Intel 11th-gen Rocket Lake CPUs are now official, what you need to know ahead of reviews

Scorpus

Posts: 2,007   +231
Staff member
Something to look forward to: Intel has officially announced 11th-gen Core "Rocket Lake" desktop processors today, and many of these new parts are coming in at more affordable price points than AMD’s equivalent Ryzen 5000 CPUs. Is it time to get excited about new Intel CPUs?

Today we are putting the final pieces of the puzzle together on Intel’s 11th-gen desktop CPU series ahead of reviews later this month. In the lead up to this launch, Intel had already given up quite a bit of information on Rocket Lake, plus the crazy stream of leaks we've received over the last few months that culminated in actual reviews of retail Core i7-11700K processors ahead of the actual announcement.

We know the design is still built on their 14nm process, however it features a new core architecture codenamed Cyprus Cove. This is Intel’s Ice Lake design originally destined for 10nm, backported to 14nm, bringing with it up to a 19% IPC improvement compared to Skylake and its derivatives over the last 5 years. However it’s not the latest core design from Intel, with Tiger Lake – actually on 10nm – using a generation newer architecture in mobile devices.

Intel had previously told us about the Core i9-11900K and the inclusion of a maximum of eight CPU cores. There’s a new Xe integrated GPU inside, new AI features, and new platform support through Intel’s 500 series motherboards. This is all stuff we've reported on already so let’s cut to the chase with the full list of processors and pricing.

While there are a lot of individual processors listed in this table – far too many in my opinion – the basics of Rocket Lake are split up into three series: Core i9, Core i7 and Core i5, as usual. However unlike prior generations, there are no Rocket Lake Core i3 models, Intel is instead launching refreshed 10th-gen parts at the lower end which we’ll talk about soon.

The Core i9 and Core i7 parts are very similar: all pack 8 CPU cores and 16 threads with 16MB of L3 cache. The K models are unlocked SKUs that support overclocking, the F models do not feature integrated graphics, and the T models are low power variants with a 35W TDP. The models that do feature an iGPU use new Xe graphics, although this is being branded as UHD Graphics 750 for some reason. You’ll find 32 execution units here with up to a 50% performance boost compared to previous generations according to Intel.

With the Core i9 and Core i7 parts using the same basic layout, what separates them? The basic answer is frequency. The Core i7-11700K and KF are clocked up to 5 GHz on a single core, and up to 4.6 GHz all-core. The Core i9-11900K and KF push the single-core Turbo up to 5.3 GHz, but that’s with Thermal Velocity Boost, a feature that increases clock speeds when operating temperatures are low, and this feature isn’t enabled on Core i7. Without TVB, the 11900K still tops out at 5.2 GHz, an increase on the 11700K, however the all-core frequency is just 100 MHz higher at 4.7 GHz.

The other difference between the Core i9 and Core i7 parts is hidden in the footnotes of the SKU list. The 11900K and KF both operate by default using “DDR4-3200 Gear 1”, while all the other SKUs, including the Core i7 range, default to DDR4-3200 Gear 2. These Gears refer to the frequency ratio between the memory controller and memory itself, which has historically been 1:1 on Intel parts. Gear 1 is the usual 1:1 ratio, while Gear 2 is a 2:1 ratio, halving the memory controller frequency. This means that while the unlocked Core i9 processors run at a standard 1:1 ratio, the locked Core i9 parts and the Core i7 line all use a slower 2:1 configuration by default.

This introduces some further differentiation between the Core i7 and i9 parts as the i7 models will have worse memory performance. You may be familiar with these ratios if you’re an AMD Ryzen user given that the recommendation for those parts as well is to run in a 1:1 ratio, rather than pushing memory frequencies higher and falling back to 2:1. So it will be interesting to see how this affects Intel processors.

With that said, motherboard manufacturers are likely to ignore this recommendation and run all Rocket Lake processors in Gear 1 (so a 1:1 ratio) out of the box. AnandTech confirmed this was the behavior they saw when testing their retail Core i7-11700K processor: it should run at 2:1 going on Intel’s slides, but the actual default seen in the motherboard was 1:1.

Let’s talk pricing for these parts before looking at the Core i5 line. The most interesting thing to note is the pricing of the unlocked Core i7 models: $374 for the KF and $399 for the K SKU using Intel’s standard tray pricing model. It should be noted that tray pricing for bulk units is not the same as an MSRP, and typically at launch Intel’s parts are sold at 10% above this tray price or thereabouts, before falling to or below the listed price in the months after.

In any case, what we're looking at is an 8 core, 16 thread Rocket Lake CPU priced around $400, which is undercutting AMD’s 8-core Ryzen 7 5800X that retails for $450. There may be some other platform costs to consider, like the difference in motherboard pricing, however at first glance this is an aggressive price point from Intel that should compete strongly with AMD’s offering. If these prices are accurate, then Intel could be offering better performance per dollar in the eight core space given that early 11700K reviews show it performing close to the level of a 5800X.

SKU for SKU, these Core i7 parts are slightly more expensive than last-gen offerings: about $25 more than the Core i7-10700K and KF going on Intel’s tray price. However these new parts are supposed to be faster, and they’re still cheaper than AMD’s line right now.

What doesn’t make as much sense is the price of unlocked Core i9 models. $539 for the 11900K and $513 for the 11900KF represents a $140 premium over the Core i7 models for what amounts to a very small frequency bump. The 11900K will end up competing with AMD’s Ryzen 7 5900X at around $550, although AMD is offering 12 cores versus Intel's 8. Moreover, the 11900K is likely to present a performance regression in core-heavy applications compared to the 10900K, given the step back from 10 cores to 8 cores.

Intel appears to be interested in capturing die-hard enthusiasts and fans with that sort of pricing model, which is in contrast to the 10th-gen Core i9 series that did offer decent performance gains over the Core i7s in some workloads. The clear standout in the 11th-gen series is the Core i7 part.

With the Core i5 line, Intel is also looking to be very competitive in the mid-range.

All CPUs are six cores with 12 threads, 12MB of L3 cache and for the parts with an iGPU, the same UHD Graphics 750. The K parts are unlocked, while clock speeds also differ between the tiers. The top-end parts do up to 4.6 GHz all-core and 4.9 GHz single core, while a lower-end SKU like the Core i5-11400F does 4.2 GHZ all-core and 4.4 GHz single-core.

Pricing continues to undercut AMD. The 11600KF should end up around $260 at retail from a $237 tray price, putting it below AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X at $300 – and compared to 10th-gen Core i5s there is no price increase. But the really compelling products appear to be the lower-tier parts, especially the Core i5-11400F at a $157 tray price, likely around $170-180 at retail. AMD doesn’t have anything compelling in this price tier right now, with the Ryzen 5 3600 selling for $200 and even the Ryzen 5 2600 going for $190.

With the 11400F using Intel’s new Rocket Lake architecture which should deliver a healthy performance bump, we should have increased competition in the $150 to $200 CPU market and it will make it harder for AMD to justify selling a three-year-old CPU at such a high price. We’ve already been recommending Intel’s Core i5 CPUs in this segment for months and if there’s no adjustment on AMD’s side, that’s set to continue with Intel launching faster models.

As for Core i3 and Pentium Gold processors, Intel aren’t releasing 11th-gen options just yet, instead refreshing their 10th-gen Comet Lake offerings. These are basic frequency bumps, so something like the Core i3-10100 is now clocked 100 MHz higher and becomes the Core i3-10105 at the same price.

Intel has been talking about Rocket Lake’s CPU features for a while, so we’ll just breeze through this in case you missed it. Aside from the new Core architecture, another major addition is the bump from 16 PCIe 3.0 to 20 PCIe 4.0 lanes from the CPU. This allows you to attach both a x16 GPU and a x4 SSD directly to the CPU for best performance, in contrast to previous designs where M.2 SSDs had to go through the chipset. Intel are also finally coming to the table with PCIe 4.0, bringing feature parity with AMD.

We also get a better media encode-decode engine thanks to the upgrade to Gen 12 graphics and all that comes with it, although this functionality won’t be available with F series SKUs.

11th-gen processors support a wide range of improved overclocking features. One of the most interesting ones is real-time memory frequency overclocking, which will allow tweaking memory OCs in Windows through Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility without any restarts. Previously you’d have to do most memory overclocking in the BIOS. Intel also provides a wider range of AVX offsets and controls, which is especially useful given these new processors support AVX-512 and overclockers will likely need to set a large offset to get a stable OC.

