Intel Core i9-11900K

[oxrufiioxo]

Ya well, I'll just leave this here. 10900K. This is JUST from changing up memory. Note the effect of ring. Again, even 5% is enough to completely rearrange the winners and losers on the top CPUs.

View attachment 194993

Again random result with no verification on actual performance from someone I wouldn't trust doing the testing.... Testing a CPU way out of Spec and not even specifying which Tomb Raider they are running what gpu they are using what resolution testing at so basically useless

Beyond that this is a 10900k that is cheaper than the i9 in this review...... Nothing wrong with intel previous gen its great but this gen sucks for the most part at the high end.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again random result with no verification on actual performance from someone I wouldn't trust doing the testing.... Testing a CPU way out of Spec and not even specifying which Tomb Raider they are running what gpu they are using what resolution testing at so basically useless

You can watch him change the memory settings and run the benchmarks here.

He also has a 5950X. And he does not like the 11900K. So you can can it with the false fanboy assumptions. Most of the hardcore types have multiple rigs / platforms, including the person who had the DDR4-5200 on the 11900K.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You can watch him change the memory settings and run the benchmarks here.

He also has a 5950X. And he does not like the 11900K. So you can can it with the false fanboy assumptions. Most of the hardcore types have multiple rigs / platforms, including the person who had the DDR4-5200 on the 11900K.

What fanboy assumption I don't trust random results from a dude on YouTube... I can make a 3900X perform 20% better depending on ram configuration same with a 5800X but my testing still means jack $h!t because nobody games how I would need to set the game to get the results...... Anyone with a 3090 isn't gaming at 1080p it sorta sucks at 1080p in general if he wanted to get even better results he would use a 6900XT that doesn't offload scheduling to the cpu.

Not sure why you are so fixated on how 500+ cpu can game..... Assuming legit he's got a pretty nice 10900k though 5.4ghz all core with a 5ghz ring and 4400 mem at the same time isn't easy.....

I really like the 10900k and the 10850k was pretty tempted to grab one but bottom line this review is about an 11900k not a 10900k so how 10th gen performs when you throw a ton of money at it is irrelevant.

 

[RandallFlagg]

What fanboy assumption I don't trust random results from a dude on YouTube... I can make a 3900X perform 20% better depending on ram configuration same with a 5800X but my testing still means jack $h!t because nobody games how I would need to set the game to get the results...... Anyone with a 3090 isn't gaming at 1080p it sorta sucks at 1080p in general if he wanted to get even better results he would use a 6900XT that doesn't offload scheduling to the cpu.

Not sure why you are so fixated on how 500+ cpu can game..... Assuming legit he's got a pretty nice 10900k though 5.4ghz all core with a 5ghz ring and 4400 mem at the same time isn't easy.....

I really like the 10900k and the 10850k was pretty tempted to grab one but bottom line this review is about an 11900k not a 10900k so how 10th gen performs when you throw a ton of money at it is irrelevant.

Memory matters, that's the point. Do I need to point back to the dozens of AMD fans who threw TPU under the bus in these forums because DDR4-3200 CL14 made Zen 3 slower than Comet Lake on the prior review, prompting the change to DDR4-3800? Maybe you lack that frame of reference.

Lets be real clear here. This is from Zen 3 review comments - and most of these are not the worst.

Maybe TPU should just rename to APU.

5800X

5900X comments:

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Memory matters, that's the point. Do I need to point back to the dozens of AMD fans who threw TPU under the bus in these forums because DDR4-3200 CL14 made Zen 3 slower than Comet Lake on the prior review, prompting the change to DDR4-3800? Maybe you lack that frame of reference.

Lets be real clear here. This is from Zen 3 review comments - and most of these are not the worst.

Maybe TPU should just rename to APU.

Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.

I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....

Unfortunately Intel decided to drop 2 cores and increase latency on its 11th gen so now the 11900k competes with the 5900X in price with 4 less cores and similar ipc while using way more power. Again you are focusing on odd stuff would it make you sleep better at night if the 11900k was above the 5950X in gaming even though in MT workloads it would get slaughtered in the end it really doesn't matter unless you are a fanboy from either side everyone should want both companies to do well and with the 11th gen intel i9 is embarrassing... I'm in shock that this is the best a company the size of intel with their development budget can do either that or they were just being cheap....

