Tuesday, December 22nd 2020

Intel 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake-S" Processors Could Feature Similar PL2 Values to 10th Gen

Intel's 11th generation Core "Rocket Lake-S" desktop processors could feature similar Power Level values to their 10th Gen counterparts, according to a recent Core i9-11900 engineering sample benchmark leak posted to Chinese social media platform Bilibili. The i9-11900 (non-K) is a locked SKU that succeeds the i9-10900, and has a rated TDP of 65 W (which is also its PL1), but the PL2 value is reportedly 224 W, identical to that of the i9-10900. A recent report also predicted that individual 11th Gen SKUs have the same TDP (PL1) ratings as their 10th Gen counterparts, with locked SKUs rated at 65 W, and unlocked "K" and "KF" SKUs featuring 125 W.

The "QV1J" engineering sample for the i9-11900, which has been doing rounds with most leaks, has a nominal clock speed of just 1.80 GHz, an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 3.80 GHz, and maximum (single-core) boost frequency of 4.40 GHz. The 8-core/16-thread processor ends up performing slightly better than the i9-9900K at Cinebench R15 and Cinebench R20, although not nearly enough to qualify as a generational performance uplift. The i9-11900 ES was tested on a motherboard based on the next-gen mid-range Intel B560 chipset.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

21 Comments on Intel 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake-S" Processors Could Feature Similar PL2 Values to 10th Gen

#1
ZoneDymo
Still dont see the point of this processor, I mean...is it more energy efficient then the last ones?
It does not seem to preform any better and has 2 cores less then the one its following up....
Posted on Reply
#2
Cobain
It might end up being really fast for gaming, but how much Faster and at wich cost? Temperatures? Big expensive coolers? Blg cases? Expensive mobos for beefy vrm? High power consumption ?

Meanwhile a 5600x uses no more than 75w and blasts through any modern game with very high framerates (considering you are not hiting gpu bottleneck)

In all honestly, I dont think these CPUs Will bring anything to the table apart from Intel promoting "best gaming CPU" even if it Will be by 2% or 3% and using 130watts on the most CPU demanding games.

One thing to lookout for tho, is the new memory controller. If it can achieve low timings (c16or c18) at 4266mhz +, then yeah, the Margins can be Higher.
Posted on Reply
#3
djuice
The 11900 non K version, has a very similar performance to the older 10700 non K, definitely don't see a point in this processor unless its insanely cheap. Just waiting to see the performance of their flagship desktop version, the 11900K which will be clocked significantly higher, at 5.3Ghz single core boost, and 4.8 Ghz all core boost. Considering the 4.4Ghz = 4.8Ghz on the current 10th generation in performance, it would be nice to see how fast 5.3GHz = *.* GHz on the 10th gen.
Posted on Reply
#4
dont whant to set it"'
So it's close to a Ryzen 7 5800X at single thread whilst twice thrice the power consumption at multithread if I where to set it at allcore 38x multi @ cpu VID allthewhile socring 10% more?
le: I ran mine locked at 44X cpu multiplier with hf info on the side.
Posted on Reply
#5
TumbleGeorge
From "65" watts to 225 watts peaks it seems that some power supplies with more sensitive protections will be easily switched off?
Posted on Reply
#6
dicobalt
Intel is getting their asses handed to them but they still refuse to unlock their cpus and chipsets. Truly a reason to spite buy AMD even if Intel can match performance.
Posted on Reply
#7
truehighroller1
Translation:

We overclocked the last/last/last///last generation of processors some more this year guys buy them at the new exorbitant price and be kangs and stuff lol.

