Read more.Quote:
The Rocket fails to ignite.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The Rocket fails to ignite.
Hexus thanks for the review, i think there a couple of mistake in it:
- Page 6 has the same Memory Bandwitdh Copy chart on it twice
- Page 10 (UHD gaming test) actually shows the IGP tests that are on page 11
Rocket fails to ignite - by some miracle :p
Came to see the power consumption charts... wasn't disappointed!! :D
I'm surprised, knowing Intel's marketing spiel, that they didn't advertise it as a room heater.
I mean if they can do all this amazing now with 10nm and 14nm... then why did they not do that years ago and be giving their customers a proper product?
I made a review thread for RKL:
https://forums.hexus.net/cpus/424065...ew-thread.html
Hexus review is better than Anthony on LTT..... that really gives a poor review to Intel
This feels like a much more thorough / fair review than Overclockers, thanks for this! Slightly disappointed with these chips, but at least there's some competition on the table these days!
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.
Yeah, just what everyone expected tbh. If they would have priced this better, say around the 450$ mark like the 5800x, it would sell like hotcakes in this climate. But Intel is Intel and just screws over it's customers like always. Another fail...
That power draw is obscene.... and I'm saying this as an owner of the 9900K.
Haha very fair point - reading that back I see the awful wording. By competition I actually meant as in AMD being on top, rather than INTEL just rolling out whatever they want for whatever price they want and that being our only choice!
Mind, I wonder if grabbing one of these would be good at replacing my electric radiator....
The big tell to me is that so many Intel processors are still in stock in the major retailers. Whereas AMD was sold out in minutes. Is this because Intel have managed to stock an obscene amount of chips into retailers or are they just not being bought?
Sure AMD had a very limited sku stack but that made it easier to buy.
Intels stack is confusing, the past few years have decayed their desirability, the 11700k pre-release added a nail to the coffin and they are easily seen to be hot, underwhelming and trailing the underdog.
It's actually sad to see this happen.
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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).
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!
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!
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.
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 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....
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
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.
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.
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
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)
The issue here,is AMD still has the long in the tooth Zen2 CPUs under £300 for the most part,and the only reason the Core i5 CPUs looked a bit mediocre in value was because Intel gated features behind the Z490. However,in gaming,Photoshop,etc Intel Core i5 CPUs were core for core faster when used with similar speed RAM to Zen2 CPUs. This is because of the latency issues of the dual CCX design,and better optimisations for Intel CPUs. Zen3 went to one CCD,and bumped up single core performance a decent amount.
Now they have allowed B560/H570 some more options to tweak RAM,etc and they have PCI-E 4.0 with the RKL CPUs,for a mainstream buyer,the mainstream AMD CPUs are not brilliant value anymore! :(
The only good thing I guess is gaming shows Intel is only ~30w over AMD's 5900x. Blender though...
Wait for sept and Alder+10nm enhanced superfin and a chip that is actually designed for 10nm (not a backport). At least you get a gpu in Intel, but that isn't much saving grace here for 11900k. IF your gpu dies (like mine) in your PC, you can run for a while on the IGP if needed (covers that RMA time at least...LOL).
This chip will sell millions, but only because AMD can't make enough chips to matter yet I guess (stuck at 20% share sadly). AMD needs to stop wasting wafers on LOW margin consoles and make SERVERS instead (make thousands instead of $10-15 a chip!). Force MSFT/SONY to go to someone else and NOT x86. Intel would just laugh if they came to them with mid teen margins (OR LESS, that's from AMD themselves!). They can go make an ARM chip or something. IE, Intel has been shorting their own low end stuff for 3yrs. See dell, hp, lenovo complaints about having PC's missing cpus that can't be sold. Why? Because Intel WISELY told poor people to go fly a kite, while making SERVER chips to keep that net income above 20B/year. AMD net income is less than a 10th of that STILL (no, 1 time tax breaks don't count!).
One wonders if, with hindsight, that Rocket Lake isn't the best name for a chip that runs so erm hot...
Ah, Mr Nobody, it's been a while.
I guess you are unaware how many Zen 3 Server chips they've been selling to AWS and Azure, the Zen 3 server chips were actually being sold as far back as October (apparently) and have been pushing them heavily since.
AMD actually makes quite a substantial amount from Console sales and is working very well for their bottom lines.
But honestly, none of the last half of your comment is worth responding to.
