• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

13900KS review

The problem is, reviewers, whenever it comes to Intel, are mega trolling. They think the problem with the KS is it's efficiency, which is moronic. The KS is a more efficient 13900k. Limit them both to the same watts, the KS is going to be both faster and more efficient (obviously). If you are boneheaded enough to run these cpus unlimited at 4096w with 120c temp limit (TPU lol) then yeah...what can I tell you.

The problem with the KS is that you need to spend 200€ more than the K version to get 10% efficiency.
 
Bencher said:
The problem is, reviewers, whenever it comes to Intel, are mega trolling. They think the problem with the KS is it's efficiency, which is moronic. The KS is a more efficient 13900k. Limit them both to the same watts, the KS is going to be both faster and more efficient (obviously). If you are boneheaded enough to run these cpus unlimited at 4096w with 120c temp limit (TPU lol) then yeah...what can I tell you.

The problem with the KS is that you need to spend 200€ more than the K version to get 10% efficiency.
Click to expand...

Oh come on @Bencher they do the same with AMD, its the Youtube algorithm, its deliberately designed to reward hyperbolic sensationalist behaviour, its why they are all behave like they are playing to an audience of 12 year olds, they are prostituting themselves to the Youtube algorithm.
 
Are there any actual overclock reviews of these yet? Seems like no one is bothering. So far I'm very disappointed because I was expecting efficiency to be better
 
I think both the 13900K and 13900KS only shine with custom cooling on CPU intensive work loads. Tuned they will require less cooling power to operate at higher frequency and a decent AIO will work. Without tuning they won't reach their max stock values without custom cooling hence the low % increase in review benchmarks as they are thermally throttled.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Oh come on @Bencher they do the same with AMD, its the Youtube algorithm, its deliberately designed to reward hyperbolic sensationalist behaviour, its why they are all behave like they are playing to an audience of 12 year olds, they are prostituting themselves to the Youtube algorithm.
Click to expand...
I agree but thing is, what sells intel reviews is the 600 watts power draw. I dont think steve is stupid, so he is doing it on purpose. Its very obvious that when you have a cpu that is easy to cool (and by that i mean you can have it pull 300 watts or more without throttling), then putting a 420 aio in there and leaving it power unlocked is obviously going to draw 500 watts. And then he sold his review as though the 13900k is an inefficient piece of crap which is absolute nonsense.

Its literally the 2nd most efficient cpu for mt workloads behind the 7950x, and the difference isnt even that big at same wattage. But is that what the average user would get from his review? Probably not...
 
Bencher said:
I agree but thing is, what sells intel reviews is the 600 watts power draw. I dont think steve is stupid, so he is doing it on purpose. Its very obvious that when you have a cpu that is easy to cool (and by that i mean you can have it pull 300 watts or more without throttling), then putting a 420 aio in there and leaving it power unlocked is obviously going to draw 500 watts. And then he sold his review as though the 13900k is an inefficient piece of crap which is absolute nonsense.

Its literally the 2nd most efficient cpu for mt workloads behind the 7950x, and the difference isnt even that big at same wattage. But is that what the average user would get from his review? Probably not...
Click to expand...

Yes and no....

His CPU didn't draw 600 watts, the total system power draw was 490 watts, we know the Ryzen 7700 is locked to 88 watts package power and drew 210 watt system in Blender, so that's 122 watts without the CPU, call it 120 watts, take 120 watts from 490 that leaves you with 370 watts for the 13900KS.

That is pretty much exactly the same as TPU's 13900K power limits removed, it draws 420 watts if you overclock it, it still draws 290 watts at stock, the 7950X is 235 watts, which is still high. IMO no mainstream CPU should be pulling more than 150 watts.

If anything what Steve did was cheat a little to give Intel the best chance by unlocking its power limits and giving it the best cooler he had, TPU's 13900K with unlocked power did gain a few % performance over stock, the few % Steves 13900KS was better than the 13900K.

These CPU's are right on the limit of what they can do, that's why the very high power draw even at stock and massive jump to gain a few %.
 
Last edited:
IMO power has got completely out of control on CPU's and GPU's, what i would like to see is CPU's locked to 130 watts stock with a hard limit of 160 watts for overclocking, GPU's locked to 250 watts and 300 watts for overclocking, especially in a climate where we are becoming more energy constrained, we may have to ration energy in the near future.

We cannot go on just pushing power up and up and.... to gain performance, its already way too high, this will force these companies to design more efficient architectures.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Yes and no....

His CPU didn't draw 600 watts, the total system power draw was 490 watts, we know the Ryzen 7700 is locked to 88 watts package power and drew 210 watt system in Blender, so that's 122 watts without the CPU, call it 120 watts, take 120 watts from 490 that leaves you with 370 watts for the 13900KS.

