Usually it's the flagship CPU grabbing the headlines, but frankly, the Core i9-11900K at a list price of $540, simply doesn't stand a chance. But because you'll want to know where it stands, here we are.
Usually it's the flagship CPU grabbing the headlines, but frankly, the Core i9-11900K at a list price of $540, simply doesn't stand a chance. But because you'll want to know where it stands, here we are.
No, Keller had nothing to do with this CPU.In a way this isn't soooo bad. It's a backported design that has double digit IPC gains. A last hurrah on 14nm. RIP. And AMD's 625 ST score doesn't look as impressive now. It's also the first part Mr. Keller had a hand in. These chips will do the job in prebuilt machines no problem, while Intel readies Alderlake. That will be the real one to get excited about if you're a gamer/creator or follow the tit for tats between Intel and AMD.
The new series was designed in 2019. Keller led chip designs won't be out until 2023. Chip design and fab production takes years.In a way this isn't soooo bad. It's a backported design that has double digit IPC gains. A last hurrah on 14nm. RIP. And AMD's 625 ST score doesn't look as impressive now. It's also the first part Mr. Keller had a hand in. These chips will do the job in prebuilt machines no problem, while Intel readies Alderlake. That will be the real one to get excited about if you're a gamer/creator or follow the tit for tats between Intel and AMD.
This thing is bad. But it’s nowhere near the dumpster fire that was the AMD FX range. This thing is usually within a few percentage points of its competitors at least for the most part. The FX parts were often being beaten by double digits from CPUs half it’s price! (for example an i3 4170 would beat the FX8350 in most games of the day)Wow, that CPU is HOT
It seems to be as bad as Bulldozer. I used to have an FX-8350, man that thing was hot.
At least FX-8350 offered 8 cores vs 2 on i3.This thing is bad. But it’s nowhere near the dumpster fire that was the AMD FX range. This thing is usually within a few percentage points of its competitors at least for the most part. The FX parts were often being beaten by double digits from CPUs half it’s price! (for example an i3 4170 would beat the FX8350 in most games of the day)
Little effort is made [by Intel] to counter widespread disinformation such as: “it uses too much electricity”, or the classic: “it needs more cores”. ... reviewers ... appear better incentivized to bury Intel's products rather than review them realistically. ... A mind-numbing list of irrelevant “scientific” and rendering benchmarks are presented ... unrepresentative canned game benchmarks are chosen ... Different games, mostly unplayed by real users, are cherry picked for each “review”. ... AMD’s marketers circle overhead coordinating narratives to ensure another feast of blue blubber ensues. Credible benchmark data ... is the exception rather than the rule.
I agree that userbenchmarks reviews are poor and I’m not defending them or the 11900Ks value here.UserBenchmark on the 11900K is a howl (thanks for the tip,.Makste & Lew). Here they accuse AMD and reviewers of exactly what Intel marketing - with its 10x budget - has long been notorious for. Which IIRC includes direct support to UB itself (!), along with even worse things like illegally stifling competition.
I agree that userbenchmarks reviews are poor and I’m not defending them or the 11900Ks value here.
However this 11900K part for $540 is a hell of a lot better value today than the 1800X part was from AMD at $500 in 2017. Yet the reviews from much of the tech press of the 1800X were favourable of it. Certainly absolutely no where near as negative as they have been for this part.
No. i9-11900K offers fewer cores than predecessor, runs unltra hot, has no upgrade path available...I do believe there is some bias in the tech press towards AMD. Maybe this was because for the longest time they were the underdogs and charged less for their parts than Intel. It still exists, examples include how the 1800X was received. Or the 3600XT, or even the abysmal FX 9590. None of these products had the sh1t thrown at them by reviewers as much as this one has. There have been many many releases of poor products from AMD that haven't received a YouTube video from Steve on HUB with a thumbnail saying “it’s sh1t”. Which by the way I thought was rather unprofessional and baffling, do HUB want to make enemies of these companies? Anyway I digress.
Rocket lake is a success, well at least so according to Dr Ian Cutress of Anandtech. As in its a success for Intel’s backporting capabilities, not a success for the consumers wallets, in that case yes it’s clearly quite the fail! But if Intel slashed $150 off the price then I think most reviewers would be praising it.
UserBenchmark on the 11900K is a howl (thanks for the tip,.Makste & Lew). Here they accuse AMD and reviewers of exactly what Intel marketing - with its 10x budget - has long been notorious for. Which IIRC includes direct support to UB itself (!), along with even worse things like illegally stifling competition.
I do believe there is some bias in the tech press towards AMD. Maybe this was because for the longest time they were the underdogs and charged less for their parts than Intel.
What a load of tosh. There is no “collective sentiment” within this industry. If there were then no one would buy this 11900K part and we both know it will sell by the thousands.I think that you know enough history, but that you do not want to accept the outcomes of that history. I think that this situation was propagated by Intel. Intel seems to have chosen a short glorious life. Sentiment drives stocks, sales, reviews, everything. The collective sentiment in the subconscious disregards Intel just as Intel disregarded the collective sentiment.