Thursday, December 31st 2020
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1723816949774.png)
Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks
Intel is preparing to launch their latest generation Rocket Lake-S processors in the coming weeks. We recently saw some leaked Geekbench 5 scores for the eight-core Intel Core i7-11700K showing it beating the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance. We have recently received some new benchmarks for the i9-11900K and i7-11700K this time in CPU-Z showing them once again best AMD in single-core performance.
The Cypress Cove core design found in these upcoming processors is expected to bring double-digit IPC gains over Skylake and this is reflected in these scores. Take all these benchmarks with a healthy dose of skepticism as we have no way of confirming these numbers until we can test the chips ourselves. The Intel Core i9-11900K gets a single thread score of 695.4 and a multi-thread score of 6522.1 which puts it 19% ahead of the i9-10900K and 3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-threaded performance. The processor still falls far behind the Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance due to it having half the number of cores.The Intel Core i7-11700K CPU-Z benchmark results were also leaked however the photo has been edited to hide the exact score. The i7-11700K scores 67X in single-threaded performance, and 63XX in multi-threaded performance. This puts it 18% ahead of the i7-10700K and close to or slightly below the Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance.
Sources:
@9550pro, @OneRaichu, VideoCardz, guru3D
The Cypress Cove core design found in these upcoming processors is expected to bring double-digit IPC gains over Skylake and this is reflected in these scores. Take all these benchmarks with a healthy dose of skepticism as we have no way of confirming these numbers until we can test the chips ourselves. The Intel Core i9-11900K gets a single thread score of 695.4 and a multi-thread score of 6522.1 which puts it 19% ahead of the i9-10900K and 3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-threaded performance. The processor still falls far behind the Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance due to it having half the number of cores.The Intel Core i7-11700K CPU-Z benchmark results were also leaked however the photo has been edited to hide the exact score. The i7-11700K scores 67X in single-threaded performance, and 63XX in multi-threaded performance. This puts it 18% ahead of the i7-10700K and close to or slightly below the Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance.
184 Comments on Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks
Then se have single player gamers where I personally can Cope with a locked synched 60fps without any problema with good eye candy depending on the game.
PC gaming is not all about 4k and textures. Many type of gamers, many experiences.
I like to play RTS games a lot and I do prefer a smooth Mouse behaviour to Control all units and explore the map. And I do prefer high framerates on that type of game, compared to 60hz/60fps
I go for whatever is price to performance. Intel, believe it or not, has a good price to performance ratio at the moment. A 10400F can be had here for about $200 brand new while 3600 (non x) is $300. The 10400f does perform better on average. The 5600 is a fantastic processor but rather expensive and not available here. Motherboard prices are also through the roof but all in all, a good b460 or z490 can be had at similar price to what AM4 has.
I'm not a fan of how rocket lake looks in that it has only 8c/16t max and integrated GPU. It's a waste imo.
In other words, even within the enthusiast / gaming segment there aren't that many people using > 8 cores, and those 10+ core segments are not growing much. 6 and 8 core are the ones that are growing.
If they wanted to compete in core count for this segment of DIY/enthusiast/gamers they need do nothing more than drop the iGPU, something AMD doesn't have and which takes up 1/3 of the die on a 10700K and about 1/4 on a 10900K.
The fact they aren't doing that and are actually going the other way (bigger / faster iGPU) illustrates where their priority is - the big OEMs. That is Intel's real primary customer, and those 4650 Zen 2 APUs haven't really made a dent in that.
Intel has had 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core 14nm X-Series since gen 7 for those that really want big core counts. Those are labelled as their enthusiast chips to start with, and they don't have iGPU. It will be interesting if rocket lake makes it into those.
That additional die space is not useful for more cores in Intel's case anyway, the amount of cores is limited primarily by power.
That would imply that something over 90% of all client PCs are running an iGPU or AMD APU.
What I'm saying is that PCs with a dGPU are actually a small market segment. I wouldn't call it "niche", but catering to the < 10% has hidden costs. It's probably just not cost effective to split production up that way, plus the iGPU has uses even in the presence of a dGPU. Strategically, making sure that iGPU is there in 99% of situations helps them maintain developer support. This may be even more of a factor beyond encoding / streaming uses with AI coming into play.
Hence why to me it is a far better buy at this point in time. Cheaper than 3600, 5600 isn't available and its price is over $400 here in Canada (ranges from $400 if you buy bulk to $450).
iGPU is a waste on the die for higher end models. I doubt it is limited by power for those cores. I understand people do want a igpu but the same people spending on anything higher than a 10600 is probably going to have a dgpu already, and that is with prebuild companies (Acer and the like). Never seen ones here in Canada that has a 10600 and that doesn't have a dgpu.
For gaming, unless you have a 2070 Super or higher higher any cores beyond 6 with performance beyond a 10400 or R5 3600 is a complete waste. Most of what is selling right now is the 1660 Super / Ti. You can occupy one of those just fine with an i3-10100.
That tiny, insignificant Intel advantage right here:
....is literally the only thing good about Intel right now. That is the one, the only, performance win Intel have, if you can even call it relevant enough to be a win. It's almost completely irrelevant, it's extremely petty, and it's very misleading if you look at it in isolation.
But, it's all they've got. They're flogging this dead horse so hard that there's almost nothing left of the original corpse at this point and every time an Intel fanboy swallows that misleading info and goes on a rabid crusade about how Intel are still faster than AMD, it is another victory for Intel's marketing department. All they have to do is ignore the stupid platform segmentation, the costs, the security vulnerabilities, the power consumption, the cooling requirements, the productivity performance, the missing platform features, the lack of upgradeability, the list of negatives that fanboys simply don't talk about because they've swallowed the Intel marketing is so huge that you basically need to be oblivious to fact and so closed-minded as to be deaf to any and all arguments :P
It is possible outside of Canada such machines are very popular but that is a terrible deal all in its own to pair such a wonky setup. I know OEM's are rather much like that were they do odd pairings or setups altogether. I just never recommend those setups to anybody who orders from me. I tell them if they are to game, a dgpu is more important than the cpu. Office machines do not need a high end processor. At my other job, I have to do heavy cpu work with various scripts we build to automate processes. Most of it works fine with very little difference in performance between using a i3 and an i7. So a build where there is an i7 and a iGPU always left me scratching my head.
And yes, I agree with your second point.
Where AMD really got ahead is Ryzen 5000 which is a very recent development and comes at a price. While prices may vary in regions, EU prices seem to be at least on par with performance difference.
10600K is about 225€ right now, full 25% cheaper than 5600X - the cheapest Ryzen 5000 - at 300€.
10700 is ~300€ with 10700K at 350€, 33% and 22% cheaper than 5800X. There is even a 10c/20t 10850K at ~425€ that is slightly cheaper than 5800X.
The other part where Intel clearly does not have an answer is 12/16 core CPUs.
I just hope they don't try to price the thing around the 5950x's price that would be an awful mistake from intel. I could seem them doing this because it's "The fastest gaming CPU"
edit: my notification on here are awful slow lately :/
AMD 30 series prices dropped mostly because amd flooded the market
If they do the same with 50 series the same will happen retail stores don't care they just don't want to be stuck with old series stock.
Intel has the best price drops atm with a lot in stock
Even amd 30 series back up in price because no 50 series are in stock.
Canada yeah I looked at micro center stock 10900k down to 499.us
Maybe check out B&H before
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/CPUs/ci/19865/N/3835434461
I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.
That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.
AMD on the other hand....
Yep amd prices are high still so is their single core scores though lol
www.techpowerup.com/276250/the-ultimate-zen-amds-zen-3-achieves-89-higher-performance-than-first-generation-zen
Do you enjoy being ignorant? It's pretty obvious that AMD had made a number of massive architectural leaps the last 4 years, and that is very simple to measure.
Meanwhile, at intel HQ, they are FINALLY moving away from haswell+++++ and are going to Rocketlake, which is STILL on 14nm +++. It would appear that it is intel, not AMD, who have utterly failed at architectural upgrades and are relying on absurd clock speeds and heat output to compete.
Think all Intel releases qualify as Lavalakes lol
The 3600X is pointless because the vanilla 3600 and a basic B450 board are already both unlocked and restriction free. The 3600X wasn't competitive or a sensible option even in an AMD vacuum, so I'm not even going to attempt to defend it against Intel.
For the overlap period of the 10700K and Zen2, the 3900X has always been the closest price match to the 10700K and that ignores the mandatory Z-series chipset tax at ~$50:
camelcamelcamel.com/product/B086ML4XSB matches the $420 of a 3900X at the same time, and most reviews of the 10700K mentioned/paired the 3900X as the AMD competition to the 10700K.
So, in the comparisons you just made, yes - Intel were about on par with performance, but those comparisons never happened because Ryzen was out in the market a full year before 10th Gen Intel and by the time 10th Gen launched, Ryzen 9 was priced at parity with i7 and i5K + Z490 tax was more expensive than 3700X. Price trackers and launch reviews of the 10-series confirm that. Can't argue with that; If you need to buy a CPU right now, then the product that's out of stock everywhere is automatically eliminated from the competition.
Before the buying frenzy and subsequent availability/scalping problems muddied the water, I didn't really like the 10850K because of the overall cost; It's not $400, it's $400 plus an expensive $200 Z-series board that can handle a 250W PL2 limit plus the necessary ~$100 of AIO. $675 for 10 cores against $420 for 3900X with a pretty decent cooler and $95 for a perfectly decent B550 board (DS3H or A-Pro are fine for a 3950X). That leaves $160 more in your wallet, a much cooler more efficient CPU, and you get PCIe 4.0 as a bonus if that matters to your workloads.
For gaming, sure - the 10850 is potentially better than a 3900X if you're running at super low res on a high-end GPU, but for gaming you don't need an i9 or a Ryzen 9, you should be allocating as much of your budget as you can to the GPU instead, or holding off to see whether Rocket Lake availability and pricing is any better than Zen3, assuming it's still not going to be "normal" by then!