Intel Core i9-11900K

[Iota]

The Gamersnexus Core i5 11600K review shows its reasonably competitive with the Ryzen 5 5600X,which currently is very hard to get hold off.

That may be the case, but it's a 125W part vs a 65W part. I'd rather wait for the 65W part, mainly because once you factor in the additional cost of cooling the 5600X is going to be easier and cheaper to tame. The Anandtech review specifically mentions temps hitting 104 on the 11900K (also a "125W" part) with pretty decent cooling. I guess that's one of the downsides to continuing to use the 14nm+++++++, the extra power draw increases the thermals to the point where cooling starts to become an issue?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That may be the case, but it's a 125W part vs a 65W part. I'd rather wait for the 65W part, mainly because once you factor in the additional cost of cooling the 5600X is going to be easier and cheaper to tame. The Anandtech review specifically mentions temps hitting 104 on the 11900K (also a "125W" part) with pretty decent cooling. I guess that's one of the downsides to continuing to use the 14nm+++++++, the extra power draw increases the thermals to the point where cooling starts to become an issue?

As a Zen2 owner,the lower power consumption and heat production of Zen2(or Zen3) does not always translate into cheaper cooler costs. The issue is the 6C and 8C Zen2/Zen3 parts have an offset CPU chiplet,unlike the higher core count models,which leads to uneven IHS heat distribution,and unlike Zen/Zen+ which consumed more power,Zen2/Zen3 does run hotter due to the relatively high thermal density of the CPU chiplet. If you don't believe me - look at the stock cooler for my Ryzen 7 3700X,which is huge because of this,and the reports of the Ryzen 7 5800X running very hot. It was the same with IB when compared to SB,it wasn't just the use of thermal compound,the smaller 22NM CPU chip had a higher thermal density than the 32NM SB chip despite consuming less power.

Zen/Zen+ being 12NM/14NM parts do consume more power than the 7NM Zen2/Zen3 parts but are not that hard to cool,because the largish die means a more reasonable thermal density and generally lower temperatures.

With the Intel K series parts,they are leakier so you can overclock them(overvolted),and are a bit outside the ideal V/F curve. But the 6C salvaged K series parts seem to be relatively easier to cool compared to the 8C/10C parts of the CNL and RKL generations because the latter are at the edge of what 14NM can do for CPUs. Plus even if the Ryzen 5 5600X does consume less power,the Wraith Stealth which it comes with runs very hot,and Zen2/Zen3 core boosting is very dependent on keeping the CPU chiplet as cool as possible,and reviews 99% of the time will be using decent CPU coolers even on the Zen3 parts. AMD to save money just penny pinched on the cooler - they really should have supplied the Wraith Spire at least IMHO.

So I would consider getting a better cooler for the Ryzen 5 5600X too,and the issue here is the Core i5 11600K is around £240~£250,which for the most part is the better part of £50 cheaper at least than the street price of a Ryzen 5 5600X unless you find a decent deal.

The price of the Ryzen 5 5600X is too much for what it is now IMHO.

However,the Core i5 11600K main competitor isn't the Ryzen 5 5600X,it's the Core i5 10600KF which is now between £180~£200,and the Core i7 10700F which can be had for closer to £200. With a relatively cost effective B560 motherboard,you can run fast RAM now,which means the Zen2 lineup looks overpriced now.

Even Techspot/Hardware Unboxed said the following:

If both CPUs were available at their MSRP, then the 5600X would be the obvious choice as it’s faster and more efficient, plus it's supported on a wider range of motherboards. But at today’s prices we’d get the 11600K. Actually no, what we’d do is forget both the 5600X and 11600K and just get the outgoing 10600K, or even better the 10600KF.

The Core i5-10600K is $224 and the 10600KF model (no graphics) posing an even more attractive proposition at $200. Those 35% savings could then go into something else, especially if your focus is gaming. If you’re in need of a CPU upgrade today and have a budget between $200 and $300, the Core i5-10600KF is a cracking good CPU for the money.

But the main reason though I was talking about the relative performance of the Core i5 11600K compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X,was actually the Core i5 11400F. The non-K parts tend to draw measureably less power(and also come with a stock cooler) and are not those leakier parts.

The Core i5 10400F is now as low as £125. With 3200MHZ RAM its as fast or faster than a more expensive Ryzen 5 3600,and the £150 Core i5 11400F is going to be even faster still,and you get PCI-E 4.0 too.

Recently I got some open box deals on a Core i5 10400 and a B460 mini-ITX motherboard,which came to under £170 in total. For a Ryzen 5 3600 and even an A320 mini-ITX motherboard its easily nearer to £230~£250 and the Core i5 has an IGP too. Gamersnexus has the Core i5 10400 as having lower power consumption than a Ryzen 5 3600. I thought of spending another £35 on a B560 mini-ITX motherboard but the system has a GTX960 so the extra money is better spending on something else IMHO.

Now you could argue AM4 has a better upgrade path,but the issue is with Intel not having any true 12C/16C CPUs until after Alderlake(which has 8 large cores and 8 smaller cores) which uses DDR5,they are best DDR4 and AM4 parts you can get now. So if the next core update to Zen needs a new socket and/or DDR5 then they are going to stay expensive both new and secondhand for years.

At that point it might be better to not bother upgrading and wait until 3NM/5NM when 12C might end up being orientated as a Core i5 or Ryzen 5(on a DDR5 platform).

[Crowls]

The Gamersnexus Core i5 11600K review shows its reasonably competitive with the Ryzen 5 5600X,which currently is very hard to get hold off. It does mean the Core i5 11400F and a B560 motherboard will be a decent mainstream setup IMHO.

Depending on where you live, both the 5600x and the 5800x are readily available, it is only the 5900x and 5950x that are tough to find in stock, in the uk for example, all the well-known places have them in stock.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Depending on where you live, both the 5600x and the 5800x are readily available, it is only the 5900x and 5950x that are tough to find in stock, in the uk for example, all the well-known places have them in stock.

I meant to say at RRP,because of low stock most retailers have jacked the pricing up above £300. Only Currys seems to be at RRP but stock is hit and miss for them.

It was already bad enough at nearly £300 for its RRP,and even Hardware Unboxed pointed out the Core i5 10600KF is simply better value and I agree.So far I have seen the Core i5 10600KF for as low as £180. The Core i9 9900 was available for under £200 a few weeks ago,and the Core i7 10700 has even been close to £200 recently. The major issue before was B460 didn't support RAM overclocking or XMP speeds,but B560 does,and it makes a difference in the benchmarks.

All of these are much faster than a Ryzen 5 3600 for example with 3200MHZ RAM on both platforms. Then when you consider the Core i5 10400F is now £120,and the Core i5 11400F is £150 with a B560 - you not only get PCI-E 4.0,but memory tweaking. If the Core i5 11600K is not far off a Ryzen 5 5600X,I can see a Core i5 11400F with a better cooler,on a B560 motherboard with MCE being a very solid preposition for the price.

Basically upto £300 there is only Zen2,and even my Ryzen 7 3700X is not going to be quicker than many of the CNL parts in gaming with faster RAM. Even power consumption of the non-K parts isn't that bad - the Core i5 10400 in the Gamersnexus review for example is slightly lower than a Ryzen 5 3600!

[lumireleon]

WOWOWOW!! is that 380 HORSE POWER? Burns the rubber before accelerating (Dodge Challenger). Please note the 911 Turbo didn't burn the rubber but finished first, what a waste!

[philehidiot]

It is often said there are no bad chips these days, only bad prices.

Whilst I think there's definitely a place for the i5s, any chip that is drawing near 300W at the socket in this day and age is a bad chip.

I certainly wouldn't have an issue with anyone buying Intel for general purpose computing. But if you need anything more than mid-range performance, you'd be mad to consider Intel at all at the moment.

I have been all for AMD utterly slaying the Intel dragon but I am glad to see they have a roadmap out of this sorry mess. This isn't like the P4 dip where the issue is for a generation. I can see AMD dominance going on for a decade. That just opens the possibility of a role reversal and that's no good for anyone. A good few years of real AMD dominance and real competition in everything from laptops to datacentres will do the market good. But I want to see Intel catching up now.

[DanceswithUnix]

Competition in what way? Heating your house? 290+ watts on the top chips. It's like having a Lamborghini to go to the shops with

lol

I'm all in favour of popping to the shops in a Lamboughini

I'm also usually pretty dismissive of desktop CPU power draw, but I think even I'm out at this level.

[bae85]

I'll never forget when AMD released the FX 9370 and FX 9590 chips and the fuss the intel fanboys made, weird how things change.

[3dcandy]

To answer a couple of q's up above - spoke to a buddy in retail (no names etc.) and he said that there were plenty of Intel chips out there, not so many AMD but the demand for the Intel chips was very very low and next to nothing. He said Intel had burned people for years and the tide had turned when they just kept on fleecing people...
On a slightly different note he laughed when I asked about gpu's and said he's making a killing....

[3dcandy]

Oh and forgot - he said that everyone he knew was laughing at Intel because Apple was telling them for years to sort out their issues and Intel are now in a position of nobody wanting their chips. Intel touting for fab business is about a decade behind the times he said

[DanceswithUnix]

I'll never forget when AMD released the FX 9370 and FX 9590 chips and the fuss the intel fanboys made, weird how things change.

To be fair, as a happy FX8350 owner at the time I thought those were pretty mental as well.

I've not had time to go look at all the reviews let alone in any depth, but has anyone benched at the non-K 11900 chip with a 65W TDP? There must be a sweet spot before power use skyrockets and they might be usably fast at that point. But it sounds like Intel felt they needed to do the equivalent of stuff a fist full of chillies up the backside to get it to go as fast as possible at all costs.

[philehidiot]

Just to be clear, Intel has a roadmap out of this. The next generation has Intel Dynamic Breakfast Assist which beeps (rather than BSOD) when your CPU bacon is ready for turning.

[3dcandy]

To be fair, as a happy FX8350 owner at the time I thought those were pretty mental as well.

I've not had time to go look at all the reviews let alone in any depth, but has anyone benched at the non-K 11900 chip with a 65W TDP? There must be a sweet spot before power use skyrockets and they might be usably fast at that point. But it sounds like Intel felt they needed to do the equivalent of stuff a fist full of chillies up the backside to get it to go as fast as possible at all costs.

No real reviews but based on the fact it's a 2.5ghz part base clock to get any meaningful performance that 65w is going to be more like 130w. I think the jury is unanimous. It's a hot mess from Intel which is realistically what happens when you have to backport a design from 10nm to 14nm++++++++ and clock as high as you realistically can to get the performance near your rival

LTT got a "125w" part to pull 275 watts regularly

[zugged2]

The Gamersnexus Core i5 11600K review shows its reasonably competitive with the Ryzen 5 5600X,which currently is very hard to get hold off. It does mean the Core i5 11400F and a B560 motherboard will be a decent mainstream setup IMHO.

The i5 11400F looks vastly more interesting than this overpriced but effective fan heater. I really don't get why manufacturers insist on getting reviews of their overpriced products out first.

[3dcandy]

The i5 11400F looks vastly more interesting than this overpriced but effective fan heater. I really don't get why manufacturers insist on getting reviews of their overpriced products out first.

You do know they choose what's to be reviewed don't you? They want the headlines to be fastest gaming cpu etc. etc.
It's a hard sell when they're pretty inefficient and whilst the lower down cpu's appear better and more interesting they don't get headlines (the wrong ones this time admittedly)

[DanceswithUnix]

LTT got a "125w" part to pull 275 watts regularly

But someone at Intel must have chosen to tune the part that way to try and keep winning some gaming benchmarks.

Oh well, perhaps this is one of those dog of a CPUs that Intel knocks out occasionally. It has been a while since the Pentium 4.