There used to be a business in selling these ultra performant ST chips to high frequency traders, who'd overclock the absolute crap out of them. Luckily, this is no longer a business. But these kind of products used to be the "waste stream" from them, left overs.
But now, the KS-series intel chips are for slightly insane gamers and overclocking enthusiasts with more money than sense. That's okay, there's a real market segment there. At our work, we buy the 14700K for dev machines like sane people.
HF trading is no longer a business?
the bottleneck will always be the fact that software is either unable or unwilling to be paralellised
You can get performant enough parts for half and reasonable enough parts for even less than that. But some people have hobby where they just want the fastest thing.
The user-mode video driver and kernel mode driver both use other cores as well
(As mentioned another post here, for even more CPU-intensive games like Factorio, the difference is even starker.)
For general mixed workloads (assuming you need more threads), I think the 7950X3D is the way to go - 8 3D VCache cores for similar gaming, 20% cheaper than the 14900KS, generally neck and neck on development workloads but also has AVX512 support, and of course all while using significantly less power (also 120W TDP, 160W PPT - you can do even better w/ PBO+UV or Eco mode). Here's the OOTB power consumption comparison, it's a bit bonkers: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900ks/23....
It’s improved a lot, I still use Lasso but strictly speaking I don’t really need to.
Typically, those would be sequential algorithms with large memory needs and very random (think: hash table) memory accesses.
Examples: SAT solvers, anything relying on sparse linear algebra
Users might realize how many of their cores and cycles are being effectively wasted by limits of the memory / cache hierarchy, and stop thinking of their workloads as “CPU bound”.
I appreciate it’s a complicated and subjective measurement: Hyperthreading, superscalar, out-of-order all mean that a core can be operating at some fraction of its peak (and what does that mean, exactly?) due to memory stalls, vs. being completely idle. And reads meet the instruction pipeline in a totally different way than writes do.
But a synthesized approximation that could serve as the memory stall equivalent of -e cycles for perf would be a huge boon to performance analysis & optimization.
One thing to keep in mind is that while slightly higher idle power might cost you a bit more, high power when processing means that you will also need a much beefier cooling solution and have higher noise levels and exhaust more heat to boot. Again, from the TechPowerup review https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900ks/22.... they show that for a multi-threaded blender workload, the 7950X3D sits at 140W, while the 14900KS hits 374W. I don't believe there's a single consumer air cooler that can handle that kind of load, so you'll be forced to liquid cool (or go even more exotic).
Different motherboards and settings are sort of a hidden factor in this in general it seems.
There is no such thing as idle in a modern desktop.
Intel Meteor Lake NUCs should perform similarly, but they tend to be a few hundred dollars more for basically the same performance (the Minisforum EliteMini UM780 XTX barebones is currently $440, the cheapest Core Ultra 7 155H minipc I could find was the ASRock Industrial NUC BOX-155H at $700). At this point though, personally, I'd wait for the upcoming Zen5/RDNA3.5 Strix Point APUs, which should be the next big jump up in terms of performance.
7950x3d is limited to ddr5 6000 while 14900 can do ddr5 8000.
The benchmarks you shared are using ddr5 6000. So by upgrading the ram, the 14900 should come out on top. The memory controller is a key part of the cpu. It makes sense to test them with the best components they are able to use. I know it probably doesn’t matter, but if you’re chasing those last 5% of performance fast ram is a better value than custom water cooling.
True, the bottleneck will shrink - but according to Amdahl's law [0], it will never really go away.
Also, the more cores you have, the more the single-threaded performance increase multiplies. Imagine a million-core CPUs in the future - even a tiny increase in single-threaded performance will yield millionfold.
(Work paid for it for ML prototyping.)
I've had 12900k, 12900ks,13900k processors, I'm going to build a new one with either a 14900k or ks. I own a P5800x optane ssd to match.
Specifically, normal people don't know what "watt" is. Seriously. There is a reason electrician is a skilled profession. Most of us here do know watts and the like, so it's easy to forget that normal people aren't like us.
And using 2x to 3x more electricity means more heat in their room.
Also many countries have smart electricity meters with in home units which tell them exactly how many watts are currently being consumed and how much that costs them.
i7 4790k w noctua cooler is fine :)
I actually have a similar desktop next to my legs, only it has the Xeon version with twice the cores. It's an absolute PITA in the summer with no A/C. It's also quite noisy when the temperature in the room reaches 27 ºC.
I do something similar with my GPU, 75% cap in the summer, 105% cap in the winter.
None of those are a problem on a desktop PC only on shitty laptops.
DIY desktop market is smaller than ever. You can see this in the number of discrete GPU sales which has drastically declined over the last 20 years[0] save for a few crypto booms.
Gaming laptops are now more popular than gaming desktops.[1]
If you disagree, I'd like to see your sources.
[0]https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9hGBfdHQBWtrbYQKAfFZWD-120...
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20220628032503/https://www.idc.c...
"In terms of market share, according to a 2020 report by Statista, Notebooks / laptops accounted for 46.8% of the global personal computer market, while desktop PC made up 40.6% of the market. The remaining market share was made up of other devices such as tablets and workstations."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1119850/gaming-pc-market...
https://www.tech-bazaar.com/laptop-market-as-compared-to-des...
If you can afford a 320W CPU in the first place, you can probably afford the batteries to power the thing for a few hours, but it does still add a considerable amount to your backup costs.
And it might be hard to get your system configured to throttle itself quickly enough when the power goes out: having the UPS connected over USB to a userspace application that monitors it and changes Windows power plans in response to going on battery could be too slow to react. It's a similar problem to what gaming laptops face, where they commonly lose more than half of their GPU performance and sometimes a sizeable chunk of CPU performance when not plugged in, because their batteries cannot deliver enough current to handle peak load.
I switched from a 5950X + 3080, to a 5700G APU, to finally an M1 MBP + Steam Deck last year for this exact reason. Far cheaper to have a 250wh battery that can handle those two for the ±2h outages every day.
Now you shift goalposts to saying you should only care in data centre contexts, in a thread discussing a desktop processor.
It's okay if power consumption doesn't matter to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to everyone. That's why it's important to have these metrics in the first place and ideally to try and optimise them.
Also, many more people are installing solar power residential batteries, so there’s that.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price...
All this negative shilling about power consumption of Intel and AMD desktop CPUs started after Apple ARM processors appeared on the desktop. Apple sells soldered SSD and CPUs with un-upgradeable RAM, and the proprietary SoC is no longer a true general purpose CPU as only macOS can run properly on it. Performance wise also they don't truly beat AMD (and in some cases Intel) processors. This is a huge negative factor for Apple Silicon based hardwares. Thus, the only negative marketing they can do about Intel and AMD processors is based on its higher power consumption.
That said, Intel and AMD will (and do seem) to care about power consumption for their laptop and server segments.
I have a Ryzen 7950X in ECO mode 105W that's very fast in every workload I can throw at it, trivial to run whisper quiet with a basic Noctua cooler, and barely warms the room.
I have no interest in living in your dictatorial world where everyone must hug trees.
Regarding horses, pointing out the emissions angle in response to "why would I care about power consumption" is basic table stakes in the world's current situation, no need to get offended.
Lower power consumption means less heat, which means less noise from cooling fans and lower temperature increase in my room.
YMMV
Environmental impact maybe? Higher power usage = more heat = more noise?
There’s a bunch of other cases too.
In general, as a home user, you should care about power consumption in desktop computers for the following reasons.
* Higher power requirements means more expense in other parts of the build. It means higher PSU requirements, and stronger cooling requirements.
* If you ever plan on running the PC on battery backup (UPS or Tesla Powerwall) or if you plan on installing solar energy then power consumption becomes a bigger expense.