Intel Core i9-11900K

[RandallFlagg]

And you sound like a typical Intel fan/apologist ~ are you now gonna blame system instability, observed by many reviewers, on "AMD community" as well

This kind of drivel is exactly why TPU did what it did with memory selection. Enjoy the clicks, and ignorance, that this approach promotes.

 

[KarymidoN]

All this talk about food...maybe Intel should consider going into the restaurant business and opening their own chain of diners? They could call it Rocket Lake Grill and rather than use grills/stoves to cook the food, they'd use OCed 11900K's!

Also, Intel, KFC just called. They wanna use a bunch of 11900K's to start cooking their chicken

That KFC Console makes more Sense now than EVER!

 

[R0H1T]

I can show you 10 different reviews showing 10 different results! Why do you assume yours is the only right one? And goodluck asking every DIY builder for their approach, you’re just guessing on behalf of over a million different people

 

[W1zzard]

Why do you assume yours is the only right one?

I am not

Intel shouldn't give configurations at any point except if they are presenting the results themselves.

For the record, Intel clearly said "you are free to use any other motherboard", and they did not recommend any specific settings, benchmarks or anything else

 

[HenrySomeone]

Intel did not force you to use DDR4-3800 gear 2. Not guaranteed to work on either system. You decided to do that due to pressure from the AMD community.

This is what happens when you use 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 CL16 gear 1 on Z590 Rog Maximus Hero XII and 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL 16 with X570 Aorus Master. Both systems are running memory synchronously.

It's actually far, far more likely that a typical DIY type will use this config.

View attachment 194722

Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.

 

[FeelinFroggy]

Why anyone would buy this over the AMD CPU is beyond me. I still have an 8700k and it is not worth upgrading yet. But when I do I will be making the switch to AMD.

 

[Why_Me]

Try refresh your browser

My post was in reference to the 3600 and btw that's for instore pickup only. There's less than a dozen US states that have a microcenter store.

 

[OSdevr]

Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.
View attachment 194750

I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.

I'm pretty sure that was a typo. Look at the chart. Stock 10900K is scoring 10% below the geomean "ABT on" stock 11900K. There's a very clear tiering going on in that chart too, with three tiers. The lone stock 10600K at the bottom, Zen 3 and 10900K + OC 10600K in the middle, and RKL at the top with an OC 11600K and hobbled (ABT off) 11900K bridging the gap from the middle to top tier. The OC 10900K also makes the grade in that top tier.

 

[Makaveli]

I don't understand. Why is the 11900K, an 8-core with massive IPC improvements, perfectly tied with it's 10-core predecessor in gaming? I'd think the 11900K should be a clear winner.

At the end of the day it all just splitting hairs. People will argue all day over a spread of 10fps when both are over 100 fps. No one will notice this difference unless you are looking at a fps counter instead of playing your games.

We not talking about playable vs non playable performance, pages and pages of mental gymnastics here for alot of posters for nothing if you ask me.

 

[regs]

FAIL CPU OF THE YEAR.

At the same time 11400F looks to be CPU of the year.

 

[chrcoluk]

So it's a 9900K with PCIe 4.0 support?

Not sure about that, the 9900k uses waaaaay less power lol.

 

[OSdevr]

I'm pretty sure that was a typo. Look at the chart. Stock 10900K is scoring 10% below the geomean "ABT on" stock 11900K. There's a very clear tiering going on in that chart too, with three tiers. The lone stock 10600K at the bottom, Zen 3 and 10900K + OC 10600K in the middle, and RKL at the top with an OC 11600K and hobbled (ABT off) 11900K bridging the gap from the middle to top tier. The OC 10900K also makes the grade in that top tier.

The price is different too. Maybe the reviewer was just lazy.

At the end of the day it all just splitting hairs. People will argue all day over a spread of 10fps when both are over 100 fps. No one will notice this difference unless you are looking at a fps counter instead of playing your games.

We not talking about playable vs non playable performance, pages and pages of mental gymnastics here for alot of posters for nothing if you ask me.

It's not a lot but that 8% is a significant difference in light of TPU's own review.

 

[ryun]

I saw a minor wrinkle with this review on the "Temperatures" section: The test setup says "Noctua NH-U14S" but the temp graph says "Noctua NH-U12S - Lower is Better". You guys should fix that, especially it's so easy to share that image.

Great review as always. Thanks so much for going so in depth.

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Yup, after now going through several reviews, it's quite clear that when properly configured (which is not as straightforward as usually for Intel, but new architecture will do that for you), the 10900k is the top gaming cpu in most instances, even more so as far as 1% and 0.1% lows are considered and which is actually even more important for a smooth high refresh rate experience.
View attachment 194750

Ah yes, bar graphs... But, tell me something, if the human eye can only see the difference between, say, 60 FPS and 30 FPS, and ALL of the CPUs listed in this graph (lowest being the 10600K @ 100.63) are clearly ABOVE that 60 FPS threshold, what difference does it truly make if the top Intel CPU (11900K) got 122.85 and the top AMD CPU (5900X) got 114.37? Unless you have superhuman eyesight, your eyes aren't gonna notice a lick of difference.

 

[GoldenX]

Ah yes, bar graphs... But, tell me something, if the human eye can only see the difference between, say, 60 FPS and 30 FPS, and ALL of the CPUs listed in this graph (lowest being the 10600K @ 100.63) are clearly ABOVE that 60 FPS threshold, what difference does it truly make if the top Intel CPU (11900K) got 122.85 and the top AMD CPU (5900X) got 114.37? Unless you have superhuman eyesight, your eyes aren't gonna notice a lick of difference.

Power bills at the end of the month.

Now for real, the human eye can discern very high framerate, as long as you use a high framerate display.

 

[1d10t]

And you should try refreshing your reading comprehension! He talked about the 3600, not the 5600x (which you can now occasionally (if you are very diligent in refreshing your pages indeed), almost 6 months after release finally get at the MSRP, hurrah!). And he was right in his point too - AMD has currently pretty much zero (sensible) options for a budget-mid range build!

My post was in reference to the 3600 and btw that's for instore pickup only. There's less than a dozen US states that have a microcenter store.

I find this very interesting, replying and upvoting each other. Is there any chance that both of you are just the same person? Or worst just some alternate account?

Back on topic, it seems Intel would get away with this simply because of competitive absences. They don't have to make a good product, just exist. Another possibility is portfolio, they has to had anything in 2021. It's funny because there are still many who deemed this as "worth" when obviously Intel made this just to satisfy OEMs

 

[Why_Me]

I find this very interesting, replying and upvoting each other. Is there any chance that both of you are just the same person? Or worst just some alternate account?

Back on topic, it seems Intel would get away with this simply because of competitive absences. They don't have to make a good product, just exist. Another possibility is portfolio, they has to had anything in 2021. It's funny because there are still many who deemed this as "worth" when obviously Intel made this just to satisfy OEMs

Not sure what you were expecting when you quoted my post about the 3600 not being available to replying to said post by not only linking to a 5600X but an in store pickup at Microcenter. btw google 'IP address' if and when you have time. With that said yes I agree that the Rocket Lake release was a bit disappointing but I still see the 11400F along with the 11700F having decent sales due to price and availability.

 

[btk2k2]

With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web it has to be firmware.

It could be different reviewers using different PL1 / PL2 settings with different Tau expiry and different benchmark lengths.

Even if two reviewers use Intels specified figures rather than the motherboard defaults if reviewer A does a 30s game benchmark and another does a 5 minute game benchmark the average FPS at 720p is going to be lower in the latter because that longer test goes past the full turbo mode and your average clockspeed for the run is lower.

On top of that RKL does well in some games and there is genuine improvement so if a reviewer has a game course that happens to include a lot of games where RKL does better than average you get a better result.

This means the variability in reviews can easily come down to different methodology and different games. I tend to prefer reviewers who very clearly explain their methodology so TPU, GN, HUB(TechSpot), Anand, ComputerBase are my goto reviewers.

Intel did not force you to use DDR4-3800 gear 2. Not guaranteed to work on either system. You decided to do that due to pressure from the AMD community.

This is what happens when you use 2x 16GB DDR4-3200 CL16 gear 1 on Z590 Rog Maximus Hero XII and 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL 16 with X570 Aorus Master. Both systems are running memory synchronously.

It's actually far, far more likely that a typical DIY type will use this config.

View attachment 194722

3800 C16 is a pretty common and easy to achieve setup for both Intel and AMD, or at least was until Intel changed their IMC. Further this tester released videos of their benchmark scenes (really good idea) and if the benchmark is actually exactly as the videos play out most are sub 60 seconds so all take place in the turbo window at Intels PL1/PL2/Tau settings which will inflate the Intel numbers. They also use different motherboards for 10th gen and 11th gen Intels so it is not as like for like in the generational comparison as you could get. Also 2x 16GB vs 4x 8GB seems like an unnecessary difference when you could run 4x 8GB or 2x 16GB in both AMD and Intel rigs.

On top of this HUB and GN who use 4x 3200C14 ram had very different results with the 10900k being ahead of the 11900k in the HUB 10 game average.

Also with all the crud CapFrameX was spouting on Twitter and over at ComputerBase forums I would not trust their results as much as the likes of GN, HUB, TPU, AnandTech and ComputerBase.

 

[W1zzard]

using different PL1 / PL2 settings with different Tau expiry

for the record, i'm using default PL settings in the normal run, I double and triple check. With today's motherboards it's super easy to end up running at max PL by accident

if reviewer A does a 30s game benchmark and another does a 5 minute game benchmark the average FPS at 720p is going to be lower in the latter because that longer test goes past the full turbo mode and your average clockspeed for the run is lower.

this is very important, also for app tests. also time between benchmarks matters for turbo budget to "refresh". also integrated benchmarks vs actual gameplay

I saw a minor wrinkle with this review on the "Temperatures" section: The test setup says "Noctua NH-U14S" but the temp graph says "Noctua NH-U12S - Lower is Better". You guys should fix that, especially it's so easy to share that image.

bah, thank you so much, this is fixed now

 

[birdie]

It's funny, or sad, that most of those positive points in the conclusion, are either not positive points at all (being unlocked in a world of unlocked competitive products it's not positive, it should be a prerequisite), or positive points that are almost totally negated when looking at the negative points list (for example PCIe 4.0, but only for M.2, AVX512 but minimal software support etc. )

• Each new extended instruction set at launch has had very little software. Each of them, including the original MMX extensions (how many people here are old enough to remember them?) I'll go out on a limb and say that @W1zzard is quite unfair here.
• Absolute most people out there have the only disk drive and again absolute most people are more than OK even with SATA SSD drives which peak at ~550MB/sec read/write speeds. This obsessions with PCI-E 4.0 looks quite morbid to me. I mean your favourite game now loads in 12 seconds instead of 13 with a PCI-E 3.0 drive - is it too much of a difference?
• Rocket Lake is more a PoC rather than an actual line-up which is further proven by the fact that Intel has chosen not to release Core i3/Pentium and Celeron CPUs based on it.
• Speaking of heat: OC'ing almost always involves a lot of extra heat - I don't quite understand why you've mentioned it as a negative.
• Performance is all over the place but a 8-core RKL CPU is generally quite faster than an 8-core CML CPU, a singificant IPC increase is right there - has @W1zzard even mentioned that RKL is the first desktop Intel CPU in five years to feature an IPC increase? All the CPUs between Sky Lake and Comet Lake share the same core (sans HW mitigations) and are almost completely the same in terms of IPC.

If you're looking for shortcomings, you'll find them. If you're looking for a good testbed for upcoming Alder Lake CPUs, you've found it. It's amazing how many likes your post have gathered - and I'm pretty sure most of those people are AMD fans, only it's weird to find them here in this discussion.

 

[W1zzard]

Each new extended instruction set at launch has had very little software. Each of them, including the original MMX extensions (how many people here are old enough to remember them?) I'll go out on a limb and say that @W1zzard is quite unfair here.

Did we read the same review?

What could bring big wins for Intel is the newfound love for AVX512 and DLBoost—extensions that have been available for years but never made it to the desktop. At this time, software support for either of those instruction sets is extremely limited, and they are not useful. I am convinced that they can offer tangible benefits once adoption rates go up, though. Remember AVX—everybody said it's a useless tech that's not needed as "we already have SSE"; today, a lot of apps and games use AVX, also because of excellent compiler support. Using these new instructions is often as simple as checking a box that tells the compiler it may optimize with AVX instructions—that's it. The hard work will be done by the compiler, you don't have to mess with hand-coded assembly instructions. Today, all this doesn't matter as consumer won't be needing AVX-512 for a couple of years at least. That said, Rocket Lake can be a cost-effective option for researchers and industry professionals who want to use these new instructions to speed up their calculations, but don't want to pay up for the expensive Xeons.

 

[Tom Sunday]

With such mixed gaming results in the reviews around the web....

The "influencers have arrived" and as I mentioned yesterday in my previous post. Conflictiing testing commentaries, opinions and reports prevail now that the Intel CPU saga broke loose. Suggest to having a look at WCCFTECH and its "Executive Review: How Does Intel’s Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD’s Ryzen 5800X." Some key comments there noted that Rocket Lake marks Intel as being very competitive with AMD again (up to 8 cores at any rate) and depending on supply, could see that Intel very well will defend its position with also (finally) a PCIe 4.0 platform in its ranks!"

What we need to remember is that certain 'review sites' are tainted and as manufacturers are placing income producing ads with them and thus "reviewers" are told to be more cooperative. And money in ones pocket always wins and as the site-owners want those advertisers to come back and not getting ruffled with questionable or even bad reviews. I am quite sure that many here will not appreciate me saying this, but it's a stark reality. I also see this happening in many tech and gaming magazines as well where certain products or manufacturers corporate statements get preferred treatment and positions. Therefore I always read at least a dozen or so important reviews within the many other competing sites available to form my own oipnion. Besides its my own money at stake.

To be sure I am not a fanboy either way but rather a daytime investor. Made some quick and real money with AMD in a short 8-months time last year and now my AMD windfall in 2021 riding on Intel waiting for their 4th quarter to arrive. So there you have it with me having a motive as well and it's all with having money in my pocket as well.

 

[birdie]

Did we read the same review?

What could bring big wins for Intel is the newfound love for AVX512 and DLBoost—extensions that have been available for years but never made it to the desktop. At this time, software support for either of those instruction sets is extremely limited, and they are not useful. [...] That said, Rocket Lake can be a cost-effective option for researchers and industry professionals who want to use these new instructions to speed up their calculations, but don't want to pay up for the expensive Xeons.

It wasn't about your review, it was about the person who made all the positives negatives. "Intel now has AVX512 in a desktop CPU line-up? Still a failure!"

Speaking of AVX512: it's not prudent to expect more software for the extensions considering that they were previously enabled only in very expensive Xeon CPUs and Ice Lake CPUs were considered a failure and released in relatively small quantities and it wasn't a desktop CPU architecture and still isn't. With most previous extensions, Intel first pushed them in consumer products first. This time around it was the server products and consequently ISVs didn't rush to add support for the new extensions in their applications. AVX512 does have its use cases, though it's unlikely to become as versatile as e.g. SSE.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The "influencers have arrived" and as I mentioned yesterday in my previous post. Conflictiing testing commentaries, opinions and reports prevail now that the Intel CPU saga broke loose. Suggest to having a look at WCCFTECH and its "Executive Review: How Does Intel’s Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD’s Ryzen 5800X." Some key comments there noted that Rocket Lake marks Intel as being very competitive with AMD again (up to 8 cores at any rate) and depending on supply, could see that Intel very well will defend its position with also (finally) a PCIe 4.0 platform in its ranks!"

What we need to remember is that certain 'review sites' are tainted and as manufacturers are placing income producing ads with them and thus "reviewers" are told to be more cooperative. And money in ones pocket always wins and as the site-owners want those advertisers to come back and not getting ruffled with questionable or even bad reviews. I am quite sure that many here will not appreciate me saying this, but it's a stark reality. I also see this happening in many tech and gaming magazines as well where certain products or manufacturers corporate statements get preferred treatment and positions. Therefore I always read at least a dozen or so important reviews within the many other competing sites available to form my own oipnion. Besides its my own money at stake.

To be sure I am not a fanboy either way but rather a daytime investor. Made some quick and real money with AMD in a short 8-months time last year and now my AMD windfall in 2021 riding on Intel waiting for their 4th quarter to arrive. So there you have it with me having a motive as well and it's all with having money in my pocket as well.

You forget to mention clicks. Social media and ad revenue models have essentially made these sites beholden to the mob. This perverts their analysis and reviews, it's not a hobby for them they are there to make a living.

Just look at how many people threatened TPU with essentially de-funding them by blocking / removing them based on their Zen 3 tests, then badmouthed them in other forums. This type of threat happens all the time on youtube, look at the comments.

If these sites say something that causes viewership to decline 20%, that's like taking a 20% pay cut. No sane person is going to do that, hence they're going to have a huge bias to create content that their viewers want to see - tell people what they want to hear. 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. Buyer beware.