That is pretty much exactly the same as TPU's 13900K power limits removed, it draws 420 watts if you overclock it, it still draws 290 watts at stock, the 7950X is 235 watts, which is still high. IMO no mainstream CPU should be pulling more than 150 watts.

If anything what Steve did was cheat a little to give Intel the best chance by unlocking its power limits and giving it the best cooler he had, TPU's 13900K with unlocked power did gain a few % performance over stock, the few % Steves 13900KS was better than the 13900K.

These CPU's are right on the limit of what they can do, that's why the very high power draw even at stock and massive jump to gain a few %.
Click to expand...

You know why Steve did that? because he found the 13900KS identical to the 13900K in testing with the power limits in place. You're paying for an S on the box label, this is why Intel aren't sampling reviewers.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
IMO power has got completely out of control on CPU's and GPU's, what i would like to see is CPU's locked to 130 watts stock with a hard limit of 160 watts for overclocking, GPU's locked to 250 watts and 300 watts for overclocking, especially in a climate where we are becoming more energy constrained, we may have to ration energy in the near future.

We cannot go on just pushing power up and up and.... to gain performance, its already way too high, this will force these companies to design more efficient architectures.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with that. Yes power limits have gone through the roof but that tells you half the story. The latest cpus from both amd and intel are insanely more efficient than last gen, asumming you power limit them to something sane. So why wouldnt you? Thats why i find hubs benchmark just moronic, who in their right mind would buy a 13900k for professional use rendering for hours at 370 watts? Probably no one on planet earth. His review serves nothing but just increased traffic from comments etc.

Fact of the matter is, a 12900k at 260 watts barely matches a stock (no undervolts done) 13900k at 110w. And the same applies for the 5950x, it needs 220++ watts to match a 13900k at 110 (and that applies to the 7950x that is incredibly efficient when power limited).

So cpus have gotten way way more efficient, but you can't see that from reviews usually cause that doesnt sell clicks and traffic.
 
Bencher said:
I completely disagree with that. Yes power limits have gone through the roof but that tells you half the story. The latest cpus from both amd and intel are insanely more efficient than last gen, asumming you power limit them to something sane. So why wouldnt you? Thats why i find hubs benchmark just moronic, who in their right mind would buy a 13900k for professional use rendering for hours at 370 watts? Probably no one on planet earth. His review serves nothing but just increased traffic from comments etc.

Fact of the matter is, a 12900k at 260 watts barely matches a stock (no undervolts done) 13900k at 110w. And the same applies for the 5950x, it needs 220++ watts to match a 13900k at 110 (and that applies to the 7950x that is incredibly efficient when power limited).

So cpus have gotten way way more efficient, but you can't see that from reviews usually cause that doesnt sell clicks and traffic.
Click to expand...

Its all about the bar charts, Intel and AMD are jostling for that 2% that will push them past the other on the bar charts, because they know a lot of people just look at these bar charts and pick the one that has the longest or shortest depending on which way is better.

In reality the 13900K and 7950X are all but exactly the same in terms of performance, (at least at those higher power limits) Intel first did this with the 120 watt pentium 4 to try and keep up with a 60 watt Athlon, then AMD did it will Bulldozer pushing that to 220 watts on the AM3 socket to try and keep up with the 95 watt 2600K, then Intel started it again trying to keep up with Ryzen and now both of them are trying to out bar chart eachother by ramming more and more power in to them.

So take it away from them, you both get 130 watts to work with, that's it.

KahMgYs.png SinNOer.png
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Its all about the bar charts, Intel and AMD are jostling for that 2% that will push them past the other on the bar charts, because they know a lot of people just look at these bar charts and pick the one that has the longest or shortest depending on which way is better.

In reality the 13900K and 7950X are all but exactly the same in terms of performance, (at least at those higher power limits) Intel first did this with the 120 watt pentium 4 to try and keep up with a 60 watt Athlon, then AMD did it will Bulldozer pushing that to 220 watts on the AM3 socket to try and keep up with the 95 watt 2600K, then Intel started it again trying to keep up with Ryzen and now both of them are trying to out bar chart eachother by ramming more and more power in to them.

So take it away from them, you both get 130 watts to work with, that's it.

KahMgYs.png SinNOer.png
Click to expand...
Yeap, i agree, reviewers should be " gtfout with your 800 watts" and go ahead and keep testing at something sane, 130 to 170 watts or something.
 
AMD have brought some sanity back, at 88 watts the 7900 is 89% the performance of the 200 watt 7900X, gaming the 7900X is 4% faster.

The 88 watt 7700 is 96% the performance of the 7700X at 170 watts, that should be no more than a 95 watt CPU, it would still have 98% of the performance, that's that 2% for 70 watts. ###### MAD! :mad:

hFWop2m.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom