Wow. 3fps, probably at 1080p, of a CPU nobody can buy. *yawn*

157 fps? thats RTX 2080ti with 9900K performance (Graph Taken FROM TPU's Review - Date: 2020/11/20).

KarymidoN157 fps? thats RTX 2080ti with 9900K performance (Graph Taken FROM TPU's Review - Date: 2020/11/20).

I saw some video's from a guy on TikTok complaining about his RTX 3080 being "slow" compared to Turing cards. Apparently there's a flavor of 1660 that's faster than Ampere at 1080p? I didn't dig in too much, after 144fps I don't care, as I've yet to see/game on a 240Hz+ monitor.

NaterI saw some video's from a guy on TikTok complaining about his RTX 3080 being "slow" compared to Turing cards. Apparently there's a flavor of 1660 that's faster than Ampere at 1080p? I didn't dig in too much, after 144fps I don't care, as I've yet to see/game on a 240Hz+ monitor.

intel new flagship looses to their OLD one? wow such inovation.

No reason to buy AMD now.

Don't forget to also buy 1.7kW chiller to achieve this marginal 9fps advantage. Intel marketing seem more and more desperate with every move they make.

dicktracyNo reason to buy AMD now.

Other than if you want or need more multi-core performance, or want to save power, or have a board that has supported these CPU's since way back, or cause Intel chose that CPU instead of the 5800X with the same number of cores as their CPU (and closer performance since only one CCX) and may have not used the same memory configuration for both, or casue the AMD 8 core CPU will probably be cheaper.....

But hey, At least they are trying.

Where has that leaker's up to 25% IPC gain gone? And why 1080p test? 720p is the only resolution to measure CPU's gaming performance.

dicktracyNo reason to buy AMD now.

Nothing I love more than dry humor and extreme sarcasm. :)

SteevoOther than if you want or need more multi-core performance, or want to save power, or have a board that has supported these CPU's since way back, or cause Intel chose that CPU instead of the 5800X with the same number of cores as their CPU (and closer performance since only one CCX) and may have not used the same memory configuration for both, or casue the AMD 8 core CPU will probably be cheaper.....

But hey, At least they are trying.

Just ignore him....literally, without exception, all his comments are ignorant, blindly sycophantic pro-intel comments and aren't even correct. I'm going to, right now, provide the ONLY argument needed to demonstrate that intel, and all their CPUs are an absolute failure compared to AMD's....Currently, Intel's total financial assets are valued at $136 Billion while AMD's are valued at $6 Billion. Intel has a total of 110,800 employees while AMD only has 11,400....so, Intel has literally 23x (22.66x) the financial resources of AMD and 10x the employees (technically 9.7x), or in other words, Intel has 2300% more financial resources and 1000% more employees than AMD, and all they're able to accomplish is to outperform AMD's CPUs by 6% at 1080p with a (for all intents and purposes) $1000 GPU while be extraordinarily hotter and using extraordinarily more power....2300% more financial resources for 6% more performance while using way, way more power and generating way, way more heat...in my opinion, there is absolutely no other point that can be made, no other figure that can be cited, that can remove that level of embarrassment from Intel...it doesn't matter than intel is winning by 6% with 14nm vs 7nm....intel has 23x the financial resources and should be outperforming AMD by at least 50% (instead of 6%) for Intel to claim any "victory" whatsoever....the fact that AMD is not only competing, but currently besting Intel with 1/68th the financial power is perhaps the greatest feat in semiconductors currently.

P.S. Zen 3 is on the same 7nm process as Zen 2, I have a feeling that soon after Rocket lake is released, we'll see AMD release a Zen3+/XT refresh on TSMC's 7nm+ process that will increase clocks by 100-300Mhz and retake the crown.

would not mind like...winning one in a contest, I like the odd hardware, and this one with its backporting 10nm, 8cores instead of 12 or even 10 and that new iris ipgu certainly qualifies this one as odd.

but uhh, I would not pay any money for it, rather get that AMD 12 core it supposedly beats.

Nice to see that Intel launched an AMD CPU again, cited from GamerNexus (that was truly hilarious from Steve's side, and pathetic from Intel's).

[sarcasm]

1080p on Ultra is the only CPU benchmark we'll ever need for heavy multithreading, Geekbench can go to hell - they've tried nicely, but... Sometimes your best just isn't enough.

[sarcasm ends]

Mouth of SauronNice to see that Intel launched an AMD CPU again, cited from GamerNexus (that was truly hilarious from Steve's side, and pathetic from Intel's).

[sarcasm]

1080p on Ultra is the only CPU benchmark we'll ever need for heavy multithreading, Geekbench can go to hell - they've tried nicely, but... Sometimes your best just isn't enough.

[sarcasm ends]

competition, competition, AMD renoir, 4800u, Intel....11...th gen.....

piloponthDon't forget to also buy 1.7kW chiller to achieve this marginal 9fps advantage. Intel marketing seem more and more desperate with every move they make.

Finally their marketing department will have to earn their money.

"Intel 11th Gen won a benchm...


Yeah right. Many water chillers were abused to get that result, even though Intel doesn't care about benchmarks.

Go away... you've lost every shred of credibility years ago.

I thought Intel wanted to "shift our focus as an industry from benchmarks to the benefits and impacts of the technology we create"? :laugh:

milewski1015I thought Intel wanted to "shift our focus as an industry from benchmarks to the benefits and impacts of the technology we create"? :laugh:

They spent a year and a half looking for impacts and benefits, so they're now back to benchmarks again I guess?

Vayra86They spent a year and a half looking for impacts and benefits, so they're now back to benchmarks again I guess?

What benchmark? All I see is a gaming comparison. Much better than tricking PC gamers with Cinebench slides like some shady company.

Look at dat min framerate. 75 fps for AMD, 75.5 for Intel.

Dang AMD, you just got reked big time yo!!!!!!

dicktracyWhat benchmark? All I see is a gaming comparison.

One definition of benchmark via Merriam-Webster is: "a point of reference from which measurements may be made". In this showcase, Intel is using FPS in Metro Exodus as a point of reference to measure the performance of its new CPU compared to one from the competition. So while not a synthetic benchmark like you're thinking of, Intel is benchmarking here. Your argument is solely one of semantics - "they're gaming, not benchmarking", when in fact comparing gaming performance is a form of benchmarking in and of itself. The irony is that Intel attempted to discredit the applicability of benchmarks back in June when AMD was taking it to them real good. Now that Intel has something (allegedly, I'll wait for third party benchmarks) relatively competitive to offer, the whole emphasis they wanted to place on "the benefits and impacts of the technology we create" is thrown out the window.

dicktracyMuch better than tricking PC gamers with Cinebench slides like some shady company.

You say things like this, but I'm sure if it were Intel beating AMD in Cinebench, you'd have no problem praising them from the rooftops. Not sure where the trickery you're referencing is. Yes, Cinebench is a synthetic benchmark. Any sensible consumer has the wherewithal to not blindly trust first-party marketing and actually investigate how the product they may potentially purchase performs in a real-world scenario, be it gaming, blender, photoshop, etc. There isn't anything inherently wrong with Cinebench as long as you recognize that it's not something that you would use in the real world.

Yeah, last time they bragged about something similar, they had an industrial chiller hidden in the back...

KarymidoN
intel new flagship looses to their OLD one? wow such inovation.

It will look odd when the 11900K loses to the 10900K in practically all productivity benchmarks and only has a few % lead in games. What will Intel’s reviewer‘s guide say? Under no circumstances should reviewers compare it to the 10900K? They should have called it i7 11700K.

When it comes to gaming fps I would be more concerned with a gpu than a cpu. Also the monitor refresh rate.

Since pretty much no gpus anywhere this is a meh.

If the results are the best case scenario, then Intel is in trouble. I feel Intel chose to skew the message by selecting Ryzen 9 5900X as a point of comparison, knowing that games don't scale well with anything more than 8 cores. If they are so confident that Rocket Lake is that good, they would have also shown a comparison vs the Ryzen 7 5800X as an apple to apple comparison for the different CPU architecture. I think I rather wait and see independent reviews that will inevitably compare the 11900K with the 5800X.

In addition, Intel also failed to disclosed that it takes the 11900K an astounding 250W to match a 5900X at 140W there about. That is a stunning 70+% increase in power consumption to beat competition by a low single digit percentage.

To give credit where credit is due, I feel Intel did a right step to backport Rocket Lake to 14nm. The current Skylake architecture is no longer competitive and certainly not able to go beyond the 5.x Ghz clockspeed. Good to finally see some IPC gains over the last 5 years. But as I mentioned a few times, neither Rocket Lake nor Alder Lake will give Intel the edge over AMD. While we don't have much information on the performance of the latter, but Intel's decision to "waste" die space on 4 low performing cores on a high performance CPU is unlikely to win them more sales, particularly to gamers.

Won 3 fps on that specific setup that specific game they've chosen for demo

GG Intel rofl