Oh by the way because we pushed them to the absolute limit at this point for you, you can't overclock them anymore your self.
Posted on Reply
#8
dont whant to set it"'
Kaby Lake platform sayd it all , from my perspective this is that I am writing , Intel got so complacent after seeing the market ( enthusiasts , OEM' , diy's and etc.) . It's desgusting how far Intel's complacency got to, it , ie Intel would of locked us to one cpu per( ie motherboard)chipset if it could more than 20 years ago.
They got on top by merit , mostly , only to thrash humanity after the kaby lake incident.
I expected them to be so on top that AMD would hold them a candle, how wrong I was. Complacency Lake at its best from Intel's finest.
Posted on Reply
#9
Frank_100
8 cores is a mid level chip in 2020.
Intel should be releasing 16 core chips.

I guess they want to force their base to buy xeon.
Posted on Reply
#10
napata
truehighroller1
Translation:

We overclocked the last/last/last///last generation of processors some more this year guys buy them at the new exorbitant price and be kangs and stuff lol.

Oh by the way because we pushed them to the absolute limit at this point for you, you can't overclock them anymore your self.
That's a pretty terrible translation considering this engineering sample is only clocked at 4.4ghz and matches a 10900k in single thread performance.

While the i9 seems terrible this time the i7 has a lot of potential if it's priced the same as the 10700k. We might get a new 8c CPU at a decent price again after AMD's price hike with no budget 8c option. Price for an 8c CPU went from 350€ to 500€ at launch for AMD. Hopefully the new i7 can fix this.
Posted on Reply
#11
TumbleGeorge
napata
Price for an 8c CPU went from 350€
Up to 350€ is good. More is meanless for 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#12
watzupken
I was just thinking, ok PL 2 is the same, but not sure if Intel snucked in another PL3 @ 250W or higher for whatever boost they name it. After all, they only came out to clarify after many reviews showed that the processors are not running anywhere close to the TDP mentioned on the box.
Frank_100
8 cores is a mid level chip in 2020.
Intel should be releasing 16 core chips.

I guess they want to force their base to buy xeon.
8 cores may seem like its very little by 2020 standards, but the reality is that Intel is mostly targetting gamers, and it seems most games don't utilize that many cores and threads. However it is true that they are hopelessly "out-cored" by AMD and ARM in applications that loves more cores and thread. The success of the chip hinges on the price. I suspect Intel will priced it to compete with the likes of AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X. The 5950X is in its class of its own, so if Intel decides to price their 8 cores vs AMD's 16 cores, I don't think it will go well.
Posted on Reply
#13
Cobain
watzupken
I was just thinking, ok PL 2 is the same, but not sure if Intel snucked in another PL3 @ 250W or higher for whatever boost they name it. After all, they only came out to clarify after many reviews showed that the processors are not running anywhere close to the TDP mentioned on the box.


8 cores may seem like its very little by 2020 standards, but the reality is that Intel is mostly targetting gamers, and it seems most games don't utilize that many cores and threads. However it is true that they are hopelessly "out-cored" by AMD and ARM in applications that loves more cores and thread. The success of the chip hinges on the price. I suspect Intel will priced it to compete with the likes of AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X. The 5950X is in its class of its own, so if Intel decides to price their 8 cores vs AMD's 16 cores, I don't think it will go well.
I think the sweet spot for most users is 6c/12t with good IPC and respectable power consumption/temperatures. I dont agree with people saying 8c/16t is low end. Most ppl here dont need 10 ir 12 cores and if you really make money from that kind of tasks, why not threadripper? I dont even think 8c/16t chips are worth it right now price vs performance wise.
Posted on Reply
#14
Frank_100
Cobain
I think the sweet spot for most users is 6c/12t with good IPC and respectable power consumption/temperatures. I dont agree with people saying 8c/16t is low end. Most ppl here dont need 10 ir 12 cores and if you really make money from that kind of tasks, why not threadripper? I dont even think 8c/16t chips are worth it right now price vs performance wise.
Intel has an outstanding Fortran compiler. Maybe the best. It embeds itself nicely in Microsoft Visual Studio.

Moving to Threadripper requires more then a hardware change. It would probably require a move to Fedora and use of GGC and Eclipse to optimize.
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
Frank_100
8 cores is a mid level chip in 2020.
Intel should be releasing 16 core chips.

I guess they want to force their base to buy xeon.
sounds like you took the 'more cores/threads is better' bait hook, line, and sinker...

I dont find anything wrong with a more clear delineation between HEDT platforms and mainstream. 90% of users can't utilize more than 6c/12t in the first place... and if you need more, you go hedt. Sorry amd shoved more c/t down peoples throat when most of those people can't even use it. ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
mouacyk
Cobain
I think the sweet spot for most users is 6c/12t with good IPC and respectable power consumption/temperatures. I dont agree with people saying 8c/16t is low end. Most ppl here dont need 10 ir 12 cores and if you really make money from that kind of tasks, why not threadripper? I dont even think 8c/16t chips are worth it right now price vs performance wise.
The 12 and 16 core dual-channel CPUs are just really bragging rights for gamers (people who don't research or produce content). For any useful workload, they bottle neck SIMD instructions easily due to the limited channels. So, it makes way more sense to go Threadripper for 8+ cores.

For those ripping on Intel... if Intel can still keep performance parity with a 50% node disadvantage, think of how they will leapfrog AMD when they finally get a 7nm or 5nm node shrink. Arch improvements are much more difficult than node shrinks.
Posted on Reply
#17
watzupken
Cobain
I think the sweet spot for most users is 6c/12t with good IPC and respectable power consumption/temperatures. I dont agree with people saying 8c/16t is low end. Most ppl here dont need 10 ir 12 cores and if you really make money from that kind of tasks, why not threadripper? I dont even think 8c/16t chips are worth it right now price vs performance wise.
8 core processors are certainly not low end in my opinion. But from a gaming perspective, 8 cores is the sweet spot in my opinion. It commands a higher price that I agree, but considering consoles have moved up to a respectable 8 core Zen 2 processors, so I think it will help down to road to have matching number of cores. One can certainly still game smoothly with a 6 core processor, but it depends on the user's expectation. Anything more than 8 cores, it depends on your usage. For me, I would prefer a higher core count because of video encoding work that I do, which I can then game with as well.
Posted on Reply
#18
owen10578
That ultra high PL2 shows just how inefficient these intel chips still are compared to the AMD chips. I mean look at the 5800X, which will probably beat it or match it in multithread using what half the wattage?
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
EarthDog
sounds like you took the 'more cores/threads is better' bait hook, line, and sinker...

I dont find anything wrong with a more clear delineation between HEDT platforms and mainstream. 90% of users can't utilize more than 6c/12t in the first place... and if you need more, you go hedt. Sorry amd shoved more c/t down peoples throat when most of those people can't even use it. ;)
Yes, cap mainstream top-end at 8/16 for now and offer 6/12 in the entire stack below it with varying clocks and we're golden for now. 4c8t for low end and nothing is truly underpowered but there is still a good choice to be had.

Right now we still have 4c4t which is what the dual core was a few years ago: obsolete even on the bottom... and on the very top we have 10+ cores that are obsolete for lack of memory bandwidth or just simply going unused.

But yeah... this whole Rocket Lake release... we keep hoping its really different this time, every time we hear of new Intel chips... we should know better by now. Everything they port back will fall into the same troublesome power budget restraint and if they use 10nm they can't sustain clocks to match 14nm performance.

For both ranges of chips now what you really have is 'great at burst' 'worse at everything else'. You're nearly buying a marketing slide.
Posted on Reply
#20
aQi
Well its just an early engineering sample. I dont want to die on this until it really specs out vividly. After all these kind of engineering samples will be flooding ebay next year.
Im still looking over to both Intel and Amd as to who will be the first to implement ddr5 standards.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jism
owen10578
That ultra high PL2 shows just how inefficient these intel chips still are compared to the AMD chips. I mean look at the 5800X, which will probably beat it or match it in multithread using what half the wattage?
AMD released amazing chips that do not exceed 144W in general, even when boosting. Intel got owned.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment