Intel Core i9-14900KS Draws as much as 409W at Stock Speeds with Power Limits Unlocked (2024)

ChaitanyaHow 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.

ChaitanyaHow 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.

btarunrI 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.

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.

Outback BronzeI'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.

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.

VulkanBrosIntel'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

Dimitriman360 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.

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

Mother of god

Vayra86Hahahaha 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.

btarunrI 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.

4090 or 14900KS

Call it

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.

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.

lilhasselhofferGood 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.

dgianstefaniApparently 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.

theouto4090 or 14900KS

Call it

Both!!!
:peace:

AusWolfI 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.

You still have the P cores with at least 400 MHz improved frequency (400-600 if you get a lucky chip and a good OC). You don't notice the E core frequency unless you're an epeen warrior comparing benchmarks because whatever you're doing in the foreground isn't running on them.

Tired of people assuming tuning the top tier chip is stupid or somehow worse than buying a lower tier bin that's slower in all respects. A higher bin will tune better even at the same power limits.