# Intel Core i7-11700 or i7-11700K?



## puma99dk| (May 23, 2021)

I was recently asked which Intel CPU to buy from a friend that doesn't want AMD but Intel because he uses Intel Quick Sync and have some application that lists Intel and not AMD.

He also game so I told him that the price of the recent Intel Core i9-11900 and the i9-11900K is a joke for the price when the same 8c/16t cores.

i9-11900K is about £500 / €580
i9-11900 is about £400 / €465

I told him a i7-11700 would serve him better when he also wants PCI-E 4.0 for NVME storage but I am not sure if the extra £61 / €71 is worth it when the performance of the non-K vs K is so simular in games.

i7-11700K is about £367 / €427
i7-11700 is about £306 / €356

The 3 biggest differences are price, base clock and TDP because the 100MHz in the turbo frequency I am sure you can find on a Z590 chipset forcing a all-core boost in the bios.

I just feels that the i7-11700 with it's 65Watt TDP (I know Intel lies as always) is a good winner for the gaming performance and searching about the good old interweb and @W1zzard great review of the I7-11700KF there ain't much OC let in the Rocket Lake-S CPU's and the about 2% performance differince in CineBench there is doesn't should like £60 / €70 more performance in my brain.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 23, 2021)

Hi,
I'd always do a k version because it's better to be able to oc than not be able too oc
Whether you do k or kfc version just depends on lunch preferences 

I fully agree 11900k is stupidly priced lol


----------



## puma99dk| (May 23, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'd always do a k version because it's better to be able to oc than not be able too oc
> Whether you do k or kfc version just depends on lunch preferences
> 
> I fully agree 11900k is stupidly priced lol


Thanks for seeing the point and I am just not sure if the K version is worth the extra money when gaming is almost the same.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 23, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> Thanks for seeing the point and I am just not sure if the K version is worth the extra money when gaming is almost the same.


Hi,
Funky default intel power limits is why I'd always get k version 
10900k is pretty lame without being able to get rid of intel nonsense in bios.


----------



## Selaya (May 23, 2021)

Neither.
Skylake is better than Rocket Lake.
Try 10700(K), 10850K or 10900.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 23, 2021)

Selaya said:


> Neither.
> Skylake is better than Rocket Lake.
> Try 10700(K), 10850K or 10900.


That's a no go he wants PCI-E 4.0 for NVME storage.


----------



## Selaya (May 23, 2021)

Does he own an Optane P5800X?
Because that's the only PCIe 4.0 NVMe where the Gen 4 is actually more than just a decoration.

That being said, if you still are unable to sway your friend, 11700(K), obviously.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 23, 2021)

While I agree the 10850k is the superior chip I'd go with the 11700k if i was doing a build for myself for the extra £60-70..... He can't really go wrong with either I was personally impressed by the 11500 just make sure he gets a board that is equipped with a vrm to handle it unlocked.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 23, 2021)

Hi,
Only good time for a non k version would be a laptop.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 23, 2021)

Unless he has two otherwise identical machines running the same program side-by-side, it is unlikely he will be able to "see" the difference while actually gaming. On paper in benchmarks, yes - but real-world? Nope. 

So it really comes down to "subjective perception" (what his brain _thinks_ it sees), and "desire" - what does he want and will he be disappointed in himself for not spending the little bit extra? While some may not consider €70 a "little bit", when you consider the total price of the entire computer, factor in and spread out that extra cost over the life of the computer, plus add in the boost from the enjoyment value due to that "subjective perception" (ego stroking) with having the better processor, I say €70 is a tiny amount and to go for the maximum amount the budget allows - AS LONG AS that extra €70 on the CPU does NOT mean compromising in quality elsewhere, such as a quality PSU or case.


----------



## Gwenved (May 25, 2021)

Bill_Bright said:


> Unless he has two otherwise identical machines running the same program side-by-side, it is unlikely he will be able to "see" the difference while actually gaming. On paper in benchmarks, yes - but real-world? Nope.
> 
> So it really comes down to "subjective perception" (what his brain _thinks_ it sees), and "desire" - what does he want and will he be disappointed in himself for not spending the little bit extra? While some may not consider €70 a "little bit", when you consider the total price of the entire computer, factor in and spread out that extra cost over the life of the computer, plus add in the boost from the enjoyment value due to that "subjective perception" (ego stroking) with having the better processor, I say €70 is a tiny amount and to go for the maximum amount the budget allows - AS LONG AS that extra €70 on the CPU does NOT mean compromising in quality elsewhere, such as a quality PSU or case.


I agree, I'm taking now F version as it allows me to spare some € better spent in other component. I stopped K version 10 years ago or more as overclocking wasn't necessary for me. At this time my i7-2600 paired with good memory and a good graphic card had large enough power for my use. Nowaday it is still the same or better.


----------



## AusWolf (May 25, 2021)

Maybe I'm the minority here, but I always go with the non-K variant. Like said before, gaming experience is indistinguishable, and the lower power limits mean you don't necessarily need fancy cooling. Not to mention the lower price. Just be careful with the motherboard choice, don't buy or suggest anything without VRM heatsinks (it's usually a sign of bad quality).

And I agree, 11th gen Core i9 is a waste of money.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 25, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Maybe I'm the minority here


You're not.


----------



## TheUn4seen (May 25, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Maybe I'm the minority here, but I always go with the non-K variant. Like said before, gaming experience is indistinguishable, and the lower power limits mean you don't necessarily need fancy cooling. Not to mention the lower price. Just be careful with the motherboard choice, don't buy or suggest anything without VRM heatsinks (it's usually a sign of bad quality).
> 
> And I agree, 11th gen Core i9 is a waste of money.


I tend to agree with this. With 11 series and for home use I wouldn't go above 11400 or at most 11600, that's what I intend to do as soon as I find a suitable motherboard. I'd say since about 8 or 9 series there's no actual point in going for high-end other than enlarging one's e-peen.


----------



## AusWolf (May 25, 2021)

TheUn4seen said:


> I tend to agree with this. With 11 series and for home use *I wouldn't go above 11400 or at most 11600*, that's what I intend to do as soon as I find a suitable motherboard. I'd say since about 8 or 9 series there's no actual point in going for high-end other than enlarging one's e-peen.


Well, that depends. I have a feeling the extra 2 cores might come in handy in the future, but going above Core i7 is really just for bragging rights (if that's a thing).

I myself am seriously considering retiring (or repurposing) my Ryzen 3 3100 and trying an 11700 in my thin SFF case just to see how it works under limited power options with limited airflow. The R5 3600 I tried not long ago didn't work so well, but I'm thinking that the larger monolithic die of the 11700 might dissipate heat better under similar power conditions than the smaller, more concentrated chiplets of the 3600.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 25, 2021)

I may be bias, but what about a 10 core 20 thread 10850k? They sell for under $400 USD.


