I'm not caring about the 10900k vs 5000 series. When the 10900k launched the 3000 series was all there was and so my choice was based on those two.
Can we post pics here? I LOVE proving people wrong I have no problem with showing you pics of many of them.
The amount of "salt" as you call it, coming off the comments comes from your arrogance as to how easy it is to acquire this new hardware. You call us fools for not having gotten like you did. How much time and effort did it take for you to actually get this stuff? I'm with the other people in the thread and don't actually believe you have many of the things you said you do.
Yes, of course. Please post them. Post your own receipts and pics in your home where you have them. Prove us wrong. Waiting....
You wrote a lot of text that could have been resumed with the simple phrase "Just buy it, it just works!" I wonder what you think of "surprise mechanics"?
But Intel CPUs do use a lot of power, it's not a hyperbole. It's a consequence of staying on 14nm.
Mmmm...nope. DDR3 kits could easily be had at 2133 MHz for decent prices, and 2400 mhz was available for big OCers. You seem to forget that the first round of new memory is always worse then the highest end of the previous generation, unless you go all the way back to SDRAM.
My 5950X will do 1740 stock , no PBO or tweaksSomething to look forward to: In some early benchmarks, Intel's eleventh generation are demolishing their predecessors and putting up a good fight against their competitors. It's a safe bet to say these will be some sought-after processors.
In the past couple of days, a smattering of i9-11900K, i7-11700K, and i5-11500 Geekbench scores have entered the scene. Intel's flagship waded into the foray of the leaderboards. Though it's difficult to tell, it looks as if the 11900K is only beat by processors running a different operating system or using an extreme overclock.
To frame the scene, a Ryzen R9 5950X typically gets 1682 points in the single-core test, and the 10900K, 1402. The upcoming 11900K got 1892, a 35% generational leap and a 12% advantage over the Ryzen part. The 11700K was only a hair behind, with four scores at about the 1810 mark.
As we've mentioned before, Intel's upcoming Core i7 and i9 processors will be an 8-core affair, only, so their multi-core scores aren't stellar, but they're good for the core count. The 11900K got 10934, while the 11700K ranged from 10639 to 11287. AMD's octa-core 5800X is slightly behind with 10426 points, while the current 10-core 10900K lands in between with 10930 points.
There's been concern that the 11900K's eight cores could fall behind the 10900K's ten. The good news (though it sounds silly) is that these results say that the 11900K will be better than the 10900K in every way, as a successor should be. But… all that performance goodness could be soured by a high price, according to some info from last weekend.
More appealing could be the 11700K. It looks like it'll be cheaper and faster than the 10900K. And compared to the 11900K, it should be considerably more affordable and almost as powerful -- during the tests, the 11700K ran at 5 GHz, an insignificant notch down from the 11900K's 5.3 GHz. Nothing a little overclock wouldn't fix, anyway.
Rounding out the tail of the series are scores from the i5-11500 and i5-11400. Both are 6-core and 12-thread parts. The former ran at 4.6 GHz and the latter at 4.4 GHz. The 11500's single-core score of 1588 was 35% above its predecessor's, while its multi-core score was 20% higher. The 11400's scores were 10% higher than the 10400's.
At the reported prices of $240 and $225, these two chips should be pretty interesting. If they're priced any higher, though, they'll butt up against the 5600X, which is already faster than both.
