Intel Core i9-13900KS 6 GHz Processor MSRP 22% Higher Than i9-13900K: Retailer

[ThrashZone]

Well, that's the top end tax for you.

You want 6ghz it costs.

Hi,
Intel is it's own silicon lottery scalper

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Hi,
Intel is it's own silicon lottery scalper

At least they're efficient at something.

 

[bonehead123]

Well, that's the top end tax for you.

You want 6ghz it costs.

Just to put it anutha way...

If yuz wanna play, yuz gotz ta PAY, hehehehehe​

..

 

[PapaTaipei]

Completley manipulated market. It's a nice monopoly...

 

[bug]

Completley manipulated market. It's a nice monopoly...

How do you figure?

 

[Denver]

I use these codes (Intel 7, Intel 4, etc.) because xx nm no longer has coverage in reality. Intel's 14nm is TSMC's 10nm equivalent, and Intel 7 is TSMC's 7nm equivalent. TSMC keeps a lead (5nm) but it is not as big as the score indicates (10 vs 5).
The refinement of "10nm" allowed the addition of 4-8 E cores and higher frequencies. The potential is huge (FX8350's record has fallen) but the cost is consumption. I suspect that this consumption is not a problem for those who purchase 13900K(S).
Meteor Lake is announced with Intel 4 for cores. We will see.

This can only match the first generation 7nm. Both evolutions, EUV and 6nm are slightly superior.

Considering how poorly intel has been doing lately in terms of profitability compared to the recent past, I wouldn't give the 10nm process as much credit as it didn't make up for the die size increment.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

That last sentence annoys me a bit, 7000 series is already competitive, ltt did a video not to long ago and it was a complete toss-up between 7950 and 13900 and Paul's hardware also shows the two just trading blows.

No need for the Zen4, the 5800X3D is competitive, better than both actually, cooler, more efficient and just as fast.

 

[Dave65]

That last sentence annoys me a bit, 7000 series is already competitive, ltt did a video not to long ago and it was a complete toss-up between 7950 and 13900 and Paul's hardware also shows the two just trading blows.

Most tech tubers seems to have thrown AMD under the bus.

 

[LFaWolf]

Completley manipulated market. It's a nice monopoly...

You are a decade late with this post. It is 2022, uh, almost 2023 now.

 

[Nater]

22% price increase for 1 or 2 fps faster in 3K or 4K resolution. Yeah....no thanks!

But you can go from 600 to 635 fps though at 1080p!

 

[mrthanhnguyen]

Now performance depends on ram only. Boost two core to 5.8ghz or 6ghz is zero difference.

 

[Tomgang]

It's cool with a 6 ghz cpu. But besides the increased price that is all ready high. What is the catch and here I am thinking power consumption and heat output for just a few 100 mhz more. Modern CPU's are all ready running out of there efficiency range and adding more clock and maybe voltage just increases the in efficiency.

Bofh amd and Intel and nvidia are running their cpu's and gpu's out of there efficiency range. Just look how high power ratings are on modern gpu and cpu's, specifically 7950X, 13900k amd example rtx 4090. It's really a shame cause it only cause more power consumption and heat that needs to be transfer away, for just a few extra % performance.

 

[ThomasK]

The high-end market is just a joke these days.

 

[Steevo]

Wouldn't a better cooler provide more overall performance?

 

[ThrashZone]

Wouldn't a better cooler provide more overall performance?

Hi,
Hell you need that just to come close to the highest clock

 

[Max(IT)]

I doubt it will stay inside the 253W power limit while boosting at 6 GHz

No need for the Zen4, the 5800X3D is competitive, better than both actually, cooler, more efficient and just as fast.

Competitive in what? Gaming? Pc computing isn’t just gaming… in many applications 5800X3D is embarrassingly slower than regular 5800X. Not even in the same league of 13900K

 

[The Von Matrices]

Yes sure, used 12900k is $380, used 12900ks is 390$. Now that is return on investment
By the why, the price in microcenter is same for both

The 12900KS is not the fastest CPU in the socket. Thus my argument never applied to it.

 

[Max(IT)]

Modern CPUs don't "need" cooling. You can slap on a weak cooler that will dissipate 95W, that's what they'll use.

That’s what AMD marketing wants you to believe

 

[AusWolf]

The good old "Keep Spending" series... Totally worth it, as always!

 

[Ravenas]

I don’t understand the rationale behind KS chips anymore… You’re getting binned chips, but you still may not reach the boosts and it’s limited on cores.

I liked KS before where it enabled me to boost/OC across all cores. What about those E cores?

I’m fairly certain they matter:

RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review

In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.

www.techpowerup.com

Back when KS was awesome (14+^4):

Intel Core i9-9900KS Review - Impressive 5 GHz

The Core i9-9900KS is Intel's new consumer flagship processor. It runs at 5 GHz boost no matter how many cores are active, which translates into 10% application performance gained over the 9900K. Gaming performance is improved too, but pricing is high, especially compared to what AMD is offering.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Clearly they should be Eskimo or Canadian special chips

 

[bug]

I don’t understand the rationale behind KS chips anymore… You’re getting binned chips, but you still may not reach the boosts and it’s limited on cores.

I liked KS before where it enabled me to boost/OC across all cores. What about those E cores. Haha

Back when KS was awesome (14+^4):

Intel Core i9-9900KS Review - Impressive 5 GHz

The Core i9-9900KS is Intel's new consumer flagship processor. It runs at 5 GHz boost no matter how many cores are active, which translates into 10% application performance gained over the 9900K. Gaming performance is improved too, but pricing is high, especially compared to what AMD is offering.

www.techpowerup.com

Pragmatically, one could argue understanding the rationale not required. Every SKU offers some capabilities in exchange for a certain amount of $$$. The only thing that is required is if the price (and the cost of opportunity) is something you'd be willing to pay for said capabilities.

 

[Hardware Geek]

Aye.
Even Zen4 is probably a bit too far beyond the efficiency sweet spot for my liking. A sub-200W PPT gets you something like >97% of the performance for a 15% power reduction, and that's on the stock voltage curve, which is conservative to work with the worst 5% of yields. I'm guessing that almost every Zen4 has a lot of efficiency headroom for people willing to spend 15 minutes with a curve optimiser.

Agreed. The performance headroom for overclocking has been significantly reduced in the most recent processor generation but there does seem to be a lot more optimization room available to get within a few percent of the stock performance while reducing temps at the same time. I'm looking forward to the 3d cache variants and hoping those are fully unlocked as well.

 

[AusWolf]

Aye.
Even Zen4 is probably a bit too far beyond the efficiency sweet spot for my liking. A sub-200W PPT gets you something like >97% of the performance for a 15% power reduction, and that's on the stock voltage curve, which is conservative to work with the worst 5% of yields. I'm guessing that almost every Zen4 has a lot of efficiency headroom for people willing to spend 15 minutes with a curve optimiser.

Even if you just set a manual PPT level or temperature limit, there's much efficiency to be gained with only a few percent of performance lost at most.

 

[Ravenas]

Pragmatically, one could argue understanding the rationale not required. Every SKU offers some capabilities in exchange for a certain amount of $$$. The only thing that is required is if the price (and the cost of opportunity) is something you'd be willing to pay for said capabilities.

In the end you’re paying more, but obtaining little to no overall benefit in performance per watt. The 7950X has all core unlocked multiplier across 16 cores, and I just purchased one brand new for $549.

You’re now only paying for bin. The bin doesn’t guarantee the performance either on the boost.

The worst part is purchasing the 13900KS and being stuck on a dead platform with a processor that will consume more power or equal than meteor lake, but with less performance.

I paid nearly $100 less than a 13900K, and they are expecting me to pay $100 over 13900K pricing to get a bin on a dead platform versus AM5 that you will get potentially up to two new launches with mini launches in between without mobo upgrade costs until at minimum 2025. With that in mind, why would I care if I’m averaging 5 fps less than Intel? If power costs are a problem, I could run the processor down to 5950X speeds and consume less than the 5950X because of the head room on 5nm. But why? I’m already 30-40W lower consumption on average performing the same tasks vs 13900k…

Intel is in a tough position right now, especially as AM5 platform pricing continues to erode and 3D cache is on the horizon.