Monday, March 8th 2021
Intel Rocket Lake Early Gaming Benchmarks Show Incremental Improvements
We have recently received some early gaming benchmarks for the upcoming Intel Core i7-11700K after German retailer MindFactory released the chip early. The creator of CapFrameX has managed to get their hands on one of these processors and has put it to the test comparing it with the Intel Core i9-10900K in some gaming benchmarks. Intel has promised double-digit IPC improvements with the new Rocket Lake generation of processors however if the results from this latest benchmark are representative of the wider picture those improvements might be a bit more modest then Intel claims.
The processors were paired with an RTX 3090 and 32 GB of 3200 MHz memory as this is the new stock maximum speed supported versus 2933 MHz on the Core i9-10900K. The two processors were put to the test in Crysis Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077, and Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, with the i7-11700K coming ahead in all three tests by ~ 2% - 9%. These tests are unverified and might not be fully representative of performance but they give us a good indication of what Intel has to offer with these new 11th generation chips.
Source:
@CapFrameX
The processors were paired with an RTX 3090 and 32 GB of 3200 MHz memory as this is the new stock maximum speed supported versus 2933 MHz on the Core i9-10900K. The two processors were put to the test in Crysis Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077, and Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, with the i7-11700K coming ahead in all three tests by ~ 2% - 9%. These tests are unverified and might not be fully representative of performance but they give us a good indication of what Intel has to offer with these new 11th generation chips.
69 Comments on Intel Rocket Lake Early Gaming Benchmarks Show Incremental Improvements
In fact I was looking to upgrade to a 5900X but they are out of stock like forever, 5600X and 5800X are kinda meh. Looking back maybe I was lucky not able to buy the 5900X due to the general instability of AMD platform (usb disconnect issue and WHEA error)
The 9900K is slower in games than a 5600X at any resolution and it's only marginally faster in multi-threaded workloads while consuming significantly more power. The 5600X has superior performance in many other professional applications as well.
You don't even need a B550 with a 5600X either. You can grab a B450 for $70.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_5600x_review,10.html
You bought used too so no warranty either. I'd have taken the 5600X any day of the week. Why do you think the guy was selling his 9900K? He was likely upgrading to Ryzen.
Ryzen 5600X is better by about the same margin Intel has led AMD the last 3 years in gaming. If that's not a win then Intel never had a win in gaming over the last 3 years either. You can't say otherwise without having a double standard.
Your linked video doesn't support the conclusion you seem to have drawn in any regard. You won't find a reviewer that's going to recommend the 9900K over the 5600X.
In what way does it "blow" 5600X? As 5600X is faster in games and even in multithread it's near the 9900K with 2 cores less.If you want it to be only 10% behind the 5600X, you have to compare them with RAMs with same speed. For 3000 or 3200 MHz RAMs (which give extra fps), you NEED to buy a Z motherboard for Intel as the B460 motherboards DO NOT support RAMs over 2666 MHz. Then your price advantage of the 10600K is gone as you have to buy the more expensive Z490 mobo - and also a cooler, as 10600K doesn't come with a stock cooler compared to the 5600X. So all in all, if you want an apple to apple comparison regarding performance, the 10600K system WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE than the 5600X system.
Also had you looked closer at the numbers, 9900K beat the 3700X by a very big margin there, not 2-3%.
I just remember from GN that properly set up a 5600k is currently the fastest gaming cpu available, obviously everything is relative, a 9900k is more then plenty for literally anything out there.
....I am....STILL....running a 2600k.....and currently (because it was 5 bucks) im sticking a lot of time in Red Dead Online (great fun with friends btw) and the limiting factor there is just my RX480, the cpu is not holding my back...and again.... a 2600k....
Meanwhile AMD just sits on its hands with Vega7 from 2017 being the highest class of IGP that's realistically attainable in a laptop. Likely paired with single-channel ultra-cheap RAM.
As far as Rocket Lake goes, it looks like one step forward and two steps backwards. Intel needs to show a working product but the loss of two cores, the hamstrung cache latency, and the vastly increased power consumption over what was already embarrassingly bad makes 10th-gen the smarter buy. AVX512 is the one-trick pony and the only reason you should consider 11th gen over 10th gen.
They's still milkin da (cash) cow, once AgAiN....
But seriously folks, did anyone REALLY truly expect anything moar from big blue ???
n.O.t me :D
The 7700k all the way to the 10900k use the UHD630.
But then that would probably put the cash cow out to pasture for sure, wouldn't it :D
5600X costs 330€ atm in Germany. Couple it with a decent budget friendly MB like Gigabyte B550M Pro-P (120€) and you end up with 490€ combo.
On the other hand you can buy 10400F for 130€ couple it with cheapest still decent Z490 MB (so you get unlocked ram speeds) like MSI Z490-A PRO for 140€ and it'll cost you 270€ combined.
Now if we look at gaming benchmarks comparison: 720p = +9% / 1080p = +1.6% / 1440p&4K = inside 1% in Ryzen's favor. Average power consumption during stress test 5600X=134W & 10400F=139W (less than 4% difference)
Is less than 2% more FPS at 1080p worth 80% price premium if you're a gamer? Not in my eyes. I'd be willing to pay 200 bucks for 5600X as you get better CPU overall but that's about it. 220€ is a difference between 3070 and 3080 GPU (if GPU market ever normalizes again). 10400F+3080 (or 6800XT) combo will give you +30% FPS on average than 5600X+3070 for the same money. It's a no brainer if you're building PC primarily for gaming imho.