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, reportsHardwareLuxx.
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 of132,484points 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.
For comparison, Intel's previous-generation Core X-series processors with up to 18 cores could consume around 1,000W, whereas Intel's extreme workstation-oriented 28-core Xeon W-3175X drew up to around 700W when heavily overclocked and cooled down using various exotic methods.
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.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
More about cpus
Latest
27 CommentsComment from the forums
ManDaddio 33 watts per core. Is that bad? I am not an engineer so I'm not certain if that is good or bad. Server chips are meant to run much lower on clocks I know.
Reply
TerryLaze ManDaddio said:
33 watts per core. Is that bad? I am not an engineer so I'm not certain if that is good or bad. Server chips are meant to run much lower on clocks I know.Alone the fact that all of the cores are able to hit 5.5Ghz is a feat.
The 13900k uses 32W for single thread load although it runs higher clocks, the 7950x uses 43W
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/22.htmlReply
jkflipflop98 ManDaddio said:
33 watts per core. Is that bad? I am not an engineer so I'm not certain if that is good or bad. Server chips are meant to run much lower on clocks I know.That's actually really efficient considering the extreme ends of the spectrum we're inhabiting here.
Reply
zipspyder I wonder if this cpu could actually max out Microsoft Flight Simulator. 😁
Reply
ingtar33 ManDaddio said:
33 watts per core. Is that bad? I am not an engineer so I'm not certain if that is good or bad. Server chips are meant to run much lower on clocks I know.well, a ryzen r9 7950x3d will draw about 10-15W per core at 5.5ghz, it's harder to tell with intel's current offering due to the two sized/speed cores; which sort of messes with the calculations. but judging by the power draw of the 13000 series 33w/ big core is probably correct. so i'd say that's normal for intel?
Reply
bit_user ManDaddio said:
33 watts per core. Is that bad?Yeah, that's the first thing I did. Actually, it's almost 34 W/core. And I was going to say I think they could go further.
The main thing to remember is that these are Golden Cove cores (except with more L2 cache) and should be using the same process node as Alder Lake. So, we should be able to look to it for some idea of what's possible.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core-i912900k-review-hybrid-performance-brings-hybrid-complexity/4
That's right: 78 W package power on one core! That Alder Lake CPU can use 35 W/core on 5 P-cores or about 33 W/core on 6 P-cores. With 7 P-cores, it's down below 30. That's one way to look at it, at least. I don't really look at 8, since it's whacking into the power limit by then.Perhaps a more constructive way, that could account for a lot of the overheads, would be to look at the delta between 2 P-cores and the 1 P-core case. There, we see an increase of just 33 W. So, that suggests that a marginal power of 33 W/core is indeed what at least the stock K would boost up to. So, there actually might not be much more gas in the tank.
I'm less interested in the question of "badness", however. We all know this is well above the peak-efficiency point, as it's about 3x or more than what Sapphire Rapids or Genoa server CPUs are spec'd to run at. So, it's obviously bad, if you're efficiency-minded, but that wasn't the point of the experiment.
Reply
bit_user jkflipflop98 said:
That's actually really efficient considering the extreme ends of the spectrum we're inhabiting here.No offense, but this feels like motivated reasoning. If you have more to say about your rationale, I'd be interested in hearing it.
Reply
TerryLaze ingtar33 said:
well, a ryzen r9 7950x3d will draw about 10-15W per core at 5.5ghz, it's harder to tell with intel's current offering due to the two sized/speed cores; which sort of messes with the calculations. but judging by the power draw of the 13000 series 33w/ big core is probably correct. so i'd say that's normal for intel?It does use 10-15W per core, but it doesn't run at 5.5, it barely reaches 5Ghz with all cores loaded.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d/27.htmlReply
SunMaster TerryLaze said:
Alone the fact that all of the cores are able to hit 5.5Ghz is a feat.
The 13900k uses 32W for single thread load although it runs higher clocks, the 7950x uses 43W
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/22.htmlI think you're comparing apples and oranges here. A 7950x will not use 16x43 watts - that's 688 watts. But for a single core - yes, 43w is maybe right. This server chip OTOH, we're talking 33watts per single core. The number 33 watts popped up with one poster doing 1900/56 and getting 33 (actually it's almost 34). I assume it's only for a short bursts, or I'll be really interested in the cooling used :)
Reply
bit_user TerryLaze said:
The 13900k uses 32W for single thread loadThat must be subtracting off idle power consumption. Otherwise, it's quite at odds with Anandtech's measurement for the i9-12900K, although both claim to be measuring CPU package power. In that TechPowerUp chart, they claim i9-12900K's single-threaded power is only 26 W, yet Anandtech got 78 W (or 71 W if you subtract off idle).
The other conclusion we might draw is that MP3 encoder is rubbish at showing the max sustained single-threaded power draw. I think this is definitely a factor, and probably the dominant one.
Here's the single-threaded data from Toms' review of the i9-13900K:
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k-i5-13600k-cpu-review/4It's at least closer to the Anandtech PovRay data, but still a wide gulf exists. Sadly, I haven't found anyone else testing these CPUs with PovRay @ 1 thread.Reply