TBF,Intel wil sell a lot of RKL CPUs,just like they sold a lot of CNL CPUs,etc. AMD is far more production limited because TSMC itself is capacity limited,and Intel has large fab capacity on 14NM - this is why even if Intel is behind in pure technology terms,they still have the majority of the PC desktop and laptop CPU market. To put in context,in terms of semiconductor sales Intel and Samsung tend to be significantly ahead of TSMC.
https://epsnews.com/wp-content/uploa...11.23.2020.png
This was the same reason Intel could try their crap during the Athlon 64 era - AMD was also capacity limited,and Intel could make more CPUs. IIRC,Intel threatened OEMs with reduced supplies(or bribed them) so they would use Intel CPUs - its probably similar reasons to why so many laptops still use Intel CPUs. AMD really needs to consider second sourcing their CPUs and GPUs to other fabs such as Samsung too. That way they are not so dependent on TSMC and whatever capacity they have available.
A new tape out under Samsung design rules could be tricky for existing products, after months of effort and spending millions on the port with masks and testing the chip would be a long way towards obsolete.
It does feel like they need to do something though. I notice you can't even get an Athlon 3000G right now. Something at that low end level even GlobalFoundaries could make, and people don't really care if low end chips going into Chromebooks etc are the latest thing.
I don't think you're right at the moment. Check out the prices around the world - no stock of the new Intel stuff and the scalpers are charging double. That tells me it's basically a paper launch right now
Lower down the stack and there is a lot more available but still not at retail or msrp
Hexus review is probably the most pro Intel one out there - everybody else is saying it's not good at all
3000G is 14nm
https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-athlon-3000g
Basically a cut down 2400G die.
I don't know where you are looking - there are plenty of CNL CPUs easily available at below RRP. Also,have you missed all those previews of the Core i7 11700K? Retail CPU sales have been available for weeks now.
Now compare that with people only receiving their Ryzen 9 5900X/5950X CPUs ordered last year,only in the last few weeks. There are threads on places such as OcUK with people downgrading the CPU as they got fedup not receiving it after months.
Also those foundry figures are from the last year - look at the sales of Intel and Samsung compared to TSMC. Most of those Intel sales will be its own products,especially CPUs and chipsets.
Retail CPUs sales are also a fraction of the entire market of CPU sales. Desktop sales are dwarfed by laptop sales nowadays.
Even at the height of the Athlon 64 and years of Intel having the subpar Pentium,and AMD having the Athlon and Athlon XP, AMD just about managed nearly half of desktop CPU sales and AMD had their own fabs.
https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/...rket-share.png
However,laptops were still massively in favour of Intel.
Also if you look at most laptops and prebuilt systems,they use Intel CPUs. ATM,AMD is nowhere near the sales marketshare of Intel in CPUs:
https://www.crn.com/news/components-...pacity-expands
Due to AMD supply constraints,Intel regained marketshare and still its around 80% of the market. A lot of that is prebuilt systems.Quote:
After ceding market share to AMD in PCs for several quarters, Intel regained some territory in the fourth quarter last year thanks to improving CPU capacity, even as its x86 rival continued to grow.
Intel’s market share growth was largely due to the chipmaker increasing manufacturing capacity for lower-end processors such as Celeron and Pentium, though growing sales of Core i5 and Core i7 processors also played a role on the desktop side, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research, a Prescott, Ariz.-based firm that produces a quarterly x86 CPU market share report based on shipments.
This allowed Intel’s share in laptops to grow 1.2 points to 81 percent against AMD while its desktop share grew 0.8 points to 80.7 percent, according to Mercury Research’s report for the fourth quarter of 2020. The result is that Intel grew market share for x86 CPUs overall by 0.7 points, bringing it to 78.3 percent. (The report does include sales from Via, a much smaller chipmaker, but its share in the market rounds to zero in all segments but desktop, McCarron said).
If you look at channels such as Lowspecgamer,he points out entire markets in the world have poor access to AMD products,and its easier to get hold of Intel parts at closer to RRP. CPUs such as the Ryzen 5 1600AF were not available in many markets,but the Intel competitors were.
If you look at servers,AMD managed to just get past 10% of the total market in July 2020:
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/...ntel-s-expense
AMD,with the Athlon 64 managed to get to 25% of the server market IIRC.
AMD is doing well,but ATM are still massively outsold by Intel in all markets,and they are currently supply constrained. I mean just look at the revenue Intel generates from consumer CPU sales alone compared to AMD? That shows despite loosing share they are selling more CPUs overall.
