Thursday, December 3rd 2020

Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake" AotS Benchmark Numbers Surface

An alleged Ashes of the Singularity (AotS) benchmark results page for the top 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake" processor leaked to the web courtesy TUM_APISAK. It's official now that Intel will keep its lengthy processor model number schemes, with the top part being the Core i9-11900K, a successor to the i9-10900K. It also confirms that the "Rocket Lake" silicon caps out at 8-core/16-thread, with performance on virtue of the IPC gains from the new "Cypress Cove" CPU cores."Cypress Cove" is believed to be a back-port of "Willow Cove" to the 14 nm silicon fabrication process that "Rocket Lake-S" is built on.

The screenshot also confirms the nominal clocks (base frequency) of the i9-11900K to be 3.50 GHz, as Intel tends to put base frequency in the name-string of its processors. Paired with a GeForce RTX 3080 and 32 GB of RAM, the i9-11900K-powered machine yielded 62.7 FPS CPU frame-rate at 1440p resolution, and 64.7 FPS CPU frame-rate at 1080p (a mere 3.18% drop in frame-rates from the increase in resolution). These numbers put the i9-11900K in the same league as the Ryzen 7 5800X in CPU frame-rates tested under similar conditions.
Sources: TUM_APISAK (Twitter), 1440p Results, 1080p Results
Add your own comment

52 Comments on Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake" AotS Benchmark Numbers Surface

#1
BArms
It's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.
Posted on Reply
#2
nguyen
So Rocket Lake is already obsolete before it even release, bravo Intel. Maybe Intel should include the Cryo cooling kit into the package along with their next gen CPU just so that they are a little more competitive.
Posted on Reply
#3
Verpal
nguyen
So Rocket Lake is already obsolete before it even release, bravo Intel. Maybe Intel should include the Cryo cooling kit into the package along with their next gen CPU just so that they are a little more competitive.
That's...... an interesting assertion.
Would you mind to elaborate a bit? This article suggest 11900K is competitive against Zen 3 offerings, how is rocket lake ''obsolete''?
Posted on Reply
#4
nguyen
Verpal
That's...... an interesting assertion.
Would you mind to elaborate a bit? This article suggest 11900K is competitive against Zen 3 offerings, how is rocket lake ''obsolete''?
Notice how the 11900K max out at 8 cores, meanwhile 5950X is 16 cores. Intel best is combating against midrange offering from AMD.
Posted on Reply
#5
fancucker
The fact that Intel is maintaining parity with a node disadvantage is fantastic. And better yet, 8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications. With availability I see these as a more compelling offering than Zen 3.
Posted on Reply
#6
Crackong
Seems like they gave up on competing in the core count game.
Max 8 core in main stream CPU
And a completely dead HEDT lineup.
Posted on Reply
#7
sepheronx
couldn't they make do without the igpu and add more cores?
Posted on Reply
#8
Verpal
nguyen
Notice how the 11900K max out at 8 cores, meanwhile 5950X is 16 cores. Intel best is combating against midrange offering from AMD.
Please be aware that most consumer are still not buying cpu more than 8 core, currently, 4 to 6 core are still mainstream. I found your arguement rather unconvincing, espacially when you are asserting the products are obsolete before release.
Posted on Reply
#10
nguyen
Verpal
Please be aware that most consumer are still not buying cpu more than 8 core, currently, 4 to 6 core are still mainstream. I found your arguement rather unconvincing, espacially when you are asserting the products are obsolete before release.
What are you even talking about ? Intel Core i9 shouldn't even be in a discussion about mainstream computers, Intel's best has always been reserved for people who want the best, not some middling PC experience. Now people who want the best go for 5900X and 5950X, without any competition from Intel.

