# Intel Core i9-11900K



## W1zzard (Mar 30, 2021)

The Intel Core i9-11900K is the company's Rocket Lake flagship. It uses the new Cypress Cove architecture and includes support for new instruction sets like AVX512 and DLBoost to speed up AI calculations. We run the processor through our new test suite and also take a closer look at gaming performance, including frametimes.

*Show full review*


----------



## cueman (Mar 30, 2021)

what a heck happend?

i except alot more.. what happend intel,is it there sometting still not ready...
dissapoinment..

well,now i can sure forget 1200 mobo and start wait intels 10nm cpu alder lake and 1700 mobo.

and thats is last change intel that i dont move amd camp,really.



anyway,bye forever 14nm cpu, i hope,and welcome intel last chance, 10nm alder lake.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

Fail, as expected.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 30, 2021)

Ignoring the 14nm process and the power consumption which is a meme at this point I find it incredibly bizarre that architecturally this isn't a clear step up. Perhaps Sunny Cove was never really intended to be a a high performance architecture but then why does it scale so badly with power ?


----------



## Crazy_O (Mar 30, 2021)

FAIL CPU OF THE YEAR.


----------



## 1d10t (Mar 30, 2021)

Even in a non-gaming scenario, this CPU struggled against previous gen.
Now let see people buying these at $550 if they already mad about 6 core being $385.


----------



## Fleurious (Mar 30, 2021)

Disappointing results to say the least.  I can't see any reason for me to get this over the competition.


----------



## kapone32 (Mar 30, 2021)

So it's a 9900K with PCIe 4.0 support?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 30, 2021)

3 words:
NO. THANK. YOU!

What a disaster and fiasco for intel with this joke lunch. The absurd and ridiculous power consumption is match only by it's hilarious price (!!!)
What a waste of silicon ))))))))))


----------



## dgianstefani (Mar 30, 2021)

Lets wait 3 months for mature BIOS's and microcode. I remember my 5950x had issues that were mostly fixed by AGESA 1.2, but some still aren't.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Hard pass.


----------



## KarymidoN (Mar 30, 2021)

can someone with money to burn test if this new Intel Frier works well for pancakes? looking for an upgrade, at 100ºC i know that water boils, but will it make my pancakes or i'll have to wait for the 11900X ?


----------



## birdie (Mar 30, 2021)

The CPUs could have been edible or even good if not for the atrocious pricing and very high power consumption (the 14nm node clearly is not a good match for the architecture initially designed for 10nm) . Intel, you're no longer the king of the hill, there's this thing called competition. You are supposed to compete with AMD, not collude with them, sigh. It really sucks we have just two x86 CPU vendors and just two GPU vendors. AMD now has zero incentive to lower prices for Ryzen 5000 CPUs. Darn!

The most disappointing part of the new CPUs is that their iGPU is as bad as it was in 2015 with the release of Sky Lake:






Still it's better than AMD parts which lack the iGPU altogether.


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 30, 2021)

Review was petty much what I expected. If you must go intel right now Comet lake is a much better buy.


----------



## john_ (Mar 30, 2021)

It's funny, or sad, that most of those positive points in the conclusion, are either not positive points at all (being unlocked in a world of unlocked competitive products it's not positive, it should be a prerequisite), or positive points that are almost totally negated when looking at the negative points list (for example PCIe 4.0, but only for M.2, AVX512 but minimal software support etc. )


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

1d10t said:


> Even in a non-gaming scenario, this CPU struggled against previous gen.
> Now let see people buying these at $550 if they already mad about 6 core being $385.



It's actually over 600 usd on newegg.com


----------



## Ravenas (Mar 30, 2021)

cueman said:


> what a heck happend?
> 
> i except alot more.. what happend intel,is it there sometting still not ready...
> dissapoinment..
> ...



What more do you expect from 14nm technology? The only gains that have been made over the past 3 years are slight single core gains with dismal multithreaded performance gains at the cost of extreme heat and power consumption. Intel has been stuck in 14nm since 2017 with single thread gains and high heat.

The writing is on the wall... Look at product stock across the board. AMD is never in stock, where Intel is always available.

I think what is worse is complete lack of strategy in terms of catching TSMC. Intel has begun airing commercials attacking Mac M1 chips... then to turn around and do a 180 and say that want to produce chips for Apple. The only way Intel will catch TSMC is 1 of 2 scenarios, or both:


TSMC is blackballed by the USA via sanctions or tariffs due to Chinese influence. TSMC can then no longer sell processors to USA companies. (very unlikely this will happen, supply would be too disrupted)
Intel picks up Apple iPhone/Mac business to fund astronomical fab investments. (very unlikely this will happen as Apple currently has 4nm contracts with TSMC, and would not revert back to 10nm or 14nm) unless scenario 1 were to occur).


----------



## BArms (Mar 30, 2021)

One really interesting benchmark i'd like to see for CPUs is Civ 6 time-between-turns.


----------



## watzupken (Mar 30, 2021)

Rocket Lake painted 2 problems that Intel need to address quickly in my opinion,
1. 14nm is simply no longer competitive. On the surface, Intel is able to squeeze performance out of it to match competition. However, the penalty is high power consumption and heat output. For the top end to go up to 100 degs or more is nuts. Even if the chip is cheap, the cost of the motherboard and cooler to sustain performance is going to be very high.

2. Cypress Cove is 1 gen behind competition. I recall Cypress Cove is derived from Sunny Cove introduced in Ice Lake U, and clearly it was competing against the likes of AMD's Renoir. WIth Zen 3, AMD upped the bar further in terms of performance vs efficiency, and clearly Rocket Lake is unable and not enough to keep up.

While I look forward to see what Alder Lake can bring to the table, I am at the same time skeptical. While Intel's 10nm Super Fin seems to be doing well, I actually think they are driving 10nm towards the same path as the 14nm. Pretty sure they will push 10nm very hard with Alder Lake, but at least they have the small cores to claw back some efficiency under light load. But against a 5nm Zen 4, assuming AMD don't drop the ball, they are likely still going to be on par if not behind competition.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Mar 30, 2021)

Temperature = Really Hot
Power consumption = Really hungry chip

Performance? ......... meh.............


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 30, 2021)

dgianstefani said:


> Lets wait 3 months for mature BIOS's and microcode. I remember my 5950x had issues that were mostly fixed by AGESA 1.2, but some still aren't.


Hang on, doesn't Intel provide the most stable platform out there and technically doesn't need UEFI updates, according to the fanbois?


----------



## chodaboy19 (Mar 30, 2021)

I guess we wait for 10nm in 2022?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

TheLostSwede said:


> Hang on, doesn't Intel provide the most stable platform out there and technically doesn't need UEFI updates, according to the fanbois?



To be fair 4th/6th/8th/9th/10th gen was all very stable for me so it was true till Rocketlake.


----------



## Thefumigator (Mar 30, 2021)

ahhh sweet sweet competition. Loving these discussions.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> To be fair 4th/6th/8th/9th/10th gen was all very stable for me so it was true till Rocketlake.


+1 on that. Never seen such finicky platform from Intel, ever I think


----------



## agentnathan009 (Mar 30, 2021)

Wow, the latest and greatest from Intel ends up in the middle or upper echelon of benchmarks, and in some cases getting decimated by AMD 5000 series, I have not seen such a thing in a long time!

I would be afraid of tripping my main 150 amp breaker trying to run that scorching hot CPU!

The best part:

“

Very high price for what's offered
Lower gaming performance than AMD Zen 3 and Core i9-10900K
Only eight cores (vs. ten on i9-10900K)
Application performance can't even match Ryzen 5800X
High power consumption
Lots of heat once power limit unlocked”


----------



## heflys20 (Mar 30, 2021)

I'm sorry, but, IMHO, this product makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## B-Real (Mar 30, 2021)

Wow, is this Intel's worst CPU series ever?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

B-Real said:


> Wow, is this Intel's worst CPU series ever?



Na, other than the 11900k and maybe the 11700k the rest of the stack is pretty competitive and priced well.


----------



## Xuper (Mar 30, 2021)

> Only one PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot, others are PCIe 3.0



What does this mean ? PCIE for GPU isn't 4.0 ? I mean does 11900K support PCIe 4.0 in GPU ?


----------



## Metroid (Mar 30, 2021)

Intel is behaving like AMD has done from 2007 to 2018, surviving and nothing is going to change till their 7nm cpu.


----------



## PapaTaipei (Mar 30, 2021)

BouahahaHAHAHAHAH!


----------



## btarunr (Mar 30, 2021)

Xuper said:


> What does this mean ? PCIE for GPU isn't 4.0 ? I mean does 11900K support PCIe 4.0 in GPU ?


The x16 slot will run at PCIe 4.0 (on 500-series chipset motherboards, and 400-series ones that support PCIe 4.0 readiness); but the platform only has one M.2 Gen 4 slot, the one wired to the processor. On the AMD platform, you can have up to three M.2 Gen 4 slots, on X570 motherboards (since the X570 puts out PCIe 4.0 general-purpose lanes).


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 30, 2021)

Xuper said:


> What does this mean ? PCIE for GPU isn't 4.0 ? I mean does 11900K support PCIe 4.0 in GPU ?


Other M.2 slots. Reworded to "Only one PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot, other M.2 are PCIe 3.0"


----------



## Xuper (Mar 30, 2021)

btarunr said:


> The x16 slot will run at PCIe 4.0 (on 500-series chipset motherboards, and 400-series ones that support PCIe 4.0 readiness); but the platform only has one M.2 Gen 4 slot, the one wired to the processor. On the AMD platform, you can have up to three M.2 Gen 4 slots, on X570 motherboards (since the X570 puts out PCIe 4.0 general-purpose lanes).


ah , Thanks


----------



## mouacyk (Mar 30, 2021)

Where is the 19% IPC.  Where is the pudding.


----------



## B-Real (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Na, other than the 11900k and maybe the 11700k the rest of the stack is pretty competitive and priced well.


Really?











That's a shame. 11600K is of course cheaper than the 5600X. Slower in CPU performance, slower in games and consumes much more power. You can OC 5600 in B motherboards, you can't do that with the 11600K. B450 motherboards are compatible with Zen 3, B460 are not with RL. And the former (and even the B550) are (much) cheaper than B560.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> To be fair 4th/6th/8th/9th/10th gen was all very stable for me so it was true till Rocketlake.


I was more amused by the fact that a lot people (not just here, but on other sites too) have made such a big deal about how great Intel's platform always is and this time they pulled an AMD it seems. I can't defend the fact that AMD has had sloppy launches with far from finished AGESA and UEFI implementations.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

TheLostSwede said:


> I was more amused by the fact that a lot people (not just here, but on other sites too) have made such a big deal about how great Intel's platform always is and this time they pulled an AMD it seems. I can't defend the fact that AMD has had sloppy launches with far from finished AGESA and UEFI implementations.



To be fair i haven't had any of the issues most have had with amd either.... 

1600/1700/2600/2700/3600/3700/3900/5800 have all worked excellent for me since the day I got them/built with them.... The only amd chip I had issues with was a 2400G being picky about ram


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 30, 2021)

Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.

If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Fail, as expected.


Not of this size.
It's pure wow.


----------



## las (Mar 30, 2021)

I'm amazed that it does not perform better in gaming, considering the IPC increase. It's not "bad" tho, and AMD has supply issues, Intel does not, so guess it will sell regardless.

i9-11900K seems like a REALLY bad buy over i7-11700K.
32-33% higher price for pretty much nothing 

Intel is smashing the OEM/Enterprise market these days (AMD can't supply AT ALL).
This is especially true for laptops. At work, I need to wait several weeks to recieve AMD 4000 based Thinkpad. I can get 100s of Intel based ones, day to day, in comparison.

If AMD was able to supply, Ryzen 5000 would have been a smash hit. Sadly it looks like supply is still bad, especially for 5900X and 5950X.
Intel is happy about this, I bet 

Oh well. Not buying anything anyway. Next gen platforms in 2022/2023 with DDR5, PCIe 5.0 etc. My 9900K will live for a few more years. It's been great and still is. Glad to see the stock 9900K in benches doing very well. Can't wait to see Intel vs AMD in the coming years. This will be fun.

I hope Intel can bring some GPUs out soon, would be even more fun to see. I don't expect miracles for first gen but If they can DELIVER at MSRP prices it will sell unless performance is jawdropping bad.


----------



## ilyon (Mar 30, 2021)

FX9590 was a sort of mobile CPU eventually...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> To be fair i haven't had any of the issues most have had with amd either....
> 
> 1600/1700/2600/2700/3600/3700/3900/5800 have all worked excellent for me since the day I got them/built with them.... The only amd chip I had issues with was a 2400G being picky about ram


I had a lot of memory issues with my 1700, but that came down to having Corsair LPX modules I think.
My 3800X was not behaving at all initially, but I guess that's what I got for getting it on launch. Three months later and most issues was fixed. These days I'm having zero issues.
It's just that every Ryzen launch has had issues that have required several UEFI/AGESA updates to fix them.
Now it seems like Intel might be in the same boat...



vanishs14 said:


> Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.
> 
> If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.


As long as you're not getting the F SKUs...


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

TheLostSwede said:


> I had a lot of memory issues with my 1700, but that came down to having Corsair LPX modules I think.
> My 3800X was not behaving at all initially, but I guess that's what I got for getting it on launch. Three months later and most issues was fixed. These days I'm having zero issues.
> It's just that every Ryzen launch has had issues that have required several UEFI/AGESA updates to fix them.
> Now it seems like Intel might be in the same boat...



My biggest issues with 1st and 2nd gen ryzen was the terrible mobo choices..... X570 is awesome though both the Ryzen Master and Hero 8 have been great to work with.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 30, 2021)

las said:


> I'm amazed that it does not perform better in gaming, considering the IPC increase. It's not "bad" tho, and AMD has supply issues, Intel does not, so guess it will sell regardless.
> 
> i9-11900K seems like a REALLY bad buy over i7-11700K.
> 32-33% higher price for pretty much NOTHING
> ...



Well intel's not having supply issues means that the 10900KF, 10900F, and 10850K are available for much much less than these turdbuckets.  I think that their biggest competition will be themselves lol.


----------



## VSG (Mar 30, 2021)

Ah I must be the only one happy with this power hungry and hot CPU, seems nice for water block testing


----------



## mechtech (Mar 30, 2021)

Hmmmm
Takeaways 
-over 500 FPS csgo 1440p.  Hey monitor makers where’s my 500fps gaming monitor???

-OC is basically trivial. So get a non K cpu and use coin for a good cooler

-get a 10700 cpu now instead on the cheap!!


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Mar 30, 2021)

phanbuey said:


> Well intel's not having supply issues means that the 10900KF, 10900F, and 10850K are available for much much less than these turdbuckets.  I think that their biggest competition will be themselves lol.



I agree, but once 10th gen sells out the lower tier chips will be fine for most people.... anyone spending over $400 should stick to Ryzen 5000 at that point or wait for Alderlake/6000


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 30, 2021)

TheLostSwede said:


> As long as you're not getting the F SKUs...



Captain Obvious in the house.


----------



## las (Mar 30, 2021)

phanbuey said:


> Well intel's not having supply issues means that the 10900KF, 10900F, and 10850K are available for much much less than these turdbuckets.  I think that their biggest competition will be themselves lol.


I agree, already saw some sweet deals on 10th gen

It looks like all the top CPU's perform pretty much the same in gaming at this point


----------



## zmeul (Mar 30, 2021)

_ have a very big problem on how TPU, and not only, calculates perf/dolar

you're comparing CPUs with iGPUs on the same level as CPUs that do not have iGPUs
all the Intel K should be KF pricing as none of the Ryzen CPUs in that chart have iGPUs_


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 30, 2021)

zmeul said:


> _ have a very big problem on how TPU, and not only, calculates perf/dolar
> 
> you're comparing CPUs with iGPUs on the same level as CPUs that do not have iGPUs
> all the Intel K should be KF pricing as none of the Ryzen CPUs in that chart have iGPUs_



+1.

If youre building a new system right now buying AMD is such a massive waste of money


----------



## SIGSEGV (Mar 30, 2021)

lmao. damn, intel's bulldozer... 
I even can cook the fried egg on top of this CPU...
amazing. DOA


----------



## lightning70 (Mar 30, 2021)

420W of power at full load.so disappointed
As well as the 5800x comparison in performance. 10900K better. Again 5800x better. Moreover, it draws 420W of power and is not much better than 10900k in the game and 110C Max temp.


----------



## Krzych (Mar 30, 2021)

What a disaster. Now even Alder Lake no longer looks interesting. RKL was rumored to be 19% faster than CML and then Alder Lake was supposed to be 30% faster than RKL, so around 1.5x CML, but now it seems like 1.15x CML is optimistic if even Intel itself says only 20% more single threaded performance over RKL...


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Krzych said:


> Now even Alder Lake no longer looks interesting


Slapping a few Atom cores on a desktop CPU wasn't really interesting to begin with


----------



## ShurikN (Mar 30, 2021)

I don't understand why everyone acts surprised, we all pretty much knew this was gonna be garbage.
As a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if Intel dropped prices on these CPUs in 3 months.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Mar 30, 2021)

It has terrible efficiency, it was something like, “no matter what, just match the performance of Ryzen 7 5800X.”


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Mar 30, 2021)

Metroid said:


> Intel is behaving like AMD has done from 2007 to 2018, surviving and nothing is going to change till their 7nm cpu.


very similar situation right now, don't forgot about the gpu attempt too from intel.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 30, 2021)

SIGSEGV said:


> lmao. damn, intel's bulldozer...
> I even can cook the fried egg on top of this CPU...
> amazing. DOA


Not even close; Bulldozer was both a gas guzzler *and *slow as molasses while 11900k is faster on average than any other 8 core chip (and previous gen 12 core ones too for that matter)


----------



## efikkan (Mar 30, 2021)

KarymidoN said:


> can someone with money to burn test if this new Intel Frier works well for pancakes? looking for an upgrade, at 100ºC i know that water boils, but will it make my pancakes or i'll have to wait for the 11900X ?


For frying properly you need about ~200-240°C.
I think I'll pass on your pancakes this time. 



Metroid said:


> Intel is behaving like AMD has done from 2007 to 2018, surviving and nothing is going to change till their 7nm cpu.


Except that Intel have a performant architecture on an inferior node, while AMD Bulldozer was just a bad design.



SIGSEGV said:


> lmao. damn, intel's bulldozer...
> I even can cook the fried egg on top of this CPU...
> amazing. DOA


Frying an egg on 56°C? Good luck with that. Egg whites will stiffen, but it wouldn't fry.

These "DoA" CPUs will probably outsell Ryzen 5000 series, especially with very limited availability. And I'm sure that final AMD BIOS is going to come any day now…


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Wonder if they're actually gonna make a compelling product with Alder Lake, because whatever this generation is, it's the exact opposite of compelling. Just a desperate attempt at holding that gaming crown and bringing PCIe 4 to those still stuck on PCIe 3 feeling left out.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 30, 2021)

OMG 110c, that's the temp we make juicy tender beef\pork at lmao, yeah i know it's not always at that temp but still.


----------



## birdie (Mar 30, 2021)

lightning70 said:


> 420W of power at full load.so disappointed
> As well as the 5800x comparison in performance. 10900K better. Again 5800x better. Moreover, it draws 420W of power and is not much better than 10900k in the game and 110C Max temp.



There's no need to lie through your teeth.

The *whole* system power consumption in CineBench MT test is ~*260W* which is, while high, not something we haven't seen before. Take this, the FX-9590 at *350W*:








Metroid said:


> Intel is behaving like AMD has done from 2007 to 2018, surviving and nothing is going to change till their 7nm cpu.



This is also lies. AMD didn't struggle with GloFo or nodes, they struggled with their architecture which turned out to be a complete fiasco.

Intel on the other hand has pretty successful new uArchs, Ice Lake and Tiger Lake, but they don't have the nodes to produce them.

Lastly, AMD has been fabless for over nine years now, so the companies are not even in the same league. I'm pretty sure Intel could have produced desktop Tiger Lakes on TSMC factories but Intel needs a ton of capacity while TSMC has been booked for years ahead.


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 30, 2021)

Why are you guys even bring up bulldozer in this RL review. Its competing against Zen 3.

Try to stay on topic lol.


----------



## dgianstefani (Mar 30, 2021)

Remember the 10th gen launch also had bios and stability issues that were patched out within a month.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Mar 30, 2021)

I guess electrons don't follow the rules of marketing presentations.


----------



## lightning70 (Mar 30, 2021)

birdie said:


> There's no need to lie through your teeth.
> 
> The *whole* system power consumption in CineBench MT test is ~*260W* which is, while high, not something we haven't seen before. Take this, the FX-9590 at *350W*:
> 
> ...


Even the 5800X is higher in stock performance and consumes less power. Even remotely, it has nothing to do with the 5900x. Waste of sand, as Gamernexus said. Empty investment even for 9900k users. Despite using Intel, I was disappointed. Paying a lot of money and not exceeding 5800x in stock speed. Empty investment.


----------



## 1d10t (Mar 30, 2021)

efikkan said:


> These "DoA" CPUs will probably outsell Ryzen 5000 series, especially with very limited availability. And I'm sure that final AMD BIOS is going to come any day now…








Yeah I'm pretty sure people want to own this CPU so badly that they're willing to pay more until it runs out of stock


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

1d10t said:


> Yeah I'm pretty sure people want to own this CPU so badly that they're willing to pay more until it runs out of stock


Same story here. These CPUs are ridiculously priced, but mostly out of stock. Price of the flagship was already ridiculous to begin with.


----------



## GoldenX (Mar 30, 2021)

Worse than Pentium 4.


----------



## yukinin97 (Mar 30, 2021)

Damn. I should've gotten the 10850k when it was being sold for like $350.


----------



## DonKnotts (Mar 30, 2021)

If this thing will actually hit 110C while under full load across all cores, then there are some AIO coolers out there that use just extremely pure water that now run the risk of boiling and bursting a tube. This is absurd.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 30, 2021)

1d10t said:


> Yeah I'm pretty sure people want to own this CPU so badly that they're willing to pay more until it runs out of stock



Only the 11900K is sold out from Newegg (shipped/sold by newegg) right now.  Their prices on the other skus are not inflated.  They even have an 11500 listed for $217.

My local MicroCenter is getting close to sold out on several RKL SKUs now though.

Disconcertingly they're also getting low on some the good deal Comet Lake SKUs.  I might have to pull the trigger today on one or the other.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Mar 30, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.
> 
> If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.


Not true, the Ryzen 4000 series APUs and newer 5000 series APUs have more powerful integrated graphics than Intel, however, if you buy an non APU chip from AMD then you are out of luck for GPU. APUs are good enough to play PUBG type games at lower detail levels for reasonable frame rates.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 30, 2021)

agentnathan009 said:


> Not true, the Ryzen 4000 series APUs and newer 5000 series APUs have more powerful integrated graphical software than Intel, however, if you buy an non APU chip from AMD then you are out of luck for GPU. APUs are good enough to play PUBG type games at lower detail levels for reasonable frame rates.



DIY builders cannot buy those, at least not from normal / reputable dealers.  Those are sold to OEMs only.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Mar 30, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> DIY builders cannot buy those, at least not from normal / reputable dealers.  Those are sold to OEMs only.


Valid point if you are only wanting to do a DIY build versus buying an OEM computer.


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 30, 2021)

agentnathan009 said:


> Not true, the Ryzen 4000 series APUs and newer 5000 series APUs have more powerful integrated graphics than Intel, however, if you buy an non APU chip from AMD then you are out of luck for GPU. APUs are good enough to play PUBG type games at lower detail levels for reasonable frame rates.



Holy crap man are you even reading what youre responding to?


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Mar 30, 2021)

Reminds me a lot of Prescott. Intel doing the best they can with a clear disadvantage, and it's just not a compelling product. Anandtech said they've had crashes during testing, and so have other reviewers, apparently.


----------



## gravel (Mar 30, 2021)

Consumption in watt and crazy ...


----------



## crispysilicon (Mar 30, 2021)

Any chance of seeing power numbers for video decode?


----------



## md2003 (Mar 30, 2021)

Oh my Lord, this is just a compromise. 
Got my hands on a 5950x and i can easily say, intel you have to concentrate this time, the ship has sailed and you have to struggle hard even to keep up.


----------



## birdie (Mar 30, 2021)

lightning70 said:


> Even the 5800X is higher in stock performance and consumes less power. Even remotely, it has nothing to do with the 5900x. Waste of sand, as Gamernexus said. Empty investment even for 9900k users. Despite using Intel, I was disappointed. Paying a lot of money and not exceeding 5800x in stock speed. Empty investment.


You claimed, quote,

_"420W of power at full load.so disappointed"_

*Can you at least apologize* FFS? I really don't understand what the f*k has happened to people on the Internet. You catch them *egregiously lying* and they continue to talk BS. I don't f*king care about Gamernexus or anything like that. The high power usage was *totally expected* given that the uArch was never intended to be using the 14nm node. You don't like its power consumption? *Do not buy, period*. There's no use bitching about something Intel could not have fixed. Alder Lake will be produced using the 10nm node and is expected to fix power consumption. Have fun.

Edit: added to my ignore list. I don't want to deal with bloody <skipped>.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

birdie said:


> I really don't understand what the f*k has happened to people on the Internet. You catch them *egregiously lying* and they continue to talk BS.


Oh, in that case, welcome to the Internet.


birdie said:


> The high power usage was *totally expected* given that the uArch was never intended to be using the 14nm node.


All the more reason to call this a desperate attempt at taking back that gaming performance crown. It has no reason to exist, the socket's already dead, Alder Lake will be the real product here (hopefully), therefore confirming that this generation is indeed a waste of sand.


----------



## BMfan80 (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> To be fair 4th/6th/8th/9th/10th gen was all very stable for me so it was true till Rocketlake.




Easy when all you are doing is upgrading your cpu's by 5% each time and not actually bringing anything new to the market.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 30, 2021)

agentnathan009 said:


> Valid point if you are only wanting to do a DIY build versus buying an OEM computer.



I don't consider the enthusiast sites, including TPU / Toms / AT and so on, as good reference points for OEM systems.  An OEM rig needs to be tested itself, vs other rigs, as many such rigs have too many limitations whether in BIOS or by build choices.  Look at AIOs for example and see how many are running DDR4-2400 and DDR4-2666.  Like 90% or more.  That one choice alone by the OEM will completely rearrange winners and losers.  Example : Zen 2 suffers horribly from low speed RAM, while Skylake enjoyed the lower latency.


----------



## SaLaDiN666 (Mar 30, 2021)

Imagine being AMD unironically and still being slower than Skylake from 2015 and Rocket Lake /Icelake from 2016 with a few tweaks/ in gaming in 2021.

Pathetic....

Wait for Zen4!


----------



## lightning70 (Mar 30, 2021)

birdie said:


> You claimed, quote,
> 
> _"420W of power at full load.so disappointed"_
> 
> *Can you at least apologize* FFS? I really don't understand what the f*k has happened to people on the Internet. You catch them *egregiously lying* and they continue to talk BS. I don't f*king care about Gamernexus or anything like that. The high power usage was *totally expected* given that the uArch was never intended to be using the 14nm node. You don't like its power consumption? *Do not buy, period*. There's no use bitching about something Intel could not have fixed. Alder Lake will be produced using the 10nm node and is expected to fix power consumption. Have fun.


It's not about Alder Lake, it's Rocket Lake. Released products do not add much to the 10th generation (except PCI Express 4.0), they consume higher power than the competitor Zen3 and still perform poorly, I don't understand what we are discussing? 11400F is the only thing I love about the series 
There is no reason not to buy 10700K or 10850K instead of buying the tremendously expensive 11900K.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 30, 2021)

Well, one item missing from enthusiast sites is applications that support Intel's AI core.

This is what happens when it's used.  With RKL, adoption of this is likely to accelerate  :


----------



## Wastedslayer (Mar 30, 2021)

Looks like MSRP on these is 613.99 based on Newegg/Microcenter.

That's gonna be a no from me dog.

Not sure if it's been asked, but is there anyway to adjust the price/performance metrics now that we know the retail cost?


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 30, 2021)

lightning70 said:


> It's not about Alder Lake, it's Rocket Lake. Released products do not add much to the 10th generation (except PCI Express 4.0), they consume higher power than the competitor Zen3 and still perform poorly, I don't understand what we are discussing? 11400F is the only thing I love about the series
> There is no reason not to buy 10700K or 10850K instead of buying the tremendously expensive 11900K.


Stop feeding the troll.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Mar 30, 2021)

Wastedslayer said:


> Looks like MSRP on these is 613.99 based on Newegg/Microcenter.
> 
> That's gonna be a no from me dog.
> 
> Not sure if it's been asked, but is there anyway to adjust the price/performance metrics now that we know the retail cost?



MSRP is set by manfucaturer:  Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price.  "Suggested" is key here.  ASP (Average Selling Price), or street price if you prefer, can easily be higher or lower than MSRP.  That does not _change_ the MSRP.


----------



## Showman (Mar 30, 2021)

B-Real said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Slower by 4%. That’s about the 4% you would otherwise have laughed at, anno, when intel was so much faster.

The difference in consumption is noticeable for a household on an annual basis.

Overclock: that is, those who do not overclock, 95% of the market does not matter.

In summary, you can’t bring up anything against intel that could be accepted as a real argument.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 30, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> To be fair 4th/6th/8th/9th/10th gen was all very stable for me so it was true till Rocketlake.



It's easy to provide a stable platform when you are rehasing mostly the same garbage.  People have criticized AMD for the minimal issues on it's current 500 series chipsets, it's just poetic justice that (what should be to no one's surprise) Intel has issues when moving to PCIe 4.0 as well.  Who would have thought that actually changing your platform would introduce some bugs /s.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

evernessince said:


> It's easy to provide a stable platform when you are rehasing mostly the same garbage.  People have criticized AMD for the minimal issues on it's current 500 series chipsets, it's just poetic justice that (what should be to no one's surprise) Intel has issues when moving to PCIe 4.0 as well.  Who would have thought that actually changing your platform would introduce some bugs /s.


A hundred times this.

Ryzen has an issue: Look at how incompetent AMD is and how unstable the Ryzen platform is.
Intel has an issue: Pfft, so what, it'll get fixed within a month.

Double standards at their finest.

Nevermind the fact that AMD got in touch with people who had issues and developed a fix included in a later BIOS...

also imagine being angry when someone has valid criticism towards your favorite company/piece of silicon


----------



## heflys20 (Mar 30, 2021)

The typical topic progression. LOL. I just like to see the appearance of new accounts that randomly go one way or another...


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

heflys20 said:


> The typical topic progression. LOL. I just like to see the appearance of new accounts that randomly go one way or another...


Would be nice if we could ever discuss these new releases without adamant fanboys rearing their ugly head in.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 30, 2021)

evernessince said:


> It's easy to provide a stable platform when you are rehasing mostly the same garbage.  People have criticized AMD for the minimal issues on it's current 500 series chipsets, it's just poetic justice that (what should be to no one's surprise) Intel has issues when moving to PCIe 4.0 as well.  Who would have thought that actually changing your platform would introduce some bugs /s.


Same "garbage" huh pal? Since every single one of the above mentioned generations was superior (far so up until 2019) to AMD offerings when it launched, what does that make the latter? Sub-garbage pieces of shit? (sounds about right for the FX chips though... )


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Same "garbage" huh pal? Since every single one of the above mentioned generations was superior (far so up until 2019) to AMD offerings when it launched, what does that make the latter? Sub-garbage pieces of shit? (sounds about right for the FX chips though... )


Of course, AMD released nothing good, so our beloved, righteous and honest company Intel did the "right" thing and established a monopoly where they release the same factual garbage, for years, each time increasing the price so they can profit off of people buying the same CPU every year, instead of you know, innovating and making a good product for once. And I guarantee you AMD would do the same if they had the chance.

So far, AMD has released four generations every year, Intel used to release the same generation for 5 years... As a consumer, I don't like the increased pricing on Zen 3, but considering the advancements they made, the innovation they brought to the CPU market, and them making your 10th gen chips cheaper, they deserve it. Consider this, the only reason the CPU market is as competitive and active as it is right now, is because of AMD and Zen. And consider this, throughout the plenty of price increases Intel has had over the years (on the same exact CPU, just renamed, and possibly on a new socket cuz why not, no less), don't you think AMD has the right to at least one price increase?

But if they ever reach a point where they pull a Skylake, it's a no from me regarding their products. Just as it should be for everyone. Yet, people seem to think a company who's only purpose is to make money gives a single damn about you unless you hold shares (hell, maybe not even then.) Typical fanboy stockholm syndrome. This message applies to any fanboy regardless of which company you so adamantly defend. Why do you do it? Hell if I know. I just find it funny when you react "Angry" to every post saying the smallest negative remark about your beloved company lmao.

Edit: Completely ignored what I said lol. I'll take it as a victory


----------



## heflys20 (Mar 30, 2021)

Alexa said:


> Would be nice if we could ever discuss these new releases without adamant fanboys rearing their ugly head in.


Unfortunately, when it comes to these things, I don't believe that's possible. That's why I mostly sit back and watch the show. To the point, this product is a complete dud. That's obvious. It's not like I can really build anything anyway, with even mid-range GPU' being almost 75% of the build costs. Oh, well...


----------



## KarymidoN (Mar 30, 2021)

every AMD user was hoping this would outperform ZEN3 so we could have some response by AMD, maybe ZEN4 or ZEN3+ coming sooner, but at this rate we getting ZEN4 in MID-2022 and that's probably for the best, hoping we see better availability in the future....


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 30, 2021)

B-Real said:


> That's a shame. 11600K is of course cheaper than the 5600X. Slower in CPU performance, slower in games and consumes much more power. You can OC 5600 in B motherboards, you can't do that with the 11600K. B450 motherboards are compatible with Zen 3, B460 are not with RL. And the former (*and even the B550) are (much) cheaper than B560.*


Wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

heflys20 said:


> Unfortunately, when it comes to these things, I don't believe that's possible. That's why I mostly sit back and watch the show. To the point, this product is a complete dud. That's obvious. It's not like I can really build anything anyway, with even mid-range GPU' being almost 75% of the build costs. Oh, well...


It's sad really. These tech forums could be so much better if we could actually have civil discussions.


----------



## evernessince (Mar 30, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Same "garbage" huh pal? Since every single one of the above mentioned generations was superior (far so up until 2019) to AMD offerings when it launched, what does that make the latter? Sub-garbage pieces of shit? (sounds about right for the FX chips though... )



You are conflating superior CPUs with amazing platforms.  Just because Intel used to have better CPUs doesn't suddenly make their platform perfect.  Fact is, they did absolutely nothing interesting for years on end until AMD was heavy in the market with Zen+.

Mind you the only reason Intel had 10 years of sitting on it's rear in the first place is because it blocked AMD from even being able to compete.  Being the head hancho of the shitfest that was the CPU market pre-zen is not an accomplishment.  It's a badge of shame and nothing to brag about.  Yeah, AMD CPUs were bad.  It's not really funny that PC gamers were shafted for a generation though.  Why people insist on bragging about themselves getting shafted is irony in the least.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Let's not forget Intel paying off OEMs to not use AMD CPUs in their systems, and a variety of other anti-competitive practices done by them, in that same timespan where AMD released its "garbage" CPUs. They are not your friend, neither is AMD. They are a company.

Could we get back on topic now please?


----------



## DonKnotts (Mar 30, 2021)

KarymidoN said:


> every AMD user was hoping this would outperform ZEN3 so we could have some response by AMD, maybe ZEN4 or ZEN3+ coming sooner


Well, more like a price drop as a response. I'd still like to see AMD drop the 5800X to $400, but that's just not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 30, 2021)

Alexa said:


> It's sad really. These tech forums could be so much better if we could actually have civil discussions.


So much irony in that post.



Alexa said:


> Let's not forget Intel paying off OEMs to not use AMD CPUs in their systems, and a variety of other anti-competitive practices done by them, in that same timespan where AMD released its "garbage" CPUs. They are not your friend, neither is AMD. They are a company.
> 
> Could we get back on topic now please?


Unlike AMD, Intel has targeted the not so wealthy gamers.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1621133-REG/intel_bx8070811400f_core_i5_11400f_2_6_ghz.html/
Intel Core i5-11400F *$167.95* New Item - Coming Soon

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118237
Intel Core i7-11700F *$365.49 *

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813119384
ASUS PRIME B560-PLUS LGA *$119.99*


----------



## B-Real (Mar 30, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.
> 
> If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.


Really? Here, you can buy RX 570 4GB for $200-215 (= at least NEAR its MSRP) which is faster than the 1650 that is available from $291. Buy it and you can sell it with small loss when mining craze ends.


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 30, 2021)

And as of today the AMD 3600 is out of stock on both Newegg and Amazon and not expected to be back in stock until the third week of April.  lol


----------



## B-Real (Mar 30, 2021)

Why_Me said:


> So much irony in that post.
> 
> 
> Unlike AMD, Intel has targeted the not so wealthy gamers.
> ...



ASRock B450 PRO4 for -$30, 5600X for -$15 less with nearly the same CPU performance while having 2 less cores, and consuming about HALF as many power as the 11700. And you can even OC the 5600X if you want that extra 2-3%.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 30, 2021)

evernessince said:


> You are conflating superior CPUs with amazing platforms.  Just because Intel used to have better CPUs doesn't suddenly make their platform perfect.  Fact is, they did absolutely nothing interesting for years on end until AMD was heavy in the market with Zen+.
> 
> Mind you the only reason Intel had 10 years of sitting on it's rear in the first place is *because it blocked AMD from even being able to compete*.  Being the head hancho of the shitfest that was the CPU market pre-zen is not an accomplishment.  It's a badge of shame and nothing to brag about.  Yeah, AMD CPUs were bad.  It's not really funny that PC gamers were shafted for a generation though.  Why people insist on bragging about themselves getting shafted is irony in the least.


Right, right - they forced them to make crappy first gen Phenoms way back in 2007 and then even crappier Faildozers in 2011! Or was it some ingenious reverse industrial espionage where they planted those designs in AMD's labs and their engineers just went "Ehh, it looks kinda shit, but we'll do it anyway!"


----------



## lightning70 (Mar 30, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Same "garbage" huh pal? Since every single one of the above mentioned generations was superior (far so up until 2019) to AMD offerings when it launched, what does that make the latter? Sub-garbage pieces of shit? (sounds about right for the FX chips though... )


Obviously, I don't care about the previous series, for example the FX series, as I'm always looking now and into the future. Now more work had to be done on the 10nm alder lake architecture instead of rocket lake nonsense. However, there has been a heavy demand for PCI Ex 4.0 and minor updates have been made to the motherboard.


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 30, 2021)

B-Real said:


> ASRock B450 PRO4 for -$30, 5600X for -$15 less with nearly the same CPU performance while having 2 less cores, and consuming about HALF as many power as the 11700. And you can even OC the 5600X if you want that extra 2-3%.


Plug & play ftw.  No having to worry about what RAM to use.  For the new user, casual gamer, someone coming over from console or just someone who doesn't want to mess with sh1t after putting their rig together you can't beat Intel.  Like I've said before, OC in regards to Intel users is going the way of the manual transmission. It's for hobbyist and people who are stuck in 2016.

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157977 
ASRock B560 Pro4 $109.99 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1621133-REG/intel_bx8070811400f_core_i5_11400f_2_6_ghz.html/
Intel Core i5-11400F $167.95

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118237
Intel Core i7-11700F $365.49

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232884 
G.SKILL Aegis 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 CL16 Intel XMP 2.0 $79.99


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 30, 2021)

Why_Me said:


> Plug & play ftw.  No having to worry about what RAM to use.  For the new user, casual gamer, someone coming over from console or just someone who doesn't want to mess with sh1t after putting their rig together you can't beat Intel.  Like I've said before, OC in regards to Intel users is going the way of the manual transmission. It's for hobbyist and people who are stuck in 2016.
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157977
> ASRock B560 Pro4 $109.99
> ...


Not having to worry about what RAM to use was a thing since Zen 2 released. My rig was pretty much plug and play.


----------



## DonKnotts (Mar 30, 2021)

beedoo said:


> I have no interest in an integrated GPU, which will ultimately become a completely wasted area of silicon on my chip.


Same here. I can't say it's a fact, but I would guess that most people buying a $500+ CPU aren't going to be using the iGPU.


----------



## crispysilicon (Mar 30, 2021)

Another use turned me onto results here 









						Intel 11th Gen Core i5-11600K and Core i9-11900K Review | Storage | CPU & Mainboard
					

Storage




					www.overclock3d.net
				




Can anyone tell me what I'm looking at in the 4k results?


----------



## mahanddeem (Mar 30, 2021)

Thanks Wizzard so much.
A question for you please and anybody else too:

I need your Cinebench R15, R20 for the 10900k completely stock. I saw cpu monkey and some other websites exaggerating the results for 10900k. Making me worried about my 10900KF. It made me bitting the bullet and got a Corsair RM850x which comes with 2 8 pin EPS12v (my previous RM750 can only use one).

Your Cinebench R23 results are exactly like mine for 10900k both single and multicore

Thanks boss


----------



## Mussels (Mar 30, 2021)

Typo spotted
"bugs that are *compeltely* obvious"


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Mar 31, 2021)

I'd buy AMD over this Rocket Lake (but I've been recommending AMD since Zen 1.0).

More seriously: this Rocket Lake is an incremental upgrade over Skylake. I understand that a lot of people aren't hype for AVX512, but damn it, I am and I do care about it. Stockfish NNUE managed to come out and surprise me with a niche AVX512 application, and now I'm interested in CPU-based deep learning applications. Yeah, its weird and different compared to NVIDIA CUDA, but that's what makes technology exciting to me.

There are probably other AVX512 thingies to play with.

-------

Bonus points: PCIe 4.0 and 20x lanes is a big upgrade from Skylake. Honestly, AMD has been offering 20x CPU lanes since Zen 1.0, so its about damn time that Intel caught up. That's one less criticism I have of them. DMI x8 is also a substantial bonus, it is reasonable to go dual 8x GPU + 3x M.2 NVMe drives (albeit with 3.0 drives off of a higher latency DMI path, but still nice to have as a build option).

Of course, AMD Zen had all of that earlier. But its a *good thing* for Intel to catch up to this. I/O will likely become more and more important moving forward: NVMe SSDs are getting faster at a rate I never expected.


----------



## Tom Sunday (Mar 31, 2021)

KarymidoN said:


> can someone with money to burn test if this new Intel Frier works well for pancakes?


I love pancakes and all the way back to IHOP! I would however say that opinions or 'words of wisdom' between Intel and AMD will never go away. The majority of Intel followers over the years will always stick with Intel no matter what and just like the AMD crowd doing their continuing thing. Pricing will also not matter as once someone with deep pockets and who actually has an easy $600 to shell-out for a CPU, for him $100 here or there does not really matter. With more smooth marketing and future commentaries by the "influencers" to come, will then further do its bidding and as many new so-called comparative test will surely then show conflicting results to confuse us even more.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 31, 2021)

What length & size were the video files used for the encoding/transcoding tests?
Is there a link to an article with more details of the tests & parameters used for these reviews?
It would be nice to see the difference between CPU-only, CPU+iGPU & CPU+dGPU for some tests eg. video encode & playpack, web browsing, 1080p medium gaming.


----------



## altermere (Mar 31, 2021)

Great PreScott...


----------



## ratirt (Mar 31, 2021)

Sometimes the mighty has to fall to rise up again and today is that day with the 11900K. Intel just hit a pavement with 11900K. I'm sure I don't have to give any more comments here about something that obvious right?
Lets hope the next Intel gen (in half a year or so) will be better. Although, seeing this, it may take longer to 'rise up'.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Mar 31, 2021)

Bill_Bright said:


> Hmmm, could have sworn I posted this yesterday. Were some posts removed?
> 
> Just reading up on the difference between an elitist and a snob. It seems the elite are indeed members of a group that is of a higher class - as in better quality, higher intellect, wealthier, more educated and/or skilled. The elite can be objects too. For example, a Rolls Royce, Rolex watch, or a McIntosh audio amplifier would be considered elite. While a snob is a person who takes [often great] efforts to make sure everyone knows (or believes) the snob is a member of some elite group!
> 
> ...





KarymidoN said:


> View attachment 194504
> can someone with money to burn test if this new Intel Frier works well for pancakes? looking for an upgrade, at 100ºC i know that water boils, but will it make my pancakes or i'll have to wait for the 11900X ?





SIGSEGV said:


> lmao. damn, intel's bulldozer...
> I even can cook the fried egg on top of this CPU...
> amazing. DOA





AsRock said:


> OMG 110c, that's the temp we make juicy tender beef\pork at lmao, yeah i know it's not always at that temp but still.



All this talk about food...maybe Intel should consider going into the restaurant business and opening their own chain of diners? They could call it Rocket Lake Grill and rather than use grills/stoves to cook the food, they'd use OCed 11900K's!   

Also, Intel, KFC just called. They wanna use a bunch of 11900K's to start cooking their chicken


----------



## lemoncarbonate (Mar 31, 2021)

night.fox said:


> Temperature = Really Hot
> Power consumption = Really hungry chip
> 
> Performance? ......... meh.............


Should be named Intel Bulldozer Lake FX-11900K


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 31, 2021)

kapone32 said:


> So it's a 9900K with PCIe 4.0 support?


No, it's worse than that, at least in gaming.  IPC is better though, leading me to believe firmware issues may be limiting its potential.



W1zzard said:


> +1 on that. Never seen such finicky platform from Intel, ever I think


Do you think the gaming performance deficit could be partially rooted in buggy firmware?



Why_Me said:


> Plug & play ftw. No having to worry about what RAM to use.


Did you even read the review?

This resembles Ryzen 1 ram-speed wise.  A little better, but not much.


----------



## metalfiber (Mar 31, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> No, it's worse than that, at least in gaming.  IPC is better though, leading me to believe firmware issues may be limiting it's potential.



With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web it has to be firmware.


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 31, 2021)

B-Real said:


> Really? Here, you can buy RX 570 4GB for $200-215 (= at least NEAR its MSRP) which is faster than the 1650 that is available from $291. Buy it and you can sell it with small loss when mining craze ends.



So instead of spending that money on other parts of the PC build your solution is to buy an overpriced used GPU which is essentially E-waste, use it for over a year, then when GPU prices come down, you then expect your used GPU to only suffer a 'small' price drop.  BTW mining is a scapegoat reason why there are GPU shortages.



beedoo said:


> This is such a massive stretch - an almost retarded remark!
> 
> I have no interest in an integrated GPU, which will ultimately become a completely wasted area of silicon on my chip.


Feel free to throw some numbers out since you dont understand how money works, not everyone wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to make their CPU work during a GPU shortage.


----------



## Deleted member 190774 (Mar 31, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> Feel free to throw some numbers out since you dont understand how money works, not everyone wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to make their CPU work during a GPU shortage.


You're so right, it's not like this forum - or any other 'enthusiast' forum is full of people (that make out) that need every last FPS from their games. They'll be totally on-board with an iGPU.


----------



## Deleted member 206429 (Mar 31, 2021)

beedoo said:


> You're so right, it's not like this forum - or any other 'enthusiast' forum is full of people (that make out) that need every last FPS from their games. They'll be totally on-board with an iGPU.



I care more about money than E-peen, its a really simple decision.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> No, it's worse than that, at least in gaming.  IPC is better though, leading me to believe firmware issues may be limiting its potential.
> 
> 
> Do you think the gaming performance deficit could be partially rooted in buggy firmware?



That's part of it :














						Houston, we have BIOS Problems: The Rocket Lake [P]review
					

With the promise of up to 19% increased IPC, many Intel users – including myself – were excited to see what Rocket Lake might bring. Did Intel deliver? Keep reading.




					adoredtv.com
				







R-T-B said:


> Did you even read the review?
> 
> This resembles Ryzen 1 ram-speed wise.  A little better, but not much.



Memory setup is critical.  Computerbase.de talks about this, but the 11900K they had maxed out a 3733 Gear 1.  There was about a 4% FPS difference in games with DDR4-2933 Gear 1 vs DDR4-3200 Gear 2.  

So I think a lot of these reviews are giving different results due to a lack of experience of the reviewers with the new chips, how to configure their setups for them, and BIOS version issues.  Just look at that CS:GO chart.  That's over a 40% difference in fps from the BIOS, they concluded that something in the BIOS was greatly affecting memory latency.


----------



## Deleted member 190774 (Mar 31, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> I care more about money than E-peen, its a really simple decision.


Well at least we have something in common, in that I don't care about E-peen either. Money is not such an issue these days.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

Here's another example of the effect of gear 1 vs gear 2 on fps :


----------



## Hossein Almet (Mar 31, 2021)

What can you say, the 11900K was sold out last week here in OZ?


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 31, 2021)

Stay on-topic!
If needed report... do not do a retaliatory post, as, all that does is make the thread a mess.
Stop insulting other members.
Discuss the topic not each other.

Thank You and Have a Good Day


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Mar 31, 2021)

just like a rocket, hot and power hungry ...

what a mess intel made


----------



## rvalencia (Mar 31, 2021)

night.fox said:


> Temperature = Really Hot
> Power consumption = Really hungry chip
> 
> Performance? ......... meh.............


It has a rocket-like temperature.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 31, 2021)

Hossein Almet said:


> What can you say, the 11900K was sold out last week here in OZ?


It's not even released in Australia yet is it?
I see pre orders.


----------



## Platinum certified Husky (Mar 31, 2021)

OOOOOOOF. Just thinking about upgrading to 11th gen for PCIE 4.0 support, I even bought mid-high end z490 board for it.

FML¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 31, 2021)

metalfiber said:


> With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web* it has to be firmware.*


Why? You do realize this is Intel's first *major uarch overhaul on the desktop since 2015 *(2016?) & both Ian, Steves (HBU & GN) said that the BIOS has been out for these things, in the board makers' hands, for quite a while. In fact the last patch did increase performance as evidenced at AT. It's simply a case of Intel pushing this chip to its limits, heck if it wasn't for MCE & unlocked power limits you can bet your bottom dollar that it'd be nowhere close to where it is today. Buggy firmware is a result of a (near) complete overhaul from what we've seen *rehashed over & over again since Skylake*!


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 31, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Why? You do realize this is Intel's first *major uarch overhaul on the desktop since 2015 *(2016?) & both Ian, Steves (HBU & GN) said that the BIOS has been out for these things, in the board makers' hands, for quite a while. In fact the last patch did increase performance as evidenced at AT. It's simply a case of Intel pushing this chip to its limits, heck if it wasn't for MCE & unlocked power limits you can bet your bottom dollar that it'd be nowhere close to where it is today. Buggy firmware is a result of a (near) complete overhaul from what we've seen *rehashed over & over again since Skylake*!


I'm really not seeing anything refuting the statement you are seemingly addressing.  The bottom line is it takes a few releases to fix a buggy bios at this level.

I'm fairly confident the performance deficit in gaming vs aparent IPC is firmware related too but time will show.


----------



## pandemonium (Mar 31, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.
> 
> If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.



Perfectly valid reason to justify spending so much money on a CPU!


----------



## GoldenX (Mar 31, 2021)

vanishs14 said:


> Best thing about Intel CPUs is you dont need a dGPU to make them work nor only limit your selection to APUs from AMD.
> 
> If youre building a computer right now and you dont already have a GPU then there is zero value in any AMD CPU currently.


lol, best excuse so far.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 31, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> IPC is better though, leading me to believe firmware issues may be limiting its potential.


Only thing I can imagine to impact performance coming from the firmware is the boost algorithm but that seems to work just fine. I think Sunny Cove just wasn't that great.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 31, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Only thing I can imagine to impact performance coming from the firmware is the boost algorithm but that seems to work just fine. I think Sunny Cove just wasn't that great.


There's a lot more than the boost algorithm at play there.

Did we already forget when Skylake lost gaming performance vs Haswell because the firmware was setting the FCLK too low?

Many things can happen there.


----------



## Hossein Almet (Mar 31, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> It's not even released in Australia yet is it?
> I see pre orders.


Here...


----------



## Arcdar (Mar 31, 2021)

thanks for this "excessive" piece of art - as always very well written and it's obvious how much work you actually put into all your reviews  (in addition to your "side tasks" and moving to the new test platform and everything  )


----------



## DonKnotts (Mar 31, 2021)

B-Real said:


> Really? Here, you can buy RX 570 4GB for $200-215 (= at least NEAR its MSRP) which is faster than the 1650 that is available from $291. Buy it and you can sell it with small loss when mining craze ends.


Well you're lucky.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 31, 2021)

Took 5 pages of fanboyism for a moderator to step in. Good God. Can we reduce that to 1 next time?


----------



## ent (Mar 31, 2021)

Well those CPUs are disappointing, but I guess most people expected this. Not much to add here.

I have a question about test setup/testing procedure tho.  I was looking at SPI 32M results in this review and one thing caught my eye. If you compare those 2:

*11900K review*






*5800X review*





You can see that all Zen2 based CPUs are about 2,5 minute slower in the graph from 11900K review compared to 5800X review. I assume those tests were re-run as test setups differ between both reviews (different AGESA, different Windows 10 version). It seems to me that Zen2 SuperPi 32M results in 5800X review are the results from the time reviews for Zen2 were published and were not rerun for Zen3 launch. Of course SuperPi 32M is quite outdated benchmark and it can behave strangely on modern SW and HW, but those results are still surprising to me. Especially that Zen3 results are not affected by whatever breaks Zen2 scores, if you look at SuperPi 32M results from 11900K review it seems that 5800X needs HALF the time 3700X needs to calculate 32M. I know IPC gains between Zen2 and Zen3 were significant, but those should not be that huge.

As a 3900X owner I actually see the same issue (my SuperPi 32M just got approx. 2:30 slower) on my system and I am quite puzzled what causes this (especially seeing that Zen 3 is not affected). I tried to dig into system settings to fix this somehow with no luck, but I did not look into downgrading AGESA/Windows versions yet.

Does anyone have any hints? Otherwise maybe it is time to retire SuperPi 32M from benchmark list, as it seems to be very unreliable?


----------



## Lomskij (Mar 31, 2021)

Not to join Intel bashing here, but in the UK 11900k is priced at £560 vs £420 for 5800x. I'd need a very compelling reason to buy Intel at this moment..


----------



## Jism (Mar 31, 2021)

Completely misleading TDP. "125W" and yet consuming over 200W easily on multithreaded. Why cant they stick with the model of AMD where TDP is pretty much as advertised.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 31, 2021)

Jism said:


> Completely misleading TDP. "125W" and yet consuming over 200W easily on multithreaded. Why cant they stick with the model of AMD where TDP is pretty much as advertised.


Because advertising their TDP from boost clock would make their CPUs less compelling than they already are.


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 31, 2021)

Lomskij said:


> *Not to join Intel bashing here*, but in the UK 11900k is priced at £560 vs £420 for 5800x. I'd need a very compelling reason to buy Intel at this moment..


Bashing Intel is perfectly acceptable.  Sticking up for Intel is considered trolling.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Mar 31, 2021)

Why_Me said:


> Sticking up for Intel is considered trolling.


Few people in this thread could use that information.


----------



## laszlo (Mar 31, 2021)

Intel today launched its 11th Generation Core "Failed Lake" 

i really don't understand why they've wasted money to make this on 14nm ... but seems they have a lot of $ for now... scalpers won't buy these for sure ..


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2021)

ent said:


> You can see that all Zen2 based CPUs are about 2,5 minute slower in the graph from 11900K review compared to 5800X review


Could be new AGESA. Maybe boosting behavior changed again, or core placement. since it's a 1-core load, it might end up on a slower core. 

Or my change in memory settings. 3800CL16 with IF at 1700 is probably slower than 3200CL14 with IF at 1600 1:1. But running one platform at 3200CL14 vs the other at 3800 CL16 will cause tons of drama, especially with people who don't understand all the details. 

Maybe I should have just stuck with 3200CL14, for everything, but there were SO MANY complaints


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Maybe I should have just stuck with 3200CL14, for everything, but there were SO MANY complaints


Would have probably been better, yes, just like RandallFlagg mentioned and we also know who was complaining...(namely a particular, errr...overzealous group to say the least)


----------



## Showman (Mar 31, 2021)

B-Real said:


> ASRock B450 PRO4  - 30 dollárért, 5600X-  ért - 15 dollárral kevesebb, közel azonos CPU-teljesítmény mellett, miközben 2 magja kevesebb, és körülbelül FÉL annyi energiát fogyaszt, mint az 11700. %.


You forget it’s at a starting price of 11,700, compared to the 5600X on the market for half a year.
And that also qualifies you for looking at the price of the 5600X msrp, even though you can’t get it anywhere for that much.
Then only the OC that is important to the few remains the object of your struggle? And consumption?


----------



## 1d10t (Mar 31, 2021)

Why_Me said:


> And as of today the AMD 3600 is out of stock on both Newegg and Amazon and not expected to be back in stock until the third week of April.  lol








Try refresh your browser


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 31, 2021)

And you should try refreshing your reading comprehension! He talked about the 3600, not the 5600x (which you can now occasionally (if you are very diligent in refreshing your pages indeed), almost 6 months after release finally get at the MSRP, hurrah!). And he was right in his point too - AMD has currently pretty much zero (sensible) options for a budget-mid range build!


