Then you are entering the realm of what-if statements...... I can swap it out for another card and get XYZ
It was an example to show peak power draw to highlight how indifferent it can be.
-
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.
14th Gen "Raptor Lake Refresh"
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Then you are entering the realm of what-if statements...... I can swap it out for another card and get XYZ
It was an example to show peak power draw to highlight how indifferent it can be.
Soldato
Lol that'll be why the power draw is so high, anyhow let's get back on topic before it spirals out of control
Last edited:
seen gigabyte's baseline profiles, turns a core i9 to a i7
Gigabyte Z790 "Intel Baseline" profile puts Core i9-13900KF (QS) CPU into Core i7 tier - VideoCardz.com
Gigabyte promises “Superior Stability” with its Intel Baseline motherboard profile for Core i9 CPUs Similarly to ASUS, Gigabyte has released the Intel Baseline Profile setting within its BIOS for 13th and 14th Gen Core CPUs, all in an effort to offer more stability to these CPUs. As we reported...videocardz.com
Anyway back on topic, 14900KS when limited to 188W. That's a stock CPU, with the P and E set to Auto also Auto on the cache as well.
Soldato
Anyway back on topic, 14900KS when limited to 188W. That's a stock CPU, with the P and E set to Auto also Auto on the cache as well.
i thought the 14900ks base tdp is 150w and the k is 125w? your results above put you in line with a 7950x around the 36-37k mark.
the gigabyte baseline profile nukes a 13900kf to 28k in r23 which is mad.
Soldato
mine using a stock 14900KS and 4090 that is OC ... power draw from the wall will bounce between 710 and 745w during benchmark, runs nice and cool as well
bit of a diffrence in frame rate though compared to RSR's screen cap, 260fps vs 164fps is going to have a diffrence on power draw wont it, i mean the amd setup of RSR's 808w vs yours at 726w, get a 100fps more for 80w more power, if we compare builds surely they need to be the same scene and similar fps, to draw a conclusion?
14900KS: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-36m-cache-up-to-6-20-ghz/specifications.html
14900K: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-36m-cache-up-to-6-00-ghz/specifications.html
The 14900KS has a TDP of 150W base and a boost of TDP 253W, you can also not compare Intel TDP to AMD TDP as they are measured differently which has been widely discussed.
I have physically limited the total wattage which can pull to 188W a maximum as per what Gigabyte has done but Gigabyte are locking it down even further.
Caporegime
Ahh, but Gigabyte are offering Superior Stability!
That screenshot is not in the same place but there are a number of settings which can be changed to bring them into line.
Ahh, but Gigabyte are offering Superior Stability!
Gigabyte and stability are two words that never go together
Last edited:
Soldato
Gigabyte and stability are two words never go together
psu's nuff said XD
run at 1080P and doubles the framerate with a small hike to power draw but still running nice and cool
... GPU way down on power draw hence now only 630W average from wall. As for the scene i had no idea which one to test as didn't see any screen shots but just choose this point but obviously its bounces around a little but not by massive margins and is what it will draw playing resurgence etc. Obviously this represents worse case scenario and would indicate what it would do uncapped but personally i have 2 screens a 77" 4K 120Hz and 27" 1440P 240hz monitor and mainly play on the 4k screen and frame cap enable to stop screen tear and power draw is obviously very low ... it my old retro games it basically turns off and see 15w power draw 
Last edited:
That CoD benchmark specifically benefits outside of the normal placing stuff on low by changing the following:
1. Changing the RendererWorkerCount in the options.4.cod23.cst, which changes of COD version.
// Thread count for handling the job queue
RendererWorkerCount:1.0 = "6" // -1 to 16
2. Disable ReBar in the bios
3. Disable HT
4 @LtMatt Probably has a whole list of them
There a loads of other little bits which you can do in that config file but those are specifically for that benchmark which will give a huge boost. However, in things like Warzone having Re Bar on helps
1. Changing the RendererWorkerCount in the options.4.cod23.cst, which changes of COD version.
// Thread count for handling the job queue
RendererWorkerCount:1.0 = "6" // -1 to 16
2. Disable ReBar in the bios
3. Disable HT
4 @LtMatt Probably has a whole list of them
There a loads of other little bits which you can do in that config file but those are specifically for that benchmark which will give a huge boost. However, in things like Warzone having Re Bar on helps
Caporegime
I've not run it in ages, but yeah you can edit the Cfg to get lower settings than what is available in game. If you check out Beefytech videos on YouTube he shares a Cfg file with the lowest settings I think bar textures, as lowest textures look garbage.That CoD benchmark specifically benefits outside of the normal placing stuff on low by changing the following:
1. Changing the RendererWorkerCount in the options.4.cod23.cst, which changes of COD version.
// Thread count for handling the job queue
RendererWorkerCount:1.0 = "6" // -1 to 16
2. Disable ReBar in the bios
3. Disable HT
4 @LtMatt Probably has a whole list of them
There a loads of other little bits which you can do in that config file but those are specifically for that benchmark which will give a huge boost. However, in things like Warzone having Re Bar on helps
Game is trash though so don't play it anymore. I am hoping better for the next COD game, as I have lost all interest in this one and have less than 1 hours playtime in MP./Warzone2.
Thanks for the tips will have a playThat CoD benchmark specifically benefits outside of the normal placing stuff on low by changing the following:
1. Changing the RendererWorkerCount in the options.4.cod23.cst, which changes of COD version.
// Thread count for handling the job queue
RendererWorkerCount:1.0 = "6" // -1 to 16
2. Disable ReBar in the bios
3. Disable HT
4 @LtMatt Probably has a whole list of them
There a loads of other little bits which you can do in that config file but those are specifically for that benchmark which will give a huge boost. However, in things like Warzone having Re Bar on helps
, tbh i wasn't go for benchmark scores on this occasion and just wanted to see what it will draw power wise as all the talk about it I actually forgot about this benchmark as its so bloody hidden , why the hell they put it in private match
If anyone wants an 8400 solid memory setup for a 13th / 14th Gen and they have a 2 DIMM board, you will need to tailor the voltages to your CPU / DDR5 as they are all different try the following:
If I remember ill post stable 8600 and 8800 setups but this is very IMC dependent.
If I remember ill post stable 8600 and 8800 setups but this is very IMC dependent.
Last edited:
Gigabyte and stability are two words that never go together
I've bought loads of Gigabyte stuff over the years without any issues - my current setup is a Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Master and Gigabyte 4080 Super Gaming OC and so far it has been totally stable and trouble free (aside from some slight hiccups getting the 14700K properly working out the box as the BIOS predated proper 14th gen support).
Last edited:
