5 ms·

Intel got 5GHz back in 2019 with the i9-9900XE. The X900-suffixsuffix lines have been Intel's "screw it, we need the highest single core performance" product sp

Intel got 5GHz back in 2019 with the i9-9900XE. The X900-suffixsuffix lines have been Intel's "screw it, we need the highest single core performance" product spot for a long time, and really what that SKU can do is really not a real reflection on any other part of the product line or what is even "reasonable", just what is "possible" (barely). On the other hand, Intel did get the 12700k to 5GHz in 2021. That's an actual flagship part that actual people might actually buy for an actual purpose. When Intel ran into their 14nm woes and started actually getting pushed by AMD, Intel responded by upping their core counts (part way) to erode the AMD core count advantage, while really leaning into their single core performance advantage (which was truly a real thing in Zen1/2) by really starting to up their clock speeds.

wtallis 3y ago
> not a real reflection on any other part of the product line or what is even "reasonable", just what is "possible" (barely) As an example: to hit these speeds, Intel and AMD are pushing 1.4V into chips built on processes that work best at and below 1V. And the result isn't a stable, long-lasting chip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39478551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39478551
- bustling-noose 3y ago
  this is also why servers and chips that run for a long long time (think servers that aren’t decommissioned for years) don’t run such high voltages and clock speeds. What I would want to know is what happens to these good binned chips when you lower their voltages and frequencies and run them at a more reasonable 3.5GHz or something for a long time. Is the price / power / performance ratio better than a server chip or is it worse ? Would love some data on that. But no one is buying these for it and server chips have different things going on for them like being able to replace the chip for years etc. still would be interesting to find out if these the best ‘quality’ chips out there
  - josephg 3y ago
    > What I would want to know is what happens to these good binned chips when you lower their voltages and frequencies and run them at a more reasonable 3.5GHz or something for a long time I'm not sure about intel chips, but amd's last couple generations of chips have an "eco mode" which underclocks the chip for you. You get about 85-100% of the performance while consuming 60% as much power. The chips probably last way longer like that too. NVidia's GPUs have similar options. 3090/4090 cards can have a totally reasonable power budget if you're happy to lose ~10% of your framerate. Arstechnica added eco mode to their benchmarks: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/ryzen-7950x3d-review-an-expensive-but-incredibly-efficient-16-core-cpu/4/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/ryzen-7950x3d-review...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bustling-noose 3y ago
      Thanks. The 7950X doesnt have a non X variant. So it seems the non X variant chips are basically doing the same - giving you lower clocks for lower wattage with an option to tinker at your own risk for pushing the chip as those are not as good as the X variants.
    - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
      I run 50mv undervolted 12500 which gives me about 20% lower consumption.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      Where are you getting that ECO mode cause a 15% performance drop? In my pretty unscientific testing, I saw ECO mode have zero impact on single core workloads and ~4% on multicore with a big drop in cpu temperature. If I am reading the “Gaming CPU” chart correctly from your link, the AMD 170w performance was 114.8 FPS, but the 105w ECO performance was 111.4 FPS. Effectively nothing for a huge drop in power.
      - 3y ago
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I would suggest not spreading FUD unless you can cite hard evidence. Intel warrants their processors for 3 years if they are operated according to spec, which includes supplying 1.3~1.4V as far as I'm aware. From what I can tell, the linked thread and article concern CPUs that were either defective out of the box (and thus under warranty, regardless usage) or were driven out of spec by mobo overclocking by default (which would void warranty).
  - wtallis 3y ago
    It's not FUD to point to real problems that are occurring in the field. A processor that's unstable is still unstable even if it's covered by warranty. And to the extent that these real issues are being caused by aggressive motherboard defaults, Intel is not absolved: they have huge leverage over their motherboard partners, and are seemingly failing to use it to ensure users get a good, stable experience out of the box (likely because Intel cares more about high scores on popular benchmarks than about subtle stability issues in this market segment).
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Yes, real problems stemming from factory-defective products or products that were driven out of spec. The article linked even admits they (author or publisher) don't have enough evidence to pinpoint what the problem is; the best they could do was the aforementioned. Nowhere do they say "Driving 1.4V is killing CPUs." or something similar; just potential workarounds like reducing clock multipliers below spec and configuring mobos to enforce Intel's power limits. Drive known-good products according to published specifications at load for statistically significant durations. If the results are that the majority of products fail to perform as warranted, then we can talk about how Intel (and I guess AMD) are driving their products to the point of failure. Otherwise in the absence of such data, I'm going to look at the silent majority satisfied with their purchases and infer that the products concerned are working fine.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        > If the results are that the majority of products fail to perform as warranted, then we can talk about how Intel (and I guess AMD) are driving their products to the point of failure. That's a stupidly high bar. Recalls and class-action lawsuits don't need to be justified by failure rates as high as 50%, and I'm merely discussing that there are signs of trouble, not demanding a recall or other serious action from Intel. Intel's recent top of the line desktop chips are misbehaving in a way that is genuinely noteworthy, even if we don't have the impact solidly quantified and don't have a smoking gun. It's worth discussing, and worth keeping an eye out for similar issues from other chips that are being pushed to similar extremes.

wtallis 3y ago

> not a real reflection on any other part of the product line or what is even "reasonable", just what is "possible" (barely) As an example: to hit these speeds, Intel and AMD are pushing 1.4V into chips built on processes that work best at and below 1V. And the result isn't a stable, long-lasting chip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39478551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39478551

bustling-noose 3y ago
this is also why servers and chips that run for a long long time (think servers that aren’t decommissioned for years) don’t run such high voltages and clock speeds. What I would want to know is what happens to these good binned chips when you lower their voltages and frequencies and run them at a more reasonable 3.5GHz or something for a long time. Is the price / power / performance ratio better than a server chip or is it worse ? Would love some data on that. But no one is buying these for it and server chips have different things going on for them like being able to replace the chip for years etc. still would be interesting to find out if these the best ‘quality’ chips out there
- josephg 3y ago
  > What I would want to know is what happens to these good binned chips when you lower their voltages and frequencies and run them at a more reasonable 3.5GHz or something for a long time I'm not sure about intel chips, but amd's last couple generations of chips have an "eco mode" which underclocks the chip for you. You get about 85-100% of the performance while consuming 60% as much power. The chips probably last way longer like that too. NVidia's GPUs have similar options. 3090/4090 cards can have a totally reasonable power budget if you're happy to lose ~10% of your framerate. Arstechnica added eco mode to their benchmarks: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/ryzen-7950x3d-review-an-expensive-but-incredibly-efficient-16-core-cpu/4/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/ryzen-7950x3d-review...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bustling-noose 3y ago
    Thanks. The 7950X doesnt have a non X variant. So it seems the non X variant chips are basically doing the same - giving you lower clocks for lower wattage with an option to tinker at your own risk for pushing the chip as those are not as good as the X variants.
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    I run 50mv undervolted 12500 which gives me about 20% lower consumption.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Where are you getting that ECO mode cause a 15% performance drop? In my pretty unscientific testing, I saw ECO mode have zero impact on single core workloads and ~4% on multicore with a big drop in cpu temperature. If I am reading the “Gaming CPU” chart correctly from your link, the AMD 170w performance was 114.8 FPS, but the 105w ECO performance was 111.4 FPS. Effectively nothing for a huge drop in power.
    - 3y ago
Dalewyn 3y ago
I would suggest not spreading FUD unless you can cite hard evidence. Intel warrants their processors for 3 years if they are operated according to spec, which includes supplying 1.3~1.4V as far as I'm aware. From what I can tell, the linked thread and article concern CPUs that were either defective out of the box (and thus under warranty, regardless usage) or were driven out of spec by mobo overclocking by default (which would void warranty).
- wtallis 3y ago
  It's not FUD to point to real problems that are occurring in the field. A processor that's unstable is still unstable even if it's covered by warranty. And to the extent that these real issues are being caused by aggressive motherboard defaults, Intel is not absolved: they have huge leverage over their motherboard partners, and are seemingly failing to use it to ensure users get a good, stable experience out of the box (likely because Intel cares more about high scores on popular benchmarks than about subtle stability issues in this market segment).
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Yes, real problems stemming from factory-defective products or products that were driven out of spec. The article linked even admits they (author or publisher) don't have enough evidence to pinpoint what the problem is; the best they could do was the aforementioned. Nowhere do they say "Driving 1.4V is killing CPUs." or something similar; just potential workarounds like reducing clock multipliers below spec and configuring mobos to enforce Intel's power limits. Drive known-good products according to published specifications at load for statistically significant durations. If the results are that the majority of products fail to perform as warranted, then we can talk about how Intel (and I guess AMD) are driving their products to the point of failure. Otherwise in the absence of such data, I'm going to look at the silent majority satisfied with their purchases and infer that the products concerned are working fine.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      > If the results are that the majority of products fail to perform as warranted, then we can talk about how Intel (and I guess AMD) are driving their products to the point of failure. That's a stupidly high bar. Recalls and class-action lawsuits don't need to be justified by failure rates as high as 50%, and I'm merely discussing that there are signs of trouble, not demanding a recall or other serious action from Intel. Intel's recent top of the line desktop chips are misbehaving in a way that is genuinely noteworthy, even if we don't have the impact solidly quantified and don't have a smoking gun. It's worth discussing, and worth keeping an eye out for similar issues from other chips that are being pushed to similar extremes.