficiency, and that's likely wrong. The highest-clocking silicon isn't necessarily the most-efficient silicon. The KS will be binned for stability at 6GHz, not for low power consumption. That could (and likely is) a very leaky chip.

As for intel being the wrong platform for gaming, the clear winner is the 7800X3D by a wide margin.

 

[fevgatos]

You're guessing that 13900KS is binned for efficiency, and that's likely wrong. The highest-clocking silicon isn't necessarily the most-efficient silicon. The KS will be binned for stability at 6GHz, not for low power consumption. That could (and likely is) a very leaky chip.

As for intel being the wrong platform for gaming, the clear winner is the 7800X3D by a wide margin.

How is the 3d the clear winner by a wide margin? It's insanely expensive, and performance is hit and miss. Check TLOU for example, it barely ties my now outdated STOCK 12900k. Sure it uses 20 watts less, but so would a 13600k probably.

 

[Chrispy_]

Not talking about idle, but light loads. My work for example involves multiple browsers, excels etc. Intel does that at 6w, my 3700x PC does it at around 40 to 55.

Based on what, HWInfo sensors? You know they're measuring different things and aren't comparable right?
As for total system draw at light loads, I'd guess it's closer to 60W for your Intel and 100W from your 3700X (from the wall, using a Kill-a-Watt meter)