----------



## The red spirit (May 25, 2021)

You can always raise TDP of chip with modifying PL values. You can safely ignore that spec. However the real hard limit is maximum all core boost. I don't know the exact number, but for i7 11700 it should be 3.8-4GHz. It means that if TDP limits aren't reached in all core load you will get no more than that. But in single threaded loads it is rated at 4.9GHz. That's solid. If you want to save some money, non k versions makes a lot of sense. Want it to be faster, raise PL values. But if you are interested in absolutely maximum performance then k version is the one you should get. Knowing how hard to cool k version is with power limits removed, there's almost no point in getting it. Considering that your friend is inexperienced, just get him non k version. Either way he/she won't utilize k features. It's just not worth it. 

I'm not exactly sure what things your friend will do, but 10 core 10th gen i9 can be a better deal if workloads are heavily threaded. But whichever CPU you chose, make sure that the board you will be buying for it has good VRMs. On Intel platforms that is very important. If getting k variant means sacrificing on VRMs, then don't get k version.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 25, 2021)

I see it's been discussed


----------



## puma99dk| (May 26, 2021)

@BarbaricSoul and @The red spirit  the 10th gen doesn't have PCI-E Gen4 and ruins most m.2. options on Z590 so as much of better value the i9-10850K are it not gonna be that one.

Going with a Z590 should allow for changing Intel's Tau values PL1 (Sustained) and PL2 (Peak) but I need to read more about this and also saw in a video from Hardware Unboxed about performance on B560 where the same cpu could performance with 30% difference depending on if manufacture was running the cpu written Intel's Tau specs for the cpu.


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> @BarbaricSoul and @The red spirit  the 10th gen doesn't have PCI-E Gen4 and ruins most m.2. options on Z590 so as much of better value the i9-10850K are it not gonna be that one.
> 
> Going with a Z590 should allow for changing Intel's Tau values PL1 (Sustained) and PL2 (Peak) but I need to read more about this and also saw in a video from Hardware Unboxed about performance on B560 where the same cpu could performance with 30% difference depending on if manufacture was running the cpu written Intel's Tau specs for the cpu.


If even my rubbish H61 MSi board (in my signature) allows PL1 and PL2 modification, then every Intel motherboard should have an option for it (theoretically). The only thing is, if you want higher sustained clocks at the cost of power consumption and heat, then you'll need to choose a high quality board and decent cooling.


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> @The red spirit  the 10th gen doesn't have PCI-E Gen4 and ruins most m.2. options on Z590 so as much of better value the i9-10850K are it not gonna be that one.


Does PCIe version even matter? You would be hard pressed to tell a difference between SATA SSD and NVMe SSD without looking at numbers as (1) SATA SSDs are fast enough, (2) Windows for some reason can't properly utilize all that extra speed. Making super fast SSDs somewhat pointless. The only thing I would care about in SSD is type of flash. If it's MLC it's good, if it's TLC it's tolerable and if it's QLC then it's e-waste. DRAM cache matters too. Beyond that there are almost no real differences, unless for you copying files takes up a lot of time. Then that's the only justifiable reason to shell out on fast SSD. For most people CPU will matter more than SSD, making i9 a quite reasonable buy when compared to 11700.




puma99dk| said:


> Going with a Z590 should allow for changing Intel's Tau values PL1 (Sustained) and PL2 (Peak) but I need to read more about this and also saw in a video from Hardware Unboxed about performance on B560 where the same cpu could performance with 30% difference depending on if manufacture was running the cpu written Intel's Tau specs for the cpu.


All Intel chipsets allow doing that. PL2 isn't exactly peak, it's sustained upper TDP for Tau duration. peak values are PL3 and PL4, that may or may not be user adjustable. BTW Intel's Z chipset is imo useless. The chips that would benefit from overclocking are locked, those that wouldn't benefit much are already clocked to almost their maximum clock speed. To be honest, AMD also has similar "problem". Nowadays TDP tweaking is much more meaningful and easier than overlocking. That HU video was mostly FUD. Sure boards now differentiate and try to hide poor VRMs by lowering PL values, but on any board with decent VRMs PL values are adjustable and default settings hardly matter. General consensus is that VRMs matter, just like they always did. There's one good thing for cheap boards, now you have more control with poor VRMs and can manage them better.


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> All Intel chipsets allow doing that. PL2 isn't exactly peak, it's sustained upper TDP for Tau duration. peak values are PL3 and PL4, that may or may not be user adjustable. BTW Intel's Z chipset is imo useless. The chips that would benefit from overclocking are locked, those that wouldn't benefit much are already clocked to almost their maximum clock speed. To be honest, AMD also has similar "problem". Nowadays TDP tweaking is much more meaningful and easier than overlocking. That HU video was mostly FUD. Sure boards now differentiate and try to hide poor VRMs by lowering PL values, but on any board with decent VRMs PL values are adjustable and default settings hardly matter. General consensus is that VRMs matter, just like they always did. There's one good thing for cheap boards, now you have more control with poor VRMs and can manage them better.


Cheap motherboards are not only cheap in price, but quality too. It's a general truth ever since the motherboard was invented. There's nothing surprising in HU's video imo.

If you want to overclock, you need a decent VRM. PL2 and/or Tau unlocking is technically overclocking, whether your motherboard manufacturer has done it for you in the 'Auto' setting or not.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 26, 2021)

PCI-Express 4.0 NVMe SSD Performance on Ryzen 3000 & X570
					

AMD's new Ryzens are the first desktop processors to support PCI-Express 4.0, which doubles transfer rates over PCIe 3.0. We test real-life performance gains using the 2 TB Gigabyte Aorus Gen4 M.2 NVMe SSD, which reaches over 5 GB/s in sequential speeds.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Cheap motherboards are not only cheap in price, but quality too. It's a general truth ever since the motherboard was invented. There's nothing surprising in HU's video imo.
> 
> If you want to overclock, you need a decent VRM. PL2 and/or Tau unlocking is technically overclocking, whether your motherboard manufacturer has done it for you in the 'Auto' setting or not.


I actually wouldn't be so harsh on cheap hardware. I know it's irrational of me to defend them, but they don't usually suck. In my country cheap boards are what 95% of people have in their desktops and anything better than basic board is clearly a luxury. And it seems that cheap boards perform well and last a long time. The thing is that they usually strip down features that are marketable (yet don't really matter all that much), deliver more basic BIOS and keep vital components good enough. Obviously, sometimes they go too cheap with those too, but generally they don't. 

Same thing happens with power supplies. Cheap power supplies, that YouTubers call out as being bombs are the most common units in prebuilts and they last and don't really spark or explode. They are mostly from Codegen brand and sometimes from Inter-tech. So I'm very skeptical about YouTubers claiming that cheap products are actually bad and always suspect that they overlooked some details or misunderstood products entirely. I personally saw family PC lasting 13 years with cheap "bomb" looking Codegen 300X power supply and bottom of the barrel DFI board. It worked perfectly fine, until one day capacitors gave out and RAM started to malfunction. That's pretty good, especially knowing that board was made during capacitor plaque era. During 'rona, my dad brought home work computer, which has i7 2700K and it has some cheap Inter-Tech 500W PSU and it is with some random not high end Intel board. It still works perfectly fine and was never repaired. It's now at least decade old already. Eh, people seriously underestimate cheap components. 

And PL/Tau modification isn't exactly overclocking. Intel lets every OEM to freely adjust those values, except PL1 downwards. OEMs are free to adjust them as they see and Intel is cool with that. The only thing Intel doesn't give a shit about is whether your CPU will reach clock speed higher than base speed. If it fails to reach turbo speed, Intel won't RMA it. However if CPU fails to reach base speed, then Intel will RMA it. PL/Tau mods aren't overclocking, because they don't go beyond factory speed. Motherboard manufacturers are the only ones, which may claim that it's "overclocking" (aka running beyond motherboard default values) and board may not be engineered to take all that extra abuse, which will lead to excessive thermals and shorter lifespan. In rare cases, straight up BSOD. But then again, most boards come with higher than "default" (default PL values technically don't exist according to Intel) PL/Tau values anyway, making your manual adjustment unnecessary.



BarbaricSoul said:


> PCI-Express 4.0 NVMe SSD Performance on Ryzen 3000 & X570
> 
> 
> AMD's new Ryzens are the first desktop processors to support PCI-Express 4.0, which doubles transfer rates over PCIe 3.0. We test real-life performance gains using the 2 TB Gigabyte Aorus Gen4 M.2 NVMe SSD, which reaches over 5 GB/s in sequential speeds.
> ...


And? All compared SSD performed pretty much the same in majority of tasks. And compared SSDs were all PCIe 4. In anything beyond synthetics, SSD speed doesn't matter (as long as its not QLC);









Unless your workloads are heavy in file transfers or reads, don't expect to see any performance gains. Also here's one trick to make existing SSD faster, disable CPU C states.

(Also that article showed that fast SSD will overheat very easily and there's a higher risk of losing your data or experiencing SSD throttling, making fast SSDs even more pointless.)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 26, 2021)

easy Hoss, I'm promoting the 10850k also. That review is to show there is no noticeable differences between 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

BarbaricSoul said:


> easy Hoss, I'm promoting the 10850k also. Those charts are to show there is no noticable differences between 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0


Oh, sorry. I mistook you with OP.


----------



## evernessince (May 26, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> I was recently asked which Intel CPU to buy from a friend that doesn't want AMD but Intel because he uses Intel Quick Sync and have some application that lists Intel and not AMD.
> 
> He also game so I told him that the price of the recent Intel Core i9-11900 and the i9-11900K is a joke for the price when the same 8c/16t cores.
> 
> ...



Quick sync really isn't a reason to be sticking with Intel.  Any modern CPU with 4 or more cores can decode any video without issue.  Quick Sync is only really beneficial if you are talking about extremely low end products.

As others have stated, there is no advantage to having PCIe 4.0 except in a few professional workloads.  I would highly recommend getting an Intel 10xxx series CPU instead of a 11xxx series CPU if you must go Intel.  The 11xxx series has lower gaming performance, power consumption is too high, and performance across motherboards can vary wildly (up to 45%).  You are also going to need to budget for a good cooler and motherboard as significant costs as well as they are needed to get the most out of any 10xxx series or 11xxx series CPU.  If there isn't enough in the budget for that I'd recommend dropping down to something like a 10400F / 10600K.

Also, K series variants for the 10xxx and 11xxx series only make sense if you don't care about cost.  The peformance gain from overclocking is extremely small on these parts and the costs to get that small gain are much higher then makes sense.  Intel pretty much tapped the 10xxx series out of the box and the 11xxx series is completely tapped out.  At that point you might as well just buy a 5800X and get better performance at a fraction of the power consumption out of the box.


----------



## tabascosauz (May 26, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> I was recently asked which Intel CPU to buy from a friend that doesn't want AMD but Intel because he uses Intel Quick Sync and have some application that lists Intel and not AMD.
> 
> He also game so I told him that the price of the recent Intel Core i9-11900 and the i9-11900K is a joke for the price when the same 8c/16t cores.
> 
> ...



I'd straight up cut the 11700K out of the picture entirely. Either 11700, or 10850K/10900K.

If you're not buying a binned 11700K and don't have absolutely _beefy_ cooling, I wouldn't expect that 11700K to go very far at all. RKL has severely limited overclocking headroom compared to Comet Lake, and isn't nearly as good on thermals as Comet Lake.

Yes, the nominal all-core is 200MHz lower on the 11700 and even more if you manage say a 4.9GHz all-core on the 11700K, but at that point the 10850K would still kick its ass if multi-core performance is what you want. The IPC advantage of Rocket Lake shows in SuperPI and just about nothing else. So unless he *really *wants PCIe 4.0 to appease his ego and literally nothing else......aside from being able to use that first M.2 slot on Z590 boards for aesthetics......

So yeah, either non-K or 10-core.

Don't make the mistake of treating the 11700(K) and 11900(K) as being "just an 8-core". Look at the temperature graphs on reviews of Comet Lake and Rocket Lake. 73C 10-core Max Turbo is actually sustainable. 86C 8-core Max Turbo really isn't.

Oh, and I know your friend said no AMD, but if he's even slightly inclined to check them out, the 5800X pricing is dropping significantly from its launch price. It's now sitting at the same pricing as the 10900K in some places. So, still a bit more expensive than a 10850K, but Z590 pricing will make up the difference. Just remember to bring an AIO for either one, you're looking at similar temps.


----------



## evernessince (May 26, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> I actually wouldn't be so harsh on cheap hardware. I know it's irrational of me to defend them, but they don't usually suck. In my country cheap boards are what 95% of people have in their desktops and anything better than basic board is clearly a luxury. And it seems that cheap boards perform well and last a long time. The thing is that they usually strip down features that are marketable (yet don't really matter all that much), deliver more basic BIOS and keep vital components good enough. Obviously, sometimes they go too cheap with those too, but generally they don't.
> 
> Same thing happens with power supplies. Cheap power supplies, that YouTubers call out as being bombs are the most common units in prebuilts and they last and don't really spark or explode. They are mostly from Codegen brand and sometimes from Inter-tech. So I'm very skeptical about YouTubers claiming that cheap products are actually bad and always suspect that they overlooked some details or misunderstood products entirely. I personally saw family PC lasting 13 years with cheap "bomb" looking Codegen 300X power supply and bottom of the barrel DFI board. It worked perfectly fine, until one day capacitors gave out and RAM started to malfunction. That's pretty good, especially knowing that board was made during capacitor plaque era. During 'rona, my dad brought home work computer, which has i7 2700K and it has some cheap Inter-Tech 500W PSU and it is with some random not high end Intel board. It still works perfectly fine and was never repaired. It's now at least decade old already. Eh, people seriously underestimate cheap components.
> 
> And PL/Tau modification isn't exactly overclocking. Intel lets every OEM to freely adjust those values, except PL1 downwards. OEMs are free to adjust them as they see and Intel is cool with that. The only thing Intel doesn't give a shit about is whether your CPU will reach clock speed higher than base speed. If it fails to reach turbo speed, Intel won't RMA it. However if CPU fails to reach base speed, then Intel will RMA it. PL/Tau mods aren't overclocking, because they don't go beyond factory speed. Motherboard manufacturers are the only ones, which may claim that it's "overclocking" (aka running beyond motherboard default values) and board may not be engineered to take all that extra abuse, which will lead to excessive thermals and shorter lifespan. In rare cases, straight up BSOD. But then again, most boards come with higher than "default" (default PL values technically don't exist according to Intel) PL/Tau values anyway, making your manual adjustment unnecessary.



Whether cheap works or not really depends.  In the case of the Intel 11xxx series even midrange is not nearly good enough, with up to a 45% performance hit on some midranged motherboards: 








Forget about using a cheap motherboard with those power hungry CPUs.

"sometimes they go too cheap with those too, but generally they don't."

I'd say it's about 50/50.  Reviews of cheaper products clearly indicated a higher failure rate and people generally have more issues with them.  QC is lower, materials are cheaper, and VRMs are sparse.  Multiple reviews and investigations have shown us time and time again that cheap boards perform worse and use lower end caps, which are rated for a lower lifespan and rated for lower temperatures.  You are always making compromises when buying low end motherboards.  They don't go as cheap as to have the products fail in warranty (for obvious reasons) but don't go expect longenvity when the components on the board are rated for 1/4rth the lifespan of a quality motherboard.

"Cheap power supplies, that YouTubers call out as being bombs are the most common units in prebuilts and they last and don't really spark or explode."

Most pre-builts don't last and many of those "bomb" PSUs have been objectively tested to in fact have serious issues.  Gigabyte's infamous PSU is in fact a bomb, it's exploded on multiple reviewers now.

"I personally saw family PC lasting 13 years with cheap "bomb" looking Codegen 300X power supply and bottom of the barrel DFI board. It worked perfectly fine, until one day capacitors gave out and RAM started to malfunction. That's pretty good, especially knowing that board was made during capacitor plaque era. During 'rona, my dad brought home work computer, which has i7 2700K and it has some cheap Inter-Tech 500W PSU and it is with some random not high end Intel board. It still works perfectly fine and was never repaired. It's now at least decade old already. Eh, people seriously underestimate cheap components."

Keep playing with fire and some day you are doing to get burned.  I've personally had a PSU catch fire (Rosewill branded).  People aren't underestimating cheap parts, they are providing recommendations so that your entire PC isn't destroyed by your power supply or so that your house doesn't catch fire because you could be bothered to spend $10 more to buy something that's electrically safe.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 26, 2021)

BarbaricSoul said:


> easy Hoss, I'm promoting the 10850k also. That review is to show there is no noticeable differences between 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0



Problem is that most Z590 board have problems with the first M.2. port only working with 11th gen CPU's not 10th gen and specially when I look at the Z590 Vision G that have 4 M.2. slots only 1 from the chipset works with 10th gen CPU's so ending up with 1 M.2. most of the times is a really bummer if you ask me.





Link: https://download.gigabyte.com/FileList/Manual/mb_manual_z590-vision-g_1002_e.pdf

Cool thing with this board is it can split the first PCI-E x16 4.0 into PCI-E x8 4.0 and 2xM.2. PCI-E x4 4.0 and PCI-E x8 4.0 is the same as PCI-E x16 3.0 and thanks to @W1zzard RTX 3080 PCI-Express Scaling test even the RTX 3080 doesn't bottleneck at PCI-E x16 3.0 it's really hard to feel the 1%




Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> I actually wouldn't be so harsh on cheap hardware. I know it's irrational of me to defend them, but they don't usually suck. In my country cheap boards are what 95% of people have in their desktops and anything better than basic board is clearly a luxury. And it seems that cheap boards perform well and last a long time. The thing is that they usually strip down features that are marketable (yet don't really matter all that much), deliver more basic BIOS and keep vital components good enough. Obviously, sometimes they go too cheap with those too, but generally they don't.
> 
> Same thing happens with power supplies. Cheap power supplies, that YouTubers call out as being bombs are the most common units in prebuilts and they last and don't really spark or explode. They are mostly from Codegen brand and sometimes from Inter-tech. So I'm very skeptical about YouTubers claiming that cheap products are actually bad and always suspect that they overlooked some details or misunderstood products entirely. I personally saw family PC lasting 13 years with cheap "bomb" looking Codegen 300X power supply and bottom of the barrel DFI board. It worked perfectly fine, until one day capacitors gave out and RAM started to malfunction. That's pretty good, especially knowing that board was made during capacitor plaque era. During 'rona, my dad brought home work computer, which has i7 2700K and it has some cheap Inter-Tech 500W PSU and it is with some random not high end Intel board. It still works perfectly fine and was never repaired. It's now at least decade old already. Eh, people seriously underestimate cheap components.
> 
> ...


My brother has been rocking a first gen Core i5 with a cheap Intel motherboard and noname 650 W power supply for the last 10 or so years. Cheap hardware _can_ last. It doesn't mean it's as good as one built using quality components. I'm not saying you should aim for the most expensive stuff and pay $1000 for a motherboard that's full of features you don't need. All I'm saying is you shouldn't skimp on the extra $20 for a quality motherboard and PSU if you're pairing them with a Core i7. Like mentioned before, solid capacitors tend to last longer and quality PSUs deliver peak power that's closer to the advertised value, more stable voltages that are better for the longevity of your other components, and offer safety features that protect your PC should there be any issue with your mains. I've also had a cheap PSU burn down and kill my motherboard because of an electrical surge in the mains. Just because you _can_ build a fully functional PC using the cheapest components available, I'm not going to recommend it.

As for performance, you can follow Intel guidelines, run your CPU at full speed, but then you need a beefy cooler and quality motherboard and PSU to deliver the power it needs. Or you can follow the same guidelines from the other side, buy a motherboard that enforces Intel recommended PL and Tau values by default, and sacrifice some performance. The choice is yours. As for me, I'd rather buy the quality components and enforce PL and Tau values that meet my system's cooling capacity, but that's a different story.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 26, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> My brother has been rocking a first gen Core i5 with a cheap Intel motherboard and noname 650 W power supply for the last 10 or so years. Cheap hardware _can_ last. It doesn't mean it's as good as one built using quality components. I'm not saying you should aim for the most expensive stuff and pay $1000 for a motherboard that's full of features you don't need. All I'm saying is you shouldn't skimp on the extra $20 for a quality motherboard and PSU if you're pairing them with a Core i7. Like mentioned before, solid capacitors tend to last longer and quality PSUs deliver peak power that's closer to the advertised value, more stable voltages that are better for the longevity of your other components, and offer safety features that protect your PC should there be any issue with your mains. I've also had a cheap PSU burn down and kill my motherboard because of an electrical surge in the mains. Just because you _can_ build a fully functional PC using the cheapest components available, I'm not going to recommend it.
> 
> As for performance, you can follow Intel guidelines, run your CPU at full speed, but then you need a beefy cooler and quality motherboard and PSU to deliver the power it needs. Or you can follow the same guidelines from the other side, buy a motherboard that enforces Intel recommended PL and Tau values by default, and sacrifice some performance. The choice is yours. As for me, I'd rather buy the quality components and enforce PL and Tau values that meet my system's cooling capacity, but that's a different story.


Some OEM do use quality components to a degree and having a fine airflow goes a long way for the longevity of the board.

But back to topic here is reason for the 11th Gen is so M.2. storage won't be limited to like 1 M.2. for most Z590 board and since I am not that much familiar with Intel's Tau it could be nice getting more documentation on it and how to change the PL1 and PL2 to something useful.


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

evernessince said:


> As others have stated, there is no advantage to having PCIe 4.0 except in a few professional workloads.  I would highly recommend getting an Intel 10xxx series CPU instead of a 11xxx series CPU if you must go Intel.  The 11xxx series has lower gaming performance, power consumption is too high, and performance across motherboards can vary wildly (up to 45%).  You are also going to need to budget for a good cooler and motherboard as significant costs as well as they are needed to get the most out of any 10xxx series or 11xxx series CPU.  If there isn't enough in the budget for that I'd recommend dropping down to something like a 10400F / 10600K.


11th gen isn't worse in games, power consumption is adjustable and similar to Comet Lake, performance only varies due to different PL/Tau values set by default.



evernessince said:


> Whether cheap works or not really depends.  In the case of the Intel 11xxx series even midrange is not nearly good enough, with up to a 45% performance hit on some midranged motherboards:


Or is just manufacturers that can't design a proper VRMs?




evernessince said:


> Forget about using a cheap motherboard with those power hungry CPUs.


I'm not suggesting that, just saying that cheap boards are usually just fine.



evernessince said:


> I'd say it's about 50/50.  Reviews of cheaper products clearly indicated a higher failure rate and people generally have more issues with them.  QC is lower, materials are cheaper, and VRMs are sparse.  Multiple reviews and investigations have shown us time and time again that cheap boards perform worse and use lower end caps, which are rated for a lower lifespan and rated for lower temperatures.  You are always making compromises when buying low end motherboards.  They don't go as cheap as to have the products fail in warranty (for obvious reasons) but don't go expect longenvity when the components on the board are rated for 1/4rth the lifespan of a quality motherboard.


By cheap I meant not what Steve from HU tests. I meant truly cheap boards like Asrock HDV series, Gigabyte S2P series (DS3H is actually upper low end series), Asus Prime products like K or E models. Their QC is the same. Materials are exactly the same, but parts aren't. VRMs are sparse, but they should be good enough. Your lifespan figures don't make sense. 




evernessince said:


> "Cheap power supplies, that YouTubers call out as being bombs are the most common units in prebuilts and they last and don't really spark or explode."
> 
> Most pre-builts don't last and many of those "bomb" PSUs have been objectively tested to in fact have serious issues.  Gigabyte's infamous PSU is in fact a bomb, it's exploded on multiple reviewers now.


Gigabyte is a premium brand. And despite that it was just badly engineered. Nothing to do with it being cheap. By cheap power supplies I meant something like this:





						SL-500 Plus - Inter-Tech GmbH
					

Inter-Tech Elektronik Handels GmbH - Gehäuse, Netzteile und vieles mehr aus der Hardwarewelt




					www.inter-tech.de
				




It costs 18,40 Euros (22.51 US dollars, US has their own cheap PSU brand Diablotek, which is pretty much an equivalent of cheap European brands). That's half of cheapest 80 plus rated PSUs from better known manufacturers. 



evernessince said:


> "I personally saw family PC lasting 13 years with cheap "bomb" looking Codegen 300X power supply and bottom of the barrel DFI board. It worked perfectly fine, until one day capacitors gave out and RAM started to malfunction. That's pretty good, especially knowing that board was made during capacitor plaque era. During 'rona, my dad brought home work computer, which has i7 2700K and it has some cheap Inter-Tech 500W PSU and it is with some random not high end Intel board. It still works perfectly fine and was never repaired. It's now at least decade old already. Eh, people seriously underestimate cheap components."
> 
> Keep playing with fire and some day you are doing to get burned.  I've personally had a PSU catch fire (Rosewill branded).  People aren't underestimating cheap parts, they are providing recommendations so that your entire PC isn't destroyed by your power supply or so that your house doesn't catch fire because you could be bothered to spend $10 more to buy something that's electrically safe.


Gee, it wasn't me who put that thing in there. Pretty much all local prebuilt computer sellers use those things and sell them to people and unsurprisingly they are very popular. However, I'm still aren't entirely convinced that those cheap units are really as bad as media says. Often some Youtuber buy one for lolz, ignores written wattage on 12v rail and then claims that it was poop 

Here's a video of such poor reviewer:









He insists that PSU is 600 watts, but he never checked rail specs. Turns out that he was wrong, was biased and came to wrong conclusion. The PSU itself only delivers 540 watts on 12 volt rails and rails are split into 12V1 and 12V2, meaning that each rail has lower wattage limit than combined wattage for 12V rails. 12V1 rail is probably CPU connector and 12V2 is likely for the rest of components. Greg plugged in two cards in SLI, which likely overloaded 12V2 rail as it was rated for 28 amps and 12 volts +- 0.5 volt. So to be on safe side, lets use 11.5 volts and we get that rail was rated for 322 watts. Two 80 series cards in SLI as I remember likely consumed more than 400 watts. Is it really any wonder that PSU was loud and likely won't last all that long in that usage case? People and Youtubers really don't check wattage ratings of each rail and often come incorrect conclusions and spread fud. Most PSU companies don't lie about wattage as it regulated to some extent and they would have a shit ton of lawsuits to deal with. Some companies indeed do lie about PSU specs, but it's so rare that it's hardly worth to think about. 

And if you don't like Greg, then there's this twat who clearly overloaded rails and his PSU failed on camera:









It was only made to deliver 14 and 16 amps on 12 volt rails. A combined 12 volt rail rating was 350 watts. I don't even have to say that Timmy overloaded the crap out of it and then said that it was POS. It's a low end unit for sure, but for what it is rated for it delivered. Again typical PSU fud.

And power supply nowadays can't really destroy your PC. It usually has 4 protections to prevent harming components and to stop PSU catching on fire. Shit like that only happened when PSUs didn't have any protections and that was really common until early 2000s. Beyond that it's a super rare occurrence.



AusWolf said:


> As for performance, you can follow Intel guidelines, run your CPU at full speed, but then you need a beefy cooler and quality motherboard and PSU to deliver the power it needs. Or you can follow the same guidelines from the other side, buy a motherboard that enforces Intel recommended PL and Tau values by default, and sacrifice some performance. The choice is yours. As for me, I'd rather buy the quality components and enforce PL and Tau values that meet my system's cooling capacity, but that's a different story.


I personally don't see any problems with just sticking to Intel's suggested PL1 and PL2 values. They are good enough and are nice if you want a system that is cool and quiet. I bought a board that can keep i5 running at unlocked PL values and I keep it this way, but I have used it with various PL values and stock PL values are decent. my board defaults to 80 watts PL1 and 125 watt PL2 and that's enough to keep 10400F at full speed at nearly any load. With turbo boost off, i5 is phenomenally cool and power efficient, but you can feel the loss of performance. The only thing that I don't really recommend is using Intel stock cooler. It's just not good enough. Motherboard should be able to handle chip at full blast too, but not necessarily it should be with higher PL values set in BIOS. It's not for everyone.


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> Gigabyte is a premium brand. And despite that it was just badly engineered. Nothing to do with it being cheap. By cheap power supplies I meant something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gigabyte is just as much of a premium brand as Asus, ASRock or MSi. Some of their products are good, some of them are OK, but some of them you should stay away from.

As for the power supply: why would you buy that thing when you can buy something like this or this? Look at the power table. The Inter-tech (or whatever it's called) can deliver 30 A on the 12 V rail, the EVGA can do 40, and the Corsair 38, and both of the latter have more built-in protection against electrical or thermal faults. They come with a 3-year warranty as well - I didn't find any warranty information on the Inter-tech unit. An extra 10-15 euros/dollars/pounds make a huge difference in this price category.



The red spirit said:


> I personally don't see any problems with just sticking to Intel's suggested PL1 and PL2 values. They are good enough and are nice if you want a system that is cool and quiet. I bought a board that can keep i5 running at unlocked PL values and I keep it this way, but I have used it with various PL values and stock PL values are decent. my board defaults to 80 watts PL1 and 125 watt PL2 and that's enough to keep 10400F at full speed at nearly any load. With turbo boost off, i5 is phenomenally cool and power efficient, but you can feel the loss of performance. The only thing that I don't really recommend is using Intel stock cooler. It's just not good enough. Motherboard should be able to handle chip at full blast too, but not necessarily it should be with higher PL values set in BIOS. It's not for everyone.


I agree with this. I'm really thinking about upgrading to a Core i7-11700 and using it with enforced PL values in my slim SFF case. The only reason I'm still thinking is because I don't know how big of a performance loss I can expect by locking its power targets. I'm planning to use it with a be quiet! Shadow Rock LP, so technically, I should have some thermal headroom to play with.


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> As for the power supply: why would you buy that thing when you can buy something like this or this? Look at the power table. The Inter-tech (or whatever it's called) can deliver 30 A on the 12 V rail, the EVGA can do 40, and the Corsair 38, and both of the latter have more built-in protection against electrical or thermal faults. They come with a 3-year warranty as well - I didn't find any warranty information on the Inter-tech unit. An extra 10-15 euros/dollars/pounds make a huge difference in this price category.


I clearly said prebuilts. SL-500 Plus was used as example of cheap PSU. The reason for those things being there is that prebuilts make very little money as they are and they cut corners to make them as cheap as possible.



AusWolf said:


> I agree with this. I'm really thinking about upgrading to a Core i7-11700 and using it with enforced PL values in my slim SFF case. The only reason I'm still thinking is because I don't know how big of a performance loss I can expect by locking its power targets. I'm planning to use it with a be quiet! Shadow Rock LP, so technically, I should have some thermal headroom to play with.


In games you probably won't see a big difference as CPUs doesn't pull much amps in such loads, therefore you can stay in boost pretty much all the time (i5 10400F only pulls 40 watts during gaming loads and stays at maximum all core clock). You should be able to raise PL1 to 80-90 watts and reduce PL 2 to 120 watts. If you don't do any productivity on it, the nit makes sense to look at i5 11400. It should be easier to manage to keep it under TDP and at decent clock speed. Anyway older 10700 wasn't exactly power hungry:








						Intel Core i7-10700 Review - Way to Overclock without the K
					

In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




It was 87% as good with power limits. If you raise PL1 to 80 watts it becomes closer to 97% as good. I know that that my i5 10400F with PL1 set to 80 watts and PL2 to 100 watts almost never losses clock speed. The only way I can make it drop to 3.6-3.8GHz is prime95 small FFTs. 10700 in theory should be hotter, so add 10 watts for each PL. 11700 should be very similar to 10700. Depending on your fan noise tolerance, Shadow Rock LP should be able to handle 11700 to close to fully unlocked speed. I personally use Scythe Choten with i5 10400F and I don't think that I ever saw it at 80C, even with all cores being stressed and unlocked. As long as you use that cooler and have some case fans, I don't think that you should have any problems.


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> Some OEM do use quality components to a degree and having a fine airflow goes a long way for the longevity of the board.
> 
> But back to topic here is reason for the 11th Gen is so M.2. storage won't be limited to like 1 M.2. for most Z590 board and since I am not that much familiar with Intel's Tau it could be nice getting more documentation on it and how to change the PL1 and PL2 to something useful.


If I finally manage to convince myself to upgrade (I don't really need it, but my tech curiosity is strong), I'll report it back to you.  If it's any similar to my old HTPC motherboard, then you have PL1, PL2 and "PL1 duration" (Tau) settings in the motherboard BIOS under the CPU settings. PL1 is the overall power limit, Tau is the time in seconds for which PL1 can be exceeded, and PL2 is the exceeded power limit in that timespan. It's a cheap H61 board, but still lets me change these values to whatever I want to, so I imagine with better built and more modern boards, it must work at least similarly.



The red spirit said:


> In games you probably won't see a big difference as CPUs doesn't pull much amps in such loads, therefore you can stay in boost pretty much all the time (i5 10400F only pulls 40 watts during gaming loads and stays at maximum all core clock). You should be able to raise PL1 to 80-90 watts and reduce PL 2 to 120 watts. If you don't do any productivity on it, the nit makes sense to look at i5 11400. It should be easier to manage to keep it under TDP and at decent clock speed. Anyway older 10700 wasn't exactly power hungry:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why haven't I looked at this review before?  Thanks.

I briefly considered the i5-11500 as well, but the extra 2 cores might come in handy in the future. I don't do any productivity work on my PC, so it's nice to see that I'm only looking at undetectable performance losses in games with reduced PL values.

The only reason I'm cautious with ordering is because I've tried a Ryzen 5 3600 with the Shadow Rock LP, and barely saw temps under 80 C in full load with the default 88 W PPT. But then, AMD's 7 nm chiplets are a much more concentrated heat source than Intel's larger single die. The Shadow Rock LP wasn't warm to the touch even after reseating it multiple times for some reason. It might work better with Intel, I don't know.


----------



## The red spirit (May 26, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Why haven't I looked at this review before?  Thanks.


Because it's for Comet Lake, not for Rocket Lake. 



AusWolf said:


> I briefly considered the i5-11500 as well, but the extra 2 cores might come in handy in the future. I don't do any productivity work on my PC, so it's nice to see that I'm only looking at undetectable performance losses in games with reduced PL values.
> 
> The only reason I'm cautious with ordering is because I've tried a Ryzen 5 3600 with the Shadow Rock LP, and barely saw temps under 80 C in full load with the default 88 W PPT. But then, AMD's 7 nm chiplets are a much more concentrated heat source than Intel's larger single die. The Shadow Rock LP wasn't warm to the touch even after reseating it multiple times for some reason. It might work better with Intel, I don't know.


Either way I find all SFF builds to be nerve-wracking affairs due to such reasons.


----------



## AusWolf (May 26, 2021)

The red spirit said:


> Because it's for Comet Lake, not for Rocket Lake.
> 
> 
> Either way I find all SFF builds to be nerve-wracking affairs due to such reasons.


They're nerve-wrecking before you buy your parts, but when the build is ready and working, it's a much more satisfying experience than a full tower where you know everything will work even before you buy.


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 24, 2021)

Hi, 

Sorry for necro Gogl brought me here , 

So, I have a placeholder i5 10500 atm on a z490unify with overkill vrm, wanted it to be completely RL compatible. 

But, now I saw it's a bit underwhelming, was thinking to upgrade to either 

11700kf or 11900f for its velocity and turbo boost 3.0.

That z490 Vrm and h115i pro rgb can handle it, im more interested in actual all core 11900f clock, is it 4.5ghz or more? Or would 11700kf be better then with its 4.6ghz?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 24, 2021)

TheHunter said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for necro Gogl brought me here ,
> 
> ...


Thermal Velocity Boost only adds +100 MHz that you will never ever notice, if there is temperature headroom, if there is voltage headroom, if... if... if... Not worth the extra price in my opinion.


----------



## looniam (Sep 24, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> Thermal Velocity Boost only adds +100 MHz that you will never ever notice, if there is temperature headroom, if there is voltage headroom, if... if... if... Not worth the extra price in my opinion.


(Z490 unify bios)Version 7C71vA3 - Adds microcode update supporting OC TVB and Intel Cryo Cooling Technology
that will support +2 boost bins:









but yeah, not for everyone/conditions.

edit:
sorry that should be 11:10 time.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 24, 2021)

looniam said:


> (Z490 unify bios)Version 7C71vA3 - Adds microcode update supporting OC TVB and Intel Cryo Cooling Technology
> that will support +2 boost bins:
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly - not in every situation. And I'm still doubting that it's worth the extra price of the i9 over the i7.


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 25, 2021)

I see thanks, guess 11700kf it is then.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 25, 2021)

K, unless the price difference is insane.

It's usually worth getting the K over the non-K even if you're not using a Z-series board, simply for the higher clocks and resale value.


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 25, 2021)

11900f is only 30e more, so not really something drastic, I looked at it because of extra boosts and potentially clocking higher at default, but now I saw some hints it's 4.5ghz all core vs 11700kf with 4.6ghz.

I plan to get the k(f), because my mobo doesnt have onboard gpu support.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 25, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> K, unless the price difference is insane.
> 
> It's usually worth getting the K over the non-K even if you're not using a Z-series board, simply for the higher clocks and resale value.


I agree, though the non-K version offers almost the same clocks with no overclockability - which isn't an issue nowadays, as with modern turbo algorithms, overclocking is pretty much dead anyway. You just need a good motherboard and good cooling to disable power limits, and you're settled.

@TheHunter With that said, I recommend the "K" version only if you're thinking about resale value. If you just need a CPU that gets the job done and can easily be cooled with stock, or slightly modified power limits, the non-K version is fine.

Personally, I went with the non-K because the price difference was £60 at Scan.co.uk, which is about 20%. You'll never see that manifest in performance (unless you leave its power limits at stock). My other reason was that a CPU limited to 65 W power is easier to cool in a small form factor setup. If you're thinking in a standard ATX tower, cooling is a non-issue, though.



TheHunter said:


> 11900f is only 30e more, so not really something drastic, I looked at it because of extra boosts and potentially clocking higher at default, but now I saw some hints it's 4.5ghz all core vs 11700kf with 4.6ghz.
> 
> I plan to get the k(f), because my mobo doesnt have onboard gpu support.


How can your motherboard not have onboard GPU support? What mobo is it? 

With my 11700 (non-K)'s max all-core boost of 4.4 GHz, I think those couple hundred MHz here and there don't matter. What you need to consider is 1. do you want to overclock it? 2. Do you need the iGPU?


----------



## puma99dk| (Sep 25, 2021)

I went i7-11700K because the price for the same cores and thread with velocity boost is not worth the price and I am sure if you really want you can push the i7 just as high.

I haven't regret taking the i7-11700K and give my AMD Ryzen 9 3900X in exchange basically.


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 25, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> I agree, though the non-K version offers almost the same clocks with no overclockability - which isn't an issue nowadays, as with modern turbo algorithms, overclocking is pretty much dead anyway. You just need a good motherboard and good cooling to disable power limits, and you're settled.
> 
> @TheHunter With that said, I recommend the "K" version only if you're thinking about resale value. If you just need a CPU that gets the job done and can easily be cooled with stock, or slightly modified power limits, the non-K version is fine.
> 
> ...


It's this one





						MSI MEG Z490 UNIFY ATX Gaming Motherboard (10th Gen Intel Core, LGA 1200 Socket, SLI/CF, Triple M.2 Slots, USB 3.2 Gen 2x2, Wi-Fi 6)
					

Powered by Intel 10th Gen Core processors, the MSI MEG Z490 UNIFY begins its dark conquest with a design made to accomplish any task with cruel efficiency. Connect to ultra-fast networks with 2.5G LAN and Wi-Fi AX. Move bulky files faster with USB 3.2 Gen




					www.msi.com
				




It has all vrm dedicated to cpu so it's one cool cpu oc., those power limits wont get into the way by anything, i think.  I was in a dilema either to get igpu support and have crappier hotter vrm or get strong vrm and sacrifice igpu.

The cooling is not a problem, have h115i pro.

Guess 11700kf or normal K if its the same price


----------



## puma99dk| (Sep 25, 2021)

well F model is without Intel UHD graphics.

For me the F model was more expensive which is weird should be cheaper that not always the case.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 25, 2021)

TheHunter said:


> It's this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never thought I'd see an LGA-1200 motherboard with no onboard graphics support!  

As for choice, my opinion remains the same: If you want to overclock it, go with the K or KF - though note that there isn't much overclocking headroom in modern CPUs. If you want to save a few bucks on a few turbo bins that you never see manifest themselves as real-world performance, then go with the vanilla 11700, or the F. Your motherboard and the H115i look strong enough so you can unlock your power limits, and have an experience indistinguishable from that of the K variants, or even an i9 - just a lot cheaper.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 25, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> I agree, though the non-K version offers almost the same clocks with no overclockability - which isn't an issue nowadays, as with modern turbo algorithms, overclocking is pretty much dead anyway.



Definitely depends on pricing. 

I hadn't looked at Rocket Lake until just now. 
For Comet Lake the K was about 10% more expensive and it was 4.8 all-core vs 4.5 all-core, which makes sense to go K
For Rocket Lake you're saying 20% more expensive for 4.8 all-core vs 4.7 all-core, which is practically nothing.

I'd say Rocket Lake might be the first generation in a while where the non-K makes more sense, though it's important not to look at just the CPU's cost in isolation - you need to buy a CPU+board together in most cases, potentially with a cooler and new RAM too. Depending on how much you have to spend in total to support this new CPU purchase, even small performance gains can be worth the extra $50-75 when divided by the whole bundle's cost.


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 25, 2021)

puma99dk| said:


> well F model is without Intel UHD graphics.
> 
> For me the F model was more expensive which is weird should be cheaper that not always the case.


Yeah I just checked now and I saw normal 11700K being 10€ cheaper, guess  I'll get that one then 

btw this got me interested in 11900 nonk

11700K [365€]
DL Boost, Turbo Boost Max 3.0 (5.00GHz), Turbo Boost 2.0 (4.90GHz)

11900(f) [375€]
DL Boost, Thermal Velocity Boost (5.20GHz), Turbo Boost Max 3.0 (5.10GHz), Turbo Boost 2.0 (5.00GHz)

11900K [522€]
DL Boost, Thermal Velocity Boost (5.30GHz), Turbo Boost Max 3.0 (5.20GHz), Turbo Boost 2.0 (5.10GHz)





EDIT: this is what I mean, 11900 non k all core boost 4.7Ghz vs 4.6Ghz by 11700K and 11900 should have higher boosting by unlocked power limit, no?


----------



## puma99dk| (Sep 26, 2021)

@TheHunter depends all on the motherboard and how the vendor implaments Intel's specs.
Steve from Hardware unboxed and Steve from Gamers Nexus have talked about this a couple of times if not more.

Here is the pricing me:
i9-11900KF costs £483 / $661
i9-11900K costs £428 / $586 this is a on sale a webshop have it on sale normal price is £483 / $661 which is the same price as KF and here you get onboard Intel UHD graphics for backup if needed one day.
i9-11900 costs £360 / $493

i7-11700K costs £310 / $424
i7-11700KF costs £306 / $418
i7-11700 costs £299 / $ 409

If Intel haven't fussed out because they implemented on giving the i9-11900 skus 10cores and 20thread when adding PCI-E 4.0 the prices out have made sense but they don't when performance in testing shows the i7 and i9 specially in gaming are about the same if not the same all the time.

Plus the costs of KF sku's doesn't care really badly priced, yes I get that Intel can use the CPU that have a bad graphics chip on them but it doesn't justify the price either disabling or no implement the graphics chips.

At the end I see the prices for the i7-11700K vs non-K here seriously if you are this tight on a budget building a PC you want to save like £11 / $15 you go out and pick it up on the streets because the savings is just bad.


All and all Intel had to cut the core down in favour of PCI-E 4.0 so Intel is like here the i9 11gen you buy more then before and you get 2cores and 4thread less and we laugh at you not picking the i7 11gen instead and save the money.

Intel should just have skipped the i9 or really thought about what I wanted to bring with the i9 because velocity boost doesn't cost £173 / $237 to implament which is the only thing that you spot is the difference so save this money buy a better motherboard, cooling or in these times they have for a better graphics.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2021)

TheHunter said:


> Yeah I just checked now and I saw normal 11700K being 10€ cheaper, guess  I'll get that one then
> 
> btw this got me interested in 11900 nonk
> 
> ...


Considering these prices, if you don't plan on overclocking, the 11900F looks like a good option over the 11700K. Though I'd still take a look at the 11700(F). If it's considerably cheaper than these two, its 4.9 GHz Turbo 3.0 and 4.8 GHz Turbo 2.0 is something you won't feel over the K variant. What the K variants offer is higher power limits out of the box (it can be overridden in the BIOS, though).


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 26, 2021)

Yes, I figured as much, but I think base all core by 11700 is 4.4Ghz, I would want at least 4.6Ghz, apparently that 11900 nonK does 4.7Ghz which is a lot for a locked cpu imo. 

I remember back in Haswell days I wanted a real 8core, but at those 1000€ prices no go, how times changed


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2021)

TheHunter said:


> Yes, I figured as much, but I think base all core by 11700 is 4.4Ghz, I would want at least 4.6Ghz, apparently that 11900 nonK does 4.7Ghz which is a lot for a locked cpu imo.
> 
> I remember back in Haswell days I wanted a real 8core, but at those 1000€ prices no go, how times changed


In that case, all you need to consider is the price difference between the 11700(F) and the 11900(F), and whether the extra 200 MHz all-core is worth it for you. If your aim is only gaming, I'd say save the extra cash for a higher tier graphics card instead.


----------