To me this feels like 7th gen all over again release something just to release something prior to the real showing with Alderlake late this year or early next.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.

I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....

Unfortunately Intel decided to drop 2 cores and increase latency on its 11th gen so now the 11900k competes with the 5900X in price with 4 less cores and similar ipc while using way more power. Again you are focusing on odd stuff would it make you sleep better at night if the 11900k was above the 5950X is gaming even though in MT workloads it would get slaughtered in the end it really doesn't matter unless you are a fanboy from either side everyone should want both companies to do well and with the 11th gen intel i9 is embarrassing... I'm in shock that this is the best a company the size of intel with their development budget can do either that or they were just being cheap....

To me this feels like 7th gen all over again release something just to release something prior to the real showing with Alderlake late this year or early next.

Maybe we can agree on this. This is a review of Rocket Lake on DDR4-3800 Gear 2, and comparisons are against AMD on DDR4-3800 1:1 IF. That's all it is. By his own tests, this shows that RKL performs better (on games) using cheaper DDR4-3200 CL 14. So basically what this review shows, is that DDR4-3800 is the wrong memory for Rocket Lake.

Most people are running DDR4-3200 CL 16 or CL14. If you are running that, then these charts are pretty meaningless. Zen 3 is actually hobbled and starved of memory at those speeds, after all Comet Lake beat Zen 3 in the review using a 2080 Ti and DDR4-3200 CL 14.

And for the record I think the 11900K at its current price point is a waste of silicon. It would need to come down to 5800X price to be viable. 11700K and 11600K are debatable IMO, none of these chips OC much so far on normal water (5.5Ghz 11900K @ 91C EK water is the best I've seen).

Still waiting to see what an 11400 and 11500 do. Geekbench is the only data I see and it indicates it is only slightly slower than a 5600X. These may be killer mainstream chips.

I really just have one open question which won't be answered here, and that is what the effect of the very high speed memory with Gear 2 is going to have. Is there a really big boost, like can be had on 10900K, from higher memory speeds that Gear 2 is allowing? If that is the case then you could be looking at +15-20% on an 11900K, maybe 11700K and others. That's like a generational jump, same kind of thing that allows a 6 year old Skylake core to compete with next gen Zen 3. So in theory, such a setup will give you Alder Lake / Zen 4 performance today. I find that quite interesting.

So if that is the case, you might see my system specs change a lot. If not I'll probably get a 10700K or 10850K. It's not a question of money for me, it's a question of value.

 

[Tom Sunday]

Numbers are numbers, so in one sense there's no deception, but there is perception manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results. As one once put it, figures can lie, and liars can figure.

Thank you Randall for your response. I watch and wander between 10-15 favorite tech-sites 'taking-in' the new product test results and reviews being proffered. Essentially they all are the same and mirror your mentioning "It's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living." Holding your thought that there are perceptions of manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results thus maintains to be a stark reality. And reality bites.

So in this regard and being an ardent follower of your commentaries, I for one get actually more out of quality commentaries and reader contributions here then from the actual reviews themselves! Synthetic or not. Finally a 20% pay cut? No sane person is going to do that. But it's still better...remember...The Stand? “Hey, Trash, what did old lady Semple say when you torched her pension check?”

 

[RandallFlagg]

Thank you Randall for your response. I watch and wander between 10-15 favorable tech-sites 'taking-in' the new product test results and reviews being proffered. Essentially they all are the same and mirror your mentioning "It's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living." Holding your thought that there are perceptions of manipulation as platforms can be manipulated to provide the desired results thus maintains to be a stark reality. And reality bites.

So in this regard and being an ardent follower of your commentaries, I for one get actually more out of quality commentaries and reader contributions here then from the actual reviews! Synthetic or not. Finally a 20% pay cut? No sane person is going to do that. But it's still better...remember The Stand? “Hey, Trash, what did old lady Semple say when you torched her pension check?”

