Intel Core i9-14900KS Draws as much as 409W at Stock Speeds with Power Limits Unlocked

[btarunr]

Intel's upcoming limited edition desktop processor for overclockers and enthusiasts, the Core i9-14900KS, comes with a gargantuan 409 W maximum package power draw at stock speeds with its PL2 power limit unlocked, reports HKEPC, based on an OCCT database result. This was measured under OCCT stress, with all CPU cores saturated, and the PL2 (maximum turbo power) limited set to unlimited/4096 W in the BIOS. The chip allows 56 seconds of maximum turbo power at a stretch, which was measured at 409 W.

The i9-14900KS is a speed-bump over its predecessor, the i9-13900KS. It comes with a maximum P-core boost frequency of 6.20 GHz, which is 200 MHz higher; and a maximum E-core boost frequency of 4.50 GHz, which is a 100 MHz increase over both the i9-13900KS and the mass market i9-14900K. The i9-14900KS comes with a base power value of 150 W, which is the guaranteed minimum amount of power the processor can draw under load (the idle power is much lower). There's no word on when Intel plans to make the i9-14900KS available, it was earlier expected to go on sale in January, along the sidelines of CES.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Chaitanya]

How many motherboards have VRMs that can handle this pig?

 

[Woomack]

How many motherboards have VRMs that can handle this pig?

Pretty much most. I would worry more about available cooling, as 13900K/14900K are already at the edge of throttling on the best mass-sale coolers.

 

[btarunr]

How many motherboards have VRMs that can handle this pig?

I would guess any motherboard with two 8-pin EPS.

Each 8-pin EPS is 225 W.

 

[Kohl Baas]

I would guess any motherboard with two 8-pin EPS.

Each 8-pin EPS is 225 W.

Not to mention the 24p's contribution and the fact that these wattages are "just" the standards, not the actual wattaga that is capable to flow through. Like 6p and 8p PCIe. They both have 3x12V and one is rated for 75W the other is for 150W.

 

[Deleted member 6693]

Intel's equivalent to the GTX 480, also known as the "room heater"

 

[Dimitriman]

360 AIO or don't bother? This seems so pointless. Besides, the 14900K is already well positioned enough.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

It does say for overclockers and enthusiasts, this is not for the average user, though some who don't need or won't use it's potential will no doubt buy it. I guess there are a lot of mr avg out there with more cpu than they actually need.

 

[Outback Bronze]

I'll probably be buying one sadly, (I'm a sucker for good intel silicon) on the upside it's going to be a good test of my new CPU loop I'll be building : )

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

LOL. Don't forget to include / account for a nuclear reactor (for powering the CPU) and a freezer in the size of a bus (for cooling the CPU) into the picture of what you need for the CPU though .

 

[londiste]

Stock Speeds != Power Limits Unlocked

Power limits, temperatures, clocks, voltages and probably some other parameters are all part of what CPU is at stock. If you remove limits they will go beyond limits.
What might be the surprising part here is that 14900K is capable of scaling beyond the already high stock power limit. Would not expect it to scale well in performance at that range though.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'll probably be buying one sadly, (I'm a sucker for good intel silicon) on the upside it's going to be a good test of my new CPU loop I'll be building : )

And you'll need a custom loop for that much heat output. What are you planning? For that much heat I would do 2x280mm rads or a 240 & 360.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Good to see Intel is making sure there's a market for custom water cooling loops. Bad to see this thing in general...because it's basically the admission that high end is by definition getting to the point of absolutely silly thermal loading instead of pushing anything new.

I don't really think I was expecting anything else...but there's got to be almost no room for overclocking when this is the default performance. That said, who in Hades is this targeted for? It's that joyful halo between truly business workloads that would benefit from their server product...and maybe video editing machines? I'd love to be the fly on the wall trying to justify purchasing this thing just to see how to sell ice cubes to Inuits, or sand in the middle east.

 

[kondamin]

Intel's equivalent to the GTX 480, also known as the "room heater"

Intel would wish for 480 power consumption, this cpu alone is doing what a total system needed back then.

i wonder when they will start using diamond ihs‘s

 

[Nostras]

360 AIO or don't bother? This seems so pointless. Besides, the 14900K is already well positioned enough.

Imo a good AIO is already required from a 14700K and up. The 14900KS borderline requires a custom loop.
Slapping an air cooler on any i7 part and up since alder lake screams "should've bought AMD" to me.
I'm more concerned about how fast the heat can transfer away from the CPU itself.
Delidding is in my eyes a requirement to get your money's worth and even that is very debatable.
But hey, e-peen.