And price conscicous people would never consider buying a core i9 in the first place, much less a core i9 that compete with mid range from AMD.
Posted on Reply
#11
Lionheart
Disappointing core count wise, they went 2 cores backwards. Was hoping for at least a 12 core solution for some competitiveness. I haven't been following Intel as much as I use to, will this be working on existing B460/H470/Z490 motherboards?
Posted on Reply
#12
Caring1
BArms
It's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having an integrated iGPU.
Integrated integrated Graphics Processing Unit?
Posted on Reply
#13
fynxer
Points for Intel trying to get back on their feet and reclaim the performance gap to AMD.

Here is the BAD NEWS, since AMD kept a high pricing model for the Ryzen 5000 series Intel will follow that lead and NOT lower the prices. This behavior is in Intel’s DNA, that in any given situation maximize profits even if they are the underdog.

Intel will just match AMD’s price/performance so the new Rocket Lake 8 core will be at approx. same price as Ryzen 5800X is now. People that are waiting for a price war is out of luck, this is the draw back of a duo logy where there are only two competitors.

Only upside is that we are continuously getting more performance out of any given price point since AMD is hell bent to make major performance improvement to each new generation of Ryzen.

If Intel would have had a continuously dominating lead, without competition from AMD, we would only have had main stream desktop CPU’s with 6 cores today.
Posted on Reply
#14
hardcore_gamer
BArms
It's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having an integrated iGPU.
Performance parity at 8 or fewer cores and with much higher power consumption. They can't change the laws of physics. That's why they're preparing 10nm chips for laptops/servers where power consumption/transistor density matters.
Posted on Reply
#15
BArms
Caring1
Integrated integrated Graphics Processing Unit?
Woops! Also I wish Intel would ditch their iGPUs on higher end SKUs like AMD has done, in favor of faster / more efficient chips. They serve a purpose but if you think about it, every single Intel chip from 2700K to 10900K has a massive portion of their CPU die as dead weight for anyone with an even cheap Nvidia or AMD GPU. Any electricity savings they present are null and void most of the time and at least for Nvidia, their video decoding is far and away much better than Intel's anyway.
Posted on Reply
#16
fancucker
People forget that pricing ultimately dictates the desirability, regardless of the MT difference in perf. Appropriately priced they could embarrass AMD
Posted on Reply
#17
ZoneDymo
fancucker
The fact that Intel is maintaining parity with a node disadvantage is fantastic. And better yet, 8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications. With availability I see these as a more compelling offering than Zen 3.
8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications? what? you reaaally have to back up that claim because that is as far as I know complete utter bullcrap.
To quote Linus: "if you need 8 cores, you need 12"

The 5800X is the least desirable of AMD's line-up, if you build a gaming rig, you get the 5600X, if you build a workstation its 5900X and up, the 5800X barely has a right to exist and yet that is the one this new Intel chip competes with.

And for your second comment, obviously price dictates all, but Intel will NEVER become the value brand, they add markup just to keep some illusion up of being a premium brand.

Honestly I dont think there will be any appeal to this product what so ever.
Posted on Reply
#18
Gungar
BArms
It's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.
That's because AMD can't do CPUs since 2004, it just happens that Intel is doing really bad right now and we get what we have right now.
Posted on Reply
#19
PanicLake
nguyen
Notice how the 11900K max out at 8 cores, meanwhile 5950X is 16 cores. Intel best is combating against midrange offering from AMD.
That doesn't mean anything... because it all comes down to prices...
Posted on Reply
#20
Verpal
nguyen
What are you even talking about ? Intel Core i9 shouldn't even be in a discussion about mainstream computers, Intel's best has always been reserved for people who want the best, not some middling PC experience. Now people who want the best go for 5900X and 5950X, without any competition from Intel.

And price conscicous people would never consider buying a core i9 in the first place, much less a core i9 that compete with mid range from AMD.
That will only be valid if you assume Intel are going to price core i9 rocket lake comparable to 5900x/5950x, currently, we don't know anything about pricing yet.

There are no bad product, only bad price, if Intel core i9 is price competitive against AMD mid range, then so be it, it is still not ''obsolete'' before release, as per your assertion.
Posted on Reply
#21
InVasMani
nguyen
Notice how the 11900K max out at 8 cores, meanwhile 5950X is 16 cores. Intel best is combating against midrange offering from AMD.
Voltage is squared you could certainly argue it's easier to bump up core count from lower node designs than it is to continue to push frequency higher.
Lionheart
Disappointing core count wise, they went 2 cores backwards. Was hoping for at least a 12 core solution for some competitiveness. I haven't been following Intel as much as I use to, will this be working on existing B460/H470/Z490 motherboards?
I think that depends if the 8c chip performs better on average it's reasonable. The efficiency to overall performance relationship matters a fair amount. If Intel managed to get better single thread performance w/o sacrificing much on the multi-thread performance and the design is less of a energy pig that's ok compromise. It's not exciting, but it's fair compromise and boils down to how many can they mass produce with good yields at what price.
Posted on Reply
#22
spnidel
BArms
It's interesting how Intel''s 14nm is keeping some kind of performance parity with TSMC's 7nm, all while having a (dead weight for most gamers) iGPU.
while also drawing nearly double the power lol
Posted on Reply
#23
LemmingOverlord
thesmokingman
Same league? We need to know the settings cuz a 5600x is scoring almost double what the results in the op at crazy_1440 preset. I didn't see a 5800x in the leaderboards to even choose one. Anyways, I wouldn't be making any assumptions this early.


www.ashesofthesingularity.com/benchmark#/benchmark-result/059338df-8332-4a8c-b9c0-176bafcd5662
Yet the benchmark table is still lead by an ageing i9 9940X running on a 2080 Ti... Let's just say it: AotS is a CPU benchmark, not a graphics benchmark.

What people should be asking is how a 14-core 9940X on a 14nm ++++++ node is still giving AMD a run for its money (mind you, the 9940X is $150 cheaper than the 5950X).
Posted on Reply
#24
RedelZaVedno
What's the point of comparing it with Zen3? Zen 3 CPUs have become non existent or priced out of most consumers reach. Current prices of CPUs that are actually in stock in Germany: 5600X = €460 ($540), 5800x/5900x nowhere to be found and 5950X priced at €1149 ($1.355). Even Zen 2 prices got inflated again (3600 €230, 3700x €300). AMD made Intel CPUs look like a bargain, i7 10700F going for €286 and I5 10600KF for €219, i5 10400F €142... AMD has FU big time with Zen3 pricing and non availability. Same is true for AIB's RDNA2 pricings... Sapphire 6800XT costing $770, PowerColor $800 and Asus even $900, I mean what the hell, that's pure insanity. It's not like AMD is beating Intel & Ngreedia by +20% performance margin. Don't get me wrong, Zen3/RDNA2 are great products, but it's a shame they're priced out of the market. Only AMD fanboys will buy them at these prices and that's a real shame.
Posted on Reply
#25
EarthDog
ZoneDymo
8 cores remains the sweet spot for most applications? what? you reaaally have to back up that claim because that is as far as I know complete utter bullcrap.
To quote Linus: "if you need 8 cores, you need 12"
Quoting Linus... ZOINKS! :p

Seriously though, you should read a few articles and see. Here's a couple to start with...
medium.com/performance-at-intel/core-scaling-and-gaming-performance-how-many-cores-do-you-need-8b45c0f3e4a3
www.redgamingtech.com/investigating-core-count-scaling-and-dx12-vs-dx-vulkan-analysis/

Last time I really looked a couple of months back, there were very few titles that respond well to more than 8c/16t. By the time 8c/16t is going to 'really' hold you back, will be a few years down the road and only in some titles. It's the 4c/8t and 6c/6t parts that can get long in the tooth already (few on the latter also).

Remind me again, how many cores/threads is the CPU in consoles (Hint - 8c/16t)? I also don't imagine RL to go backwards on the core count. I'd imagine the flagship will have 10c/20t like Comet-Lake. But only time will tell on that point.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment