Monday, December 14th 2020

Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake" Boosts Up To 5.30 GHz, Say Rumored Specs

Intel's upcoming 11th Generation Core i9-11900K processor boosts up to 5.30 GHz, according to rumored specs of various 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake-S" desktop processors, sourced by Harukaze5719. According to this specs-sheet, both the Core i9-11900K and the Core i7-11700K (i7-10700K successor) are 8-core/16-thread parts, and clock-speeds appear to be the only apparent product segmentation between the two. The i9-11900K has a maximum single-core boost frequency of 5.30 GHz, and 4.80 GHz all-core boost. The i7-11700K, on the other hand, has an all-core boost of 4.60 GHz, and 5.00 GHz single-core boost. This time around, even the Core i7 part gets Thermal Velocity Boost.

11th Gen Core i5 continues to be 6-core/12-thread, with Intel allegedly readying an unlocked Core i5-11600K, and a locked i5-11400. Both parts lack TVB. The i5-11600K ticks up to 4.90 GHz single-core, and 4.70 GHz all-core; while the i5-11400 does 4.20 GHz single-core, and 4.40 GHz all-core. The secret-sauce with "Rocket Lake-S" is the introduction of the new "Cypress Cove" CPU cores, which Intel claims offer a double-digit percent IPC gain over the current-gen "Comet Lake," an improved dual-channel DDR4 memory controller with native support for DDR4-3200, a PCI-Express Gen 4 root-complex, and a Gen12 Xe-LP iGPU. The "Cypress Cove" CPU cores also feature VNNI and DLBoost, which accelerate AI DNN; as well as limited AVX-512 instructions. The 11th Gen core processors will also introduce a CPU-attached M.2 NVMe slot, similar to AMD Ryzen. Intel is expected to launch its first "Rocket Lake-S" processors before Q2-2021.
Sources: harukaze5719 (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

52 Comments on Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake" Boosts Up To 5.30 GHz, Say Rumored Specs

#1
fancucker
Judging from the distinct performance advantage in CP2077 for Intel CPUs and poor scaling beyond 8 cores I'd say this is a top competitor for gaming king. I'd take it over AMD
Posted on Reply
#2
R0H1T
fancucker
Judging from the distinct performance advantage in CP2077 for Intel CPUs and poor scaling beyond 8 cores I'd say this is a top competitor for gaming king. I'd take it over AMD
Based on just one game? Well if you say so :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#3
Caring1
So less cores and lower all core boost.
The i9 - 10900K still looks better, and also boosts to 5.3GHz.
Posted on Reply
#4
GoldenX
Caring1
So less cores and lower all core boost.
The i9 - 10900K still looks better, and also boosts to 5.3GHz.
This is no longer Skylake, you can no longer estimate performance by clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#5
Prima.Vera
8 cores for the i9?? Intel lost its mind....
Posted on Reply
#6
dj-electric
I wouldn't mind much how the processors are called. All i care about is how powerful they are, and how much they are going to cost.
This time, I'm really hoping the top 8 core part will not cross the 400$, giving this series a chance to be sold properly.

That said, I don't think anything "Core i9" will allow itself to sell for that cheap, so here goes that.
Posted on Reply
#7
ratirt
Prima.Vera
8 cores for the i9?? Intel lost its mind....
Maybe Intel lost its mind but I'm sure Intel won't lose its attitude towards pricing. :)
Anyway I wanna see what this new i9 will offer.
Posted on Reply
#8
laszlo
we can expect ipc gains but tdp will be high as they're stuck on 14 nm
Posted on Reply
#10
Lionheart
Was hoping for at least a 12 core Intel. Wth is taking your 10nm so long.
Posted on Reply
#11
biffzinker
Prima.Vera
8 cores for the i9?? Intel lost its mind....
Blame a future design destined for 10nm that instead landed on 14nm.
Posted on Reply
#12
kayjay010101
fancucker
Judging from the distinct performance advantage in CP2077 for Intel CPUs and poor scaling beyond 8 cores I'd say this is a top competitor for gaming king. I'd take it over AMD
So because one game has a major bug that is bound to be fixed (literally has already been fixed by the community by changing one value in the .exe file with a hex editor; I'm guessing this will be updated in a hotfix soon so it's applied to everyone, eradicating the bug) that happens to make one company's CPUs perform better, that automatically makes their CPUs better for gaming? That might be the worst attempt at excusing fanboyism I've seen in a while
Posted on Reply
#13
deu
R0H1T
Based on just one game? Well if you say so :ohwell:
Adding to that an error does not make use of any non-physical cores of AMDs:

