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

[P4-630]

4090 or 14900KS

Call it

Both!!!

 

[dgianstefani]

I totally agree, although I can't imagine anyone buying a Keep Spending CPU and then clocking it down or limiting it in any other way. That's what the non-prefix 14900 is for.

You still have the P cores with at least 400 MHz improved frequency (400-600 if you get a lucky chip and a good OC). You don't notice the E core frequency unless you're an epeen warrior comparing benchmarks because whatever you're doing in the foreground isn't running on them.

Tired of people assuming tuning the top tier chip is stupid or somehow worse than buying a lower tier bin that's slower in all respects. A higher bin will tune better even at the same power limits.

 

[AusWolf]

Overclocking as a whole is in a pretty tight spot. Modern CPU clock themselves as needed, there is little left for the casual overclocker. So yes, the only thing you can do is go overboard. Which would suck for most consumer parts, I guess it's ok for a KS one.

I used to ask "What's the point?" when you could gain 10-20% performance by overclocking. The question is even more relevant these days.

To be fair, I much prefer the current way (throw your stones, people, I'm ready).

You can buy the biggest cooler and go balls-to-the-walls, or just enable a stricter power/thermal limit with one click, and you still have all the performance that your cooling can handle. No tinkering needed.

You still have the P cores with at least 400 MHz improved frequency. You don't notice the E core frequency unless you're an epeen warrior comparing benchmarks because whatever you're doing in the foreground isn't running on them.

Fair enough. I guess disabling e-cores and gaining the extra KS factor on the p-cores is a thing.

Tired of people assuming tuning the top tier chip is stupid or somehow worse than buying a lower tier bin that's slower in all respects. A higher bin will tune better even at the same power limits.

Whether you notice it or not is a different story. I tend to say, if you choose the top-end, then don't hold back on the motherboard, PSU and cooling, either. If you're more budget-conscious, or just want something more reasonable, then the top-end is not for you anyway.

 

[bug]

I used to ask "What's the point?" when you could gain 10-20% performance by overclocking. The question is even more relevant these days.

To be fair, I much prefer the current way (throw your stones, people, I'm ready).

You can buy the biggest cooler and go balls-to-the-walls, or just enable a stricter power/thermal limit with one click, and you still have all the performance that your cooling can handle. No tinkering needed.

Totally with you. I overclocked my AthlonXPs back when overclocking would turn them into the equivalent of a CPU that would cost at least a couple hundred $ more. I did it with my A64 X2 and even my 2500k, just to see what's readily available. Past the 2500k, I wasn't even curious anymore.

 

[dgianstefani]

I used to ask "What's the point?" when you could gain 10-20% performance by overclocking. The question is even more relevant these days.

To be fair, I much prefer the current way (throw your stones, people, I'm ready).

You can buy the biggest cooler and go balls-to-the-walls, or just enable a stricter power/thermal limit with one click, and you still have all the performance that your cooling can handle. No tinkering needed.


Fair enough. I guess disabling e-cores and gaining the extra KS factor on the p-cores is a thing.


Whether you notice it or not is a different story. I tend to say, if you choose the top-end, then don't hold back on the motherboard, PSU and cooling, either. If you're more budget-conscious, or just want something more reasonable, then the top-end is not for you anyway.

Disabling e cores allows the ring to be clocked much higher and also allows around 100 extra MHz on the P cores. But not worth it as the P cores now have to run the background threads. Better to just set them to 3.2 GHz and tune the P cores for frequency.

You can disable HT on P cores for even more frequency and lower thermals too, plus forcing processes to run on physical cores. Not necessary when E cores exist anyway. Hence why next gen has no HT.

 

[atomek]

I'd love to see efficiency benchmarks, especially with comparison to Apple Silicon

 

[AusWolf]

You can disable HT on P cores for even more frequency and lower thermals too, plus forcing processes to run on physical cores. Not necessary when E cores exist anyway. Hence why next gen has no HT.

Rumour 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.

I'm also curious if the rumours about 12p/0e-core Raptor Lake variants codenamed Baldwin... Baldur... Balthazar... or something similar Lake are true.

 

[bug]

Disabling e cores allows the ring to be clocked much higher and also allows around 100 extra MHz on the P cores. But not worth it as the P cores now have to run the background threads. Better to just set them to 3.2 GHz and tune the P cores for frequency.

You can disable HT on P cores for even more frequency and lower thermals too, plus forcing processes to run on physical cores. Not necessary when E cores exist anyway. Hence why next gen has no HT.

