14900k - Tuned for efficiency - Gaming power draw

[phanbuey]

Hi,
Yeah op got kicked off that one so he made his own intel love thread.

I don't mind tweaking in bios so more power or in this op case less power to you all out of the box really does not matter to them

People I feel sorry for is the owners/ buyers of H mobile chips instead of more expensive HX chips they are stuck with locked chips.
I found out this just in time so I canceled and went amd mobile locked but at least not a space heater

I don't get the disabling HT either frankly
The enemy is thermal defective e=cores not HT lol

the opposite for this generation... - HT lowers FPS and lows and if you have 8 or 16 non HT e cores, they're better than HT threads. e cores never break 70C for me.

So does SMT on AMD btw -- if you disable SMT your FPS goes up. but if you do you lose 30% of your performance.

 

[ThrashZone]

the opposite for this generation... - HT lowers FPS and lows and if you have 8 or 16 non HT e cores, they're better than HT threads. e cores never break 70C for me.

So does SMT on AMD btw -- if you disable SMT your FPS goes up. but if you do you lose 30% of your performance.

Hi,
Yeah some benchmarks also do better with HT off.

Op said he set all cores to 5.5 did that include e-cores ? I doubt it lol

Please dont bring the fanboy stuff in this thread from that one, a rational technical discussion is preferred to CPU bashing.

Odd this thread wouldn't exist without intel fanboyism

 

[AusWolf]

"My 14900K will draw less power if I disable hyper-threading" is about as smart as "my body will require less food if I cut off both of my legs". If you buy a $600 CPU only to immediately disable half of its features just to get acceptable power draw, you're not being smart - you are, in fact, being the exact opposite.

I'm getting really tired of seeing these "Intel CPUs can be power efficient too" threads/posts. Nobody cares that they can be, the point is that, at stock, they are not. The fact that it's possible to make these CPUs consume sane amounts of power is not the saving grace that everyone who uses them seems to think it is. If it's not good out of the box, i.e. how the vast majority of users will experience it because most users don't tweak CPU power consumption, it's not good period.

I think power tuning a CPU is cool, but I agree that it's not a saving grace by any means.

In my opinion, instead of tinkering with a K CPU until it doesn't burn your house down anymore, it's a much healthier approach to buy the non-K version, and raise its power limits to something that your motherboard and cooling can still handle.

If you're going to turn off hyperthreading in an i7/i9, just buy an i5 instead.

Also this!

A post like "turning off half of my cores and power limiting to X makes my CPU so much more efficient" begs the question why you didn't buy a CPU with half of the cores and a lower power limit by default.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I think power tuning a CPU is cool, but I agree that it's not a saving grace by any means.

In my opinion,

Must define "saving grace" please.

Because the OP tuned his rig, I never saw him say it saved the house from fire or some other outlandish statement.

The guy tuned his rig and supplied a result.

What's with everyone's crap posting?

If you under volted your 7800, was that no different than under-volting a cpu? He's just tuning it and lowered some power draw.

Should be no big deal??

 

[phanbuey]

A post like "turning off half of my cores and power limiting to X makes my CPU so much more efficient" begs the question why you didn't buy a CPU with half of the cores and a lower power limit by default.

1) it's not "HALF" - it's just HT - which gives you 30% more utilization of P-cores, in the best case scenario, with increased latency and temperatures.
2) Even if you disable the HT cores on a intel i7 or i9 you still get 40-50% more MT performance over an 7700x/7800X3D
3) it gives you an extra 100-200Mhz with the same power and temps, or gives you better power and temps.

Is Hyper-Threading Useless For Gaming Now? 40 Game Benchmark with i9 13900K (youtube.com)

4) Intel knows this and future cpus will not have HT anyways.

 

[dgianstefani]

HT isn't really necessary as you have 16 E cores.

If you were using the system for a workstation this would be different.

Seems some people don't understand the fundamentals here.

If a setting/tune provides better performance in the target metric, it's a positive, not a negative.

Pretty simple stuff.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

HT isn't really necessary as you have 16 E cores.

If you were using the system for a workstation this would be different.

Seems some people don't understand the fundamentals here.

If a setting/tune provides better performance in the target metric, it's a positive, not a negative.

Pretty simple stuff.

Exactly! It's about the target metric.

It would be more interesting to read other people's similar style tuning. With data, more so than the OP had given, but he seems newer to this stuff.

I hold both AMD and Intel hardware. But I can say for a fact I cannot stand the E-cores on Intel processors. Absolutely garbage performance and they don't even clock up well.

 

[dgianstefani]

You can disable both HT and E cores for another 1-200 MHz, but the utility of that is more debatable.

HT off E cores on has a solid basis in reason.

You can also clock the ring much higher with E cores off.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

You can disable both HT and E cores for another 1-200 MHz, but the utility of that is more debatable.

HT off E cores on has a solid basis in reason.

You can also clock the ring much higher with E cores off.

Yes, all true. I've had my ring at 5.6ghz for benching.

 

[iameatingjam]

"My 14900K will draw less power if I disable hyper-threading" is about as smart as "my body will require less food if I cut off both of my legs". If you buy a $600 CPU only to immediately disable half of its features just to get acceptable power draw, you're not being smart - you are, in fact, being the exact opposite.

I'm getting really tired of seeing these "Intel CPUs can be power efficient too" threads/posts. Nobody cares that they can be, the point is that, at stock, they are not. The fact that it's possible to make these CPUs consume sane amounts of power is not the saving grace that everyone who uses them seems to think it is. If it's not good out of the box, i.e. how the vast majority of users will experience it because most users don't tweak CPU power consumption, it's not good period.

I do agree with you.. why buy a 14900k if you're going to disable half of it.

At the same time, it is true some games perform better/dont benefit from hyperthreading or ecores so if you're willing to go back and forth and do the configuration depending the situation, nothing wrong with that I suppose.

Maybe there's a little bit of loaded language in there (not much) but I don't see OP saying this is the most power efficient chip or buy this over the 7800x3d for gaming, I just took it as an experiment being shared with us.

 

[Vario]

I'm glad he reported that he had such results, there's nothing wrong with that. I tuned my 12900KS down quite a bit as well and shed something like 150 watts at load. Its good to have this information out there and if we crap on everything anyone posts then no one will post anything at all.

 

[Assimilator]

Intel knows this and future cpus will not have HT anyways.

I too can make random shit up.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Yep, we all tune for different specific reasons.

Because this forum, I've noticed people want to see not only read, here's how I like to spend time tuning on some occasions.

Here's that 5.6ghz, sorry my mistake, this is 5.4ghz Ring frequency.

 

[Aquinus]

the opposite for this generation... - HT lowers FPS and lows and if you have 8 or 16 non HT e cores, they're better than HT threads. e cores never break 70C for me.

Now that's a discussion I would love to have. I think Intel's CPUs are pretty good, but they're being gimped by CPU scheduling. I honestly don't think that Windows is handling these multi-tier SMT configurations properly. I do think that Windows handles two tiers just fine, be it E-cores and P-cores (sans HT,) or a single kind of core with SMT. I do not think that Windows is properly handling scheduling between E-cores and HT threads and are likely treating them as equals which is a huge mistake. A really interesting investigation would be if a 14900k (stock, with adequate cooling and HT enabled,) performs better in Linux than Windows. If the answer to that is yes, we'd be right on our way at point our finger at the Windows CPU scheduler. Linux is pretty good about handling these sorts of things, so it would be an enlightening bit a data. I almost wish I had one of these chips to do the testing myself.

 

[phanbuey]

Yep, we all tune for different specific reasons.

Because this forum, I've noticed people want to see not only read, here's how I like to spend time tuning on some occasions.

Here's that 5.6ghz, sorry my mistake, this is 5.4ghz Ring frequency.

View attachment 325656

This is actually insane.

I too can make random shit up.

Intel Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake CPUs will reportedly drop HT - HWCooling.net

Mk. They will probably keep it on servers, but if they're gonna stick to e cores, and you get better P core performance with HT off then it could make sense for desktop. Up until 10th gen they had a non-HT product for gamers (9700K was the last one).

 

[Aquinus]

Intel Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake CPUs will reportedly drop HT - HWCooling.net

Mk.

That's amazing. Now I really want to know if this has to do with CPU scheduling because HT has always been a half-solid way of extracting that last little bit of performance from CPU cores. Maybe not back in P4 times, but modern HT usually isn't half bad.

 

[Dr. Dro]

That's amazing. Now I really want to know if this has to do with CPU scheduling because HT has always been a half-solid way of extracting that last little bit of performance from CPU cores. Maybe not back in P4 times, but modern HT usually isn't half bad.

Considered the entire selling point of Intel APO is essentially being a one-click process lasso, quite a lot. The Windows scheduler on these hybrid chips is... suboptimal to say the least. And Intel feels threatened enough to restrict it to the 14900K only and deny us 13900KS owners access to it...

 

[phanbuey]

That's amazing. Now I really want to know if this has to do with CPU scheduling because HT has always been a half-solid way of extracting that last little bit of performance from CPU cores. Maybe not back in P4 times, but modern HT usually isn't half bad.

Starfield - AMD CPU Performance Improvement | SMT: ON VS OFF (youtube.com)

Ryzen 9 7900X3D (SMT On vs Off) VS Core i9 13900K (HT On vs Off) VS Ryzen 7 7800X3D (SMT On vs Off) (youtube.com)

I would bet that has something to do with it. Seems like game engine, and in particular, latency sensitive workloads don't love the extra overhead of HT

Considered the entire selling point of Intel APO is essentially being a one-click process lasso, quite a lot. The Windows scheduler on these hybrid chips is... suboptimal to say the least. And Intel feels threatened enough to restrict it to the 14900K only and deny us 13900KS owners access to it...

This is the most absurd move...

 

[Aquinus]

Starfield - AMD CPU Performance Improvement | SMT: ON VS OFF (youtube.com)

Ryzen 9 7900X3D (SMT On vs Off) VS Core i9 13900K (HT On vs Off) VS Ryzen 7 7800X3D (SMT On vs Off) (youtube.com)

I would bet that has something to do with it. Seems like game engine, and in particular, latency sensitive workloads don't love the extra overhead of HT

They should do the tests with varying memory speeds. If they find that performance with HT enabled is measurably better with faster memory, it could be that switching to the wrong thread is wrecking cache locality. Another sign that the Windows CPU scheduler isn't up to the task. Should try running it in Linux through Proton. If it's faster, then we definitely know why.

 

[dgianstefani]

PC-Tuning/docs/post-install.md at main · amitxv/PC-Tuning

Guidance to configure Windows based systems for real-time tasks - amitxv/PC-Tuning

github.com

This guide, which is the best of it's kind, mentions disabling HT/SMT reduces latency, you can confirm this with Latencymon.

 

[Aquinus]

PC-Tuning/docs/post-install.md at main · amitxv/PC-Tuning

Guidance to configure Windows based systems for real-time tasks - amitxv/PC-Tuning

github.com

This guide, which is the best of it's kind, mentions disabling HT/SMT reduces latency, you can confirm this with Latencymon.

The only mention I see of HT and SMT is this:

Avoid disabling idle states with Hyper-Threading/Simultaneous Multithreading enabled as single-threaded performance is usually negatively impacted.

I think you're right that it adds latency, but I don't see it in the doc. Also this doc is nuts. I didn't know things in the Windows world had gotten so bad.

 

[dgianstefani]

The only mention I see of HT and SMT is this:


I think you're right that it adds latency, but I don't see it in the doc. Also this doc is nuts. I didn't know things in the Windows world had gotten so bad.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2-lUJq74wuYK1WrA_bIvgb89dUN0sj8-hO3vqmrau4/edit

Also here, which is a esports gaming config guide for max FPS.

That first guide I linked has multiple pages on the left bar.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Starfield - AMD CPU Performance Improvement | SMT: ON VS OFF (youtube.com)

Ryzen 9 7900X3D (SMT On vs Off) VS Core i9 13900K (HT On vs Off) VS Ryzen 7 7800X3D (SMT On vs Off) (youtube.com)

I would bet that has something to do with it. Seems like game engine, and in particular, latency sensitive workloads don't love the extra overhead of HT


This is the most absurd move...

It is, especially considering that there is absolutely nothing new to these 14th Gen chips. They really went the extra mile to prevent it from booting on other chips, somehow even with a compatible BIOS, my i9-13900KS doesn't seem to accept it. I'm currently studying if there's any specific processor configuration bits on 14900K CPUs that allow for it to work, but no luck thus far

 

[Psychoholic]

It is, especially considering that there is absolutely nothing new to these 14th Gen chips. They really went the extra mile to prevent it from booting on other chips, somehow even with a compatible BIOS, my i9-13900KS doesn't seem to accept it. I'm currently studying if there's any specific processor configuration bits on 14900K CPUs that allow for it to work, but no luck thus far

Yeah.. there's no reason why it shouldnt work on 13th gen and even 12th gen for that matter.

intel's BS answer:

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yeah.. there's no reason why it shouldnt work on 13th gen and even 12th gen for that matter.

intel's BS answer:
View attachment 325659

This lie comes second only to the "Zen 3 doesn't work on X370 because of BIOS sizes" excuse, especially considering the i9-13900KS is exactly identical to the i9-14900K in every single regard, including clock speeds. And the 13900KS isn't "gaming focused"? LMAO