Intel's Rocket Lake Core i9-11900K and i7-11700K expected to offer roughly the same performance

nanoguy

Posts: 741   +12
Staff member
In brief: Intel's Rocket Lake desktop CPUs are expected to launch later this month, and it looks like they are indeed a little faster than Comet Lake on the desktop. Whether or not they'll justify their price is a different story that only time will tell.

Last month, we got a first look at Intel's Rocket Lake CPUs thanks to someone at lab501 who was able to get their hands on a Core i7-11700K engineering sample. We didn't learn too much from that other than the fact that Rocket Lake has the potential to be a great gaming CPU, but not exactly the best nor the most efficient.

Intel has been pushing microcode updates to motherboard vendors, but AnandTech found little to no performance improvements, while peak power in AVX2 workloads was significantly higher than AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X CPU. Even if things stay the same on launch date, the company will try to entice gamers to upgrade by bundling Hitman 3 with Rocket Lake processors.

In the meantime, the presentation slides for Rocket Lake's launch event have leaked online, which seem to indicate that Intel will artificially limit the RAM controllers on CPUs other than the flagship i9-11900K in order to justify the higher price for enthusiasts looking to buy the best consumer Rocket Lake SKU, which is also expected to come in a redesigned retail box.

According to leaked CPU-Z benchmarks, the performance difference between the Core i7-11700K and the Core i9-11900K is negligible, with both scoring around 715 to 720 points on the single-threaded test. This is better than AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X, which scored close to 660 points, indicating that the two Intel chips could compare favorably -- at least in some synthetic benchmarks. At the same time, the Core i9-11900K falls slightly behind AMD's 8-core Ryzen 7 5800X in the multi-threaded test, which is not a good sign.

In the leaked slides, Intel says the Core i9-11900K is anywhere from eight to 14 percent faster than the i9-10900K in gaming workloads. One possible explanation for Rocket Lake's less-than-impressive performance -- especially in comparison to Comet Lake -- is that Intel is using an architecture it developed for its new 10 nm SuperFin process node before deciding on using the existing 14 nm process technology.

We'll know more about Comet Lake on March 18, when Intel is expected to offer a "first look at the new Tiger Lake H-series notebook and Rocket Lake desktop processors," which might show some interesting bits about Resizable BAR on the new platforms and whether it brings any significant performance gains.

Permalink to story.

 

DZillaXx

Posts: 214   +320
Looking at the benchmarks Anandtech did of Rocket Lake, don't expect much. High Power usage and small bump in performance over last gen. 8 Core is weaker than the old 10 core in multithreading. Its a shame really, AMD's Zen3 really does nearly everything better at nearly half the power usage at times. And before you pull the whole, well intel is only using 14nm, just remember that this node is highly refined and advanced for a 14nm node. Its a lot closer to TSMC's 7nm node than you think, and the move to intel's 10nm node isn't going to do a whole lot for pure performance. It will help power usage wise, but from their mobile chips that are already 10nm power usage is still an issue.

The choice to use 14nm was for two main reasons, production scale & Clock speed. When intel moves to 10nm for their desktop chips they will still be looking at 5ghz for the boost clocks. Intel is hoping to match Zen3 with their upcoming lineup near the end of 2021/early 2022. But honestly even with 10nm I have my doubts.

Intel is so far behind in terms of performance per watt it will take years for them to catch back up if they don't have a major ach change coming up in the next few years. Intel has struggled for decades trying to have a desktop cpu arch that would scale down to low powered devices and AMD shows up and does just that. AMD has been able to get x86 to ARM levels of efficiency in terms of performance per watt with Zen 3. Intel needs to do more than just move down a node....


Honestly have no idea why anyone would be looking to buy a Intel based gaming rig other than because of part supply issues. Intel plans on using their 14nm for their scale advantage.

But man is Rocket Lake pure disappointing. Even on workloads like gaming the Intel equivalent is using 25-50 more watts of power compared to AMD. 50watts over time will make a noticeable impact in room temp. Zen 4 will further put AMD ahead. Intel really needs to figure things out before OEMs decide to start switching sides.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,260   +1,751
Not sure I trust those CPU Z ST numbers

In the previous leak the 11700k is doing 673 and now above its 715+ ??

And I'm aware that a new bios is out but that jump in scores seems fishy, like the machine was overclocked.





 

Kirby1

Posts: 82   +122
They are really stupid to limit ram speeds like this. All it will do is piss off the people who make computer recommendations to all their friends and family. Intel is earning a ton of hate here and they deserve all of it.
 

kmo911

Posts: 306   +34
When intel does something like this they want to give you better timing to get known to dx12 13 on gpu front and 12 th gen cpu later. so if you are on low end cpu gpu they give you a better fps into future drivers benchmarks unigine 3dmark pcmark 2021. cyberpunk 2070 still needs this to get high enough. if it beats x5950 it would show intel shows it card and are not afraid to beat future cpu gpus benchmarks all over the line. when getting a more stable 3x speed with pcie 4.0 5.0 we can use the 12 th gen cpu to beat amd all ower again. so if amd comes out with pcie 5.0 intel drives it up to pcie 7.0 and so on. big games will load in ms to 1 sec then.crysis will be old. everything must be rewritten for next gen pcie 5.0 intel amd. so waiting for intel to get over pcie 1.0 speed would be like diving withouth air tanks to 5.0 m then diving into 500 m. you cant dive so deep with air on back. a diving clock could do that. thats news.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 682   +586
You would be insane to buy Rocket Lake, it's a waste of money. Just wait for Alder Lake which is looking promising.
 

ypsylon

Posts: 325   +231
At this moment in time it's better to wait as long as there are no new Lakes coming out from Intel. Just bloody stop making abc-Lakes and do something new for a change. This architecture is more or less rehash of a rehash from what 2006. Just node shrinks, few tweaks, but that's essentially still ancient Core at the core (pun very intended :D).

It's about 2 years since Zen constantly pounding Intel and they still have blurry vision after being sent to the ground time and time again. I don't know how many knockouts Intel can take until customers just say - ah screw that company.

Intel could win something here if they came and said: look we have CPUs in stock, you can buy millions of them and they are on par with competition. But they have no CPUs. No stock. Stupid prices and most importantly Intel is no longer on par with AMD. Not even close the higher tier you go.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 131   +103
I feel Intel went into damage control mode when Anandtech published a detailed and independent review that did not paint a nice picture of Rocket Lake. In their defense they quickly mention a new microcode will improve performance. While that is true, I don't think a microcode change is going to significantly improve performance unless they mess it up in the first place. Considering the product is likely already sent via their distribution channel, the product should be close to its peak performance.

Their original plan was to do a preorder before any independent review goes out, which to me is a big red flag. If you have a winning product, why do they want to start a preorder before any review is out? Then came Anandtech that busted their dodgy plan.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 131   +103
They are really stupid to limit ram speeds like this. All it will do is piss off the people who make computer recommendations to all their friends and family. Intel is earning a ton of hate here and they deserve all of it.
This has always been Intel's method to slice and dice their products into "micro" segments. Every tiny feature will require a significant premium. Think of HT, bigger cache, higher clockspeed, overclocking, etc, those are all available behind a pay wall. In addition, they will have additional requirements, for example, some features will require people to buy the top end motherboard chipset. So in this case, nothing's changed. Still the same old Intel.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,360   +2,170
You would be insane to buy Rocket Lake, it's a waste of money. Just wait for Alder Lake which is looking promising.

The best part is that if the specs and recommended reseller pricing that Videocardz leaked are true, i9 11900k is $50 more expensive than i9 10900k while having two core less.

It almost seems like they don‘t want to sell the i9...
 

Morphine Child

Posts: 98   +139
When intel does something like this they want to give you better timing to get known to dx12 13 on gpu front and 12 th gen cpu later. so if you are on low end cpu gpu they give you a better fps into future drivers benchmarks unigine 3dmark pcmark 2021. cyberpunk 2070 still needs this to get high enough. if it beats x5950 it would show intel shows it card and are not afraid to beat future cpu gpus benchmarks all over the line. when getting a more stable 3x speed with pcie 4.0 5.0 we can use the 12 th gen cpu to beat amd all ower again. so if amd comes out with pcie 5.0 intel drives it up to pcie 7.0 and so on. big games will load in ms to 1 sec then.crysis will be old. everything must be rewritten for next gen pcie 5.0 intel amd. so waiting for intel to get over pcie 1.0 speed would be like diving withouth air tanks to 5.0 m then diving into 500 m. you cant dive so deep with air on back. a diving clock could do that. thats news.
Better future fps and Crysis is old. Got it. PCIE 1.0 without air tanks. :D
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,260   +1,751
The best part is that if the specs and recommended reseller pricing that Videocardz leaked are true, i9 11900k is $50 more expensive than i9 10900k while having two core less.

It almost seems like they don‘t want to sell the i9...
prices are all over the place.

Microcenter $519 they have stock and in store pick up


Newegg $418 pre order and shipping

 

Rdmetz

Posts: 188   +76
If it's faster than my 10900k in gaming AND gets me pci 4.0 that's pretty much all I can ask for depending on actual pricing and as long as I can sell my chip for $400+ I'm down for the upgrade. I'd be willing to spend a hundred or maybe 2 at most....id likely ride that setup for several years as pci 4.0 is the only place where I see my current setup becoming a problem anytime close.

I made such smart buys and sells last year that I needed up going from 7700/2080ti to the 10900k and a 3080 and still put about $150 in my pocket.

To go from a 7700k/2080ti to a 11900k and a 3080 for $50 bucks is still an amazing deal.