Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Sunday March 19, @02:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-heat-your-swimming-pool-with-this dept.

Intel's new HEDT CPU leaves behind Skylake-X in terms of power consumption:

Intel's recently introduced Xeon W9-3495X processor packs 56 cores begging you to overclock them, as the CPU also features an unlocked multiplier. When cooled down using liquid nitrogen, the 56-core processor can indeed be pushed to a formidable 5.50 GHz frequency, but at such high clocks it alone consumes almost 1,900 watts, more than beefy high-end gaming PCs, reports HardwareLuxx.

Elmor, a professional overclocker who collaborates with Asus, recently tried to push a Xeon W9-3495X 'Sapphire Rapids-SP' CPU on an Asus Pro WS W790E Sage SE motherboard to its limits with liquid nitrogen cooling. When frozen to -92.8 degrees Celsius/-135 degrees Fahrenheit, the CPU can work at 5.50 GHz and hit 132,220 points in Cinebench R23, which is just a little bit lower than the absolute record of 132,484 points set by another heavily overclocked Xeon W9-3495X. But the result comes at a cost.

The heavily overclocked Intel Xeon W9-3495X processor not only demonstrates phenomenal performance in Cinebench R23, but it also sets record in terms of power consumption. The CPU draws as much as 1,881W power when operating at 5.50 GHz and requires two 1,600W PSUs to feed it.

[...] Without any doubts, hitting 5.50 GHz with a 56-core Xeon W9-3495X processor cooled down using liquid nitrogen is a monumental achievement. Yet, it remains to be seen what makers of boutique factory-overclocked extreme workstations manage to squeeze out of this CPU with a production-grade cooling system and guaranteed long-term stability.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 19, @02:46PM

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19, @02:46PM (#1297049) Journal

    But can it play Doom? (Doom 2: Hell on Earth...Freezes Over)
    ;)

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2) by Ken_g6 on Sunday March 19, @06:27PM

    by Ken_g6 (3706) on Sunday March 19, @06:27PM (#1297064)

    Where Intel is worried about Getting to Zettascale Without Needing Multiple Nuclear Power Plants [soylentnews.org].

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday March 19, @06:41PM (1 child)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Sunday March 19, @06:41PM (#1297065)

    to run more than 50 browser tab with a few trivially simple web-two-oh cloudy applications running in them.

    Assuming of course the Xeon W9-3495X machine has TPM. Because if it doesn't, obviously it won't be Windows 11-ready.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 19, @11:27PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19, @11:27PM (#1297082) Homepage Journal

      Bahhh, you're exaggerating just a little. I can run half a dozen browsers at the same time, with boatloads of tabs open in each. From time to time, I realize that I'm not using some of those tabs anymore, so I close 20 or 30, in one browser, go to the next browser, and close a bunch of tabs, then go to the next browser. None of that puts the least bit of strain on 64 Opteron cores. Qbittorrent uses a couple orders of magnitude more resources than all the browsers combined.

      I'll give you a "funny" mod, all the same.

       

      --
      Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43AM (#1297126)
    So, not anywhere close to the top of the Green500 eh? At 5.5 GHz and a nominal 32 FLOPs per core, and 56 cores, that's nearly 10 TFlops on its own. However, with that 1881 W power consumption it's at a dismal 5.2 GFlops / watt when talking efficiency. In contrast the top entry on the Green500 (Flatiron Institute's Henri supercomputer) gets 65 GFlops/watt. Even Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Frontier TDS, the world's most powerful supercomputer, gets 62 GFlops/watt.
(1)