Yep, and good for you, keeping tabs on social media trends is important for a speculative stock trader these days. Perception is reality you know. Only it isn't. But knowing the difference is important. Most do not.

Tech Jesus, I get kick out of the small details on his charts while everyone lauds his honesty.

10900K stock Tau, 125W limit. Who does that on that chip. I don't even do that on my 10400.

 

[AusWolf]

What a clickbait title for the review of a CPU that should have never been released...

 

[blu3dragon]

Comet Lake beat Zen 3 in the review using a 2080 Ti and DDR4-3200 CL 14

It did, but the margins were very small, and I was under the impression the primary reason was not the memory choice:

How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?

Our Ryzen 5000 Zen 3 launch day reviews saw unexpected gaming FPS results many questioned. In this article, we will investigate these results in more detail, and do more testing to figure out what is going on. The results are surprising and set things right in the battle of AMD vs. Intel.

www.techpowerup.com

Somehow intel (at least 9th and 10th gen) does slightly better in GPU limited scenarios, particularly with pascal. This puts them at the top of the charts when really all the cpus are giving the same experience.

From the numbers, it appears 11th gen went slightly backwards in this respect.

I do agree though that using Gear 2 on Rocket Lake will not show it in the best light, but from the comparison done here the difference between 3800 gear 2 and 3200 gear 1 is very small, and so the only effect might be to change the order in cases where the CPUs being compared basically offer the same performance.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It did, but the margins were very small, and I was under the impression the primary reason was not the memory choice:

How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?

Our Ryzen 5000 Zen 3 launch day reviews saw unexpected gaming FPS results many questioned. In this article, we will investigate these results in more detail, and do more testing to figure out what is going on. The results are surprising and set things right in the battle of AMD vs. Intel.

www.techpowerup.com

Somehow intel (at least 9th and 10th gen) does slightly better in GPU limited scenarios, particularly with pascal. This puts them at the top of the charts when really all the cpus are giving the same experience.

From the numbers, it appears 11th gen went slightly backwards in this respect.

I do agree though that using Gear 2 on Rocket Lake will not show it in the best light, but from the comparison done here the difference between 3800 gear 2 and 3200 gear 1 is very small, and so the only effect might be to change the order in cases where the CPUs being compared basically offer the same performance.

Are you looking at the same charts I am? The difference is not small. The green bar is their official number, using DDR4-3800 Gear 2. 95.7 fps.

The purple bar is 102.7 using DDR4-3200 CL 14 gear 1. This ram is about $50-$100 cheaper than the RAM they used to get a 7% lower score. The lower score is all that will appear on future charts.

If you look at going from gear 1 to gear 2 DDR4-3200 CL14, it is more than a 10% difference.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Are you looking at the same charts I am? The difference is not small. The green bar is their official number, using DDR4-3800 Gear 2. 95.7 fps.

The purple bar is 102.7 using DDR4-3200 CL 14 gear 1. This ram is about $50-$100 cheaper than the RAM they used to get a 7% lower score. The lower score is all that will appear on future charts.

If you look at going from gear 1 to gear 2 DDR4-3200 CL14, it is more than a 10% difference.

View attachment 195016

Pretty sure he's looking at the average of all games tested which is less than 3%

Or 5% gear 1 vs gear 2...... It would be interesting to see at what point it breaks even but other than 720p it's relatively close.

 

[Why_Me]

What a clickbait title for the review of a CPU that should have never been released...

Clickbait? It's a review of the i9 11900K hence the title of this thread and the fact it's been posted in the 'Review Forum'.

 

[AddSub]

"SuperPi is one of the most popular benchmarks with overclockers and tweakers. It has been used in world-record competitions since forever. It is a purely single-threaded CPU test that calculates Pi to a large number of digits—32 million for our testing. Released in 1995" .........

Never change Wiz!

...

 

[blu3dragon]

Pretty sure he's looking at the average of all games tested which is less than 3%

Or 5% gear 1 vs gear 2...... It would be interesting to see at what point it breaks even but other than 720p it's relatively close.

Yes, I was looking at the first two charts on this page: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-11900k/24.html

Application average - difference is 0.3%, and doesn't change the order:

Game average at 720p, so least GPU bottlenecked, difference is 2.2%, and moves it up the chart a couple places, but still behind 5800x and 10900k, although the reality is that all of these CPUs are equal for most gaming situations:

 

[chrcoluk]

Yes it matters but at the Same time W1z 11900k sample can't do above 3200 Gear 1 and he's running 3800 on both platforms otherwise which is still higher than probably most do are you trying to say W1z needs to run 4400 on intel platforms lol I love me some intel but even I'm not a big enough fanboy to suggest that.... Even your 10400 can benefit from 3800-4400 mem so why are you still running 3200 if you are so hot and bothered by it.

I personally think he should have just kept it at 3200 CL14 but switched to 4x8 as both Intel and AMD benefit from dual rank setups in my testing which again is irrelevant..... Anyone with half a brain knows even amd fanboys that if you throw enough money at cooling/memory with a 10900k it will likely be the fastest gaming cpu by an insignificant margin with realistic gaming settings but still....

Unfortunately Intel decided to drop 2 cores and increase latency on its 11th gen so now the 11900k competes with the 5900X in price with 4 less cores and similar ipc while using way more power. Again you are focusing on odd stuff would it make you sleep better at night if the 11900k was above the 5950X in gaming even though in MT workloads it would get slaughtered in the end it really doesn't matter unless you are a fanboy from either side everyone should want both companies to do well and with the 11th gen intel i9 is embarrassing... I'm in shock that this is the best a company the size of intel with their development budget can do either that or they were just being cheap....

To me this feels like 7th gen all over again release something just to release something prior to the real showing with Alderlake late this year or early next.

This is a gripe of mine with reviews, 2 dimms still seems all they test.

 

[AusWolf]

Clickbait? It's a review of the i9 11900K hence the title of this thread and the fact it's been posted in the 'Review Forum'.

"The world's fastest gaming processor?"

Can you show me which part (except for "processor") describes the product, and is not intended to lure people into clicking and seeing whether it really is or isn't the world's fastest gaming processor - which it most definitely isn't.

 

[John Naylor]

At $550 a pop, can't see a real argument for hi res gaming with either AMD or Intel flagships .... not in this market niche and not with the 10400F at $150 ... the 10400F iis 0.8 % faster than the 5900x and the 10400F just 0.7 % slower than the 11900k. That's $400 free'd up for a better GFX card.

For the Photo and Video heads, the 3% advantage on photoshop and premier is significant compared to the 5900x but not a "strong determining factor", but the 25% advantage in after effects is H U G E. Of course, as always ... your applications determine the best choice, .... never benchmarks, cores or die size ... unless fanboi bragging rights are a high priority in component selection. Adopting a new hammer technology because of material, shape, size, whatever is not a wise choice if it means you're banging in less nails at the end of the day.

And basically that's what the whole top end is ... hard pressed to find a user base in the consumer market that needs anything more than a 10400F... Today's CPUs remind me of the IBM A20 laptop ... It was as much as $6k in it's day and was an impressive machine. Always was top dog in every comparison review and made the cover of every PC Magazine (yes we had print mags back in the day). Every middle management had to have thet IBM Logo on their lappie to , they thought, be taken seriously ... tho, as expected they weren't gonna drop $6k. And that was the whole deal ... it was all about bragging rights and social status. When IBM stopped making the A20, they market share tumbled.... and then IBM stopped making, well selling, laptops.

Outside a production shop, laboratory or development group, I'm hardpressed to recommend anything over $150 - $225 today for a CPU. Intel is killing it in this segment, their market share having risen 4% in Q1 2021 after 7 straight quarters of small but rising gains by AMD. It's the largest quarterly gain going back to Q2 2019 when AMD jumped 8 points. Right now AMDs and Intel's competition at the high end is less each other than there own mod range low cost products.

If you look at going from gear 1 to gear 2 DDR4-3200 CL14, it is more than a 10% difference.

