5 ms·

Wow basically the same pref as a 13900k but so much less power usage in the aggregated tests. Apps : 79w vs 169w Games : 56w vs 143w

by sct202 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago
In my experience you can tune the i9-13900K way down on power and barely notice or not at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if these benchmarks came out the same way on the Intel side with power caps set at 125W.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I feel like I must be asking a dumb question, because it is a pretty obvious one. But would it be better to just buy a lower-performing, lower-cost chip in that case? Does the silicon lottery they results in an i9 also result in better performance per watt?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Yeah, it definitely depends on your use case. In my opinion the only reason to get the K or KS SKU is that you want, and are sensitive to, the extra speed bins you get on the 2 magic P-cores. The KS is a full 10% faster on single-threaded, compute-bound workloads. That's like importing the next generation CPU from the future and it is worth it for some use cases. Even with 1 core running at 6GHz you won't blow out a 125W power cap.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Ah, so tune down the E-cores to provide headroom for the P-cores? That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        I also approve of capping the max clock speed on the E-cores because they don't get much more work done when boosting, yes.
  - nfriedly 4y ago
    I haven't done this recently, and it was in a laptop CPU, but in the past I was able to get a combination of lower power/temps and better performance by undervolting an Intel CPU. Presumably something similar can be done with current-gen desktop CPUs, although perhaps they're running closer to the limits these days.
  - RetpolineDrama 4y ago
    > But would it be better to just buy a lower-performing, lower-cost chip in that case? No, because the best silicon is reserved for the highest performance parts.

Wow basically the same pref as a 13900k but so much less power usage in the aggregated tests. Apps : 79w vs 169w Games : 56w vs 143w

by sct202 4y ago

Wow basically the same pref as a 13900k but so much less power usage in the aggregated tests. Apps : 79w vs 169w Games : 56w vs 143w

jeffbee 4y ago

In my experience you can tune the i9-13900K way down on power and barely notice or not at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if these benchmarks came out the same way on the Intel side with power caps set at 125W.

bee_rider 4y ago
I feel like I must be asking a dumb question, because it is a pretty obvious one. But would it be better to just buy a lower-performing, lower-cost chip in that case? Does the silicon lottery they results in an i9 also result in better performance per watt?
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Yeah, it definitely depends on your use case. In my opinion the only reason to get the K or KS SKU is that you want, and are sensitive to, the extra speed bins you get on the 2 magic P-cores. The KS is a full 10% faster on single-threaded, compute-bound workloads. That's like importing the next generation CPU from the future and it is worth it for some use cases. Even with 1 core running at 6GHz you won't blow out a 125W power cap.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Ah, so tune down the E-cores to provide headroom for the P-cores? That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      I also approve of capping the max clock speed on the E-cores because they don't get much more work done when boosting, yes.
- nfriedly 4y ago
  I haven't done this recently, and it was in a laptop CPU, but in the past I was able to get a combination of lower power/temps and better performance by undervolting an Intel CPU. Presumably something similar can be done with current-gen desktop CPUs, although perhaps they're running closer to the limits these days.
- RetpolineDrama 4y ago
  > But would it be better to just buy a lower-performing, lower-cost chip in that case? No, because the best silicon is reserved for the highest performance parts.