----------



## ent (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Could be new AGESA. Maybe boosting behavior changed again, or core placement. since it's a 1-core load, it might end up on a slower core.
> 
> Or my change in memory settings. 3800CL16 with IF at 1700 is probably slower than 3200CL14 with IF at 1600 1:1. But running one platform at 3200CL14 vs the other at 3800 CL16 will cause tons of drama, especially with people who don't understand all the details.
> 
> Maybe I should have just stuck with 3200CL14, for everything, but there were SO MANY complaints


Thanks for your reply.

It could be AGESA version indeed. If that is the case it would be great if AMD could say something about this, as it seems to affect only Zen2 and not Zen3, so I guess it is not "working as intended". All Zen3 SuperPi 32M runs I saw are in the 6:00-6:30 range, while for Zen2 in the old days SuperPi 32M was able to finish in about 8:00-8:30, now all runs are taking longer than 11:00. Keep in mind 2700x was calculating 32M of SuperPi in about 9:30 (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-2700x/5.html), so 8:00-8:30 seems about right for Zen2.

I actually run into this post: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...st-windows-10-20h2.275152/page-2#post-4401000 which suggests that Windows 10 20H2 update is the culprit, but I did not verify this yet.

On my Zen2 system I tested quite extensively different CPU affinities for SuperPi as well as different power plans and different process priorities and those seem to have small impact (at least compared to 2:30 gap we are seeing). I am also running same mem speed and IF speed as previously (1867 1:1) and the gap is still there. So based on my own personal tests I would lean to say it is neither memory nor problem with assigning fastest core, of course I could be wrong.....

Sorry for off-topic, but this issue is bothering me for quite a while and now I found a confirmation that there is indeed something wrong with SuperPi 32M on Zen2 thanks to this review. I guess I need to find some time to test different builds of Windows 10 and possibly try to downgrade BIOS on my mobo to see if any of those could solve the issue. It just seems very strange to me that those times degraded just like that.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2021)

ent said:


> So based on my own personal tests I would lean to say it is neither memory nor problem with assigning fastest core, of course I could be wrong.....


There goes my theory 



ent said:


> Sorry for off-topic, but this issue is bothering me for quite a while and now I found a confirmation that there is indeed something wrong with SuperPi 32M on Zen2 thanks to this review. I guess I need to find some time to test different builds of Windows 10 and possibly try to downgrade BIOS on my mobo to see if any of those could solve the issue. It just seems very strange to me that those times degraded just like that.


Keep me updated please, email, PM or Skype is fine, too.

Have you tried downgrading the BIOS?


----------



## Forza.Milan (Mar 31, 2021)

not bad


----------



## ent (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Have you tried downgrading the BIOS?


Nope, did not try it yet. Actually not sure how far back someone can go safely on X570, I think there were some limitations with downgrading BIOS.

I will let you know if I figure out something.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Could be new AGESA. Maybe boosting behavior changed again, or core placement. since it's a 1-core load, it might end up on a slower core.
> 
> Or my change in memory settings. 3800CL16 with IF at 1700 is probably slower than 3200CL14 with IF at 1600 1:1. But running one platform at 3200CL14 vs the other at 3800 CL16 will cause tons of drama, especially with people who don't understand all the details.
> 
> Maybe I should have just stuck with 3200CL14, for everything, but there were SO MANY complaints



In a sense it doesn't matter.  Different sites use different memory setups, different motherboards, both of which can affect performance 1-5% and can compound.  That is enough to knock almost any of the top CPUs from middle of the pack to the top, or from the top to the middle.  

In my experience most do not even look at the test setup.   People who haven't looked at that really just don't know what they are looking at, charts are nice but they really are only half the story.  There's nothing wrong with the test setup really, it is what it is, it's people not looking at it to see what the charts are really telling them.  

Example-

TPU uses Asus Maximus XIII Hero Z590.  

Here's SOTR from the MB review.  This is -5% from the best performing motherboard :





This board has good memory bandwidth which positively affects many productivity apps.

However it is one of the worst for latency, which negatively affects games,  This combined with gear 2 settings explains the better than normal app performance on TPU vs worse than normal gaming performance.  

So basically the TPU test system is built to perform well on bandwidth hungry apps, but does poorly on latency sensitive games, from what I can tell.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> So basically the TPU test system is built to perform well on bandwidth hungry apps, but does poorly on latency sensitive games, from what I can tell.


Interesting hypothesis. Nate is using a different board/memory/CPU though, he's in the States, I'm in Germany. 

Intel provided the ASUS motherboard to me. ASRock provided a Z590 Taichi, but I can't use it because it has no option to turn set power limit to default. You can only type in numbers, but for that you have to know the default PL values first


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 31, 2021)

ent said:


> Well those CPUs are disappointing, but I guess most people expected this. Not much to add here.
> 
> I have a question about test setup/testing procedure tho.  I was looking at SPI 32M results in this review and one thing caught my eye. If you compare those 2:
> 
> ...



So I just ran Super PI 32m on my 5800X system and here is my result


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Interesting hypothesis. Nate is using a different board/memory/CPU though, he's in the States, I'm in Germany.
> 
> Intel provided the ASUS motherboard to me. ASRock provided a Z590 Taichi, but I can't use it because it has no option to turn set power limit to default. You can only type in numbers, but for that you have to know the default PL values first



I'm just saying, a CPU review can never be just a CPU review.  It's always a review of the chosen configuration.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I'm just saying, a CPU review can never be just a CPU review.  It's always a review of the chosen configuration.


Yup, and if even Intel themselves fail to provide a proper config, their loss


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Yup, and if even Intel themselves fail to provide a proper config, their loss


Meh. You put CPU in board, changed settings, ran tests, same as anyone else might do with any CPU. That's how we use 'em, right?

 Intel shouldn't give configurations at any point except if they are presenting the results themselves.


----------



## Tom Sunday (Mar 31, 2021)

Tom Sunday said:


> I love pancakes and all the way back to IHOP! I would however say that opinions or 'words of wisdom' between Intel and AMD will never go away. The majority of Intel followers over the years will always stick with Intel no matter what and just like the AMD crowd doing their continuing thing. Pricing will also not matter as once someone with deep pockets and who actually has an easy $600 to shell-out for a CPU, for him $100 here or there does not really matter. With more smooth marketing and future commentaries by the "influencers" to come, will then further do its bidding and as many new so-called comparative test will surely then show conflicting results to confuse us even more.


The "influencers have arrived" and as I mentioned yesterday in my previous post. Conflictiing testing commentaries, opinions and reports prevail now that the Intel CPU saga broke loose. Suggest to having a look at WCCFTECH and its "Executive Review: How Does Intel’s Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD’s Ryzen 5800X." Some key comments there noted that Rocket Lake marks Intel as being very competitive with AMD again (up to 8 cores at any rate) and depending on supply, could see that Intel very well will defend its position with also (finally) a PCIe 4.0 platform in its ranks!"

What we need to remember is that certain 'review sites' are tainted and as manufacturers are placing income producing ads with them and thus reviewers are told to be more cooperative. And money in ones pocket always wins and as the site-owners want those advertisers to come back and not getting ruffled  with questionable or even bad reviews. I am quite sure that many here will not appreciate me saying this, but it's a stark reality. I also see this happening in many tech and gaming magazines as well where certain products or manufacturers corporate statements get preferred treatment and positions. Therefore I always read at least a dozen or so important reviews of the many competing sites available to form my own oipnion. Besides its my own money at stake.

To be sure I am not  a fanboy either way but rather a daytime investor. Made some quick and real money with AMD in a short 8-months time last year and now my AMD windfall in 2021 riding on Intel waiting for their 4th quarter to arrive. So there you have it with me having a motive as well and it's all with having money in my pocket as well.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Yup, and if even Intel themselves fail to provide a proper config, their loss



Intel did not force you to use DDR4-3800 gear 2.  Not guaranteed to work on either system.  You decided to do that due to pressure from the AMD community.

This is what happens when you use 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 CL16 gear 1 on Z590 Rog Maximus Hero XII and 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL 16 with X570 Aorus Master.  Both systems are running memory synchronously.  

It's actually far, far more likely that a typical DIY type will use this config.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 31, 2021)

And you sound like a typical* Intel fan/apologist ~* are you now gonna blame system instability, observed by many reviewers, on "AMD community" as well


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> And you sound like a typical* Intel fan/apologist ~* are you now gonna blame system instability, observed by many reviewers, on "AMD community" as well



This kind of drivel is exactly why TPU did what it did with memory selection.  Enjoy the clicks, and ignorance, that this approach promotes.


----------



## KarymidoN (Mar 31, 2021)

Gmr_Chick said:


> All this talk about food...maybe Intel should consider going into the restaurant business and opening their own chain of diners? They could call it Rocket Lake Grill and rather than use grills/stoves to cook the food, they'd use OCed 11900K's!
> 
> Also, Intel, KFC just called. They wanna use a bunch of 11900K's to start cooking their chicken


That KFC Console makes more Sense now than EVER!


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 31, 2021)

I can show you 10 different reviews showing 10 different results! Why do you assume yours is the only right one? And goodluck asking every DIY builder for their approach, you’re just guessing on behalf of over a million different people


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 31, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> Why do you assume yours is the only right one?


I am not



cadaveca said:


> Intel shouldn't give configurations at any point except if they are presenting the results themselves.


For the record, Intel clearly said "you are free to use any other motherboard", and they did not recommend any specific settings, benchmarks or anything else


----------



## HenrySomeone (Mar 31, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Intel did not force you to use DDR4-3800 gear 2.  Not guaranteed to work on either system.  You decided to do that due to pressure from the AMD community.
> 
> This is what happens when you use 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 CL16 gear 1 on Z590 Rog Maximus Hero XII and 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL 16 with X570 Aorus Master.  Both systems are running memory synchronously.
> 
> ...


Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Mar 31, 2021)

Why anyone would buy this over the AMD CPU is beyond me.  I still have an 8700k and it is not worth upgrading yet.  But when I do I will be making the switch to AMD.


----------



## Why_Me (Mar 31, 2021)

1d10t said:


> Try refresh your browser


My post was in reference to the 3600 and btw that's for instore pickup only. There's less than a dozen US states that have a microcenter store.


----------



## OSdevr (Mar 31, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.
> View attachment 194750


I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Mar 31, 2021)

OSdevr said:


> I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.



I'm pretty sure that was a typo.  Look at the chart.  Stock 10900K is scoring 10% below the geomean "ABT on" stock 11900K.  There's a very clear tiering going on in that chart too, with three tiers.  The lone stock 10600K at the bottom, Zen 3 and 10900K + OC 10600K in the middle, and RKL at the top with an OC 11600K and hobbled (ABT off) 11900K bridging the gap from the middle to top tier.  The OC 10900K also makes the grade in that top tier.


----------



## Makaveli (Mar 31, 2021)

OSdevr said:


> I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.



At the end of the day it all just splitting hairs. People will argue all day over a spread of 10fps when both are over 100 fps. No one will notice this difference unless you are looking at a fps counter instead of playing your games.

We not talking about playable vs non playable performance, pages and pages of mental gymnastics here for alot of posters for nothing if you ask me.


----------



## regs (Mar 31, 2021)

Crazy_O said:


> FAIL CPU OF THE YEAR.


At the same time 11400F looks to be CPU of the year.


----------



## chrcoluk (Mar 31, 2021)

kapone32 said:


> So it's a 9900K with PCIe 4.0 support?


Not sure about that, the 9900k uses waaaaay less power lol.


----------



## OSdevr (Mar 31, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I'm pretty sure that was a typo.  Look at the chart.  Stock 10900K is scoring 10% below the geomean "ABT on" stock 11900K.  There's a very clear tiering going on in that chart too, with three tiers.  The lone stock 10600K at the bottom, Zen 3 and 10900K + OC 10600K in the middle, and RKL at the top with an OC 11600K and hobbled (ABT off) 11900K bridging the gap from the middle to top tier.  The OC 10900K also makes the grade in that top tier.


The price is different too. Maybe the reviewer was just lazy.


Makaveli said:


> At the end of the day it all just splitting hairs. People will argue all day over a spread of 10fps when both are over 100 fps. No one will notice this difference unless you are looking at a fps counter instead of playing your games.
> 
> We not talking about playable vs non playable performance, pages and pages of mental gymnastics here for alot of posters for nothing if you ask me.


It's not a lot but that 8% is a significant difference in light of TPU's own review.


----------



## ryun (Mar 31, 2021)

I saw a minor wrinkle with this review on the "Temperatures" section: The test setup says "Noctua NH-U*14*S" but the temp graph says "Noctua NH-U*12*S - Lower is Better". You guys should fix that, especially it's so easy to share that image.

Great review as always. Thanks so much for going so in depth.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 1, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.
> View attachment 194750



Ah yes, bar graphs... But, tell me something, if the human eye can only see the difference between, say, 60 FPS and 30 FPS, and ALL of the CPUs listed in this graph (lowest being the 10600K @ 100.63) are clearly ABOVE that 60 FPS threshold, what difference does it truly make if the top Intel CPU (11900K) got 122.85 and the top AMD CPU (5900X) got 114.37? Unless you have superhuman eyesight, your eyes aren't gonna notice a lick of difference.


----------



## GoldenX (Apr 1, 2021)

Gmr_Chick said:


> Ah yes, bar graphs... But, tell me something, if the human eye can only see the difference between, say, 60 FPS and 30 FPS, and ALL of the CPUs listed in this graph (lowest being the 10600K @ 100.63) are clearly ABOVE that 60 FPS threshold, what difference does it truly make if the top Intel CPU (11900K) got 122.85 and the top AMD CPU (5900X) got 114.37? Unless you have superhuman eyesight, your eyes aren't gonna notice a lick of difference.


Power bills at the end of the month.

Now for real, the human eye can discern very high framerate, as long as you use a high framerate display.


----------



## 1d10t (Apr 1, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> And you should try refreshing your reading comprehension! He talked about the 3600, not the 5600x (which you can now occasionally (if you are very diligent in refreshing your pages indeed), almost 6 months after release finally get at the MSRP, hurrah!). And he was right in his point too - AMD has currently pretty much zero (sensible) options for a budget-mid range build!





Why_Me said:


> My post was in reference to the 3600 and btw that's for instore pickup only. There's less than a dozen US states that have a microcenter store.



I find this very interesting, replying and upvoting each other. Is there any chance that both of you are just the same person? Or worst just some alternate account? 

Back on topic, it seems Intel would get away with this simply because of competitive absences. They don't have to make a good product, just *exist**.  *Another possibility is portfolio, they has to had anything in 2021. It's funny because there are still many who deemed this as "worth" when obviously Intel made this just to satisfy OEMs


----------



## Why_Me (Apr 1, 2021)

1d10t said:


> *I find this very interesting, replying and upvoting each other. Is there any chance that both of you are just the same person? Or worst just some alternate account?*
> 
> Back on topic, it seems Intel would get away with this simply because of competitive absences. They don't have to make a good product, just *exist**.  *Another possibility is portfolio, they has to had anything in 2021. It's funny because there are still many who deemed this as "worth" when obviously Intel made this just to satisfy OEMs


Not sure what you were expecting when you quoted my post about the 3600 not being available to replying to said post by not only linking to a 5600X but an in store pickup at Microcenter.  btw google 'IP address' if and when you have time.  With that said yes I agree that the Rocket Lake release was a bit disappointing but I still see the 11400F along with the 11700F having decent sales due to price and availability.


----------



## btk2k2 (Apr 1, 2021)

metalfiber said:


> With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web it has to be firmware.



It could be different reviewers using different PL1 / PL2 settings with different Tau expiry and different benchmark lengths.

Even if two reviewers use Intels specified figures rather than the motherboard defaults if reviewer A does a 30s game benchmark and another does a 5 minute game benchmark the average FPS at 720p is going to be lower in the latter because that longer test goes past the full turbo mode and your average clockspeed for the run is lower.

On top of that RKL does well in some games and there is genuine improvement so if a reviewer has a game course that happens to include a lot of games where RKL does better than average you get a better result.

This means the variability in reviews can easily come down to different methodology and different games. I tend to prefer reviewers who very clearly explain their methodology so TPU, GN, HUB(TechSpot), Anand, ComputerBase are my goto reviewers.



RandallFlagg said:


> Intel did not force you to use DDR4-3800 gear 2.  Not guaranteed to work on either system.  You decided to do that due to pressure from the AMD community.
> 
> This is what happens when you use 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 CL16 gear 1 on Z590 Rog Maximus Hero XII and 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL 16 with X570 Aorus Master.  Both systems are running memory synchronously.
> 
> ...



3800 C16 is a pretty common and easy to achieve setup for both Intel and AMD, or at least was until Intel changed their IMC. Further this tester released videos of their benchmark scenes (really good idea) and if the benchmark is actually exactly as the videos play out most are sub 60 seconds so all take place in the turbo window at Intels PL1/PL2/Tau settings which will inflate the Intel numbers. They also use different motherboards for 10th gen and 11th gen Intels so it is not as like for like in the generational comparison as you could get. Also 2x 16GB vs 4x 8GB seems like an unnecessary difference when you could run 4x 8GB or 2x 16GB in both AMD and Intel rigs.

On top of this HUB and GN who use 4x 3200C14 ram had very different results with the 10900k being ahead of the 11900k in the HUB 10 game average.





Also with all the crud CapFrameX was spouting on Twitter and over at ComputerBase forums I would not trust their results as much as the likes of GN, HUB, TPU, AnandTech and ComputerBase.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 1, 2021)

btk2k2 said:


> using different PL1 / PL2 settings with different Tau expiry


for the record, i'm using default PL settings in the normal run, I double and triple check. With today's motherboards it's super easy to end up running at max PL by accident



btk2k2 said:


> if reviewer A does a 30s game benchmark and another does a 5 minute game benchmark the average FPS at 720p is going to be lower in the latter because that longer test goes past the full turbo mode and your average clockspeed for the run is lower.


this is very important, also for app tests. also time between benchmarks matters for turbo budget to "refresh". also integrated benchmarks vs actual gameplay



ryun said:


> I saw a minor wrinkle with this review on the "Temperatures" section: The test setup says "Noctua NH-U*14*S" but the temp graph says "Noctua NH-U*12*S - Lower is Better". You guys should fix that, especially it's so easy to share that image.


bah, thank you so much, this is fixed now


----------



## birdie (Apr 1, 2021)

john_ said:


> It's funny, or sad, that most of those positive points in the conclusion, are either not positive points at all (being unlocked in a world of unlocked competitive products it's not positive, it should be a prerequisite), or positive points that are almost totally negated when looking at the negative points list (for example PCIe 4.0, but only for M.2, AVX512 but minimal software support etc. )



Each new extended instruction set at launch has had very little software. Each of them, including the original MMX extensions (how many people here are old enough to remember them?) I'll go out on a limb and say that @W1zzard is quite unfair here.
Absolute most people out there have the only disk drive and again absolute most people are more than OK even with SATA SSD drives which peak at ~550MB/sec read/write speeds. This obsessions with PCI-E 4.0 looks quite morbid to me. I mean your favourite game now loads in 12 seconds instead of 13 with a PCI-E 3.0 drive - is it too much of a difference?
Rocket Lake is more a PoC rather than an actual line-up which is further proven by the fact that Intel has chosen not to release Core i3/Pentium and Celeron CPUs based on it.
Speaking of heat: OC'ing almost always involves a lot of extra heat - I don't quite understand why you've mentioned it as a negative.
Performance is all over the place but a 8-core RKL CPU is generally quite faster than an 8-core CML CPU, a singificant IPC increase is right there - *has @W1zzard even mentioned that RKL is the first desktop Intel CPU in five years to feature an IPC increase*? All the CPUs between Sky Lake and Comet Lake share the same core (sans HW mitigations) and are almost completely the same in terms of IPC.
If you're looking for shortcomings, you'll find them. If you're looking for a good testbed for upcoming Alder Lake CPUs, you've found it. It's amazing how many likes your post have gathered - and I'm pretty sure most of those people are AMD fans, only it's weird to find them here in this discussion.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 1, 2021)

birdie said:


> Each new extended instruction set at launch has had very little software. Each of them, including the original MMX extensions (how many people here are old enough to remember them?) I'll go out on a limb and say that @W1zzard is quite unfair here.


Did we read the same review?

What could bring *big wins* for Intel is the newfound love for AVX512 and DLBoost—extensions that have been available for years but never made it to the desktop. At this time, software support for either of those instruction sets is extremely limited, and they are not useful. *I am convinced that they can offer tangible benefits* once adoption rates go up, though. Remember AVX—everybody said it's a useless tech that's not needed as "we already have SSE"; today, a lot of apps and games *use AVX, also because of excellent compiler support*. Using these new instructions is often as *simple *as checking a box that tells the compiler it may optimize with AVX instructions—that's it. The hard work will be done by the compiler, you don't have to mess with hand-coded assembly instructions. Today, all this doesn't matter as consumer won't be needing AVX-512 for a couple of years at least. That said, Rocket Lake *can be a cost-effective option* for researchers and industry professionals who want to use these new instructions to speed up their calculations, but don't want to pay up for the expensive Xeons.


----------



## Tom Sunday (Apr 1, 2021)

metalfiber said:


> With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web....


The "influencers have arrived" and as I mentioned yesterday in my previous post. Conflictiing testing commentaries, opinions and reports prevail now that the Intel CPU saga broke loose. Suggest to having a look at WCCFTECH and its "Executive Review: How Does Intel’s Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD’s Ryzen 5800X." Some key comments there noted that Rocket Lake marks Intel as being very competitive with AMD again (up to 8 cores at any rate) and depending on supply, could see that Intel very well will defend its position with also (finally) a PCIe 4.0 platform in its ranks!"

What we need to remember is that certain 'review sites' are tainted and as manufacturers are placing income producing ads with them and thus "reviewers" are told to be more cooperative. And money in ones pocket always wins and as the site-owners want those advertisers to come back and not getting ruffled with questionable or even bad reviews. I am quite sure that many here will not appreciate me saying this, but it's a stark reality. I also see this happening in many tech and gaming magazines as well where certain products or manufacturers corporate statements get preferred treatment and positions. Therefore I always read at least a dozen or so important reviews within the many other competing sites available to form my own oipnion. Besides its my own money at stake.

To be sure I am not a fanboy either way but rather a daytime investor. Made some quick and real money with AMD in a short 8-months time last year and now my AMD windfall in 2021 riding on Intel waiting for their 4th quarter to arrive. So there you have it with me having a motive as well and it's all with having money in my pocket as well.


----------



## birdie (Apr 1, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Did we read the same review?
> 
> What could bring *big wins* for Intel is the newfound love for AVX512 and DLBoost—extensions that have been available for years but never made it to the desktop. At this time, software support for either of those instruction sets is extremely limited, and they are not useful. [...] That said, Rocket Lake can be a cost-effective option for researchers and industry professionals who want to use these new instructions to speed up their calculations, but don't want to pay up for the expensive Xeons.


It wasn't about your review, it was about the person who made all the positives negatives.  _"Intel now has AVX512 in a desktop CPU line-up?  Still a failure!"_

Speaking of AVX512: it's not prudent to expect more software for the extensions considering that they were previously enabled only in very expensive Xeon CPUs and Ice Lake CPUs were considered a failure and released in relatively small quantities and it wasn't a desktop CPU architecture and still isn't. With most previous extensions, Intel first pushed them in consumer products first. This time around it was the server products and consequently ISVs didn't rush to add support for the new extensions in their applications. AVX512 does have its use cases, though it's unlikely to become as versatile as e.g. SSE.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 1, 2021)

Tom Sunday said:


> The "influencers have arrived" and as I mentioned yesterday in my previous post. Conflictiing testing commentaries, opinions and reports prevail now that the Intel CPU saga broke loose. Suggest to having a look at WCCFTECH and its "Executive Review: How Does Intel’s Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD’s Ryzen 5800X." Some key comments there noted that Rocket Lake marks Intel as being very competitive with AMD again (up to 8 cores at any rate) and depending on supply, could see that Intel very well will defend its position with also (finally) a PCIe 4.0 platform in its ranks!"
> 
> What we need to remember is that certain 'review sites' are tainted and as manufacturers are placing income producing ads with them and thus "reviewers" are told to be more cooperative. And money in ones pocket always wins and as the site-owners want those advertisers to come back and not getting ruffled with questionable or even bad reviews. I am quite sure that many here will not appreciate me saying this, but it's a stark reality. I also see this happening in many tech and gaming magazines as well where certain products or manufacturers corporate statements get preferred treatment and positions. Therefore I always read at least a dozen or so important reviews within the many other competing sites available to form my own oipnion. Besides its my own money at stake.
> 
> To be sure I am not a fanboy either way but rather a daytime investor. Made some quick and real money with AMD in a short 8-months time last year and now my AMD windfall in 2021 riding on Intel waiting for their 4th quarter to arrive. So there you have it with me having a motive as well and it's all with having money in my pocket as well.



You forget to mention clicks.  Social media and ad revenue models have essentially made these sites beholden to the mob.   This perverts their analysis and reviews, it's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living.  

Just look at how many people threatened TPU with essentially de-funding them by blocking / removing them based on their Zen 3 tests, then badmouthed them in other forums.  This type of threat happens all the time on youtube, look at the comments.

If these sites say something that causes viewership to decline 20%, that's like taking a 20% pay cut.  No sane person is going to do that, hence they're going to have a huge bias to create content that their viewers want to see - tell people what they want to hear.  Numbers are numbers, so in one sense there's no deception, but there is perception manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results.  As one once put it, figures can lie, and liars can figure.    Buyer beware.


----------



## Deleted member 197223 (Apr 1, 2021)

Only came here for the H264/H265/rendering parts and it says it all to me at least.


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Apr 1, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> You forget to mention clicks.  Social media and ad revenue models have essentially made these sites beholden to the mob.   This perverts their analysis and reviews, it's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living.
> 
> Just look at how many people threatened TPU with essentially de-funding them by blocking / removing them based on their Zen 3 tests, then badmouthed them in other forums.  This type of threat happens all the time on youtube, look at the comments.
> 
> If these sites say something that causes viewership to decline 20%, that's like taking a 20% pay cut.  No sane person is going to do that, hence they're going to have a huge bias to create content that their viewers want to see - tell people what they want to hear.  Numbers are numbers, so in one sense there's no deception, but there is perception manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results.  As one once put it, figures can lie, and liars can figure.    Buyer beware.



I'll be on the lookout for The Walkin' Dude's Hardware Review Page.

Although, based on your comments in this thread, I'm not sure I'll be expecting any unbiased reporting.

Coming from someone who's used Intel predominantly over the last decade, the 11900k is an embarrassment.  It's overpriced, lost two cores, uses more power than most GPUs, and is the same price as the competition's 12 core part.


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 1, 2021)

weekendgeek said:


> Coming from someone who's used Intel predominantly over the last decade, the 11900k is an embarrassment.  It's overpriced, lost two cores, uses more power than most GPUs, and is the same price as the competition's 12 core part.



Personally, I think the 11900K is the only one worth buying of the lot, and it's far from an embarassment, but it's also impossible for it's market...

Single thread is amazing, and the latency is low.

Is capable of higher speed memory, but the only thing that will take advantage of that is the igpu, which is more power/heat. Who the hell is going to put this into an HTPC, or not use a dgpu for gaming in a tower?

I'm very curious what it's capable of with a large cooling loop and that new boost mode. 

re: AVX comments, AVX units are how I find my OC limits.


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 1, 2021)

I've come to the conclusion that this is basically performance competitive with the 5800x while using a lot more power.  The main problem is that it costs at least as much as a 5900x and is marketed as a replacement for the 10900k, which has two more cores.  As a 10700k, or maybe a 10750k it would make a lot more sense.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 1, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> tell people what they want to hear


I don't do that



RandallFlagg said:


> that causes viewership to decline 20%, that's like taking a 20% pay cut.


yet our readership keeps growing and growing. not many tech sites are bigger than TPU nowadays


			End of Service Notice


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 1, 2021)

weekendgeek said:


> I'll be on the lookout for The Walkin' Dude's Hardware Review Page.
> 
> Although, based on your comments in this thread, I'm not sure I'll be expecting any unbiased reporting.
> 
> Coming from someone who's used Intel predominantly over the last decade, the 11900k is an embarrassment.  It's overpriced, lost two cores, uses more power than most GPUs, and is the same price as the competition's 12 core part.



I've actually never stated my opinion on the 11900K vs others overall, only that many of the reviews are inherently bias.  Like someone else stated, I think it is competitive maybe even a little better than a 5800X depending on the use case, but as such it's way overpriced given that it is also far less efficient. 

At least for now until I learn more, that is my opinion.  It may change, as I'm following a more enthusiast centered thread on overclockers.net  So what does an 11900K with DDR4-4400 or DDR4-5200 look like?  Places like that, are where you'll find out what this new chip can really do.

Now the 11700K at $399 and the 11600K at $269, that's a different story.   They are beating 5600X and 5800X in price, and availability.  There appears to be some value there, although that is still murky until we see what happens with different memory and BIOS settings.

Of course, if you need lots of threads, 5900X and 5950X are still the right choices.



W1zzard said:


> I don't do that
> 
> 
> yet our readership keeps growing and growing. not many tech sites are bigger than TPU nowadays
> ...



You don't get to say that after you changed your test platform to the AMD recommended DDR4-3733 / 3800.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 1, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> You don't get to say that after you changed your test platform to the AMD recommended DDR4-3733 / 3800.


I didn't even know this was AMD recommended, are you sure? Given today's memory prices I felt like using faster memory was reasonable, especially given our enthusiast audience

Also I made the memory decision before having RKL hardware here, who could have expected that the MC is such a failure.. I probably would have picked 3600 CL14 or CL16 just to spare me from those FML moments last week


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 1, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> I didn't even know this was AMD recommended, are you sure? Given today's memory prices I felt like using faster memory was reasonable, especially given our enthusiast audience
> 
> Also I made the memory decision before having RKL hardware here, who could have expected that the MC is such a failure.. I probably would have picked 3600 CL14 or CL16 just to spare me from those FML moments last week



AMD has been recommending that for Zen 2 as the IF will usually go to 1900 on a good motherboard, so it can maintain 1:1   I'm not an AMD guy but AMD released this on one of their slides for enthusiasts.  My understanding from forum posts is that 2000 (DDR4-4000) is beyond most AMD rigs, but I see in forums where DDR4-3800 is widely used as the preferred choice for both Zen 2 and Zen 3. 

Thing is, with Comet Lake you can pretty easily run it up to DDR4-4400 or even higher.  So in that comparison, 3800 is an AMD stopping point on , not a stopping point for Intel.  There are people with 10900K's getting an extra 15% or more on fps testing using the even higher speed RAM.

Naturally anything above DDR4-3200 has an element of playing the chip lottery, for both platforms.






It's looking like with gear 2, a lot of people are getting DDR4-4800 and higher.  This nullifies the extra latency [caused by gear 2].


----------



## f.kurbuls (Apr 1, 2021)

B-Real said:


> Wow, is this Intel's worst CPU series ever?


Prescott? Wasn't it even greater cock-up?


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 1, 2021)

Memory speed is a tricky one.  In my view there are a few different ways to test things:

Stick to stock speeds/clocks with good latency (CL16 - commonly available, or CL14 - less available)  memory sticks.
Tune each platform for best performance on a given set of memory sticks (you could pick some reasonable mid-range, or some high end sticks for this and you would need to use motherboards in similar market segments for each platform as well).
Get some memory with higher than stock speed and enable XMP/DOCP.  The problem with doing this is you are then at the mercy of the bios and how conservative or aggressive the speed is for the platform.  It seems like DDR4-3600cl16 is still the sweet spot for this.  Any higher than that and you start running the chip / motherboard lottery too much (particularly on the AMD side, but now 11th gen intel struggles over 3200)
I doubt most people (even most enthusiasts) spend much time tuning memory voltages and timings to the limit, so this means (2) is an overclocking focused article / topic.

Just to give some background data, I have a 5800x and some 'b die' that can do at least DDR4-4000.  However, I run it at 3600 CL14.  If I go higher than that I need to do two things:

Increase SoC voltages.  This increases power/heat in the cpu.  Since my cpu is already power/heat limited this will likely lower boost clocks a little
I say likely since I have not measured this effect, but I can see a rather significant increase in SoC power consumption in HWInfo when going from 1600 to 1800 FCLK.

Increase latencies.  This somewhat negates the higher speeds.
Taken together I get basically no additional performance at DDR4-3800 instead of DDR4-3600.  I also ran into an issue with a few bios revisions where my board would not post at 1900 FCLK for 1:1 with 3800.  When pushing higher than 1900 FLCK with my chip I run into WHEA errors which I haven't managed to stabilize.  When I thought I had it reasonably close it wouldn't post maybe once in 5 attempts.   It's possible a more recent bios and some more tuning could get me up around 1933 or 1966, but the gains are almost immeasurable and I start needing to just push more voltage through everything to get it stable.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 2, 2021)

Intel make the 5600x look even better

5600x: 134W 
11900k: 433W

performance difference at 1440p: 0.7%


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 2, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> ASRock provided a Z590 Taichi, but I can't use it because it has no option to turn set power limit to default. You can only type in numbers, but for that you have to know the default PL values first


Just a thought based on Throttlestop's workings, type in 0 and it allows max PL, type in a random high figure such as all 8's and it gets ignored and goes to default PL, maybe this will work on the Taichi too.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

Mussels said:


> Intel make the 5600x look even better
> 
> 5600x: 134W
> 11900k: 433W
> ...



Not too good at reading charts are ya.

You have to run the 11900K with asynch memory 1:2 vs the 5600X at 1:1 *and* adaptive boost off to get those numbers.  In other words, you can almost but not quite cripple the 11900K into dropping to the level of a 5600X by doing such a funky config. 

Alternately, you can save $100 on that DDR4-3800, get DDR4-3200C14 instead, and get 1.7% higher than the 5800X that is running DDR4-3800.   This is from TPU's own chart.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Not too good at reading charts are ya.
> 
> You have to run the 11900K with asynch memory 1:2 vs the 5600X at 1:1 *and* adaptive boost off to get those numbers.  In other words, you can almost but not quite cripple the 11900K into dropping to the level of a 5600X by doing such a funky config.
> 
> Alternately, you can save $100 on that DDR4-3800, get DDR4-3200C14 instead, and get 1.7% higher than the 5800X that is running DDR4-3800.   This is from TPU's own chart.


i didnt feel like quoting every single number, the review does that nicely

These chips are incredibly power hungry for no benefit


----------



## Deleted member 202104 (Apr 2, 2021)

Mussels said:


> These chips are incredibly power hungry for no benefit



Yes they are.

The 11900k trails the 5800x in Cinebench 23 multi by 2190 points while using *85 additional watts* and costs an _*additional $100.*_

It also trails the 10900k by 779 points while needing 14 watts more to do so.

The 11900k did what nobody else could - made the 5800x look like a bargain at $450.

Yay Intel!


----------



## RealKGB (Apr 2, 2021)

It's FX all over again.
Wanna bet the (possible) 11980XE will thermal throttle under load and we'll have to LN2 cool it?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

weekendgeek said:


> Yes they are.
> 
> The 11900k trails the 5800x in Cinebench 23 multi by 2190 points while using *85 additional watts* and costs an _*additional $100.*_
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's really $170 more at least at retail right now vs the 5800X and that's really the issues it's both more expensive than the 10900k and the 5800X while being worse in a lot of ways... That's the real problem I see for the $400+ rocket lake chips there is just too many better options both from AMD and Intel themselves.... Maybe they should have renamed this sku to the intel fanboi edtion or the milk our diehard fans edition... I owned a 9900k and loved it and even the 10700k is pretty nice to work with but this seems like a shitshow that doesn't deserve the i9 branding.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Not too good at reading charts are ya.
> 
> You have to run the 11900K with asynch memory 1:2 vs the 5600X at 1:1 *and* adaptive boost off to get those numbers.  In other words, you can almost but not quite cripple the 11900K into dropping to the level of a 5600X by doing such a funky config.
> 
> Alternately, you can save $100 on that DDR4-3800, get DDR4-3200C14 instead, and get 1.7% higher than the 5800X that is running DDR4-3800.   This is from TPU's own chart.


Even more importantly, that certainly *isn't *gaming power consumption! This site was one of the rare ones that always had those figures and now they're gone (I can only imagine why) and I actually can't find them anywhere else either (well, I'm sure they are somewhere if I was to look long enough, but that's not the point).


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> I don't do that



No matter what you do you will never make everyone happy..... Intel fanboys will say unless you're running 4400+ with CL17 or lower  your benchmarks are irrelevant and AMD fanboys will say unless you're  running 3800 CL14 with uber tight timings you're catering to intel fanboys.






RandallFlagg said:


> It's looking like with gear 2, a lot of people are getting DDR4-4800 and higher.  This nullifies the extra latency [caused by gear 2].
> 
> View attachment 194873



Still pretty terrible latency compared to previous intel arch's especially considering its running at 1000mhz higher vs my kit. Guessing that's a 2x8 kit vs this 4x8 kit others can get to low 30ns on intel's previous gen parts so 48ns isn't very impressive for 5000mhz memory.  My guess is the biggest culprit to latency is intel having to backport this to 14nm I guess we will see when Alderlake comes out later this year on 10nm.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 2, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> Just a thought based on Throttlestop's workings, type in 0 and it allows max PL, type in a random high figure such as all 8's and it gets ignored and goes to default PL, maybe this will work on the Taichi too.


tried that, typing higher than maximum goes to maximun, typing 0 isnt allowed ...



HenrySomeone said:


> Even more importantly, that certainly *isn't *gaming power consumption! This site was one of the rare ones that always had those figures and now they're gone (I can only imagine why) and I actually can't find them anywhere else either (well, I'm sure they are somewhere if I was to look long enough, but that's not the point).