www.tomshardware.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-amd-ryzen-performance-bug-fix-testing?fbclid=IwAR3QSX97YpumXRwPi5QhOzLmdTruVxqxvufWUvwXsRCHQifhQ9lek3CI6ts

Not saying Intel will not perform, but if you are a gamer in 2020, Im pretty sure AMD will not be behind i unless you are the type of person that insist on 1080p and low textures on CB2077 :D (In other words; any realistic usecase Intel will not win anything.) :0
Posted on Reply
#14
ZoneDymo
fancucker
Judging from the distinct performance advantage in CP2077 for Intel CPUs and poor scaling beyond 8 cores I'd say this is a top competitor for gaming king. I'd take it over AMD
lol this guy
Posted on Reply
#15
TumbleGeorge
Next Alder Lake also will be with up to 8 cores only. The Atom cores is not reason to counting :D Intel (devolution) continuing. Maybe Meteor Lake or Lunar Lake will increase number of strong cores? But this is far away :mad:
Posted on Reply
#16
AnarchoPrimitiv
reputable leaks place the IPC increase at 10-11% which makes sense considering Intel is only ambiguously saying "double digit IPC gains". If it was anything remotely close the the 19% of Zen3, Intel would be plastering that figure over everything, but you have to conclude that they're using cryptic terms like "double digit IPC gains" because 10% isn't impressive after Zen3's 19%. I still think that shortly after this comes out, AMD will release a Zen+/XT refresh/addition with a frequency bump on 7nm EUV or some other improved 7nm node other than the same one they've use on both Zen2/3.
Posted on Reply
#17
watzupken
Intel is struggling to pull themselves away from AMD. Even with the release of Rocket Lake, I doubt it will change their position given that Zen 3 just overtook Intel in areas where Intel had an advantage over Zen 2. Less of the market share that they are bleeding in the retail market, but they are certainly taking a beating in the enterprise space. But looking forward to see how well Rocket Lake performs, though power consumption is going to go through the roof despite being a 8 cores part.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
R0H1T
Based on just one game? Well if you say so :ohwell:
A heavily GPU limited game at that. But yeah, the fix does bring a huge perf win for some Ryzen CPUs.

