Intel 11900K and 11700K processors are annihilating the Geekbench single-core test

[Aryassen]

Sounds promising, but I believe these results when independent reviews confirm them (colour me sceptic). If not, well, AMD still ploughs on...if yes, hurray: it means we will just have more great products to choose from...since when is it a bad thing?
(providing of course we can actually buy any of these chips (and no, not from scalpers)).

 

[kmo911]

So going for 11 th gen from a 10 th gen and 12 th later on lga 1700 would only last for a few months.

 

[Lionvibez]

I’m going to regret buying AMD 5xxx series aren’t I! Oh well, it’s still more than enough for my needs.

Why would you have regret based on geekbench scores?

 

[veLa]

I'm sure there's a reason to get this excited about a new generation of CPUs, but I can only imagine that we'll continue to have supply problems.

Even SODIMM DDR4 RAM for laptops I'm repairing and upgrading at work is getting ridiculously hard to find and expensive as well.

 

[brucek]

35% generational leap sounds wild compared to recent history or even to Intel's own messaging. Would be great if true of course. There may be a lot of home users for whom 8 very fast cores are an attractive solution compared to even 16 fast cores (not users doing video production or other great MT workloads of course.)

 

[candle_86]

Any cost benefit went out the window when amd raised their prices and we still don't know what they'll charge for this 8 core chip.

Having more cores may sound nice but if you never do anything but game there's a good chance it's just a waste of silicon and you're spending more money for less performance.

So yes there's absolutely a reason to regret going 5000 series over waiting for Intel to do what it do best (gaming).

Whatever advantage it will have is still one (just like ALL the AMD fans have been preaching since 5000 took the lead) so to try and go back to acting like it's no big deal just speaks volumes of the hypocracy coming from team RED.

The advantages have always been small and however you try and downplay them when the chips are as close as they are the small advantages still absolutely matter as they are the only differences that people truly have to swing them.

As a pure gamer only when it comes to the high end I'm not interested in anything that doesn't provide my cpu higher fps and more stability.

Intel has ruled this segment for a very long time and though amd has fought back very well they have no advantage to someone like me that just cares about knowing their gaming pc is as fast as is possible for it to be.

For a few months if you were building (and could get your hands on one) amd may have been that answer but smart money was on waiting to see what Intel would deliver just a few short months later.

I personally had a 10900k since day 1 and saw its competitors (3900x etc) easily defeated when I was building and though the 5000 series took that crown away 6 months ago it mattered little to me as I wasn't in any need to upgrade.

I'm still not really but with a 30% uplift in performance possible with just a chip swap (and getting pci 4.0) it is almost too easy to just do it as I can easily recover the majority of the cost if I sell a week or 2 before the new chip launches.

Except and has ryzen 6000 tapped out and likely to on sale this fall and if trends continue another 15-20% bump in performance combined with ddr5.

 

[DonquixoteIII]

And RDMetz has a web site, where for just a few $$$$$ he will sell you his secrets, OR a 3090 at a discount. Only 145% above MSRP instead of the usual 150%

 

[red1776]

I have no fear Intel will be right in line when looked at properly.

haha and lol,
really??
"
"I have no fear Intel will be right in line when looked at properly. "

you mean from your desperate and skewed fanatical point of view.

lmfao

 

[amghwk]

The party's over, Intel. You're too late.

Come back early next time.

 

[amghwk]

I'll get one day 1 like I did for every other product I wanted last year

10900k
3080
3090
PS5
XBOX Series x
Xbox Series S
5600x
5800x


Got each and everyone of then the day they launched (or made available for pre-order) without much issue and absolutely on my with no bots or assistance beyond a few discord Twitter or other notifications..


People complaining about how "no one will get them!" is becoming a meme and a very dead one.

You either work your but off to get one legit you pay someone else to do that for you or you wait til it's easy.
. But sitting around whining about how no one's gonna get one is getting old.

Plenty of us out here right now proving you wrong..


It ain't easy but they are also really good products for once so for sure they are going to be difficult to acquire you either need to to put up or shut up at this point the complaining is doing nothing for anyone.

Please show some proofs like your receipts and pics of your stuff you got from day 1.

I too can say I got a dozen of RTX 3090s on day 1, but currently I got not proof to show you guys.

Until then all we can do is take these sort of postings as a teen's wet dream statements.

The last time I asked a guy who was boasting he got his RTX top end cards unboxing or something like that on YouTube, here, about the name of his YouTube channel, he said he couldn't post the link. At least he could have told me his channel name, and I could verify his claims directly on YouTube.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

At this point I feel like upgrading to anything without DDR5 is a waste, it could get outdated quickly.

IDK why people want DDR5 so badly. The first wave of DDR5 will be expensive and slow compared to what will launch a few years later. Remember first gen DDR4 running at a whopping 2400mhz CL22? Today's 4000 MHz CL14 runs circles.

IMO its much better to grab a platform closer to the end of a lifespan. Buying a socket AM4 platform in the last year would bea better deal then buying X370 and zen 1 in 2017.

I'd grab a ryzen 5000, some 4000 mhz DDR4, and give DDR5 4-5 years to mature after release before thinking about upgrading.

 

[Biostud]

And unless you play at 1080p with a high end video card, you'll get exactly the same fps as with ryzen 5xxx.

 

[fadingfool]

Looking at the geekbench charts there is a huge variance for the same parts even at the same listed clocks - doing a search on any part seems to give up to a 50% variance in some cases. Not sure any conclusion can be drawn about the 11 series parts from a few posted scores.

 

[Srhnd]

These chips will once again be the fastest Gaming cpu you can get and will do so without really using much more power than ryzen (and when something lime fps per watt are looked at on average will likley be very close)

The hyperbole over Intel chips using "insane" power is really overblown and just getting old.

Yes Intel uses some tricks to boost power for a bit to help their numbers but on average they balance out pretty well and though may use more typically come with the extra performance in gaming to back it up.

The screeching about hitting tdp's insane "house heating" and need for 360 aio is again all just a bunch of bs.

I personally run a 10900k with a 5.3ghz all core oc @1.32v and never see temps above about 63c AND THAT'S WITH AN AIR COOLER!

I had planned to rebuild the system with my custom loop I had run for 6 years now but the temps and noise were so low with air cooled cpu along with 3080 (also on air) that I've saved myself the effort of bending tubes and bloody-ing my hands/knuckles for an entire year almost now.

I'm sure the averages (and not just max pulls which WILL ALWAYS show Intel as using way more just due to the nature of how their chips boost) will show Intel chips being within a normal amount of amd and overall system temps /power usage / noise / "room heating" to be all about the same.

I know many will pull charts that skew the numbers trying make Intel look worse but the only ones that matter to me as a gamer is how many average fps and how much avg power to deliver it.

I have no fear Intel will be right in line when looked at properly.

I see you don't read the reviews here but probably only the features where sometimes Intel is oversold with too much optimism in the article.
According to 5900x vs 10900k review, stock vs stock, average of 11 games is 1.43 Watts per frame for 10900k and 1.07 Watts per frame for 5900x. Overclocking 5900x is almost nonsense for game performance but 10900k is usually OCed and that 1.43 Watts per frame either stays the same or becomes even worse.

So no! Intel trolls here are getting old (since according to you everything is getting old, might be that is on you).

There is another one below claiming to know the definition of gamer as "brainless herds who spend money on pointless purchases for 1% differences".

 

[Shadowboxer]

Intel will have a small and insignificant gaming advantage... at 1080p. Aside from that the Zen chip you have will be better at everything else and for less money. Regrets for what? lol

I only really play games on the machines I buy with my own money. And it may be a small insignificant gaming advantage to you but worth it to me and others who value this sort of thing. If I didn’t care about small advantages I should have bought a 10700K as it’s much cheaper than a 5800X and isn’t very far behind. This IS a significant difference. I understand you don’t care about gaming. But some of us do pay for this extra performance.

Also why do you think Ryzen will be better at everything else? The leaked geekbench score shows a higher multithreaded score in the new Intel part.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Why would you have regret based on geekbench scores?

Ok regret is a bit strong. But I definitely should have waited just 4 months I think. Oh well.

 

[Morris Minor]

Please show some proofs like your receipts and pics of your stuff you got from day 1.

I too can say I got a dozen of RTX 3090s on day 1, but currently I got not proof to show you guys.

Until then all we can do is take these sort of postings as a teen's wet dream statements.

The last time I asked a guy who was boasting he got his RTX top end cards unboxing or something like that on YouTube, here, about the name of his YouTube channel, he said he couldn't post the link. At least he could have told me his channel name, and I could verify his claims directly on YouTube.

most likely all lies, no one who makes youtube videos wouldn't pimp themselves out for more views. its really quite sad how many people feel the need to lie about dumb bs.

 

[Toju Mikie]

I just bought a 3600xt a few months ago, so I am not looking for another CPU for now
I like seeing 15-35% improvements in these CPUs now, thanks to competition. It means that you can see double performance, or more, in just 5 years. Much better than the 3-5% Intel was doing before Ryzen.

 

[mattferg]

So AMD jumps over Intel by a similar margin, and the line you run with is something like "AMD FINALLY overtakes Intel in single core", but when Intel does the same after being beat, it's "INTEL ANNIHILATES THE BENCHMARKS!!!111" despite being destroyed in multi-core and not being able to make a chip with more than half the cores of the AMD part.

Yeah, definitely no bias here, nothing to see, move along...

 

[mattferg]

I only really play games on the machines I buy with my own money. And it may be a small insignificant gaming advantage to you but worth it to me and others who value this sort of thing. If I didn’t care about small advantages I should have bought a 10700K as it’s much cheaper than a 5800X and isn’t very far behind. This IS a significant difference. I understand you don’t care about gaming. But some of us do pay for this extra performance.

Also why do you think Ryzen will be better at everything else? The leaked geekbench score shows a higher multithreaded score in the new Intel part.

Yes, the Intel part has a higher multithreaded score vs the 8 core part. Slight problem there - the Intel maxes out at 8 core. AMD has a 12 and 16 core variant. These will really "annihilate" in multi-core.

 

[mattferg]

IDK why people want DDR5 so badly. The first wave of DDR5 will be expensive and slow compared to what will launch a few years later. Remember first gen DDR4 running at a whopping 2400mhz CL22? Today's 4000 MHz CL14 runs circles.

IMO its much better to grab a platform closer to the end of a lifespan. Buying a socket AM4 platform in the last year would bea better deal then buying X370 and zen 1 in 2017.

I'd grab a ryzen 5000, some 4000 mhz DDR4, and give DDR5 4-5 years to mature after release before thinking about upgrading.

"IMO its much better to grab a platform closer to the end of a lifespan" yes, versus a platform at the start of a lifespan, sure. But that's because 4 years have passed. If you have the option of the new platform vs the old, it's a no brainer to go for the new. You talk about DDR4 being so slow at 2400mhz... kinda ignore the fact the "older platform" comparison ran DDR3 at either 1600 or 1866.

Your post makes no sense. Of course AM4 is better now than 4 years ago. However, 4 years ago it was a heck of a lot better than AM3. I'd much rather have a Zen 1 than a Bulldozer...

Also, DDR5 has built-in ECC.

 

[mattferg]

These chips will once again be the fastest Gaming cpu you can get and will do so without really using much more power than ryzen (and when something lime fps per watt are looked at on average will likley be very close)

The hyperbole over Intel chips using "insane" power is really overblown and just getting old.

Yes Intel uses some tricks to boost power for a bit to help their numbers but on average they balance out pretty well and though may use more typically come with the extra performance in gaming to back it up.

The screeching about hitting tdp's insane "house heating" and need for 360 aio is again all just a bunch of bs.

I personally run a 10900k with a 5.3ghz all core oc @1.32v and never see temps above about 63c AND THAT'S WITH AN AIR COOLER!

I had planned to rebuild the system with my custom loop I had run for 6 years now but the temps and noise were so low with air cooled cpu along with 3080 (also on air) that I've saved myself the effort of bending tubes and bloody-ing my hands/knuckles for an entire year almost now.

I'm sure the averages (and not just max pulls which WILL ALWAYS show Intel as using way more just due to the nature of how their chips boost) will show Intel chips being within a normal amount of amd and overall system temps /power usage / noise / "room heating" to be all about the same.

I know many will pull charts that skew the numbers trying make Intel look worse but the only ones that matter to me as a gamer is how many average fps and how much avg power to deliver it.

I have no fear Intel will be right in line when looked at properly.

Sure they don't use much more power than AMD... except they'll have 8 cores and the AMD will have 16. Kinda means they use WAY more per core.

 

[HardReset]

Resolution doesn’t affect CPU gaming performance. If Intel are leading at 1080p it’s because the graphics cards of the time are slower than the Intel CPU at higher than 1080p and hold it back.

So that means in a couple of years when much more powerful GPUs exist it can mean that the slower gaming processors will get found out.

This only works if after many years you play same games you play today. Different (=newer) games, different relative CPU speeds. It's impossible to say what current CPU is fastest on future titles.

 

[Farkinell]

The last time I asked a guy who was boasting he got his RTX top end cards unboxing or something like that on YouTube, here, about the name of his YouTube channel, he said he couldn't post the link. At least he could have told me his channel name, and I could verify his claims directly on YouTube.

His YouTube channel goes to a different school, you wouldn’t know it

Back on topic I wonder if the supply issues will affect Intel since they’re using their own (dusty) fabs? I’m waiting to upgrade from a 7700K and have absolutely no brand loyalty to either red or blue team. Whoever gets stock first will get my money.

 

[Rdmetz]

Sure they don't use much more power than AMD... except they'll have 8 cores and the AMD will have 16. Kinda means they use WAY more per core.

Performance per watt is ultimately all that matters (next to performance per dollar) I couldn't give a f less if my pc gas 8 core or 64 as long as it's delivering the most fps in my games vs the amount of power and cost then I'm happy.

Paying extra for cores that aren't doing anything to improve my fps then are a waste of silicon.

You can convince yourself you need them or maybe you do in fact have legitimate needs but at the end of the day Intel knows its audience and plenty of us out here only care about the gaming performance and they seem to be on track to continue to be the best choice for a full focus on it.