I don't think they are. Both Gamersnexus and Techspot/Hardware Unboxed looked at the Core i5 11600K and considered it not too bad,especially in light of the Ryzen 5 5600X prices going wonky due to the supply constraints.
Even Techspot/Hardware Unboxed said the following:
Techspot/Hardware Unboxed utterly savaged the Core i9 11900K and so did Gamersnexus,but the supply constraints AMD has,which are pushing up street pricing is starting to have a real effect on recommendations now. More than the high end its now very concerning that the entry level and maisntream markets seem to have Intel offering better value products,which are easier to get hold off at RRP.Quote:
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.
I think AMD didn't order extra wafers from GF as their WSA is coming to a close,and expected TSMC to be able to supply enough capacity. It appears TSMC can't dial up enough extra capacity for AMD,despite Huawei being booted off TSMC 7NM and 5NM.
The consoles are also eating up a lot of the extra capacity AMD booked from some posts I saw on here. Its sadly just a perfect storm.
It does seem Nvidia going with Samsung in some ways has meant they have had more capacity to sell GPUs. Its far easier to get an Nvidia GPU.
I won't quote.... see around the world at the top of that.
Stocks in US are poor, for example.
But stocks of AMD in US are much better and so are prices.
I know we're UK based but we also have a perfect storm of covid and brexit to thank for our issues.
Yes Intel sell vastly more than AMD but for certain products in the new Intel stack the availability is shocking. I've read that they reckon the top chip for example is suffering yield issues. The reviews are nearly all about the top end - thus me saying that. I'm on about Intel selling lots of the top end chips not the stack
I looked on Newegg,Amazon US and a few UK retailers. The only RKL SKU which might be a bit hit and miss appears to be the Core i9 11900 series,but the Core i7 and Core i5 series seem OK.Again we will have to only ascertain if availability is truely poor when CNL stocks and production are rundown in favour of RKL. There is that to consider - Intel needs to sell the current CNL stock unless they want to suffer excessive inventory.
You could be right but if they are having issues then it will known by June/July. You saw that with Zen3,when it was quite clear it was either yields or lack of TSMC capacity being available. Even the Ryzen 9 CPUs have been rare as hen's teeth too,although stock does seem to be getting better now. So it seems to be the battle of the CPUs which are hard to get.
However,WRT to the Core i9 CPUs,yields are not the issue here at least with this one model. It will be the Core i7 and Core i5 models availability being lower which is an indication.The Core i9 and Core i7 CPUs this generation are only differentiated by clockspeed. Yet look at their cost and power consumption. This tells me the Core i9 CPUs are essentially a RKL Extreme Edition,ie,binned leaky parts which can clock higher,and have all the boosting tech enabled on them. They are a marketing exercise and why they cost so much. This stunt has been done by Intel before - the P4 EE was the same and harder to get,and existed to just try and rain on the Athlon 64 parade. Nvidia did even back in the day with the 1GHZ GTX560TI GPUs which ended up never really making it to retail,and the few that did had stability problems IIRC.
Yup I'd agree broadly with that. My US buddies are telling me they have it much easier than us right now though.... (both in stock and prices after scalping effectively disappeared in the last day or 2 because it appears people were NOT willing to pay extra for the cpu's - go figure)
In the last 24 hours the stock has increased massively - does that mean that availability is better or demand is weak? Bit of both I'd suggest
Honestly unless you have a workload that needs AVX512 or runs much better on Intel,I don't see the point of the Core i9 11900K CPUs IMHO. You might as well get a Core i7 11700K....or a Ryzen 7 5800X(which seems to have been consistently easier to get than a Ryzen 5 5600X). ATM,the only RKL CPUs which seem to be make sense for me,are thew 6C models and that is because below £300(especially under £200) AMD has kind of let things stagnate a bit IMHO.
Edit!!
The main problem here is that CNL Core i7 11700KF/F and Core i9 10850K are both cheaper than the Core i7 11700K,so I suspect many people who want Intel will go for the CNL CPUs,maybe with one of the newer 500 series motherboards.
I was looking for WSA info the other day for some reason, it looked like it had a few years to go. But even so, that is a contract for a minimum order, if AMD asked for more it wouldn't be a block. OFC GF might well be fully booked as well, it sounds like their ditching 7nm research worked out quite well in the short term at least.
The Core i5 11400 looks decent for the money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdHTSQxdCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdHTSQxdCM
I've been laughing today....
In the US they are discounting 11th gen Intel already because sales are so poor....
A couple of US buddies told me that there are so many available it's unreal 11700K I've been told has sold about 20% of projected amount