Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks

[Chrispy_]

This is an interesting point of view. And I would argue at least for Intel 10-series vs Ryzen 3000 and earlier you are wrong. Something like 10400F vs 3600, 10600K vs 3600X, 10700K vs 3700X shows they are about on par with performance, about the same price and Intel was actually cheaper before Ryzen 3000 got really cheap in anticipation of Ryzen 5000. What Intel was and is losing at is power consumption.

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.

The 10400F vs 3600 - the 3600 is significantly faster than the 10400F on 2666MHz RAM in most of the non-gaming tests. There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.

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:
https://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.

Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)

I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.
View attachment 182085

That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.

AMD on the other hand....
View attachment 182086

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!

 

[watzupken]

The reason why the Ryzen 3xxx series is so expensive is because AMD botched up their chip supply. So with Ryzen 5xxx being so rare and expensive, people just go for an older chip to tide over until they can get a Ryzen 5xxx drop in replacement. I am expecting a wave of Ryzen 3000 chip sale when AMD finally get their supply in order.

As for the slight improvement in single core, even if the number is in the high single digit %, I feel RKL is not going to turn the tide for Intel. People who favor Intel will likely still go for RKL, but it is unlikely to entice many potential Ryzen buyers. For me, the higher power consumption and the need for some high end cooling for the higher tier chips is a turnoff for example. I feel the success of RKL will hinge heavily on its price and this is where Intel is always unwilling to budge until recently.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The 10400F vs 3600 - the 3600 is significantly faster than the 10400F on 2666MHz RAM in most of the non-gaming tests. There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.

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:
https://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!

The problem you're going to have with a lot of that is twofold.

Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip. The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.

What's sad is most of them won't do CPU scaling tests, you have to look elsewhere. TPU did one a while back, 3900XT vs 9900K / 10900K with a 2080 Ti. Here's the 1080P results. This is a 10 - 12% difference in FPS average.

It is very easy to see here that the Intel chips are GPU limited. The Zen 2 is getting very much CPU limited with a 2080 Ti. This didn't matter 6 months ago when very few had such a GPU, but as we go into 2021 and these new 3070s become more available this is what people who bought Zen 2 have to look forward to - this or buy a Zen 3 :

Edit: I should point out, that;'s an 3900XT, which is a percent or two faster than a 3900X.

The difference at 1440P was 8%, so no it is not showing up at just low res.

So lets now fast forward to today's GPUs.

First of all, a 3070 is faster than a 2080 Ti. So if you get a 3070 and pair it with Zen 2, you're down 10% or so vs say a 9900K or 10700K just like the TPU review. Even with a 3060 Ti, which is roughly the same as a 2080 Super, you're going to lose notable FPS.

So all those thousands of AMD posters who said "It's only 1 or 2% fps you won't notice it" - yeah those guys? They are only right if you stick with a GPU from 2019.

At the more extreme end, what happens if you get a 3090 and pair that with a Zen 2? Well about the only place we see that is on Zen 3 reviews, but it's pretty clear. Zen 2 fell farther behind, a lot farther. I'm going to focus on the 10700K because it was always less than the 3900X. Some examples :

10700K 15.2% higher fps vs 3900X :

10700K 15.6% higher fps vs 3900X :

Notice that lowly 10400 besting the 3900X above?

You can check the reviews yourself but the trend is prettty clear. The Intel Coffee / Comet Lake chips had a pretty solid 15% more headroom than Zen 2 as far as games went, and that's the 10700K vs 3900X. It's more if we're talking the 10900K. And these, without overclocking.

So, for games, Zen 2 has always been a horrific choice. People should keep this in mind when reading reviews, these review sites got it very wrong when recommending Zen 2 to gamers.

The second thing is that you're comparing pricing from a long time ago, Zen 3900X vs 10900K.

This is the reality of today. And the 10900K / 10700K / 10850K will smoke the 3900XT in games. Anyone building a gaming rig has to be either some kind of stupid, or have really drunk deeply of the AMD kool-aid to pick 3900X :

 

[AusWolf]

@RandallFlagg, DIY/enthusiasts are not a big enough segment to warrant separate dies

That's why AMD puts two in the same package. "Are you a normal user? Here's a CPU. Are you a DIY enthusiast? Here's two."

Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)

I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.
View attachment 182085

That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.

AMD on the other hand....
View attachment 182086

Wow... interesting what supply and demand can do to the market.

Not to mention that the 10850K doesn't seem to suffer from thermal/power issues as much as the 10900K does. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the 10850K without a blink of an eye.

The reason why the Ryzen 3xxx series is so expensive is because AMD botched up their chip supply. So with Ryzen 5xxx being so rare and expensive, people just go for an older chip to tide over until they can get a Ryzen 5xxx drop in replacement. I am expecting a wave of Ryzen 3000 chip sale when AMD finally get their supply in order.

As for the slight improvement in single core, even if the number is in the high single digit %, I feel RKL is not going to turn the tide for Intel. People who favor Intel will likely still go for RKL, but it is unlikely to entice many potential Ryzen buyers. For me, the higher power consumption and the need for some high end cooling for the higher tier chips is a turnoff for example. I feel the success of RKL will hinge heavily on its price and this is where Intel is always unwilling to budge until recently.

Agreed. I'd much rather sacrifice a few % in performance and keep my temps under control.

Edit: Not to mention stability. What good is a 5+ GHz boost if you can only maintain it for half a minute?

 

[1d10t]

Up until 3 years ago $300 was horribly expensive for a CPU...

...and still less core

Because PC gaming market has a LOT of players using high refresh rate monitors and very high framerates to play multiplayer games like Apex legends, fortnite, Warzone, pubg, valorant, etc etc. Having a locked 200fps (or more) is great for smooth aiming and low input lag with a Mouse.
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

Dude, only we at these forum are prefer high resolution high refresh rate gaming, and that already put us on a niche, 10% max of market. And I don't understand why must you pursue higher than 120Hz (144Hz). I mean my eyes could only tell a different between 60Hz and 120hz, but higher than that is placebo effect, unless you are the gamer who liked to display epeen counter on right of left corner.
Locked frame rate is from game engine itself, not from hardware limitations. Input lag is different story, it mainly because of monitor (input class divided between classes), and again not because of CPU hogging you down

The majority of people still game at 1080p with a 60 refresh rate. I post on some game sites in their hardware sections and for every person looking to do a build to run the game at max levels there is a person posting trying to get the game to work at the lowest levels. It's easy to look at our builds on the forum and think everyone has something similar but we are the enthusiasts of the PC world not the norm.

That's my whole point.
If you game at 1080p 60hz, would it be wise to invest more than $200 CPU? Let alone recommended it. Once resolution up and demand for higher refresh rate kick in, that your GPU start working.

It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.

That tiny, insignificant Intel advantage right here:
View attachment 182049
....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

Sadly, those price to performance king is now lost, AMD is for rich people and Intel for the poor
Cheapest i3 10100 can be had for $125, while Ryzen 3 3100 is now blatantly $185, almost twice initial price. AMD year old APU doesn't fare better, 3200G chugging $195. If this trend continues, Intel doesn't have to compete AMD in performance or core count, just release mediocre CPU at reasonable price

 

[Chrispy_]

The problem you're going to have with a lot of that is twofold.

Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip. The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.

What's sad is most of them won't do CPU scaling tests, you have to look elsewhere. TPU did one a while back, 3900XT vs 9900K / 10900K with a 2080 Ti. Here's the 1080P results. This is a 10 - 12% difference in FPS average.

It is very easy to see here that the Intel chips are GPU limited. The Zen 2 is getting very much CPU limited with a 2080 Ti. This didn't matter 6 months ago when very few had such a GPU, but as we go into 2021 and these new 3070s become more available this is what people who bought Zen 2 have to look forward to - this or buy a Zen 3 :

View attachment 182179

Edit: I should point out, that;'s an 3900XT, which is a percent or two faster than a 3900X.

The difference at 1440P was 8%, so no it is not showing up at just low res.

So lets now fast forward to today's GPUs.

First of all, a 3070 is faster than a 2080 Ti. So if you get a 3070 and pair it with Zen 2, you're down 10% or so vs say a 9900K or 10700K just like the TPU review. Even with a 3060 Ti, which is roughly the same as a 2080 Super, you're going to lose notable FPS.

So all those thousands of AMD posters who said "It's only 1 or 2% fps you won't notice it" - yeah those guys? They are only right if you stick with a GPU from 2019.

At the more extreme end, what happens if you get a 3090 and pair that with a Zen 2? Well about the only place we see that is on Zen 3 reviews, but it's pretty clear. Zen 2 fell farther behind, a lot farther. I'm going to focus on the 10700K because it was always less than the 3900X. Some examples :

10700K 15.2% higher fps vs 3900X :

View attachment 182187

10700K 15.6% higher fps vs 3900X :

View attachment 182188

Notice that lowly 10400 besting the 3900X above?

You can check the reviews yourself but the trend is prettty clear. The Intel Coffee / Comet Lake chips had a pretty solid 15% more headroom than Zen 2 as far as games went, and that's the 10700K vs 3900X. It's more if we're talking the 10900K. And these, without overclocking.

So, for games, Zen 2 has always been a horrific choice. People should keep this in mind when reading reviews, these review sites got it very wrong when recommending Zen 2 to gamers.

The second thing is that you're comparing pricing from a long time ago, Zen 3900X vs 10900K.

This is the reality of today. And the 10900K / 10700K / 10850K will smoke the 3900XT in games. Anyone building a gaming rig has to be either some kind of stupid, or have really drunk deeply of the AMD kool-aid to pick 3900X :

View attachment 182193

View attachment 182190


View attachment 182191

View attachment 182192

You appear to be trying to counter an argument I didn't make that "Zen is the better gaming CPU". It isn't, period. No need to mansplain it to me.

At no point would I have tried to claim Zen2 is faster for gaming because there's no reasonable evidence anywhere to suggest that. When I said:

There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.

I don't know how I can put it more clearly. That's literally three consecutive statements that Zen2 wasn't as good as Intel 10th Gen for gaming directly from me.

My point was that Zen was fast enough that in most scenarios it didn't matter. If you want to run twitch shooters at low res and 200+fps then 5GHz Intel was always the best option but I'd also avoid calling Zen2 a "horrific choice" as you did. In 2019 and most of 2020, a AMD CPU that provides 90% of the gaming performance for 90% of the price and much lower power consumption, was far from horrific. Right now, everything's irrelevant as supply of Zen2 stopped ages ago and Zen3 is almost unobtainable due to popularity and scalping. We'll have to wait several months for supply and demand to balance out and bring any semblance of order.

For now, 10th Gen Intel is still in stock. If you have to buy now, at possibly the worst possible time in the last two decades, then I guess that's what you're buying because that's all that's left anwhere close to MSRP. Intel are struggling with supply just as hard as AMD right now, but with Zen2 selling much higher volumes in the DIY channel throughout the last 18 months and Zen3 demand being stratospheric, you won't find either of them at sensible prices. The 10th Gen Intel didn't sell well at pre-Zen3/Ampere/RDNA2 launch, so inventory sat on shelves and filled warehouse - to our benefit right now because compared to scalper prices on AMD right now it's definitely the better choice.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You appear to be trying to counter an argument I didn't make that "Zen is the better gaming CPU". It isn't, period. No need to mansplain it to me.

...

My point was that Zen was fast enough that in most scenarios it didn't matter. If you want to run twitch shooters at low res and 200+fps then 5GHz Intel was always the best option but I'd also avoid calling Zen2 a "horrific choice" as you did.

You contradict yourself. Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice. Zen 2 is not fast enough when it loses 10% vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.

The gamer that bought say a 10700K is still fine with these new GPUS, they are not much CPU limited on GPUs like the 3060 Ti, or even a 3070 or 3080. Zen 2 users will lose around 8% FPS with a 3060 Ti, and up to 15%+ on higher end GPUs.

I wouldn't consider that kind of loss due to CPU selection "fast enough". That was my whole point.

Now today, if it were widely available, Zen 3 would be the obvious choice (noting that it isn't widely available). It clearly has at least a little headroom on GPUs, so will probably be ok for theoretical Nvidia 4XXX series in a couple of years. Comet Lake seems tapped out on current high end GPUs like the 3080 and 3090, but is at least still in the running vs Zen 3 and even bests Zen 3 on about 1/3 of games.

Zen 2 - bottom of the chart now. When 4XXX series release, Zen 2 will likely drop off the chart just like Zen 1 and 1+ have.

 

[AusWolf]

...


You contradict yourself. Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice. Zen 2 is not fast enough when it loses 10% vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.

The gamer that bought say a 10700K is still fine with these new GPUS, they are not much CPU limited on GPUs like the 3060 Ti, or even a 3070 or 3080. Zen 2 users will lose around 8% FPS with a 3060 Ti, and up to 15%+ on higher end GPUs.

I wouldn't consider that kind of loss due to CPU selection "fast enough". That was my whole point.

Now today, if it were widely available, Zen 3 would be the obvious choice (noting that it isn't widely available). It clearly has at least a little headroom on GPUs, so will probably be ok for theoretical Nvidia 4XXX series in a couple of years. Comet Lake seems tapped out on current high end GPUs like the 3080 and 3090, but is at least still in the running vs Zen 3 and even bests Zen 3 on about 1/3 of games.

Zen 2 - bottom of the chart now. When 4XXX series release, Zen 2 will likely drop off the chart just like Zen 1 and 1+ have.

Are you really arguing over a 10-15% FPS deficit? I bet if you took a Ryzen 9 3900X and a Core i9-10900K, paired both with an RTX 3080, put them side by side, and looked at game performance without an FPS counter on screen, no living being would notice the difference.

Edit: I recommend this video in the topic. First hand experience: I used a Ryzen 3 3100 with my RX 5700 XT while I was waiting for my 5950X to arrive. The Witcher 3 ran at 120 FPS. Now it runs at 140 FPS. Apart from the occasional frame dips with the 3100, I would never tell the difference.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Are you really arguing over a 10-15% FPS deficit? I bet if you took a Ryzen 9 3900X and a Core i9-10900K, paired both with an RTX 3080, put them side by side, and looked at game performance without an FPS counter on screen, no living being would notice the difference.

Edit: I recommend this video in the topic. First hand experience: I used a Ryzen 3 3100 with my RX 5700 XT while I was waiting for my 5950X to arrive. The Witcher 3 ran at 120 FPS. Now it runs at 140 FPS. Apart from the occasional frame dips with the 3100, I would never tell the difference.

I found some scaling benchmarks with a 3080. The difference at 1080P between a 10900K and a 3900X with a 3080 is a whopping 20%. That's huge, more than an graphics card tier. In fact, the 9900K (similar to the 10700K) beats 3900X by 15%.

And in answer to your question, hell to the freaking yes losing an entire tier or in some cases more than a tier of GPU performance due to bad CPU selection matters.

 

[Chrispy_]

You contradict yourself. Zen 2 for a gamer who wants to keep their system for 3-5 years was and is a horrific choice. Zen 2 is not fast enough when it loses 10% vs Comet Lake with a x070 card 6-12 months after it was purchased.

Jesus, how many times can I explain to you that I'm not talking about gaming. Stop trying to steer the argument towards gaming.

Gaming is GPU-limited and has been for a whole decade. When it isn't GPU-limited, Zen 2 is worse for gaming than 9th Gen and 10th Gen. We know already. Everyone does. There are thousands of reviews, comparisons, benchmarks, articles, proving as much over the course of the last 18 months. You're just adding noise to the thread.

Edit:

C'mon man, even though this is an argument that you can't win because everyone already agrees with the side you're taking, who's gonna buy a 3080 to run old games at 1080p medium? That's a 9 game average going back to 2013 titles ffs.

If, in the future, a game comes along that is so CPU dependent that Zen2 owners are losing loads of performance even at settings and resolutions appropriate to their GPU - then they'll probably just accept that they didn't buy "the gaming CPU" and move on. It's pretty unlikely that will happen because it hasn't happened for the last 9 generations of CPU but hey, I'm not ruling it out....

 

[AusWolf]

I found some scaling benchmarks with a 3080. The difference at 1080P between a 10900K and a 3900X with a 3080 is a whopping 20%. That's huge, more than an graphics card tier. In fact, the 9900K (similar to the 10700K) beats 3900X by 15%.

And in answer to your question, hell to the freaking yes losing an entire tier or in some cases more than a tier of GPU performance due to bad CPU selection matters.

View attachment 182292

I respect what you're saying, but I tend to disagree. I could never ever in my life notice any difference between a game running at 203 or 239 FPS without a counter on screen. 20% difference (especially in this class) is not gigantic by any means, GPU tier or not. Like I said, I need at least a 50% improvement to see a reason to upgrade.

With this in mind, the only item in this chart that warrants an upgrade is the i7-4770K (although a 141 FPS average still isn't too bad). Tossing a 3900X in the bin just to buy a 10900K is pure madness in my opinion.

If, in the future, a game comes along that is so CPU dependent that Zen2 owners are losing loads of performance even at settings and resolutions appropriate to their GPU - then they'll probably just accept that they didn't buy "the gaming CPU" and move on. It's pretty unlikely that will happen because it hasn't happened for the last 9 generations of CPU but hey, I'm not ruling it out....

If a magically unoptimized game comes along that runs at 10 FPS on a 3900X, then it'll run at 12 FPS on a 10900K, because there's a huge 20% gap between them. That's the dividing line between unplayable and ... unplayable.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

If Intel ever starts to use a 'current' node process it seems like they'll easily dominate the charts over AMD. The fact that they're able to still be competitive in anyway is impressive considering they're using ancient technology. Anyone disputing this is out of sheer bias in my opinion. However, I have built my last two machines using AMD 3600 processors because they're still the kings of the budget processor.

 

[phanbuey]

I would agree with @RandallFlagg that the 3900x isn't a great buy since it's sitting in the mid $500's, supply will never come back for the 3900x, and it isn't as well rounded for a gaming/mixed rig -- you can pick up a $400 -10850/ or a $380-$330 10700K + a $150 MSI z490 Pro A and run both at 5.0/5.1ghz without too much issue.

I doubt the supply issues are going to stabilize anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong). But even so -- when the supply does stabilize 5xxx series will be the best but expensive; so Intel's lava lakes will still be in that middle ground (esp with a modest OC) between zen 2 and zen 3 in terms of performance. Gaming wise there's very little difference between zen 3 and intel below 400fps and productivity-wise the 10850 stacks up nicely to the 5800x and the 10700k to the 5600x.

The 5900x will be the flagship, but anyone who doesn't want to drop $550 on a CPU can be in the market for either 5800x/10850/5600x/10700 without any wrong choices there.

 

[AusWolf]

I would agree with @RandallFlagg that the 3900x isn't a great buy since it's sitting in the mid $500's, supply will never come back for the 3900x, and it isn't as well rounded for a gaming/mixed rig -- you can pick up a $400 -10850/ or a $380-$330 10700K + a $150 MSI z490 Pro A and run both at 5.0/5.1ghz without too much issue.

I doubt the supply issues are going to stabilize anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong). But even so -- when the supply does stabilize 5xxx series will be the best but expensive; so Intel's lava lakes will still be in that middle ground (esp with a modest OC) between zen 2 and zen 3 in terms of performance. Gaming wise there's very little difference between zen 3 and intel below 400fps and productivity-wise the 10850 stacks up nicely to the 5800x and the 10700k to the 5600x.

The 5900x will be the flagship, but anyone who doesn't want to drop $550 on a CPU can be in the market for either 5800x/10850/5600x/10700 without any wrong choices there.

That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy for gaming. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy for gaming. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.

You don't need a Z490 except to run OC. You can power unlock on a B460 or H470.

You don't need an expensive AIO unless you're going to OC and / or unlock power limits.

So if we add in all the negative cost factors of getting a Z490, getting an AIO, add in the benefit - in that scenario the OC / Power unlocked 10700K actually ties it up with the 3900X in productivity :

Or you could just get a B460 and a 10700 non-K with an AIO, power unlock it, and be within 8% on productivity apps and a decisive win in gaming.

Or you could go purely stock with a stock cooler and win at gaming.

But if you go and get all those things you're talking about as being needed then I have to assume you're going to be power unlocking and potentially overclocking since all that extra expense is there.

In that scenario the best Zen 2 can muster is equal performance for lower power. Most of the time it's going to lose - even in productivity.

But if you're talking stock vs stock, then sure Zen 2 wins in productivity.

But if that is the comparison, there's no need whatsoever for a Z490 nor an AIO.

 

[phanbuey]

That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy for gaming. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.

What you were saying was absolutely right about 2-3 months ago -- since then, the 3900x has risen in price to $500-550+ (almost full price of the Intel 10 core cpu + mobo combo) - and 3900x will likely not back down too soon since they're not focused on that production, especially since AMD is likely to introduce more 5 series in that space.

Right now it doesn't seem that AMD really has a chip between $550-$210 that's available / worth buying over the competition -- the 3600/XT rose in price along with other zen 2 parts to where it's same as a 10600K - (which the 10600K is a much better chip) -- the 3700x is sitting at $325-$350, which is the same price as a 10700 (a generally better overall chip which doesn't need a z490) -- it's really not until you get down to the 3600 non-x at $210 where AMD is very viable again - but that also faces some competition from the 10-series.

I don't think this changes much until the 5600, 5700x or 5900 (non-x, if that is even a thing), release and are available to buy in quantity (which they will sell out like hotcakes for the first few months even at $650 for the 5900 and $500 for the 5700x).

 

[quakebox]

Mild single core gain and massive multicore lack I go with 5950x it's the best processor so far also it uses way much less power than 14nm intel processors.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Mild single core gain and massive multicore lack I go with 5950x it's the best processor so far also it uses way much less power than 14nm intel processors.

Here ya go. Enjoy!

 

[Chrispy_]

If Intel ever starts to use a 'current' node process it seems like they'll easily dominate the charts over AMD. The fact that they're able to still be competitive in anyway is impressive considering they're using ancient technology. Anyone disputing this is out of sheer bias in my opinion. However, I have built my last two machines using AMD 3600 processors because they're still the kings of the budget processor.

"Cove" architecture in Rocket Lake is turning out in laptops to be about a 13-14% IPC increase over the old Skylake architecture in Kaby/Coffee/Comet Lake CPUs.

That's a good thing that's long overdue, given how long desktop has been stuck with the old Skylake architecture, but you also have to remember that a new process probably isn't going to reach the clock speeds of 14nm+++ and it's such a mature, refined process that to reach the clocks and yields of 14+++ would probably take a good couple of years after the first successful desktop products on a new node.

The other thing to remember is that Intel's 14nm+++ really isn't that far behind TSMC's 7nm:

Intel's 10nm doesn't work because it's way too ambitious for current fab technology and trying to do far too much at once. Estimates put Intel's 10nm as similar gate density to TSMC's planned 5nm process. It's far denser than the 7nm and 8nm processes at TSMC and Samsung.

 

[londiste]

@Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.

10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.

 

[milewski1015]

Be ready for the many Intel releases coming this year including their gaming GPUs.

I'll eat my hat if Intel can churn out a legitimately competitive dedicated GPU this year.

we'll see how long devs can keep justifying supporting a proprietary feature from a chip designer who doesn't have a full CPU + GPU ecosystem.

Since when does having to manufacture both CPUs and GPUs mean anything to developers?

Intel will sponsor the upcoming Hitman 3 and many other games

Just like when they sponsored Marvel's Avengers? How did that one turn out? Oh right...

Marvel's Avengers Reportedly Lost 96% Of Players Since Launch

Marvel's Avengers is losing players fast.

screenrant.com

What's sad is most of them won't do CPU scaling tests, you have to look elsewhere. TPU did one a while back, 3900XT vs 9900K / 10900K with a 2080 Ti. Here's the 1080P results. This is a 10 - 12% difference in FPS average.

Sure that's all well and good, and as @Chrispy_ mentioned, I don't think anybody is arguing against Intel 10th gen beating out Zen 2 in gaming when it comes to raw numbers. But let's take a step back for a second - aside from a professional esports gamer that wants the absolute maximum framerate at 1080p, I would argue that anybody in their right mind that's ponying up $1100+ for a 2080Ti and another $400+ for a 3900X/10900K is playing on 1440p at minimum.

Prior to Zen 3, Comet Lake was by far the best gaming chip. The review sites that constantly said 'go ahead and get AMD' for a gaming system 'because it doesn't make any difference' were dead wrong.

Reviewers recommended AMD for gaming systems because they were more versatile chips and offered consumers more value for their money. I recall many of them specifying that Intel was still the way to go for a strictly gaming build if you wanted, no, needed to chase that maximum framerate dragon. But for the budget-minded consumer, AMD offered very compelling chips - yes, they did perform slightly worse in games, but they traded that for generally better productivity performance, as well as overclocking all throughout the product stack that wasn't locked behind a higher-end chipset or K-series CPU.

 

[RandallFlagg]

@Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.

10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.

Take care when using those nanometer numbers when comparing between different foundries, they are meaningless.

Samsung's 5nm is reportedly 127MT/mm2.
Intel 10nm and TSMC 7nm are both around 100MT/mm2 (originally Intel was shooting for around 130MT/mm2).
TSMC 5nm is 170ish MT/mm2
Intel's 7nm is estimated to be between 200 and 250 MT/mm2 - better than TSMC 5nm (we'll see).
Samsung 8nm, which Nvidia is using, is estimated around 60MT/mm2
TSMCs 12nm node is around 28MT/mm2
GloFlo 12nm node is around 37 MT/mm2
Intel's 14nm node is around 38 MT/mm2

Also what the density itself represents varies. Intel uses a flip flop and a logic gate. I'm pretty sure Samsung is talking about SRAM, and SRAM is smaller than logic gates.

If we just go by the stated density, Samsung's 5nm is expected to be just a little bit better than Intel 10nm / TSMC 7nm, usually the type of thing that would rank a "+" or some such.

And Samsung's 8nm is really a node improvement over their 10nm - which itself is rated around 51MT/mm2 or about half of Intel's 10nm.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

That's the thing: with Intel, you need to roll out some cash for a Z-series motherboard if you want to tweak CPU settings in your BIOS. On AMD, a B550 does the job just fine, and costs a lot less than any Z490 board in the same range. Besides, you're only talking about gaming. Yes, the 10700K or the 10850K (I would not recommend the space heater 10900K to anyone) is a better buy for gaming. If you need the extra cores for anything else, the 3900X still has them. Or as you said, the 5000 series on AMD would be the best of both worlds, only if they weren't so rare and expensive at the moment.

The exact same boards (Z490 A-Pro and B550 A-Pro from MSI) are within $20 of each other.

This is one of the 'choose AMD' talking points that simply isn't true.

 

[AusWolf]

The exact same boards (Z490 A-Pro and B550 A-Pro from MSI) are within $20 of each other.

This is one of the 'choose AMD' talking points that simply isn't true.

Well, that is true. I admit, I looked at ASUS boards to compare, where there actually is a $50 difference between Z490 and B550 models. I recently had to RMA two MSI boards because neither the original, nor the replacement would post with hardware that works fine in other systems ("Home Theatre 2" in my signature).

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'll eat my hat if Intel can churn out a legitimately competitive dedicated GPU this year.

Look at NewEgg in the image below, Nvidia 16XX series, sorted lowest cost, any vendor - DG1 and DG2 will be a welcome addition in this environment.

They knew what they were doing when they decided to start making those cards at this point in time.