 

[Vayra86]

Hahahaha Intel and Nvidia battling for the crown of most wasteful chip?

Mother of god

 

[Nostras]

Hahahaha Intel and Nvidia battling for the crown of most wasteful chip?

Mother of god

At least Nvidia gives you the quote unquote ultimate experience you can't get anywhere else. Intel is so deep in diminishing returns it reeks of desperatism, milking the fanboys or trying to capture the market with more money than sense.

 

[P4-630]

I could just plop it straight in my Aorus Master board, but...No thanks..
I'll stick with i7.

 

[Jism]

I would guess any motherboard with two 8-pin EPS.

Each 8-pin EPS is 225 W.

By spec yes. But any other proper build PSU can go 3x beyond that easily.

400W consumption is really nothing. Server boards have roughly just 4 VRM's powering CPU's with 400W easily.

But this is quite stupid. AMD was flamed, burned for releasing a 220W FX Chip that would run up to 5Ghz and was a world class OC'er. Now intel is in the same boat. releasing 410W CPU's (at most worst conditions). Cooling a chip like that in such density is almost impossible.

 

[AusWolf]

Holy moly, my whole system doesn't eat this much! Or maybe it does together with my monitor, printer, external HDD and desk lamp... maybe.

 

[theouto]

4090 or 14900KS

Call it

 

[dgianstefani]

Apparently the E cores are super efficient at < 3.2 GHz, so running 16 of them at 4.5 probably eating a lot of that power budget. Can't imagine you'd feel a difference locking then to 3.2 except in synthetics since they're primarily for background tasks anyway.

Above 3.2 GHz they're less power efficient than the P cores which make up for their higher power draw with speed in race to idle.

These chips also have per core OC, so you can get significant efficiency gains by setting only a few cores to max boost, and having the rest in their sweetspot without losing any single or lightly threaded performance.

You don't have to run these at balls to the wall settings to still have an extremely fast CPU. Basically just a 14900K with a guaranteed 6.2 OC.

 

[Daven]

Intel is going for all the ghosts of CPU past:

1. High clock speeds and power consumption of Netburst (p-cores)
2. Low clock speeds and IPC of Atom (e-cores)
3. Iffy core/thread counting of Bulldozer (hybrid cores and dropping HT)

Yeah, I think I’ll pass on a Netbursty, Atomic Bulldozer.

 

[bug]

Good to see Intel is making sure there's a market for custom water cooling loops. Bad to see this thing in general...because it's basically the admission that high end is by definition getting to the point of absolutely silly thermal loading instead of pushing anything new.

I don't really think I was expecting anything else...but there's got to be almost no room for overclocking when this is the default performance. That said, who in Hades is this targeted for? It's that joyful halo between truly business workloads that would benefit from their server product...and maybe video editing machines? I'd love to be the fly on the wall trying to justify purchasing this thing just to see how to sell ice cubes to Inuits, or sand in the middle east.

Overclocking as a whole is in a pretty tight spot. Modern CPU clock themselves as needed, there is little left for the casual overclocker. So yes, the only thing you can do is go overboard. Which would suck for most consumer parts, but I guess it's ok for a KS one.

 

[AusWolf]

Apparently the E cores are super efficient at < 3.2 GHz, so running 16 of them at 4.5 probably eating a lot of that power budget. Can't imagine you'd feel a difference locking then to 3.2 except in synthetics since they're primarily for background tasks anyway.

Above 3.2 GHz they're less power efficient than the P cores which make up for their higher power draw with speed in race to idle.

These chips also have per core OC, so you can get significant efficiency gains by setting only a few cores to max boost, and having the rest in their sweetspot without losing any single or lightly threaded performance.

You don't have to run these at balls to the wall settings to still have an extremely fast CPU. Basically just a 14900K with a guaranteed 6.2 OC.

I totally agree, although I can't imagine anyone buying a Keep Spending CPU and then clocking it down or limiting it in any other way. That's what the non-prefix 14900 is for.