Yeah .. so for the new test bench i'm using a 3080, previously I used a 2080 Ti. This means retest all gaming power consumption, so I setup Cyberpunk instead of Witcher, more modern and everything.. but fail, I forgot to test gaming power draw while restesting the 40 or-so CPUs I have in the test group, and then didn't have the time to go back and retest all of them until launch. So I just dropped the gaming power measurement, for now, it will definitely be back.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> No matter what you do you will never make everyone happy..... Intel fanboys will say unless you're running 4400+ with CL17 or lower  your benchmarks are irrelevant and AMD fanboys will say unless you're  running 3800 CL14 with uber tight timings you're catering to intel fanboys.



Yeah, nobody said that.  Results on either platform using 3800+ are irrelevant to most users, though many do not realize that.  If you run DDR4-3200 C16 like 80% of DIY types use, you'll get entirely different results.  

IMO anything over 3600 C18 is getting into the hardcore enthusiast space, you're starting to talk about RAM that is twice (and higher) as expensive as the more common modules. In fact, if you use the more common 3200 C14/C16, Comet lake is quite frequently the winner.

The thing is, if you're going to go up into the more expensive RAM why stop at 3800?  Like I said before, that is an AMD optimal speed, not an Intel one.  Only people who are pushing the limits to get the last 5% of so out of their rig are going to buy that in the first place, and if they do their research Intel owners won't  be buying that speed.  




oxrufiioxo said:


> Still pretty terrible latency compared to previous intel arch's especially considering its running at 1000mhz higher vs my kit. Guessing that's a 2x8 kit vs this 4x8 kit others can get to low 30ns on intel's previous gen parts so 48ns isn't very impressive for 5000mhz memory.  My guess is the biggest culprit to latency is intel having to backport this to 14nm I guess we will see when Alderlake comes out later this year on 10nm.
> View attachment 194946



That's not known yet, what the optimal settings are for RKL memory.  

I'm seeing people get crazy high frequencies with gear 2.  This is a DDR4-4600 kit getting DDR4-5600 speed.  We aren't talking LN2 types either.  That will ah, probably drop that 1:2 latency down enough to be competitive with the latency on something like your Coffee Lake setup.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Apr 2, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> tried that, typing higher than maximum goes to maximun, typing 0 isnt allowed ...
> 
> 
> Yeah .. so for the new test bench i'm using a 3080, previously I used a 2080 Ti. This means retest all gaming power consumption, so I setup Cyberpunk instead of Witcher, more modern and everything.. but fail, I forgot to test gaming power draw while restesting the 40 or-so CPUs I have in the test group, and then didn't have the time to go back and retest all of them until launch. So I just dropped the gaming power measurement, for now, it will definitely be back.



Gotta say Wizz, I appreciate and am impressed by your endless patience with the endless questioning of your methods and results, as well as your willingness and ability to address those questions directly and in a matter-of-fact fashion.  I'd have flown off the handle long ago were I in your position.

Edit:  This is not meant to call out any post or member specifically, nor to imply that Wizz or anyone at TPU (or anywhere) should be exempt from being questioned.


----------



## Krzych (Apr 2, 2021)

Alexa said:


> Slapping a few Atom cores on a desktop CPU wasn't really interesting to begin with


Like I said, it was interesting because it was supposed to be significantly faster single thread than RKL which was already supposed to be significantly faster than CML, meaning that we would finally get a big increase in gaming performance after many long years, not because of some Atom cores, they will most likely be the first thing to disable.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Yeah, nobody said that.  Results on either platform using 3800+ are irrelevant to most users, though many do not realize that.  If you run DDR4-3200 C16 like 80% of DIY types use, you'll get entirely different results.
> 
> IMO anything over 3600 C18 is getting into the hardcore enthusiast space, you're starting to talk about RAM that is twice (and higher) as expensive as the more common modules. In fact, if you use the more common 3200 C14/C16, Comet lake is quite frequently the winner.



In my direct experience with Ryzen 5000/Comet/Coffee lake as long as you are 3200 CL14 4x8 Ryzen is generally faster but just moving to 1440p negates any perceivable differences all the way down to a properly configured R5 3600. 

I run all my setups at 3600 4x8 CL16-16-16 or better though but I'm not on here trying to tell Wiz how to do his job he knows much better than I do how to test hardware.



Krzych said:


> Like I said, it was interesting because it was supposed to be significantly faster single thread than RKL which was already supposed to be significantly faster than CML, meaning that we would finally get a big increase in gaming performance after many long years, not because of some Atom cores, they will most likely be the first thing to disable.



It's seem to be due to the increase latency negating the ST performance gains so it ends up mostly just balancing out.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> In my direct experience with Ryzen 5000/Comet/Coffee lake as long as you are 3200 CL14 4x8 Ryzen is generally faster but just moving to 1440p negates any perceivable differences all the way down to a properly configured R5 3600.
> 
> I run all my setups at 3600 4x8 CL16-16-16 or better though but I'm not on here trying to tell Wiz how to do his job he knows much better than I do how to test hardware.



Ya well, I'll just leave this here.  10900K.  This is JUST from changing up memory.  Note the effect of ring.  Again, even 5% is enough to completely rearrange the winners and losers on the top CPUs.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Ya well, I'll just leave this here.  10900K.  This is JUST from changing up memory.  Note the effect of ring.  Again, even 5% is enough to completely rearrange the winners and losers on the top CPUs.
> 
> View attachment 194993



Again random result with no verification on actual performance from someone I wouldn't trust doing the testing.... Testing a CPU way out of Spec and not even specifying which Tomb Raider they are running what gpu they are using what resolution testing at so basically useless

Beyond that this is a 10900k that is cheaper than the i9 in this review...... Nothing wrong with intel previous gen its great but this gen sucks for the most part at the high end.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Again random result with no verification on actual performance from someone I wouldn't trust doing the testing.... Testing a CPU way out of Spec and not even specifying which Tomb Raider they are running what gpu they are using what resolution testing at so basically useless



You can watch him change the memory settings and run the benchmarks here.

He also has a 5950X.  And he does not like the 11900K.  So you can can it with the false fanboy assumptions.  Most of the hardcore types have multiple rigs / platforms, including the person who had the DDR4-5200 on the 11900K.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> You can watch him change the memory settings and run the benchmarks here.
> 
> He also has a 5950X.  And he does not like the 11900K.  So you can can it with the false fanboy assumptions.  Most of the hardcore types have multiple rigs / platforms, including the person who had the DDR4-5200 on the 11900K.



What fanboy assumption I don't trust random results from a dude on YouTube... I can make a 3900X perform 20% better depending on ram configuration same with a 5800X but my testing still means jack $h!t because nobody games how I would need to set the game to get the results...... Anyone with a 3090 isn't gaming at 1080p it sorta sucks at 1080p in general if he wanted to get even better results he would use a 6900XT that doesn't offload scheduling to the cpu. 

Not sure why you are so fixated on how 500+ cpu can game..... Assuming legit he's got a pretty nice 10900k though 5.4ghz all core with a 5ghz ring and 4400 mem at the same time isn't easy.....

I really like the 10900k and the 10850k was pretty tempted to grab one but bottom line this review is about an 11900k not a 10900k so how 10th gen performs when you throw a ton of money at it is irrelevant.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> What fanboy assumption I don't trust random results from a dude on YouTube... I can make a 3900X perform 20% better depending on ram configuration same with a 5800X but my testing still means jack $h!t because nobody games how I would need to set the game to get the results...... Anyone with a 3090 isn't gaming at 1080p it sorta sucks at 1080p in general if he wanted to get even better results he would use a 6900XT that doesn't offload scheduling to the cpu.
> 
> Not sure why you are so fixated on how 500+ cpu can game..... Assuming legit he's got a pretty nice 10900k though 5.4ghz all core with a 5ghz ring and 4400 mem at the same time isn't easy.....
> 
> I really like the 10900k and the 10850k was pretty tempted to grab one but bottom line this review is about an 11900k not a 10900k so how 10th gen performs when you throw a ton of money at it is irrelevant.



Memory matters, that's the point.  Do I need to point back to the dozens of AMD fans who threw TPU under the bus in these forums because DDR4-3200 CL14 made Zen 3 slower than Comet Lake on the prior review, prompting the change to DDR4-3800?  Maybe you lack that frame of reference.

Lets be real clear here.  This is from Zen 3  review comments - and most of these are not the worst.  

Maybe TPU should just rename to APU.

5800X












5900X comments:


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Memory matters, that's the point.  Do I need to point back to the dozens of AMD fans who threw TPU under the bus in these forums because DDR4-3200 CL14 made Zen 3 slower than Comet Lake on the prior review, prompting the change to DDR4-3800?  Maybe you lack that frame of reference.
> 
> Lets be real clear here.  This is from Zen 3  review comments - and most of these are not the worst.
> 
> Maybe TPU should just rename to APU.



Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem  so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.

I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....

Unfortunately Intel decided to drop 2 cores and increase latency on its 11th gen so now the 11900k competes with the 5900X in price with 4 less cores and similar ipc while using way more power. Again you are focusing on odd stuff would it make you sleep better at night if the 11900k was above the 5950X in gaming even though in MT workloads it would get slaughtered in the end it really doesn't matter unless you are a fanboy from either side everyone should want both companies to do well and with the 11th gen intel i9  is embarrassing... I'm in shock that this is the best a company the size of intel with their development budget can do either that or they were just being cheap....

To me this feels like 7th gen all over again release something just to release something prior to the real showing with Alderlake late this year or early next.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem  so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.
> 
> I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....
> 
> ...



Maybe we can agree on this.  This is a review of Rocket Lake on DDR4-3800 Gear 2, and comparisons are against AMD on DDR4-3800 1:1 IF.  That's all it is.  By his own tests, this shows that RKL performs better (on games) using cheaper DDR4-3200 CL 14.  So basically what this review shows, is that DDR4-3800 is the wrong memory for Rocket Lake. 

Most people are running DDR4-3200 CL 16 or CL14.  If you are running that, then these charts are pretty meaningless.  Zen 3 is actually hobbled and starved of memory at those speeds, after all Comet Lake beat Zen 3 in the review using a 2080 Ti and DDR4-3200 CL 14.  

And for the record I think the 11900K at its current price point is a waste of silicon.  It would need to come down to 5800X price to be viable.  11700K and 11600K are debatable IMO, none of these chips OC much so far on normal water (5.5Ghz 11900K @ 91C EK water is the best I've seen). 

Still waiting to see what an 11400 and 11500 do.  Geekbench is the only data I see and it indicates it is only slightly slower than a 5600X.  These may be killer mainstream chips.

I really just have one open question which won't be answered here, and that is what the effect of the very high speed memory with Gear 2 is going to have.  Is there a really big boost, like can be had on 10900K, from higher memory speeds that Gear 2 is allowing?   If that is the case then you could be looking at +15-20% on an 11900K, maybe 11700K and others.  That's like a generational jump, same kind of thing that allows a 6 year old Skylake core to compete with next gen Zen 3.   So in theory, such a setup will give you Alder Lake / Zen 4 performance today.  I find that quite interesting.  

So if that is the case, you might see my system specs change a lot.  If not I'll probably get a 10700K or 10850K.  It's not a question of money for me, it's a question of value.


----------



## Tom Sunday (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Numbers are numbers, so in one sense there's no deception, but there is perception manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results.  As one once put it, figures can lie, and liars can figure.


Thank you Randall for your response. I watch and wander between 10-15 favorite tech-sites 'taking-in' the new product test results and reviews being proffered. Essentially they all are the same and mirror your mentioning "It's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living." Holding your thought that there are perceptions of manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results thus maintains to be a stark reality. And reality bites.

So in this regard and being an ardent follower of your commentaries, I for one get actually more out of quality commentaries and reader contributions here then from the actual reviews themselves! Synthetic or not. Finally a 20% pay cut? No sane person is going to do that. But it's still better...remember...The Stand? “Hey, Trash, what did old lady Semple say when you torched her pension check?”


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

Tom Sunday said:


> Thank you Randall for your response. I watch and wander between 10-15 favorable tech-sites 'taking-in' the new product test results and reviews being proffered. Essentially they all are the same and mirror your mentioning "It's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living." Holding your thought that there are perceptions of manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results thus maintains to be a stark reality. And reality bites.
> 
> So in this regard and being an ardent follower of your commentaries, I for one get actually more out of quality commentaries and reader contributions here then from the actual reviews! Synthetic or not. Finally a 20% pay cut? No sane person is going to do that. But it's still better...remember The Stand? “Hey, Trash, what did old lady Semple say when you torched her pension check?”



Yep, and good for you, keeping tabs on social media trends is important for a speculative stock trader these days.  Perception is reality you know.  Only it isn't.  But knowing the difference is important.  Most do not.

Tech Jesus, I get kick out of the small details on his charts while everyone lauds his honesty.  

10900K stock Tau, 125W limit.  Who does that on that chip.  I don't even do that on my 10400.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 2, 2021)

What a clickbait title for the review of a CPU that should have never been released...


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Comet Lake beat Zen 3 in the review using a 2080 Ti and DDR4-3200 CL 14


It did, but the margins were very small, and I was under the impression the primary reason was not the memory choice:








						How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?
					

Our Ryzen 5000 Zen 3 launch day reviews saw unexpected gaming FPS results many questioned. In this article, we will investigate these results in more detail, and do more testing to figure out what is going on. The results are surprising and set things right in the battle of AMD vs. Intel.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Somehow intel (at least 9th and 10th gen) does slightly better in GPU limited scenarios, particularly with pascal.  This puts them at the top of the charts when really all the cpus are giving the same experience.

From the numbers, it appears 11th gen went slightly backwards in this respect.

I do agree though that using Gear 2 on Rocket Lake will not show it in the best light, but from the comparison done here the difference between 3800 gear 2 and 3200 gear 1 is very small, and so the only effect might be to change the order in cases where the CPUs being compared basically offer the same performance.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 2, 2021)

blu3dragon said:


> It did, but the margins were very small, and I was under the impression the primary reason was not the memory choice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you looking at the same charts I am?  The difference is not small.  The green bar is their official number, using DDR4-3800 Gear 2.  95.7 fps.  

The purple bar is 102.7 using DDR4-3200 CL 14 gear 1.  This ram is about $50-$100 cheaper than the RAM they used to get a 7% lower score.  The lower score is all that will appear on future charts. 

If you look at going from gear 1 to gear 2 DDR4-3200 CL14, it is more than a 10% difference.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 2, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Are you looking at the same charts I am?  The difference is not small.  The green bar is their official number, using DDR4-3800 Gear 2.  95.7 fps.
> 
> The purple bar is 102.7 using DDR4-3200 CL 14 gear 1.  This ram is about $50-$100 cheaper than the RAM they used to get a 7% lower score.  The lower score is all that will appear on future charts.
> 
> ...



Pretty sure he's looking at the average of all games tested which is less than 3%

Or 5% gear 1 vs gear 2...... It would be interesting to see at what point it breaks even but other than 720p it's relatively close.


----------



## Why_Me (Apr 2, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> What a clickbait title for the review of a CPU that should have never been released...


Clickbait?  It's a review of the i9 11900K hence the title of this thread and the fact it's been posted in the 'Review Forum'.


----------



## AddSub (Apr 2, 2021)

"SuperPi is one of the most popular benchmarks with overclockers and tweakers. It has been used in world-record competitions since forever. It is a purely single-threaded CPU test that calculates Pi to a large number of digits—32 million for our testing. Released in 1995" .........

Never change Wiz!

...


----------



## blu3dragon (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Pretty sure he's looking at the average of all games tested which is less than 3%
> 
> Or 5% gear 1 vs gear 2...... It would be interesting to see at what point it breaks even but other than 720p it's relatively close.


Yes, I was looking at the first two charts on this page: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-11900k/24.html

Application average - difference is 0.3%, and doesn't change the order:




Game average at 720p, so least GPU bottlenecked, difference is 2.2%, and moves it up the chart a couple places, but still behind 5800x and 10900k, although the reality is that all of these CPUs are equal for most gaming situations:


----------



## chrcoluk (Apr 2, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem  so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.
> 
> I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....
> 
> ...



This is a gripe of mine with reviews, 2 dimms still seems all they test.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 3, 2021)

Why_Me said:


> Clickbait?  It's a review of the i9 11900K hence the title of this thread and the fact it's been posted in the 'Review Forum'.


"The world's fastest gaming processor?"

Can you show me which part (except for "processor") describes the product, and is not intended to lure people into clicking and seeing whether it really is or isn't the world's fastest gaming processor - which it most definitely isn't.


----------



## John Naylor (Apr 3, 2021)

At $550 a pop, can't see a real argument for hi res gaming with either AMD or Intel flagships .... not in this market niche and not with  the 10400F at $150 ... the 10400F iis 0.8 % faster than the 5900x and the 10400F just 0.7 % slower than the 11900k.   That's $400 free'd up for a better GFX card.

For the Photo and Video heads, the 3% advantage on photoshop and premier is significant compared to the 5900x but not a "strong determining factor", but the 25% advantage in after effects is H U G E. Of course, as always ... your applications determine the best choice, .... never benchmarks, cores or die size ... unless fanboi bragging rights are a high priority in component selection.  Adopting a new hammer technology because of material, shape, size, whatever is not a wise choice if it means you're banging in less nails at the end of the day.

And basically that's what the whole top end is ... hard pressed to find a user base in the consumer market that needs anything more than a 10400F... Today's CPUs remind me of the IBM A20 laptop ... It was as much as $6k in it's day and was an impressive machine.   Always was top dog in every comparison review and made the cover of every PC Magazine (yes we had print mags back in the day).  Every middle management had to have thet IBM Logo on their lappie to , they thought, be taken seriously ... tho, as expected they weren't gonna drop $6k.  And that was the whole deal ... it was all about bragging rights and social status.  When IBM stopped making the A20, they market share tumbled.... and then IBM stopped making, well selling, laptops.

Outside a production shop, laboratory or development group, I'm hardpressed to recommend anything over $150 - $225 today for a CPU.  Intel is killing it in this segment, their market share having risen 4% in Q1 2021 after 7 straight quarters of small but rising gains by AMD.  It's the largest quarterly gain going back to Q2 2019 when AMD jumped 8 points.  Right now AMDs and Intel's competition at the high end is less each other than there own mod range low cost products.



RandallFlagg said:


> If you look at going from gear 1 to gear 2 DDR4-3200 CL14, it is more than a 10% difference.



Just noting for the sake of discussion that that's  a bit of a cherrypick with that resolution ... to argue the other way, one could pick 4k where the differences is only 0.5 fps.  On the other hand, its a good 10% at 1440p  But look at Cyberpunk 2077 and its just 0.2 fps, 0.4 fps in metro 2023.  Across the game suite, it's just under 3% at 1440p and that's not insignificant. 

Still hard not to consider a 10600k that is half the price of 5900x and 11900k  and just 2.2% slower overall than the 11900k and 1.4% slower than the 5900x at 1440poverall.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 3, 2021)

John Naylor said:


> Outside a production shop, laboratory or development group, I'm hardpressed to recommend anything over $150 - $225 today for a CPU.  Intel is killing it in this segment, their market share having risen 4% in Q1 2021 after 7 straight quarters of small but rising gains by AMD.  It's the largest quarterly gain going back to Q2 2019 when AMD jumped 8 points.  Right now AMDs and Intel's competition at the high end is less each other than there own mod range low cost products.


Intel's CPU availability is great, but motherboards are in short supply.  It's not that you can't find them, but selection is lacking.  My local MC for example has a really good selection of CPUs, but the only 5XX series motherboard that's not a 590 is an single H570 ITX motherboard -  and they show exactly 1 in stock @125, I bet that is actually gone.  The Z590s start at $189 - exactly 1 in stock at that price, then go up to $239 and higher.   This is likely to hamper their CPU sales if not fixed fairly quickly.

AMD seems to have the opposite issue, I see plenty of motherboards but many places don't have the 5600X / 5800X (many do, though).   Nobody seems to ever have the 5900X/5950X in any real supply, that seems to still be unobtanium and a target for scalpers. 



John Naylor said:


> Just noting for the sake of discussion that that's  a bit of a cherrypick with that resolution ... to argue the other way, one could pick 4k where the differences is only 0.5 fps.  On the other hand, its a good 10% at 1440p  But look at Cyberpunk 2077 and its just 0.2 fps, 0.4 fps in metro 2023.  Across the game suite, it's just under 3% at 1440p and that's not insignificant.
> 
> Still hard not to consider a 10600k that is half the price of 5900x and 11900k  and just 2.2% slower overall than the 11900k and 1.4% slower than the 5900x at 1440poverall.



720p is what people usually look at to measure longevity of the CPU.  If people had been paying attention to that when zen 2 came out, instead of just reading techtube recommendations, they may have made some different choices.    This is more important today than it was for example when Haswell was released in mid 2013 because GPUs have caught up with the capability of CPUs to keep up with draw calls to the GPU.

Zen 2, which was widely recommended by mainstream tech sites, is a prime example.   3600 often recommended as the best gaming CPU - if it weren't for Covid making $500 MRSP GPUs cost $1500 this would be a horrific fail.  You can't even go above a 3060 on a Zen 2 without taking serious FPS hits.  

This is at 1440P.  Yes that's right, 40.8% FPS difference between a Skylake 10600K and a Zen 2 2700 with a 3080 at 1440p, and 17% vs a 3600 - not even the top of the line GPU.  This *should* be a $500-$600 GPU, only Covid is making this irrelevant for the moment.  

This will only get worse in a year when the 'super' line and next gen GPUs release.   This gets back to my comments about the mob mentality, from a practical standpoint Zen 2 is essentially dead as a gaming CPU, yet lots of people buy and recommend Zen 2 because it is 'good enough' to power a 1660 Super or 2060 without big FPS loss. 

Zen 2 will wind up being one of the least future proof CPUs for gaming ever, and it all goes back to paying attention to 720p.


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Intel's CPU availability is great, but motherboards are in short supply.  It's not that you can't find them, but selection is lacking.  My local MC for example has a really good selection of CPUs, but the only 5XX series motherboard that's not a 590 is an single H570 ITX motherboard -  and they show exactly 1 in stock @125, I bet that is actually gone.  The Z590s start at $189 - exactly 1 in stock at that price, then go up to $239 and higher.   This is likely to hamper their CPU sales if not fixed fairly quickly.
> 
> AMD seems to have the opposite issue, I see plenty of motherboards but many places don't have the 5600X / 5800X (many do, though).   Nobody seems to ever have the 5900X/5950X in any real supply, that seems to still be unobtanium and a target for scalpers.
> 
> ...



Then I guess its good that many people that bought Zen 2 cpu's actually do more than just play games on their PC's.

When did playing games all of a sudden become the number 1 metric in what people do with their pc's?

Where are all the adults at?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 3, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> Then I guess its good that many people that bought Zen 2 cpu's actually do more than just play games on their PC's.
> 
> When did playing games all of a sudden become the number 1 metric in what people do with their pc's?
> 
> Where are all the adults at?



Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.  

In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it -  Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs.  Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU.  For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.
> 
> In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it -  Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs.  Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU.  For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.


I don't see a personal attack there at all.

I'm an IT professional and I build all my own machines. I don't buy OEM and I know numerous co-workers that do the same. And there are times when we go custom machines at work because an OEM doesn't offer what is needed. Gaming performance is not the be all end of this, its only so for one track minded gamers the market is bigger than just PC games.

"Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs."

You have no actual metrics to back this statement.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Apr 3, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.
> 
> In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it -  Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs.  Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU.  For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.


Exactly this! Was already writing a very similar response to the ignorant statement from the guy above, when I noticed a new post and realized that I couldn't have put it better myself.



Makaveli said:


> I'm an IT professional and I build all my own machines. I don't buy OEM and I know numerous co-workers that do the same. And there *are times when we go custom machines at work* because an OEM doesn't offer what is needed. Gaming performance is not the be all end of this, its only so for one track minded gamers the market is bigger than just PC games.


See, you've just confirmed Randall's statement - there are times when you go custom at work compared to OEMs for the majority. And obviously the gaming performance doesn't matter in most of those scenarios, however the picture is a bit different as far as enthusiast DIY scene is concerned...


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 3, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> Exactly this! Was already writing a very similar response to the ignorant statement from the guy above, when I noticed a new post and realized that I couldn't have put it better myself.


lol you guys have been liking each other's post for 8-9 pages now not really a surprise there.


----------



## 64K (Apr 3, 2021)

Makaveli said:


> Where are all the adults at?



That was offensive to tens of millions of adult gamers all around you. I could show you a breakdown of gamers at various age groups and you would be shocked. The majority aren't kids.

It's not the number one metric for what people do with there PC. The number one metric would be business PCs to run MS Office. An i3 4 core takes care of that. An i9 11900k would be a silly proposition for the number one users of PCs.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 3, 2021)

64K said:


> The number one metric would be business PCs to run MS Office.


The number one metric is ~ well there's no real number one metric these days! The number one use for a PC is though with *browsers *~ the most popular application these days, I doubt anyone can move past this elephant in the room.

If you count all operating systems then it's a no contest ~ browser wins two hands down!


----------



## 64K (Apr 3, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> The number one metric is ~ well there's no real number one metric these days! The number one use for a PC is though with *browsers *~ the most popular application these days, I doubt anyone can move past this elephant in the room.
> 
> If you count all operating systems then it's a no contest ~ browser wins two hands down!



I disagree. You can use a browser with a tablet or even your smart phone. The majority of PCs sold are desktops or laptops for business use. Mostly for MS Office and too much browsing is discouraged at work because it hurts productivity. This article is for the i9 11900k anyway and no one is buying one of these for browsing.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 3, 2021)

I'm not saying they are buying one just for browsing ~ browsing (or browsers) is the most popular application of PC these days, can you refute that? Now when it comes to all PC's, including DIY & prebuilts, there's probably an even split between those ordered primarily for MS Office et al & personal use including media consumption. Though I'd argue you still get more use for browsers these days on business PCs as well, I know I use Chrome & a lot of other business users are tied to either IE, Firefox or Chromium based browsers for daily work.

Now we could expand this a bit further & categorize what kind of work is done on a browser, but the fact remains *browser is quite likely the single most used application on PC by far* & that includes business users.

The point is there's no real big difference going with the fastest single chip out there or something $100-200 less unless you're buying the PC specifically for something like (professional) gaming, video editing, sound production etc. *For 90% of the tasks done on a PC these days, by most users, a 11900k is not that much better than a 10700k or 5600x *~ so unless you're someone who absolutely needs that last 1 or 0.1% of performance most processors i5 & up or R5 above are going to do a very good job for you.


----------



## 64K (Apr 3, 2021)

This article is about the i9 11900k and it's uses. No one is buying one of these for browsing.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 3, 2021)

And I've already answered that, unless you have real numbers to back this up?


> *The number one metric would be business PCs to run MS Office*


----------



## 64K (Apr 3, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> And I've already answered that, unless you have real numbers to back this up?



I am only using my years and years in business to say that for businesses the number one use is MS Office and too much browsing is discouraged because it hurts productivity. 

That is the extent of my proof and I see little value in continuing to press my point when you obviously have had a different experience in business environments.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 3, 2021)

R0H1T said:


> The number one metric is ~ well there's no real number one metric these days! The number one use for a PC is though with *browsers *~ the most popular application these days, I doubt anyone can move past this elephant in the room.
> 
> If you count all operating systems then it's a no contest ~ browser wins two hands down!



I agree.  And actually, one of my more laggy use cases involves investment tracking / research via the web on my IRA at Fidelity.  While the browser is inherently multithreaded, a lot of the charting and real time tracking appears to single thread.  

Similar to that, I was looking at this euro tech website that does benchmarks, but their website itself is like a benchmark.  Single threads while rendering some dynamic charts, the slowdown was palpable - just a few seconds - but having the browser stop for 3 seconds before displaying is noticeable.


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 4, 2021)

crispysilicon said:


> re: AVX comments, AVX units are how I find my OC limits.











						AMD Ryzen 9 5900X vs Intel Core i9-11900K: Rocket Lake and Ryzen 5000 CPU Face Off
					

Intel's 14nm Rocket Lake squares off with AMD's 7nm Ryzen 5000




					www.tomshardware.com
				




"Intel does benefit from higher attainable clock rates, though, especially if you focus on overclocking a few cores instead of the standard all-core overclock. Intel also exposes a wealth of tunable parameters with its Rocket Lake chips. That includes new overclocking offsets, like a separate AVX-512 offset and the ability to set voltage guardbands for the different flavors of AVX. Intel also added an option to completely disable AVX support, though that feature is primarily geared for professional overclockers. Rocket also supports per-core frequency and hyper-threading control (enable/disable) to help eke out more overclocking headroom."

Speak of the devil eh? Better take future OC results with a grain of salt unless the setting is specified.

And on the 11900K, needs DDR4400+, and a _large _capacity cooling loop. Otherwise, why buy _that_ CPU?


----------



## Why_Me (Apr 4, 2021)

The 11900K will be all but forgotten imo if the 11700KF shows decent benchmarks.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...700kf-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html
Suggested Retail: $374.00 - $384.00


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 4, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Zen 2, which was widely recommended by mainstream tech sites, is a prime example.  * 3600* often recommended as the best gaming CPU - if it weren't for Covid making $500 MRSP GPUs cost $1500 this would be a horrific fail.  You can't even go above a 3060 on a Zen 2 without taking serious FPS hits.
> 
> This is at *1440P*.  Yes that's right, 40.8% FPS difference between a Skylake 10600K and a *Zen 2 2700* with a 3080 at 1440p, and 17% vs a 3600 - not even the top of the line GPU.  This *should* be a $500-$600 GPU, only Covid is making this irrelevant for the moment.
> 
> ...



Just want to point out that the 2000 series wasn't Zen 2, but Zen+. The 3000 series was Zen 2, but that's neither here nor there so... Next point I want to make concerns the 3600. I own one. It's plenty capable for my needs. Would I pass the opportunity to grab a 5000 series CPU? Depends. Because not only is $300 for a 6 core hard to swallow (AMD, you REALLY need to release a 5600 non-X...) I can get a 3700X for $30 more ($330) and get two more cores (because everybody want moar cores, right?). 

As for the 1660 Super, which I also own, it's a great 1080p card. And since 1080p is the highest resolution I can play games at (due to vision) it works for me. That said, I do hope AMD ultimately ends up releasing a 6500/XT (actually buying one would be the hard part) so I can have a Ryzen+Radeon rig again.



Makaveli said:


> Then I guess its good that many people that bought Zen 2 cpu's actually do more than just play games on their PC's.
> 
> When did playing games all of a sudden become the number 1 metric in what people do with their pc's?



I consider my rig to be a Jack of All Trades type. I game on it, watch movies, browse the interwebs, use GIMP (and rarely, Blender), Milkshape3D (for working with Sims 3 custom content), and "office" applications like Apache OpenOffice. Also, I need to start F@H again...


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 4, 2021)

Gmr_Chick said:


> Just want to point out that the 2000 series wasn't Zen 2, but Zen+. The 3000 series was Zen 2, but that's neither here nor there so... Next point I want to make concerns the 3600. I own one. It's plenty capable for my needs. Would I pass the opportunity to grab a 5000 series CPU? Depends. Because not only is $300 for a 6 core hard to swallow (AMD, you REALLY need to release a 5600 non-X...) I can get a 3700X for $30 more ($330) and get two more cores (because everybody want moar cores, right?).



Which would all be pretty silly given you downgraded from a 10700K, which is superior to (and now, cheaper than) a 3700X in almost every use case.  Even in rendering, Zen's strong spot, the most a 3700X can muster for the most part is a tie.  3700X was a great deal when it was $290 and the 10700K was $390.  It is no longer a good deal when the 10700K is $20 cheaper.   




Gmr_Chick said:


> As for the 1660 Super, which I also own, it's a great 1080p card. And since 1080p is the highest resolution I can play games at (due to vision) it works for me. That said, I do hope AMD ultimately ends up releasing a 6500/XT (actually buying one would be the hard part) so I can have a Ryzen+Radeon rig again.



Of course.  You wouldn't want to have an intel + nvidia rig, or a Ryzen+Nvidia rig...  



Gmr_Chick said:


> I consider my rig to be a Jack of All Trades type. I game on it, watch movies, browse the interwebs, use GIMP (and rarely, Blender), Milkshape3D (for working with Sims 3 custom content), and "office" applications like Apache OpenOffice. Also, I need to start F@H again...



Personal computers are by definition jacks of all trades.  

This is like talking to people who ride Harley Davidsons (and I have nothing against them, but I prefer Honda and Yamaha sport-tourers).  They have no logical reason for it, when you get right down to it they like the community.  So it is with many AMD fans.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 4, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> *Which would all be pretty silly given you downgraded from a 10700K*, which is superior to (and now, cheaper than) a 3700X in almost every use case.  Even in rendering, Zen's strong spot, the most a 3700X can muster for the most part is a tie.  3700X was a great deal when it was $290 and the 10700K was $390.  It is no longer a good deal when the 10700K is $20 cheaper.
> 
> Personal computers are by definition jacks of all trades.
> 
> This is like talking to people who ride Harley Davidsons (and I have nothing against them, but I prefer *Honda and Yamaha* sport-tourers).  They have no logical reason for it, when you get right down to it they like the community.  So it is with many AMD fans.



My reasons for "downgrading" from a 10700K to a 3600 are entirely personal. Crazy, even, to some people. And because my reasons are so personal, I won't share them here. I'll just say that I did what I had to do. 

And also, Japanese bikes! My dad was pretty much a self-taught motorcycle mechanic (started messing around with them when he was in his late teens and worked on them in some form or another till the day he retired from his job as THE motorcycle mechanic for the San Jose Police Department in 2011. It was a job he absolutely loved. As far as motorcycles went, he basically liked anything that WASN'T an HD, but had a particular fondness for Hondas (and the CB750 Four) and the Kawasaki Police (mainly the KZ1000P) bikes -- and later, the Hondo ST1300's -- he worked on for 20+ years. He wasn't much of a bragger, but he liked to boast about being able to tell you where every single nut, bolt, what have you, went on the bike! 

Anyway, apologies for rambling


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 4, 2021)

Gmr_Chick said:


> My reasons for "downgrading" from a 10700K to a 3600 are entirely personal. Crazy, even, to some people. And because my reasons are so personal, I won't share them here. I'll just say that I did what I had to do.
> 
> And also, Japanese bikes! My dad was pretty much a self-taught motorcycle mechanic (started messing around with them when he was in his late teens and worked on them in some form or another till the day he retired from his job as THE motorcycle mechanic for the San Jose Police Department in 2011. It was a job he absolutely loved. As far as motorcycles went, he basically liked anything that WASN'T an HD, but had a particular fondness for Hondas (and the CB750 Four) and the Kawasaki Police (mainly the KZ1000P) bikes -- and later, the Hondo ST1300's -- he worked on for 20+ years. He wasn't much of a bragger, but he liked to boast about being able to tell you where every single nut, bolt, what have you, went on the bike!
> 
> Anyway, apologies for rambling



Funny you mention the ST1300, I have an ST1100 which was the predecessor to the ST1300.  Mine is the last year they made them, 2001.  Actually intended to sell it when I bought my newer / faster / better tech FJR1300, but the ST1100 is the best balanced bike I have ever owned, and Honda over-engineered these in a major way such that many people get 200,000 miles (mine has 80K).  So instead of selling it I pulled the carbs and had them rebuilt, replaced the clutch and clutch hydraulics, etc etc.  

I tried to get into the HD thing, my step-son has one, I like the way they look but can't stand the riding position and handling.  Just felt like something a high school trade class (welding, mechanics, etc.) would throw together as an experiment.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 4, 2021)

Back in the 60's-70's, only the "hard" guys rode Harleys, Hell's Angels and whatnot. But nowdays it seems like people only ride them because they want to be part of the "in" crowd or some other pointless reason. My dad never cared for HD or any of the crap they've tried pulling over the years. Like, did you know they actually tried to trademark the SOUND their bikes make? Judge basically laughed it outta court   

Anyway, I'm open to continue this subject elsewhere if you'd like. No worries though


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 4, 2021)

64K said:


> I disagree. You can use a browser with a tablet or even your smart phone. The majority of PCs sold are desktops or laptops for business use. Mostly for MS Office and too much browsing is discouraged at work because it hurts productivity. This article is for the i9 11900k anyway and no one is buying one of these for browsing.


Just to add my own two cents to the argument: I think looking at "number one usage of PCs" is irrelevant, as everybody buys PCs, or parts _for their own reasons_, and not because of what the majority wants a PC for.

This doesn't change the fact that the Core i9-11900K is a pointless CPU for everyone considering the fact that the Core i7-11700K offers similar features and performance and can be had for at least 100 bucks cheaper (not to mention the non-K variant which is even cheaper than that). It's a real competitor to the Ryzen 7 5800X - albeit with a higher power consumption, whereas the Core i9-11900K isn't a competitor to anything. It offers seriously worse performance than anything else in its price range, and that's what gives it no reason to exist - other than Intel trying to milk the fanboys with the Core i9 name.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 4, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> This doesn't change the fact that the Core i9-11900K is a pointless CPU for everyone



Actually this isn't necessarily true the 11900k seems to be doing well with extreme overclockers in a decent amount of benchmarks.... So saying everyone is a bit broud. I'm sure ln2 enthusiasts are loving it.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 4, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Actually this isn't necessarily true the 11900k seems to be doing well with extreme overclockers in a decent amount of benchmarks.... So saying everyone is a bit broud. I'm sure ln2 enthusiasts are loving it.


Maybe that's the marketing direction Intel should take: "the world's best processor for pointless gigahertz hunters".


----------



## MaMoo (Apr 4, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Maybe that's the marketing direction Intel should take: "the world's best processor for pointless gigahertz hunters".


Netburstest.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 5, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Actually this isn't necessarily true the 11900k seems to be doing well with *extreme overclockers *in a decent amount of benchmarks.... So saying everyone is a bit broud. I'm sure ln2 enthusiasts are loving it.



Isn't that a *very* niche group though?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 5, 2021)

Gmr_Chick said:


> Isn't that a *very* niche group though?



For sure, I personally still enjoy watching them achieve new world records though.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 5, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> For sure, I personally still enjoy watching them achieve new world records though.


Fair enough, there's something magical about numbers. For me, it's just as pointless as watching 22 people chase a ball on a grassy field, though millions happen to find it entertaining for some reason.


----------



## dparis1977 (Apr 6, 2021)

and its sold out everywhere, are there really that many idiots out there


----------



## HenrySomeone (Apr 6, 2021)

You just called hard-extreme overclockers who have historically always grabbed the first batch of every new Intel flagship (and recently some AMD ones too) idiots...


----------



## Lindatje (Apr 6, 2021)

techpowerup deleted messages ..... good job.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 6, 2021)

Lindatje said:


> techpowerup deleted messages ..... good job.


and nothing of value was lost


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 6, 2021)

dparis1977 said:


> and its sold out everywhere, are there really that many idiots out there



I'm a bit surprised that the 11900K is sold out, but only because of the price/perf equation.  

Having said that, despite the price/perf equation and the lack of multi-core threading performance, this is by no means a slow chip.  

I know some people who are going RL because of its prowess in VR.   

I'm not sure people have actually looked closely - I doubt it given how many just bandwagon jump on bashing this chip - but despite being hobbled by a far less than optimal memory setup the 11900K is in fact the fastest chip in the most heavily used resolutions used by high end gamers.  It is also a winner in lightly threaded productivity applications, which is to say the vast majority of such apps used. 


Fastest at 1440P vs any Zen 3 even when the Zen 3 has the AMD optimal DDR4-3800, with RKL using cheaper DDR4-3200 CL14 (an OC on DDR4-3200 CL14 as opposed to the crippling DDR4-3800 gear 2 would widen this gap).  This is probably a $100 savings, which is to say a new build would perform better than a 5800X and cost about the same after including the memory savings.
Faster than any Zen 3 on 2 out of 3 web tests.
Faster than Any Zen 3 on 2 out of 3 AI tests
Faster than any Zen 3 on Adobe applications, by fairly wide margins
Where it does lose, it is mostly only to the 5900X and 5950X, which are extremely hard to find.

So, for someone who doesn't care about the value equation and wants one of the fastest chips they can get hands on, doesn't care about rendering where Zen 3's 12+ core chips win, is into VR, and/or doesn't have time or want to spend hours scouring the internet to find a 5900X or 5950X, this is (or was) an easily available and powerful alternative.  

Many of the gaming focused sites in particular, are finding that the 11900K is decidedly better than the 5800X, and while it generally can't beat the 5950X that chip is in a completely different price range and has very short availability.  

i.e. the 5%  lows of the 11900K are almost the same as the average of the 5800X in Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p.  You are looking at a 10% avg fps difference from 5800X to 11900K here.  You could buy this complete setup - CPU, memory, motherboard with 11900K - for less than  the real-world price of a 5950X CPU alone.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 6, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> I'm a bit surprised that the 11900K is sold out, but only because of the price/perf equation.
> 
> Having said that, despite the price/perf equation and the lack of multi-core threading performance, this is by no means a slow chip.
> 
> ...


Have you read the review?

The 11900K is on par with the 11700K, and basically all of AMD's Zen 3 line-up in most games. The 11900K definitely isn't a slow chip, but it offers literally nothing that justifies its price difference over the 11700K. That's why it gets bashed.

Therefore my recommendations for new buyers are:

You want a fast Intel chip:
Get the Core i7-11700 (K or non-K).

You want a fast AMD chip:
Get the Ryzen 7 5800X.

You want the fastest consumer AMD chip on the market:
Get the Ryzen 9 5950X.

You want the fastest consumer Intel chip on the market:


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 6, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Have you read the review?
> 
> The 11900K is on par with the 11700K, and basically all of AMD's Zen 3 line-up in most games. The 11900K definitely isn't a slow chip, but it offers literally nothing that justifies its price difference over the 11700K. That's why it gets bashed.
> 
> ...



Beyond just reading the opinion of the reviewers and gobbling it up with no critical thought like you appear to do, I formulate my own opinion based on the facts presented (as opposed to the opinions presented).


I'll just refer you to the charts in the GN video on the 11900K.  Here are some facts without the suck up verbiage  :
11900K is :
- _*faster than any Zen 3 on 3 out of 7 games tested *_
- *faster than any 5600X / 5800X on 6 out of 7 games*

So some conclusions:

The 11700K trades blows with the 5800X. 
The 11900K pretty well knocks the 5800X on its tail.  
The 5800X is $540USD at Newegg, and again it lost to 11900K in 6/7 games at GN
The 11900K is $619 at B&H, only an $80 premium
The 11900K is definitively better at Adobe apps than the 5800X, or any Zen 3

The 5900X is going for north of $700USD, making it significantly more expensive than the 11900K

So no, there is really nothing *wrong* with the 11900K. 

It's priced between 5800X and 5900X and thoroughly romps the 5800X when configured properly.

It will trade blows with the more expensive and much harder to find 5900X and 5950X. 

It is it a price / perf winner?  

Well, if you're paying $1500+ for a GPU then I would imagine such a person would not be willing to leave a few % of FPS on the table just to save a Benjamin.

Those are almost certainly the people who bought these.   And it's a good thing they are around, else nobody would make high end chips at all. 

After all, what kind of moron pays $1000 for a 5950X on a consumer desktop and proceeds to run DDR4-3200 CL16 thus crippling it??......................................


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 6, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> Beyond just reading the opinion of the reviewers and gobbling it up with no critical thought like you appear to do, I formulate my own opinion based on the facts presented (as opposed to the opinions presented).
> 
> 
> I'll just refer you to the charts in the GN video on the 11900K.  Here are some facts without the suck up verbiage  :
> ...


It doesn't seem to me like the 11900K "knocks the 5800X on its tail". Don't forget that all modern 8+ core CPUs are within a couple % from one another in games.

So what's wrong with the 11900K?
Here in the UK, the 11900K retails for £600. The 11700K costs £430. For a 40% price premium, you get 4% higher turbo clocks. Something's seriously wrong with whoever thinks it's worth it.



RandallFlagg said:


> Well, if you're paying $1500+ for a GPU then I would imagine such a person would not be willing to leave a few % of FPS on the table just to save a Benjamin.


I wouldn't really call a 40% or £170 difference "a Benjamin".


RandallFlagg said:


> After all, what kind of moron pays $1000 for a 5950X on a consumer desktop and proceeds to run DDR4-3200 CL16 thus crippling it??......................................


Just as I wouldn't call not paying 1.5-2x the price of DDR4-3200 CL16 RAM for 2-3% more performance "crippling it" (I'm one of those "morons" by the way).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 6, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> It doesn't seem to me like the 11900K "knocks the 5800X on its tail". Don't forget that all modern 8+ core CPUs are within a couple % from one another in games.
> 
> So what's wrong with the 11900K?
> Here in the UK, the 11900K retails for £600. The 11700K costs £430. For a 40% price premium, you get 4% higher turbo clocks. Something's seriously wrong with whoever thinks it's worth it.


There in the UK, I see the 11900KF for 519 BP.  The 5800X is 419BP.  Both of these are quite a bit higher than in the states,  


AusWolf said:


> I wouldn't really call a 40% or £170 difference "a Benjamin".



It's a benjamin here in the states given that the 10900K is $619 vs $500ish for the 5800X.   Last week the difference was less, as some places had the 11900K for ~580.



AusWolf said:


> Just as I wouldn't call not paying 1.5-2x the price of DDR4-3200 CL16 RAM for 2-3% more performance "crippling it" (I'm one of those "morons" by the way).



I know I looked at your specs.  

Have you ever considered that using DDR4-3200 CL 16, you'd be more likely to get CapFrameX's results in a RKL vs Zen 3 comparison vs TPUs results where they used DDR4-3800?  

Just as DDR4-3800 is the wrong memory for Rocket Lake, DDR4-3200 CL 16 is the wrong memory for Zen 3.


So when you choose this memory :




You get this type of result :





Well, sounds like Intel dropped the entire Q1 allocation at once.  

So the 11900K is already sold out or selling out.   The others will undoubtedly soon follow.  Looks like they are constrained by substrate (wafer) supply and their focus in Q2 will likely be the new higher margin Ice Lake based server SKUs (and I'll interject, Tiger Lake H 6 / 8 core), so the shortages for desktops will likely get worse in another month or so for both brands :









						Exclusive: Demand To Exceed Supply For Intel Rocket Lake Due To Substrate Shortage
					

It would appear that gamers can't catch a break. Products that rely on TSMC, such as AMD parts, have had tight supply for a while now (with a few exceptions). Intel CPUs, considering they are built in their own foundry, have had a free run of the proverbial house for a while now and CPU […]




					wccftech.com


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 6, 2021)

G.Skill Announces DDR4-5333 Memory Kits for Intel Rocket Lake
					






					www.anandtech.com
				




Things have not been released in the right order....


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 6, 2021)

crispysilicon said:


> G.Skill Announces DDR4-5333 Memory Kits for Intel Rocket Lake
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya that too.  

I've been seeing people running DDR4-4266 at 5200 gear 2 in some other forums.   

On RKL, seems like the perf boost / OC is going to be all about the RAM OC.   With gear 2, memory running at DDR4-3600 the MC is only running at 1/2 of the 1800Mhz bus aka 900Mhz.   It's perfectly capable of running 1600Mhz (for DDR4-3200 gear 1) so as far as the MC goes it should be fine up to DDR4-6400..  if such memory existed.  

Either way extracting that kind of performance is rather expensive, and time consuming as it takes a lot of tweaking.  It's fun watching other people do it though.


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 6, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> On RKL, seems like the perf boost / OC is going to be all about the RAM OC.



Nah, it's also about the new boost mode, but that will only show up with good cooling system and extended playtimes.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Apr 6, 2021)

HenrySomeone said:


> You just called hard-extreme overclockers who have historically always grabbed the first batch of every new Intel flagship (and recently some AMD ones too) idiots...



Way to put words in @dparis1977 mouth there, bud. No where did he mention hardcore extreme overclockers in his post. It's more like idiots that don't know any better ("It's Intel so it must be gud dur hur!") are (stupidly) buying the 11900K (and then stupidly bragging about it later).



RandallFlagg said:


> There in the UK, I see the 11900KF for 519 BP.  The 5800X is 419BP.  Both of these are quite a bit higher than in the states,
> 
> 
> It's a benjamin here in the states given that the 10900K is $619 vs $500ish for the 5800X.   Last week the difference was less, as some places had the 11900K for ~580.
> ...



I guess I'm one of those morons too *sigh* But ya know what? Fuck it. I wanted 16GB of RAM but didn't want to go super low on speed (like 2666 for example) and the price jumps up with anything over 3200MHz so yeah. 3200 may not be the "sweet spot" for Ryzen but it's the "sweet spot" for me


----------



## Lindatje (Apr 7, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> and nothing of value was lost


Yes, you don't want to say that this is the best CPU from Intel ever? it's funny how Intel is today with such a huge budget, that's why the funny smilleys.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 7, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> There in the UK, I see the 11900KF for 519 BP.  The 5800X is 419BP.  Both of these are quite a bit higher than in the states,
> 
> 
> It's a benjamin here in the states given that the 10900K is $619 vs $500ish for the 5800X.   Last week the difference was less, as some places had the 11900K for ~580.


$80 is still a considerable price difference between processors that offer similar performance - though my main comparison is with the 11700K, which is literally an 11900K without the atrocious thermal velocity boost.



Gmr_Chick said:


> I guess I'm one of those morons too *sigh* But ya know what? Fuck it. I wanted 16GB of RAM but didn't want to go super low on speed (like 2666 for example) and the price jumps up with anything over 3200MHz so yeah. 3200 may not be the "sweet spot" for Ryzen but it's the "sweet spot" for me


Exactly that. I bought my RAM kit for £160 in October. I don't know what current prices look like, but a similar 3600 MHz kit would have been at least £100 more expensive back then. Reviewers like to repeat one another that "it's the sweet spot for Ryzen", which I don't think is true. Sure, anything above 3600 MHz yields diminishing returns, but that doesn't mean that a couple percent of extra performance with 3600 compared to 3200 MHz is worth 60% more money. And, we turned back to why I hate the Core i9-11900K so much.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 7, 2021)

TheLostSwede said:


> Hang on, doesn't Intel provide the most stable platform out there and technically doesn't need UEFI updates, according to the fanbois?



No you have to understand this is a NEW CORE man. Totally revamped arch. Rebuilt from the Skylake up. Errr ground up. Meticulously balanced out to burn a hole in your pocket and not your motherboard.

Well, maybe that's not a given actually





At least they're holding a record now. wtaf



Lindatje said:


> Yes, you don't want to say that this is the best CPU from Intel ever? it's funny how Intel is today with such a huge budget, that's why the funny smilleys.


Context does matter, this one might have come a bit late 

But this is certainly the best Intel CPU ever. No other one has such a high power limit out of the box, I mean, not even a full fat GPU can match this baby.

Still didn't meet the target they set, I heard they were gunning for half a kilowatt, that's why Pat's in charge now.


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Apr 7, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> View attachment 195650


Should've just used this as one of the marketing slides


----------



## crispysilicon (Apr 7, 2021)

Check this out










Anyone confirm? That is a HUGE temp delta. Not expecting vs. solder.


----------



## DarthJedi (Apr 8, 2021)

@W1zzard could you please be so kind as to provide the scene project you've used for UE4 lightmass testing and explain what source you've built?
11900K, at any frequency, shouldn't be as close to 5950X by any stretch. Tests from any other tester also don't show it to be the same.
Since I'm working with UE4 professionally I'm really, really interested in this. 
How good per-core performance is compared to 5950X? How good total multicore is? Since also, UE4 scales perfectly with the cores too. 
Judging by all tests of the single-core performance it seems that Intel hasn't caught up with series 5000 from AMD so even if they did, 16-cores should be 60% faster when running MT tasks?
Puget systems say 11900K is significantly behind. But they did a very strange thing of testing on a Z490 board which might have serious implications with the most advanced boost not being active and memory performance.
Could you be so kind to test Github available source compilation, 4.26.1 or 4.27.0 (dev-core branch)?
Thanks.


----------



## 1d10t (Apr 8, 2021)

I don't see anyone blaming Intel for lacking control over MSRP.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 8, 2021)

1d10t said:


> I don't see anyone blaming Intel for lacking control over MSRP.



That's just because nobody wants to buy that POS


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 11, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> That's just because nobody wants to buy that POS


In the same screenshot: "0 out of 5 (0%) reviewers recommend this product." Ouch.


----------



## DAWMan (Apr 13, 2021)

Unmatched performance in heat dissipation.


----------



## RealKGB (Apr 13, 2021)

DAWMan said:


> Unmatched performance in heat *production*.


FTFY

Though if you need a room heater, want to run F@H or something, and have a ton of money to burn, the 11900K is the CPU for you!


----------



## DAWMan (Apr 13, 2021)

I forgot to add “with Nitrogen.”


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 13, 2021)

Hi,
Yep know someone that did buy a 11900k he has yet to post any benchmarks yet, It's been a couple weeks too 
He may have returned or pondering a swap for 10900k lol


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 13, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep know someone that did buy a 11900k he has yet to post any benchmarks yet, It's been a couple weeks too
> He may have returned or pondering a swap for 10900k lol



Definitely would rather have a 10900k out of the 2


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 13, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Definitely would rather have a 10900k out of the 2


Hi,
Yeah 10 cores seems the logical choice 
Single core bump is not all that much on 11 series.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 14, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Definitely would rather have a 10900k out of the 2


Definitely would rather have a 10850K. Lower, but sustained clock speeds are much more useful than sudden spikes with unmanageable power consumption and heat.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep know someone that did buy a 11900k he has yet to post any benchmarks yet, It's been a couple weeks too
> He may have returned or pondering a swap for 10900k lol


Or just ashamed of pointlessly wasting so much money.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 14, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Definitely would rather have a 10850K. Lower, but sustained clock speeds are much more useful than sudden spikes with unmanageable power consumption and heat.



I'd want it more for tweaking purposes and what it cost is irrelevant to me. When it was going for $460 it was tempting..... I already had a spare high end x570 board so it won out though.


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 14, 2021)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I'd want it more for tweaking purposes and what it cost is irrelevant to me. When it was going for $460 it was tempting..... I already had a spare high end x570 board so it won out though.


It's not about the cost for me, either. What I mean is, what's the point of a +100 MHz Total Bull**** Boost (or whatever it's called) if the CPU drops 500 MHz after half a minute of work anyway?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Apr 14, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> It's not about the cost for me, either. What I mean is, what's the point of a +100 MHz Total Bull**** Boost (or whatever it's called) if the CPU drops 500 MHz after half a minute of work anyway?



The difference is more pronounced once tweaked while you can get a dud with either the 10900k seem to clock 2-300Mhz all core higher with high end cooling.... Some of it is OCD the number is 8 and not 9 on the Name lol..... Even my current 5800X is a placeholder cpu for a 5950X

Total respect people opting for the 10850K such a good cpu when its under $399 especially for those with already good enough Z490 boards.


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 15, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Definitely would rather have a 10850K. Lower, but sustained clock speeds are much more useful than sudden spikes with unmanageable power consumption and heat.
> 
> 
> Or just ashamed of pointlessly wasting so much money.


Hi,
Doubt that he has deep pockets besides this 11900k/... is chicken feed compared to 3090 which he also has I believe.


----------



## W1zzard (May 2, 2021)

naxeem said:


> @W1zzard could you please be so kind as to provide the scene project you've used for UE4 lightmass testing and explain what source you've built?
> 11900K, at any frequency, shouldn't be as close to 5950X by any stretch. Tests from any other tester also don't show it to be the same.
> Since I'm working with UE4 professionally I'm really, really interested in this.
> How good per-core performance is compared to 5950X? How good total multicore is? Since also, UE4 scales perfectly with the cores too.
> ...


I'm not building UE from source, I'm building lighting, SubwaySequencer_P

Sorry for the slow response, I missed your original post


----------



## Maissilapsi (Dec 26, 2021)

RandallFlagg said:


> That's part of it :
> 
> View attachment 194642
> 
> ...


This, it's very much a RAM thing too...

I just built for friends kid PC on XIII Hero and i9-11900K and kind of wondered the testing results here... Main difference was I put 16GB DDR4 5133MHz dual RAM on it. It is a fine CPU, with it's faults... and I've been AMD loyalist since a 5950X landed on the palm of my hand.

I'm not so sure are the AVX-512 things necessary though, die space is limited and there's other parts to do the vector calculations much faster, unless you want fancy benchmark numbers or something...

Comparing CPU BM scores this begins to over take my 5950X after about 8-12 threads, for it only goes 5.1GHz while this i9 5.3GHz, and beyond even...

Which is kind of wild...  I've had and still do actually in closet one i5-9600K (6c/6t) on XI Gene that I got stable on 5,3MHz with 4800MHz Royals underclocked to some 4133-4333MHz. Alder Lake actually further proves Intel is taking Zen 3 seriously.


*I also must add they used "Zadak Spark 240 mm AIO" to cool and 14nm phat Intel...So AIO and 2 × 120mm fans..*

PS. To further carry the point home here, the cores are alright... as seen on pic here.

Carry on...


----------