I think @fancucker doesn't game on Intel either, he bought a console long ago, and is just shouting for giggles. I'm having fun at least, you can't gather that much stupidity on your own.
Posted on Reply
#19
R0H1T
Vayra86
is just shouting for giggles. I'm having fun at least
Well tbf to him I do it on & off, especially with Radeon GPUs but you have to remember not to believe your own fan-fiction :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#20
micropage7
laszlo
we can expect ipc gains but tdp will be high as they're stuck on 14 nm
coz the have none beyond 14 nm to fight
Posted on Reply
#21
Upgrayedd
biffzinker
Blame a future design destined for 10nm that instead landed on 14nm.
I blame the useless iGPU taking heaps of space. Rather not have it on a $300+ CPU. I've always backed Intel on the gaming front because of the 1% and .1% lows but if they keep trying to sell overpowered APUs then I'll get something else next go, maybe Ryzen or whatever succeeds X299 but going backwards on core counts to fit an iGPU isn't opening my wallet.
Posted on Reply
#22
jeremyshaw
Upgrayedd
I blame the useless iGPU taking heaps of space. Rather not have it on a $300+ CPU. I've always backed Intel on the gaming front because of the 1% and .1% lows but if they keep trying to sell overpowered APUs then I'll get something else next go, maybe Ryzen or whatever succeeds X299 but going backwards on core counts to fit an iGPU isn't opening my wallet.
Yeah, this time, they don't even have the excuse of Rocket Lake showing up in laptops, since they already have Tiger lake quad cores on the market (even in cheaper laptops) and Tiger Lake 8 cores coming up for larger laptops. RKL's IGP is also rumored to be a weaksauce cut down variant of the Tiger Lake IGP (so they are seemingly backporting two different 10nm uarch to 14nm). So after all is said and done, why does RKL have an IGP? On the 4 and 6 core SKUs, fine. Have it there for the people who want it. But on the 8 core (and nonexistent 10 core), why? This just reeks of the usual Intel corporate thinking, the same kind that brought them to this position in the first place.
Posted on Reply
#23
RandallFlagg
jeremyshaw
Yeah, this time, they don't even have the excuse of Rocket Lake showing up in laptops, since they already have Tiger lake quad cores on the market (even in cheaper laptops) and Tiger Lake 8 cores coming up for larger laptops. RKL's IGP is also rumored to be a weaksauce cut down variant of the Tiger Lake IGP (so they are seemingly backporting two different 10nm uarch to 14nm). So after all is said and done, why does RKL have an IGP? On the 4 and 6 core SKUs, fine. Have it there for the people who want it. But on the 8 core (and nonexistent 10 core), why? This just reeks of the usual Intel corporate thinking, the same kind that brought them to this position in the first place.
The discrete GPU market aka the AIB market has at most amounted to 30% of all client PCs. A big chunk of these are also not high end cards.

This is why Lisa Su focused so much on APUs early on. By not having an iGPU, the desktop class Zen is effectively capped at something under 30% of the client market. I'm also certain this is why the Ryzen Pro line came out, which are basically desktop class APUs. If AMD ever hopes to go much beyond its current ~20% market share, it will need to have more iGPU systems, not less.

The majority of users don't give a rat's about GPU performance. For those folks, Intel makes a ton of sense. You can make smaller, quieter, less power hungry and perfectly functional systems. Just look at how big the All-in-one market is now.
Posted on Reply
#24
efikkan
Caring1
So less cores and lower all core boost.
The i9 - 10900K still looks better, and also boosts to 5.3GHz.
The rated 5.3 GHz boost is highly optimistic, even when the CPU doesn't hit thermal or power limits, it rarely go above 5.1 GHz at stock.
When Intel will be replacing its 10-core i9-10900k with an 8-core i9-11900k, it's going to be better, despite having fewer cores. People needs to stop fixating on specs and focus on relevant benchmarks.
If a hypothetical quad core beat any 8 or 12 core on the market, wouldn't you want to buy it?
Lionheart
Was hoping for at least a 12 core Intel. Wth is taking your 10nm so long.
Then I got to ask, why?
For the mainstream market, 8 cores is going to be plenty for a long time.
Most power users, content creators, developers, etc. who actually benefits from more than 8-cores generally want other features as well, such as more PCIe lanes for SSDs etc. I would argue it would be better if both AMD and Intel capped their mainstream platform at 100W and 8 cores (for now), and moved their 12+ cores to their respective HEDT platforms, instead of AMD starting their Threadrippers on 24 cores.
Posted on Reply
#25
EarthDog
efikkan
The rated 5.3 GHz boost is highly optimistic, even when the CPU doesn't hit thermal or power limits, it rarely go above 5.1 GHz at stock.
Not sure that is true. I've dealt with 4/5 of these chips and they all hit 5.3 Ghz without issue. In fact, I can't recall of the dozens of Intel CPUs, them not hitting their boost. This isn't an AMD chip where a BIOS fix was needed to reach boost even though all parms were met... :p
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment