Intel Officially Unveils 11th Gen Rocket Lake CPUs

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Huge missed opportunity here. Intel should have called them 5th Gear and Top Gear and instead of TVB called it JKM (Jeremy Clarkson Mode)

Subscribe so you don't miss when LTT builds an all denim PC.

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, RejZoR said:

These chips would be super interesting if one could stick them in existing motherboards. Since that's not the case, I don't quite get why one would go out of their way to buy an inferior platform and inferior CPU for it. When you can just grab Ryzen 5000 which is the shit currently.

 

I think more users would go with Intel if they could do this. I don't know what Intel was thinking here. But they just can't help themselves with stupid pin counts, where AMD could miraculously have entire AM4 generation on same socket and still deliver massive gains without adding a single god damn socket pin.

I don't get why so many on this forum talk so much about how many generations of CPUs a motherboard supports.

I really think it is a very, very small minority that benefits from AMD's slightly longer generation support.

 

If you are planning your builds properly and only upgrading when you actually need to, then your motherboard will be long outdated before you need to upgrade your CPU again.

Needing long supported motherboards might have been a thing back in the early 2000's when we got double the performance every year, but nowadays I honestly think you shouldn't upgrade more than like once every 4-5 years. If you upgrade more often than that you are most likely wasting money.

[LAwLz]

Honestly, I am surprised by how decent this launch is.

The i9 lineup is terrible. Way overpriced, but some of the i7 processors are actually legitimately competitive with AMD some AMD products. It performs almost as well as the 5800X but at a way cheaper price. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary SKUs though. Do they really need like three different i3 processors with a 100MHz frequency difference as the only differentiator? 

 

Benefits of AMD's 5800X:

• 8% higher general CPU performance.
• 1% higher gaming performance.
• Lower power consumption.

 

Benefits of the Intel 11700K:

• About 100 dollars cheaper (roughly 20% cheaper).
• iGPU
• AVX512 (whatever that's worth).

 

I'd gladly save 20% on my CPU bill if all I had to give up was about 1-8% performance.

[Random_Person1234]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Honestly, I am surprised by how decent this launch is.

The i9 lineup is terrible. Way overpriced, but some of the i7 processors are actually legitimately competitive with AMD some AMD products. It performs almost as well as the 5800X but at a way cheaper price. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary SKUs though. Do they really need like three different i3 processors with a 100MHz frequency difference as the only differentiator? 

 

Benefits of AMD's 5800X:

• 8% higher general CPU performance.
• 1% higher gaming performance.
• Lower power consumption.

 

Benefits of the Intel 11700K:

• About 100 dollars cheaper (roughly 20% cheaper).
• iGPU
• AVX512 (whatever that's worth).

 

I'd gladly save 20% on my CPU bill if all I had to give up was about 1-8% performance.

Where did you get the $100/20% cheaper from? Intel put $399 in their slides, but the actual retail price is around $420 but it's on sale for $399 right now on B&H. That would be 11% cheaper than the now readily available 5800X at $449.99. Factor in a decent Z590 board for $190 ($180 if you want to deal with a MIR) and a decent B550 board for $140, then they're about the same price. So it depends on if you need an iGPU or AVX512. If you already have a GPU and don't use anything that requires AVX512, then the 5800X would be the better option due to the better thermals and power consumption. I also didn't factor in the extra cooling cost the 11700K may require.

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, Random_Person1234 said:

Where did you get the $100/20% cheaper from? Intel put $399 in their slides, but the actual retail price is around $420 but it's on sale for $399 right now on B&H. That would be 11% cheaper than the now readily available 5800X at $449.99. Factor in a decent Z590 board for $190 ($180 if you want to deal with a MIR) and a decent B550 board for $140, then they're about the same price. So it depends on if you need an iGPU or AVX512. If you already have a GPU and don't use anything that requires AVX512, then the 5800X would be the better option due to the better thermals and power consumption. I also didn't factor in the extra cooling cost the 11700K may require.

I'm looking at the i7-11700. That should cost around 350 dollars, which is 100 dollars (or about 20%) cheaper than the 5800X.

 

You can also save money on the motherboard by going with a B560 Intel board instead of the Z590. 

[Random_Person1234]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I'm looking at the i7-11700. That should cost around 350 dollars, which is 100 dollars (or about 20%) cheaper than the 5800X.

Your other post said the 11700K. Where did you get the 5800X is 1-8% faster than the 11700 non-k?

 

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, Random_Person1234 said:

Your other post said the 11700K. Where did you get the 5800X is 1-8% faster than the 11700 non-k?

 

My guess would be here.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16535/intel-core-i7-11700k-review-blasting-off-with-rocket-lake

[Random_Person1234]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

My guess would be here.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16535/intel-core-i7-11700k-review-blasting-off-with-rocket-lake

That would be the 11700K, not the non-K. There is a performance and specs difference besides overclocking ability.

[Mnky313]

was really hoping Intel might actually do something so I could swap out my 10900k for a 11700k/11900k and have a noticeable difference (because my laptop can only handle ~160W continuous from the CPU) but it seems these chips draw even more power.... damnit Intel...

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

14nm strikes again 

[Ydfhlx]

Just forget the i9. It's only made for Intel diehard fans. The real competitors are i7 and i5.

 

i7-11700KF (AMD has no iGPU, so this is a more fair comparison IMO) will probably undercut 5800X by $50, which considering more expensive motherboard isn't actually that far off. However, it's slower, so not really as competitive.

 

i7-11700F - if somebody doesn't overclock, the 200MHz all-core turbo (or 100MHz one core) isn't that far off from K model. And it will retail for about $340 - undercutting 5800X by more than $100. Even with more expensive mobo that's still the go-to for cheap 8 cores, if somebody needs all of them,.

 

Simmilar story with i5. 11600KF undercuts 5600X by about $30 - thus not really competitive; 11500 by ~$70. We'll see how performance goes, but I don't expect it to be competitive enough for this price.

 

But 11400F is actually undercutting the 5600X by more than $100, again. If you want the cheapes 6 cores, or the bang-for-the-buck new CPU generally, this might be the go-to for many people.

 

My opinion: AMD should release non-X 5600 and 5800, if they want to be competitive in the lower end markets, beacuse one CPU cannot compete effectively against Intel's 7, it's just not versatile enough.

[LAwLz]

19 hours ago, Random_Person1234 said:

That would be the 11700K, not the non-K. There is a performance and specs difference besides overclocking ability.

Barely.

It's literally the same chip, but the K has a 100MHz higher single core and 200MHz multi-core peak turbo.

 

Turn up the base clock by like 2MHz and it will be the same. Of course you can also overclock the 11900K a little and it will once again edge out the non-K a bit, but I don't think it's worth spending about 60 dollars extra for 100MHz and the ability to very slightly overclock your i7.

Back in the Sandy Bridge days I could totally understand spending 60 dollars more and getting an Intel CPU with an unlocked multiplier. Back then you could get like 30% higher performance effortless. But now, when it consumes over 200 watts and runs hot as hell at stock, I doubt there is even much overclocking headroom left. So you're spending a lot of money (60 dollars), for next to nothing. 

 

 

  

1 hour ago, Ydfhlx said:

My opinion: AMD should release non-X 5600 and 5800, if they want to be competitive in the lower end markets, beacuse one CPU cannot compete effectively against Intel's 7, it's just not versatile enough.

Totally agree.

If we lived in a world where CPU supply was good and we could just go out and buy any CPU at the MSRP, then Intel would actually be competitive at multiple price points. Lower performance and higher power consumption, but at an attractive price.

AMD could once again crush them by just releasing a non-X version of their processors. I've always said that the X stands for "I want to donate money to AMD and get nothing in return", which is why it bothers me that they haven't released any non-X versions of the 5000 series. But then again, I want them to be nice to their consumers and right now they have no reason to be. They can sell all their X versions anyway and consumers have no choice.

[Demonking]

On 3/17/2021 at 10:53 AM, Random_Person1234 said:

Where did you get the $100/20% cheaper from? Intel put $399 in their slides, but the actual retail price is around $420 but it's on sale for $399 right now on B&H. That would be 11% cheaper than the now readily available 5800X at $449.99. Factor in a decent Z590 board for $190 ($180 if you want to deal with a MIR) and a decent B550 board for $140, then they're about the same price. So it depends on if you need an iGPU or AVX512. If you already have a GPU and don't use anything that requires AVX512, then the 5800X would be the better option due to the better thermals and power consumption. I also didn't factor in the extra cooling cost the 11700K may require.

Nobody wants that shitty priced 5800x that's why it available. It's about at least $50 over priced and IMO should be priced at $389. That's why for people like myself I'd rather wait for 5900x to be back in stock then buy that shit.

[trkgmssy]

Honestly 11th gen doesn't look good BUT if you are a budget gamer like me, 11th gen not that bad, i was planning to buy 10400F but i heard rumors about 11th gen and 11400F looked better than 10400F for the same price, and FINALLY we can use 3200Mhz ram (if im not mistaken). Probably everyone would agree about Ryzen is better than intel about so many thing but intel has lower prices(for middle-end at least). I would select intel and i will, not worse than Ryzen in game performance and cheaper, this is enough for me. In short term İ5 looks okay. 

 

Im open for advices.

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 3/16/2021 at 11:33 PM, Drama Lama said:

< insert generic 14nm joke >

AMD, apple and tsmc in a corner making fat jokes about intel 14nm++++++++++++++++++.

Intel: The fire inside(your pc)

Rocket lake is both fat and hot, nice.

If I had a cent for every plus in Intel's architecture, Elon and Jeff wouldn't be the richest people on the earth.

 

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 3/17/2021 at 4:54 AM, jrhaberland said:

Yeah as long as AMD can keep up with the demand, they are going to do much better than Intel. However we won't know for sure until we see some reliable reviews of the new chips.

Intel will have 2-5% better gaming perf. So the ultimate gaming pc will go back to intel.

 

Also they will have better availability than and for the foreseeable future.

Also the i5's is going to be a better value than the 5600x for most people, as most of them use a dgpu. 

 

 

Imo, amd should release a r3 Zen 3 chip and a  5600+5500

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 3/17/2021 at 10:47 AM, leadeater said:

 

 

Huge missed opportunity here. Intel should have called them 5th Gear and Top Gear and instead of TVB called it JKM (Jeremy Clarkson Mode)

I see you are a man of culture.

[porina]

https://wccftech.com/intel-11th-gen-rocket-lake-adaptive-boost-technology-tiger-lake-demo-5-ghz/

 

 

New info: another "feature" for the i9 "k" CPUs to exist is the Adaptive Boost Technology. If Intel's boost strategy wasn't complex enough they just added a new one. In short, it looks like it allows all core boost to opportunistically go higher from the basic turbo of 4.7 GHz to a new peak of 5.1 GHz. Apparently this will be an option that is default off, and is not considered overclocking.

 

To me this sounds like AMD's PBO setting, with the difference in that AMD does consider that overclocking.

 

 

We also get this table showing the PL1/PL2 values for AMD fanboys to misunderstand. 

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

I see you are a man of culture.

I am a man of many cultures 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, porina said:

We also get this table showing the PL1/PL2 values for AMD fanboys to misunderstand. 

 

Nice hand, I'll raise you PPT and go all in.

[Rauten]

13 hours ago, trkgmssy said:

 Probably everyone would agree about Ryzen is better than intel about so many thing but intel has lower prices(for middle-end at least). I would select intel and i will, not worse than Ryzen in game performance and cheaper, this is enough for me. In short term İ5 looks okay. 

Holy s*#t - it's finally happened, Intel is now the budget option.

BRB gonna bake some cookies for the horsemen of the apocalypse.

[RejZoR]

So much talk about this turbo boost and it's basically the same thing AMD has in place. Just clock as high as possible within designated constraints, be it thermal, voltage or current. And adapt it to core loads.

[porina]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

So much talk about this turbo boost and it's basically the same thing AMD has in place. Just clock as high as possible within designated constraints, be it thermal, voltage or current. And adapt it to core loads.

I don't see ABT as anything technically different from what Intel has had since before Ryzen even existed. The difference is that it is a new set of values to limit to.

 

It was only since Zen+ and better in Zen 2 that AMD really did something different, with more opportunistic boosting primarily to an enforced power limit. This is more consistent for platform power management compared to the older method of running off clock tables. But if you set a power limit to an Intel CPU it isn't that much different from AMD's approach. AMD's biggest difference is they enforce a power limit that you lose warranty if you break it.

[JamesTheFolf]

9 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Intel will have 2-5% better gaming perf. So the ultimate gaming pc will go back to intel.

 

Also they will have better availability than and for the foreseeable future.

Also the i5's is going to be a better value than the 5600x for most people, as most of them use a dgpu. 

 

 

Imo, amd should release a r3 Zen 3 chip and a  5600+5500

That's a good point, Intel is still going to be in the lead for those people who are going to use an iGPU because AMD doesn't have them on most of their chips. I'm also pretty sure AMD is going to release some lower end products, but it will just take a little time.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Yikes, this is a hard pass for me

 

way higher power consumption than the 5800x and it just barely keeps up. 

 

11700f looks to be the winner in the lineup. If you can buy one.