Just noting for the sake of discussion that that's a bit of a cherrypick with that resolution ... to argue the other way, one could pick 4k where the differences is only 0.5 fps. On the other hand, its a good 10% at 1440p But look at Cyberpunk 2077 and its just 0.2 fps, 0.4 fps in metro 2023. Across the game suite, it's just under 3% at 1440p and that's not insignificant.

Still hard not to consider a 10600k that is half the price of 5900x and 11900k and just 2.2% slower overall than the 11900k and 1.4% slower than the 5900x at 1440poverall.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Outside a production shop, laboratory or development group, I'm hardpressed to recommend anything over $150 - $225 today for a CPU. Intel is killing it in this segment, their market share having risen 4% in Q1 2021 after 7 straight quarters of small but rising gains by AMD. It's the largest quarterly gain going back to Q2 2019 when AMD jumped 8 points. Right now AMDs and Intel's competition at the high end is less each other than there own mod range low cost products.

Intel's CPU availability is great, but motherboards are in short supply. It's not that you can't find them, but selection is lacking. My local MC for example has a really good selection of CPUs, but the only 5XX series motherboard that's not a 590 is an single H570 ITX motherboard - and they show exactly 1 in stock @125, I bet that is actually gone. The Z590s start at $189 - exactly 1 in stock at that price, then go up to $239 and higher. This is likely to hamper their CPU sales if not fixed fairly quickly.

AMD seems to have the opposite issue, I see plenty of motherboards but many places don't have the 5600X / 5800X (many do, though). Nobody seems to ever have the 5900X/5950X in any real supply, that seems to still be unobtanium and a target for scalpers.

Just noting for the sake of discussion that that's a bit of a cherrypick with that resolution ... to argue the other way, one could pick 4k where the differences is only 0.5 fps. On the other hand, its a good 10% at 1440p But look at Cyberpunk 2077 and its just 0.2 fps, 0.4 fps in metro 2023. Across the game suite, it's just under 3% at 1440p and that's not insignificant.

Still hard not to consider a 10600k that is half the price of 5900x and 11900k and just 2.2% slower overall than the 11900k and 1.4% slower than the 5900x at 1440poverall.

720p is what people usually look at to measure longevity of the CPU. If people had been paying attention to that when zen 2 came out, instead of just reading techtube recommendations, they may have made some different choices. This is more important today than it was for example when Haswell was released in mid 2013 because GPUs have caught up with the capability of CPUs to keep up with draw calls to the GPU.

Zen 2, which was widely recommended by mainstream tech sites, is a prime example. 3600 often recommended as the best gaming CPU - if it weren't for Covid making $500 MRSP GPUs cost $1500 this would be a horrific fail. You can't even go above a 3060 on a Zen 2 without taking serious FPS hits.

This is at 1440P. Yes that's right, 40.8% FPS difference between a Skylake 10600K and a Zen 2 2700 with a 3080 at 1440p, and 17% vs a 3600 - not even the top of the line GPU. This *should* be a $500-$600 GPU, only Covid is making this irrelevant for the moment.

This will only get worse in a year when the 'super' line and next gen GPUs release. This gets back to my comments about the mob mentality, from a practical standpoint Zen 2 is essentially dead as a gaming CPU, yet lots of people buy and recommend Zen 2 because it is 'good enough' to power a 1660 Super or 2060 without big FPS loss.

Zen 2 will wind up being one of the least future proof CPUs for gaming ever, and it all goes back to paying attention to 720p.

 

[Makaveli]

Intel's CPU availability is great, but motherboards are in short supply. It's not that you can't find them, but selection is lacking. My local MC for example has a really good selection of CPUs, but the only 5XX series motherboard that's not a 590 is an single H570 ITX motherboard - and they show exactly 1 in stock @125, I bet that is actually gone. The Z590s start at $189 - exactly 1 in stock at that price, then go up to $239 and higher. This is likely to hamper their CPU sales if not fixed fairly quickly.

AMD seems to have the opposite issue, I see plenty of motherboards but many places don't have the 5600X / 5800X (many do, though). Nobody seems to ever have the 5900X/5950X in any real supply, that seems to still be unobtanium and a target for scalpers.



720p is what people usually look at to measure longevity of the CPU. If people had been paying attention to that when zen 2 came out, instead of just reading techtube recommendations, they may have made some different choices. This is more important today than it was for example when Haswell was released in mid 2013 because GPUs have caught up with the capability of CPUs to keep up with draw calls to the GPU.

Zen 2, which was widely recommended by mainstream tech sites, is a prime example. 3600 often recommended as the best gaming CPU - if it weren't for Covid making $500 MRSP GPUs cost $1500 this would be a horrific fail. You can't even go above a 3060 on a Zen 2 without taking serious FPS hits.

This is at 1440P. Yes that's right, 40.8% FPS difference between a Skylake 10600K and a Zen 2 3600 with a 3080 at 1440p - not even the top of the line. This *should* be a $500-$600 GPU, only Covid is making this irrelevant for the moment.

This will only get worse in a year when the 'super' line and next gen GPUs release. This gets back to my comments about the mob mentality, from a practical standpoint Zen 2 is essentially dead as a gaming CPU, yet lots of people buy and recommend Zen 2 because it is 'good enough' to power a 1660 Super or 2060 without big FPS loss.

Zen 2 will wind up being one of the least future proof CPUs for gaming ever, and it all goes back to paying attention to 720p.


View attachment 195135

Then I guess its good that many people that bought Zen 2 cpu's actually do more than just play games on their PC's.

When did playing games all of a sudden become the number 1 metric in what people do with their pc's?

Where are all the adults at?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Then I guess its good that many people that bought Zen 2 cpu's actually do more than just play games on their PC's.

When did playing games all of a sudden become the number 1 metric in what people do with their pc's?

Where are all the adults at?

Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.

In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it - Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs. Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU. For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.

 

[Makaveli]

Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.

In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it - Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs. Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU. For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.

I don't see a personal attack there at all.

I'm an IT professional and I build all my own machines. I don't buy OEM and I know numerous co-workers that do the same. And there are times when we go custom machines at work because an OEM doesn't offer what is needed. Gaming performance is not the be all end of this, its only so for one track minded gamers the market is bigger than just PC games.

"Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs."

You have no actual metrics to back this statement.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Nice oblique personal attack, along with a big goal post shift from what 90% of people are looking at in the review.

In answer to your comment, which should be obvious if you had put any thought whatsoever into it - Most of the people building DIY rigs are building gaming rigs. Professional and business types don't bother, they buy OEM if they are not also gamers, and usually with an iGPU. For the vast majority of those users, excepting the small fraction that needs > 8 cores, Intel offers the best value at all price points because they don't have to buy a wildly overpriced GPU at all - something they don't need.

Exactly this! Was already writing a very similar response to the ignorant statement from the guy above, when I noticed a new post and realized that I couldn't have put it better myself.

I'm an IT professional and I build all my own machines. I don't buy OEM and I know numerous co-workers that do the same. And there are times when we go custom machines at work because an OEM doesn't offer what is needed. Gaming performance is not the be all end of this, its only so for one track minded gamers the market is bigger than just PC games.

See, you've just confirmed Randall's statement - there are times when you go custom at work compared to OEMs for the majority. And obviously the gaming performance doesn't matter in most of those scenarios, however the picture is a bit different as far as enthusiast DIY scene is concerned...

 

[Makaveli]

Exactly this! Was already writing a very similar response to the ignorant statement from the guy above, when I noticed a new post and realized that I couldn't have put it better myself.

lol you guys have been liking each other's post for 8-9 pages now not really a surprise there.

 

[64K]

Where are all the adults at?

That was offensive to tens of millions of adult gamers all around you. I could show you a breakdown of gamers at various age groups and you would be shocked. The majority aren't kids.

It's not the number one metric for what people do with there PC. The number one metric would be business PCs to run MS Office. An i3 4 core takes care of that. An i9 11900k would be a silly proposition for the number one users of PCs.