Wednesday, March 10th 2021
Intel Core i9 and Core i7 "Rocket Lake" Lineup Leaked, Claims Beating Ryzen 9 5900X
Intel is planning to debut its 11th Generation Core "Rocket Lake-S" desktop processor family with a fairly large selection of SKUs, according to leaked company slides shared by VideoCardz, which appear to be coming from the same source as an earlier report from today that talk about double-digit percent gaming performance gains over the previous generation. Just the Core i9 and Core i7 series add up to 10 SKUs between them. These include unlocked- and iGPU-enabled "K" SKUs, unlocked but iGPU-disabled "KF," locked but iGPU-enabled parts, and locked and iGPU-disabled "F" parts.
With "Rocket Lake-S," Intel appears to have hit a ceiling with the number of CPU cores it can cram onto a die alongside an iGPU, on the 75 mm x 75 mm LGA package, while retaining its 14 nm silicon fabrication node. Both the Core i9-11900 series and the Core i7-10700 series are 8-core/16-thread parts, with an identical amount of cache. They are differentiated on the basis of clock speeds as tabled below, and the lack of the Thermal Velocity Boost feature on the Core i7 parts. The Core i5 series "Rocket Lake-S" parts are reportedly 6-core/12-thread.
Some additional game performance slides were leaked to the web. The first one below (also posted earlier today), deals with comparisons between the i9-11900K and the previous-generation flagship, the 10-core i9-10900K. The second slide deals with i9-11900K compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-core processor, where it's claiming anywhere between 2% to 8% performance gains, across a broader selection of games than the comparison to the i9-10900K. The performance lead gets higher with multi-threaded strategy games like "Total War," but slims down to 2% with first-person/third-person games such as "Far Cry: New Dawn" and "Assassin's Creed Valhalla."
Sources:
VideoCardz, HXL (Twitter)
With "Rocket Lake-S," Intel appears to have hit a ceiling with the number of CPU cores it can cram onto a die alongside an iGPU, on the 75 mm x 75 mm LGA package, while retaining its 14 nm silicon fabrication node. Both the Core i9-11900 series and the Core i7-10700 series are 8-core/16-thread parts, with an identical amount of cache. They are differentiated on the basis of clock speeds as tabled below, and the lack of the Thermal Velocity Boost feature on the Core i7 parts. The Core i5 series "Rocket Lake-S" parts are reportedly 6-core/12-thread.
99 Comments on Intel Core i9 and Core i7 "Rocket Lake" Lineup Leaked, Claims Beating Ryzen 9 5900X
1800X was an 8-core cpu at $500. True that Intel did not have more than 4 cores on desktop at that point. It took half a year to get 6 cores onto desktop as 8700K at $360.
But there was in HEDT - 6 cores for $440 and 8 cores for $1000 from year older generation.
Skylake X (6 cores for $390, 8 cores for $600 and 10 cores for $1000) was incoming but was nicely pre-empted by Ryzens.
But 1800X at $500 is missing the real point which is that there was an 8-core CPU at $329 in form of 1700.
All I see is AMD making them earn their money, which they deserved to lose.
Wake me up when there’s actually a CPU w/ single thread performance that has a significant increase over my i7 4790k 1U’s.
Real performance increase, not selected benchmarks.
6.5% over the 10400f: www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10400f/15.html
I have no idea where you got your 15-20% figure but it's completely incorrect.
And yes, a Z class motherboard is required if you want full performance.
Entry level Z class motherboards can barley handle a stock 10600K, let alone B class motherboards. If you are going to cripple performance by cheaping out on the motherboard might as well get a 10400f.
The point of that video is that you have to be careful which cheap Z490 you get, not that they all suck as you assert.
Below image is from that video, running all-core 5.1Ghz OC on a 10900K for 1hr Blender test.
Cheap Gigabyte and Asrock boards suck. Cheap Asus and MSI boards are great. That's what this video showed.
It's worth noting here, there's really no such thing as a cheap Z490 anymore, the supply seems to have dried up.
There are some cheap Z590s, and they are pretty much the same as the boards below, I'd expect similar results with high power / OC parts.
The point I was making it that you want at least a Z class motherboard to get the most out of the 10600K, otherwise you might as well get a 10400f.
I used the video as an example as to why the 10600K requires at least a Z class motherboard to reach maximum performance, not to say that cheap Z class motherboards are bad. You clearly got the title of the video and my argument mixed up.
So in a mixed workload it pulls 192W and hits 76 degree temps under a Corsair H150i Pro AIO and performs worse than the lower power 5800X
I am also half-expecting AMD to announce a vanilla 5600 just to rain on Intel's end-of-month launch parade.
Not many people are crazy enough to spend nearly 2k.us for a 6-700.us gpu lol
But there is a sucker born ever second I hear that's why people try and sell items for that much :-)
The lack of information about i5-11600K makes me wonder if it arrives in the first batch of Rocket Lake, or if it arrives later. i5-11600K vs. 5600X is the battle that >90% of the audience here should be focusing on.
Not sure why that's a fight
Intel you need a new board
AMD is mostly an upgrade to most interested in it.
New comers there's more positive reactions to the new amd series than more of the same intel's bullshit lakes continuation.
If you are coming from say a Haswell era PC, you want to upgrade it today. You're not a gamer, you've used iGPU. You buy a 5600X. Guess what?
You need to buy a GPU. Even if you're just playing facebook games or doing Excel, you have to.
Have you seen what a 'cheap' GPU costs these days? When you could buy a $30 1030 or $60 1050 it was no big deal, not worth mentioning, but these days? To get anything like the Xe GPU, you'll be spending north of $150. And you'll have to look. The other option is to get something really, really, really old and obsolete for ~$50. Those cards won't even play a modern YouTube or Netflix stream reasonably well.
So this doesn't matter for most folks here in these forums as they already have GPUs, so they don't think about it. But it most certainly does affect the pricing of the OEM rigs, pre-builts, and non gamer DIY rigs. That's going to be a big problem for AMD in the desktop space.
Much higher requirements for cooling and no go for SFF, beefier MB & PSU, and can be a huge annoyance in summer for some especially with lesser AC: no matter the cooling system all heat is dumped to the room and it's just too hot.
Really, AT's benchmarks are almost completely irrelevant to users. They don't tell us anything about average power gaming, avg power loaded, idle loads, light loads while browsing - nothing. Just some peak number while running POV-Ray.
It is frankly useless garbage.
This is the performance side of their POV-Ray peak number.
Now how many of you all run POV-Ray as your main use case for your PC?
But also remember that those who buy the more powerful CPUs generally have some more demanding workflows than Excel and a web browser, many of which are GPU accelerated. Or perhaps Farmville has become more sophisticated than I remember?Probably about as many as there are heavy users of Cinema 4D in this forum, and judging by the obsession about obscure edge-case benchmarks there must be thousands of them in this forum alone. :P
This kind of thinking is what I was referring to in post #68; most of you should be focusing on i5-11600K vs. 5600X. There are very few real world non-server workflows which scales beyond 6-8 cores, yet so many buy 12 and 16 core CPUs, truly just for bragging rights, and then use "future-proofing" as an excuse to justify the purchase. (Well of course there are a handful who actually use the cores, I'm not talking about those)
And that's why they focus on those. It's fairly relevant. Nobody cares about consumption when idle/web browsing, because it's not going to break anything or cause any discomfort. (Unless you run idle 24/7 for some reason and really want to lower power bill) Average gaming might be useful to get an idea of summer annoyance, but it's not available right now is it?
So really, at 6 cores, I'm just interested in the single core performance of the new chips. I would bet if people would run the same analysis of their usage, without borking the results by running a benchmark or some other artificial load, they'd find they have the same usage pattern.