New Intel 500 series motherboards are launching alongside Rocket Lake, too. The main features are memory overclocking support on H570 and B560 motherboards, a new x8 DMI for double the bandwidth between the CPU and chipset, and full support for PCIe 4.0 across the line-up. These boards are backwards compatible with 10th-gen processors as well.

However you don’t need a 500 series board to use an 11th-gen processor, as Rocket Lake is compatible with some 400 series boards, namely Z490, H470 and Q470. Unfortunately, B460 and H410 boards do not support Rocket Lake as they use an incompatible chipset. Intel tells us that depending on the motherboard, you may get PCIe 4.0 support and the full 20 CPU lanes of PCIe on 400 series boards with Rocket Lake CPUs, but this will come down to whether the motherboard vendor enables it and their board layout.

We’ll wrap up with a brief look at Intel’s performance slides, which are not very useful as they are limited in the information shown – and we already have actual reviews of the Core i7-11700K on the internet if you want to see an independent analysis. Intel shows just four games in their gaming comparisons, all benchmarked with a GeForce RTX 3080.

Intel is showing “massive performance,” which to them means 8 to 14% improvement versus the Core i9-10900K in these four games. Up against the Ryzen 9 5900X, Intel is also winning in their benchmarks, with a 3 to 11% lead. Intel also expects the Core i5-11600K to be faster than the Core i5-10600K by 7 to 16% in the same four games they have showcased.

Intel’s other benchmarks surround productivity performance, and like previous presentations a lot of the focus is on applications coded to take specific advantage of Intel’s accelerators. It’s unclear whether, for example, the video creation and MLPerf gains shown here versus the 5900X would also apply to the Core i9-11900KF, which does not include the integrated GPU.

The key piece of information of today's announcement was pricing, which gives context to the performance and specifications we already knew about – especially performance for the 11700K. The new Rocket Lake CPUs are expected to go on sale on March 30th, which is when reviews will also go live and if all goes well availability shouldn't be a problem for Intel parts as we discussed in our CPU and GPU availability and pricing update earlier this week.

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 4,736   +5,147
Definitely my new favorite CPU.

Others out there may do better at benchmarks...but I don't use benchmarks. I run demanding games and I demand high-end 4K performance.

 

maroon1

Posts: 29   +34
Core i9 looks useless this time. No reason to buy that over i7 part when the only difference is just little higher clock speed
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 219   +323
Definitely my new favorite CPU.

Others out there may do better at benchmarks...but I don't use benchmarks. I run demanding games and I demand high-end 4K performance.

You want the best but you want to buy chips that are slower than the competition?...


I can only say I'm highly disappointed with intel. Not only is their performance per watt hot garbage, but they use so much power keeping them cool under some workloads is impossible. I wonder how poor the OC headroom on these chips are.


So the quick gist of Rocket Lake benchmarks will mostly be, Still slower than Zen3. Hot and power hungry. Some games at 1080p Low beat out Zen 3, the biggest win intel can find. Like who really games at 1080p low.... Nearly every time you switch to running games at 1440p/4k high/max Zen 3 pulls away from intel with the lead. Rocket Lake is not going to improve that. So if you really wanted the best 4K performance with the least amount of frame drops, intel is not the chip you want to use.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 75   +52
You want the best but you want to buy chips that are slower than the competition?...


I can only say I'm highly disappointed with intel. Not only is their performance per watt hot garbage, but they use so much power keeping them cool under some workloads is impossible. I wonder how poor the OC headroom on these chips are.


So the quick gist of Rocket Lake benchmarks will mostly be, Still slower than Zen3. Hot and power hungry. Some games at 1080p Low beat out Zen 3, the biggest win intel can find. Like who really games at 1080p low.... Nearly every time you switch to running games at 1440p/4k high/max Zen 3 pulls away from intel with the lead. Rocket Lake is not going to improve that. So if you really wanted the best 4K performance with the least amount of frame drops, intel is not the chip you want to use.


Where you are getting data about performance per watt or CPU performance? Where are CPU tests with official release drivers and firmware? Why are you fanboying so hard without any objective data?

Who really games on 1080p low? All the people who can't afford or can't justify a GPU that's priced 100% more than it should be.

"Nearly every time you switch to running games at 1440p/4k high/max Zen 3 pulls away from intel with the lead. " Where are those benchmarks and which Zen 3 CPU's are you talking about? The unavailable 5900x and 5950X or the unwanted 5800X?

I'm not going to form an opinion until my favorite Tech youtubers put out benchmarks and opinions then I'll use that to make up my mind. Not that it matters I'm not going to upgrade from a 9900k until 12th gen at the earliest anyway.
 

Daniele 00

Posts: 91   +77
Quoted: "" Who really games on 1080p low? All the people who can't afford or can't justify a GPU that's priced 100% more than it should be. ""

the point is... if you are going to buy a brand new cpu now, you are not going to pair it with a video card that only support 1080p low.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 219   +323
Where you are getting data about performance per watt or CPU performance? Where are CPU tests with official release drivers and firmware? Why are you fanboying so hard without any objective data?

Who really games on 1080p low? All the people who can't afford or can't justify a GPU that's priced 100% more than it should be.

"Nearly every time you switch to running games at 1440p/4k high/max Zen 3 pulls away from intel with the lead. " Where are those benchmarks and which Zen 3 CPU's are you talking about? The unavailable 5900x and 5950X or the unwanted 5800X?

I'm not going to form an opinion until my favorite Tech youtubers put out benchmarks and opinions then I'll use that to make up my mind. Not that it matters I'm not going to upgrade from a 9900k until 12th gen at the earliest anyway.
Anandtech has a whole writeup about RocketLake. And release day chips are not going to be any different. In fact the Anandtech test was pretty nice to intel with pretty high all core clock speeds. The only thing that may change is power usage with AVX-512, as intel may limit that. So if anything we'd just see worse AVX-512 performance than what was seen before.

As for Zen3 Benchmarks, They are all over the place. Do your own research. Its not had to find that on most games Zen 3 bests intel on 1440p/4k gaming with Higher/Max settings. While using a great deal less power, while beating intel is nearly every other type of workload.

I haven't had AMD in my gaming rig for nearly two decades now.... But I know a bad deal when I see one. And if Zen3 was anything like Rocket Lake AMD would be the joke of the internet. I love how Intel fanboys are so two faced. A CPU is a CPU, brand names are meaning less. Rocket Lake still looks just like really mediocre choice.

Intel is using their scale of 14nm to their advantage and sell as much as they can. Mostly to OEMs, as anyone that really cares about their PC's performance isn't going intel. Don't forget that Intel's 14nm is really refined and a lot closer to TSMC's 7nm than you'd think. Intel's SF 10nm is actually better than TSMC's 7nm and is ready, just not at production levels Intel wants for both laptop and desktop usage. Epically for the high binning that needs to take place for high clockspeeds, as their 10nm does not clock as well as their 14nm.

We should be getting Intel's 10nm desktop lineup early 2022, as intel hitting their late 2021 estimate is a joke. It'd be going up against Zen 4. And for intel its just going to be more of the same small improvements we've seen.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 219   +323
Quoted: "" Who really games on 1080p low? All the people who can't afford or can't justify a GPU that's priced 100% more than it should be. ""

the point is... if you are going to buy a brand new cpu now, you are not going to pair it with a video card that only support 1080p low.
I hope people are not using a GTX580 to play modern games. Even a GTX1050 is able to do better than 1080p low in 99% of games.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,448   +1,046
I’m very glad I bought a 5800X in December at this point. I was worried this 11th gen stuff might have offered a bump in performance compared to the 5000 series but nope and it will drink power at the same time.

One thing I’ve noticed is that it really is role reversal, AMD dominate the premium options with R7 and R9 but in the mid to low range Intel is smashing them to pieces. I saw a 10400F selling for £118 the other day, the same day an R5 3600 was about £180 at the lowest. The 10700K goes for £300 or so now.

The only thing that appeals to me on Z590 is the thunderbolt connections that most of the more premium boards sport and that’s not exactly a game changer.
 

BSim500

Posts: 791   +1,733
Some games at 1080p Low beat out Zen 3, the biggest win intel can find. Like who really games at 1080p low.... Nearly every time you switch to running games at 1440p/4k high/max Zen 3 pulls away from intel with the lead. Rocket Lake is not going to improve that. So if you really wanted the best 4K performance with the least amount of frame drops, intel is not the chip you want to use.
You kinda have that back to front. CPU bottlenecks don't increase as resolution increases and at 4k, nothing "pulls away" from anything else due to everything being severely GPU bottlenecked:-

to the extent it takes an RTX 3090 (that no-one owns) to show a mere 2fps difference between an 5600X vs 1600X:-

The higher the resolution the LESS important CPU's become relative to GPU as the frame-rates drop anyway from GPU bottlenecking.
 
Last edited:

Bulllee

Posts: 171   +123
Definitely my new favorite CPU.

Others out there may do better at benchmarks...but I don't use benchmarks. I run demanding games and I demand high-end 4K performance.
Well there you go...without a pin or even a bubble.
Some computer users do more.
Much more.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 219   +323
You kinda have that back to front. CPU bottlenecks don't increase as resolution increases and at 4k, nothing "pulls away" from anything else due to everything being severely GPU bottlenecked:-

to the extent it takes an RTX 3090 (that no-one owns) to show a mere 2fps difference between an 5600X vs 1600X:-
Honestly these are crappy benchmarks.

You should look at more Digital Foundry style of benchmarks with real time frame time graphs. Ryzen does a better job keeping frames nice and stable, Zen 3 did AMD some major justice in this regard.

I could care less about avg fps. You won't notice 1-2fps or even 10fps when you are already looking at over 60fps. What you will notice is a large change in fps.

This is largely the reason why I've been a intel user for the last two decades. AMD just has a better CPU ATM, even for gaming. That is Fact. Now go ahead and cherry pick some example if you want. 99% of the time the GPU is holding you back at 4k anyways.
 

Tom Yum

Posts: 88   +209
I’m very glad I bought a 5800X in December at this point. I was worried this 11th gen stuff might have offered a bump in performance compared to the 5000 series but nope and it will drink power at the same time.

One thing I’ve noticed is that it really is role reversal, AMD dominate the premium options with R7 and R9 but in the mid to low range Intel is smashing them to pieces. I saw a 10400F selling for £118 the other day, the same day an R5 3600 was about £180 at the lowest. The 10700K goes for £300 or so now.

The only thing that appeals to me on Z590 is the thunderbolt connections that most of the more premium boards sport and that’s not exactly a game changer.

AMD is supply constrained, so is naturally putting it's efforts into higher SKU's which is why we don't have low end 5000 series R3's and non-X R5's. Intel has the opposite problem, lots of supply but a poor product, so manufacturing capacity is directed to lower performing SKU's that sell. It is actually a worse situation for Intel as they need to keep their fabs fully utilised for cost efficiency, whereas for AMD, what TSMC capacity they don't use will be snapped up by another user and not cost AMD anything.

Great for us having access to cheap 6 core CPUs that do well in games, but Intel wouldn't want to be where it is currently and they will revert to normal pricing ($350 for a 122mm2 Kaby Lake, not $150 for a 206mm2 Comet Lake at the same node) once it can get competitive product out again.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 760   +1,016
Definitely my new favorite CPU.

Others out there may do better at benchmarks...but I don't use benchmarks. I run demanding games and I demand high-end 4K performance.

If I were you I would delete this post immediately before you get torn apart for how little sense it makes, at 4K all high end CPU's will perform within maximum of few % of each other so AMD or Intel it really doesn't matter
 

BSim500

Posts: 791   +1,733
Honestly these are crappy benchmarks. You should look at more Digital Foundry style benchmarks
You sound confused as hell. Digital Foundry style show differences in CPU's / GPU's at the same single resolution. They don't even show information that's relevant to your claim (that CPU differences grow instead of shrink as you increase resolution and become more and more GPU bottlenecked which was and still is 100% back to front and completely false). Nothing "cherry picked" about that statement, it's how observable reality works on pretty much every other tech site.

99% of the time the GPU is holding you back at 4k anyways.
Dude, that was my point to you... 🤨
 

Adi6293

Posts: 760   +1,016
I’m very glad I bought a 5800X in December at this point. I was worried this 11th gen stuff might have offered a bump in performance compared to the 5000 series but nope and it will drink power at the same time.

One thing I’ve noticed is that it really is role reversal, AMD dominate the premium options with R7 and R9 but in the mid to low range Intel is smashing them to pieces. I saw a 10400F selling for £118 the other day, the same day an R5 3600 was about £180 at the lowest. The 10700K goes for £300 or so now.

The only thing that appeals to me on Z590 is the thunderbolt connections that most of the more premium boards sport and that’s not exactly a game changer.

To be honest the power draw for a gamer is not a problem, my 5.0Ghz Core i9 10850K draws from 50 watts to 150 watts depending on a game and that is pushing 165fps but on average is around a 100 watts it only becomes a problem when stress testing it then cooling 250 watts it's not that easy
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,260   +1,751
Definitely my new favorite CPU.

Others out there may do better at benchmarks...but I don't use benchmarks. I run demanding games and I demand high-end 4K performance.

if 90% of all you do on a PC is play games then maybe. For the rest of us that have workloads that cover different area's I don't see the big deal over RL. Also pointed out by others 4k is GPU bottleneck not CPU.....

And your favourite store Microcenter is selling the 11700k for $519

 
Last edited:

Faelan

Posts: 58   +49
If I were you I would delete this post immediately before you get torn apart for how little sense it makes, at 4K all high end CPU's will perform within maximum of few % of each other so AMD or Intel it really doesn't matter

While I agree with the general gist of your comment, I know of two “games” that I play which can CPU bottleneck my 9900KS running 4K on a 3090 Strix with ease. Microsoft Flight Simulator and DCS World. Not going to bother with Rocket Lake though. The jump in performance over my 9900KS just isn’t worth the money, time and effort.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 219   +323
is supply constrained, so is naturally putting it's efforts into higher SKU's which is why we don't have low end 5000 series R3's and non-X R5's. Intel has the opposite problem, lots of supply but a poor pro

You sound confused as hell. Digital Foundry style show differences in CPU's / GPU's at the same single resolution. They don't even show information that's relevant to your claim (that CPU differences grow instead of shrink as you increase resolution and become more and more GPU bottlenecked which was and still is 100% back to front and completely false). Nothing "cherry picked" about that statement, it's how observable reality works on pretty much every other tech site.


Dude, that was my point to you... 🤨
I'm talking about frame pacing like I said before. Not scaling from resolution. I never once implied that CPU differences grow as you increase resolution, I said Zen simply does better in that scenario. As AMD and Intel are either tied or AMD actually pull away. The GPU is not the only thing in your PC that can introduce frame time spikes. And Intel's more budget friendly CPU's have always suffered from frame pacing issues, especially the non HT stuff. Its called stutter and annoying. That's why I never would recommend a low core count i3.

Zen3 is just a smoother performer. You are starting to sound very defensive over intel.... I'd recommend looking at frame graphs and frame time graphs over time to see what has the most consistent performance. I for one am pretty sensitive to frame pacing issues and even a minor frame drop can be pretty jarring. Not that this is a issue for Intel's top chips, but seeing that Zen3 tends to do better in these areas is pretty important and will only help as the years go on.

Intel is no longer a class leader. Granted its not as bad as the old Pentium 4 days.

Some people are fine spending money on second/third rate products. Hell just look at GM, they pretty much make the worst vehicles in nearly every category other than trucks. Yet you see them on the streets. Just because something sells doesn't mean it was a good deal. Intel's lower end lineup is worth a look at, but their i7/i9 lineup is looking really weak.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,448   +1,046
To be honest the power draw for a gamer is not a problem, my 5.0Ghz Core i9 10850K draws from 50 watts to 150 watts depending on a game and that is pushing 165fps but on average is around a 100 watts it only becomes a problem when stress testing it then cooling 250 watts it's not that easy
I agree tbh. It’s a desktop PC, you’re going to be next to an outlet.

But usually high power drawing chips run hot and that usually means more noise to cool.

My 5800X mobo switches off the Noctua Industrial fans on my Noctua NHD-15 when the system is idle. I would be very surprised if these new 11th gen parts do the same.

Although that being said the 5800X rockets up in temp when the pbo enables, I’ve seen temps as high as 91C on it when running minecraft Java edition on my custom heavily over built server (Java is single thread dependent). And that was under the NHD-15.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 760   +1,016
While I agree with the general gist of your comment, I know of two “games” that I play which can CPU bottleneck my 9900KS running 4K on a 3090 Strix with ease. Microsoft Flight Simulator and DCS World. Not going to bother with Rocket Lake though. The jump in performance over my 9900KS just isn’t worth the money, time and effort.

You will always find a game or two that runs like crap no matter the system but even in this case Intel or AMD doesn't matter :p
 

GettCouped

Posts: 15   +37
TechSpot Elite
How could you say that the 11700k is in the sweet spot when its hitting almost 300 watts and 105 C?

Maybe they can't state it because they don't have silicon in hand. But holy cow the 11 series is a disaster.