These are "crazy" CPUs, you can bet they will see "crazy" usage scenarios. It's not hard to imagine someone out there will want to just run one or two cores for whatever reason.
Edit: I mean, just push them as high as possible.

I'd love to see efficiency benchmarks, especially with comparison to Apple Silicon

Do efficiency benchmarks make sense for silicon designed to run outside the silicon's sweet spot?

 

[P4-630]

Pentium 4 EE anyone?

 

[Vario]

6.2 GHz is impressive.

 

[N/A]

If Intel is moving to a N2 tile with Nova lake 50% ipc next year this will be a very short lived glory.

 

[pressing on]

I totally agree, although I can't imagine anyone buying a Keep Spending CPU and then clocking it down or limiting it in any other way. That's what the non-prefix 14900 is for.

It is very common for these chips to be undervolted. Partly because some Z790 brands - I'm looking at you Asus - supply far too much stock voltage with the resulting power draw and heat issues. But Intel continues to sell these chips, probably in quite small quantities so someone is happy to keep spending on them. The KS range started with the Coffee Lake 9900KS - will be there be an Arrow Lake KS? I don't think so.

 

[HBSound]

By spec yes. But any other proper build PSU can go 3x beyond that easily.

400W consumption is really nothing. Server boards have roughly just 4 VRM's powering CPU's with 400W easily.

But this is quite stupid. AMD was flamed, burned for releasing a 220W FX Chip that would run up to 5Ghz and was a world class OC'er. Now intel is in the same boat. releasing 410W CPU's (at most worst conditions). Cooling a chip like that in such density is almost impossible.

The MSI motherboard MPG Z790I EDGE WIFI, has the 24 Pin + 8-Pin CPU. Is this enough power to reach all the potential of the 14900KS?

 

[Vario]

It is very common for these chips to be undervolted. Partly because some Z790 brands - I'm looking at you Asus - supply far too much stock voltage with the resulting power draw and heat issues. But Intel continues to sell these chips, probably in quite small quantities so someone is happy to keep spending on them. The KS range started with the Coffee Lake 9900KS - will be there be an Arrow Lake KS? I don't think so.

I bought an eBay 12900KS for $450 because it was same price as a K and a 5800X3D at the time. The KS models undervolt really well.

 

[Outback Bronze]

Pentium 4 EE anyone?

I got one of those too

 

[Vario]

I got one of those too

What will your cooling setup be for the 14900KS?

 

[gffermari]

Actually it’s impressive that can consume 400watts without dying.

What matters though is how it performs at reasonable watts.
If at 140watts, I can get 95% of the performance and normal temps, that would be a success.

 

[Outback Bronze]

What will your cooling setup be for the 14900KS?

Well by the sounds of it im going to have to buy a case that supports at least 5 rads lol

 

[Ravenmaster]

Intel always brings out their KS models way too late. It's past mid-season now and Arrow Lake-S will replace the 14th gen CPU's in October. Anybody who already has a 14th gen CPU will not upgrade to a KS model and anywho has has a 13th gen CPU will just wait for 15th gen. If Intel brought out the KS models at the same time as the regular K/KF versions, they might actually sell a few.

 

[Nordic]

I used to ask "What's the point?" when you could gain 10-20% performance by overclocking. The question is even more relevant these days.

To be fair, I much prefer the current way (throw your stones, people, I'm ready).

Absolutely no one should be throwing stones at you for running your hardware at a performance level and power consumption you want or need. I am not saying that you are, but no one should throw stones at someone for running their hardware at a performance level and power consumption they want or need regardless of the obscenity of the overclock. If someone can afford to and wishes to buy this and run it with P cores only, no hyperthreading, and maximum clockspeed and power consumption that's fine.

I am not willing to buy hardware like this but it would be fun to push the performance as far as it will go.

 

[bug]

Pentium 4 EE anyone?

Neah, that was "burn through a lot of power" by design. This is designed for a specific (reasonable) TDP. It will go (well) beyond that only if cooling is up to the task.

 

[Dirt Chip]

Funny thing is, it will probably be the best tuned down underclocked CPU.
Take 2% off pref, save like 100w with -150mV offset or so…

 

[gpu-top]

You can take a look at this CPU comparison：Intel Core i9 14900K vs Intel Core i9 14900KF

 

[Dimitriman]

I also feel that Intel is missing the point with this chip. If you want a "Gaming King" to challenge the 7800X3D why not release a 8 P-Core only (no E-Cores) at >6.2 Ghz and a "reasonable" power draw?

 

[john_]

Even the thread is burning.....