Monday, December 28th 2020

Intel Core i7-11700K "Rocket Lake" CPU Outperforms AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Single-Core Tests

Intel's Rocket Lake-S platform is scheduled to arrive at the beginning of the following year, which is just a few days away. The Rocket Lake lineup of processors is going to be Intel's 11th generation of Core desktop CPUs and the platform is expected to make a debut with Intel's newest Cypress Cove core design. Thanks to the Geekbench 5 submission, we have the latest information about the performance of the upcoming Intel Core i7-11700K 8C/16T processor. Based on the Cypress Cove core, the CPU is allegedly bringing a double-digit IPC increase, according to Intel.

In the single-core result, the CPU has managed to score 1807 points, while the multi-core score is 10673 points. The CPU ran at the base clock of 3.6 GHz, while the boost frequency is fixed at 5.0 GHz. Compared to the previous, 10th generation, Intel Core i7-10700K which scores 1349 single-core score and 8973 points multi-core score, the Rocket Lake CPU has managed to put out 34% higher single-core and 19% higher multi-core score. When it comes to the comparison to AMD offerings, the highest-end Ryzen 9 5950X is about 7.5% slower in single-core result, and of course much faster in multi-core result thanks to double the number of cores.
Sources: Leakbench, via VideoCardz
Add your own comment

114 Comments on Intel Core i7-11700K "Rocket Lake" CPU Outperforms AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Single-Core Tests

#1
Legacy-ZA
I wonder how many new security flaws this generation will have. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#3
Fouquin
With how easy it is to game geekbench with simple malloc tricks I have to take this with a heaping helping of salt. Competition is nice regardless.
Posted on Reply
#4
Selaya
Wait what

Is this AVX512 or what
Posted on Reply
#5
Steevo
NO mention of how many chillers are needed to attain this level of Ghz, or what walk in freezer the system was ran in to keep the temps down with I am going to guess over a 300W actual TDP. Intel, you so shit at rating CPUs TDP, 240W for a "95W" rated CPU.......
Posted on Reply
#6
dragontamer5788
Selaya
Wait what

Is this AVX512 or what
I don't think AVX512 helps too much in many Geekbench workloads (maybe the AES workload but a lot of other stuff is INT64 based). But I'll have to double-check to be sure...

Rocket Lake has bigger L1 cache... and also bigger L2 cache. It might also be a wider core, does anyone have the information on the backend of Cyprus Cove?
Posted on Reply
#7
freeagent
2021 should be a good year for CPU sales from both camps!
Posted on Reply
#8
bluetriangleclock
There goes AMD's brief lead in gaming. :roll:

But it was never a real lead since the Ryzen 5000 launch was a paper launch.
Posted on Reply
#9
cyberloner
drop the price too ... let's war on price..........
Posted on Reply
#10
jonup
Steevo
NO mention of how many chillers are needed to attain this level of Ghz, or what walk in freezer the system was ran in to keep the temps down with I am going to guess over a 300W actual TDP. Intel, you so shit at rating CPUs TDP, 240W for a "95W" rated CPU.......
You must be one of these people who ask me about the gas mileage on my cars. :roll: Wild guess: I don't care. :nutkick:
I recently built 10850k, no OC just power limits removed, 320W+. I would have put just as beefy cooling on a Ryzen CPU if I wanted to get the best out of it. And that would be pulling well over 125W rated TDP.

P.s. The owner also didn't care about his electric bill. surprise! surprise!
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
Ah, yes, Geekbench. Best benchmark that there is.
Posted on Reply
#12
chris.london
dragontamer5788
I don't think AVX512 helps too much in many Geekbench workloads (maybe the AES workload but a lot of other stuff is INT64 based). But I'll have to double-check to be sure...

Rocket Lake has bigger L1 cache... and also bigger L2 cache. It might also be a wider core, does anyone have the information on the backend of Cyprus Cove?
The big jump is in indeed in the AES-XTS test which does benefit from AVX512 acceleration. The 10700K scores around 3.07GBps in the single-core test, this 11700K around 9.24GBps. There is very little difference in the multi-core AES-XTS test scores which means that the AVX512 reduces the multi-core clock quite significantly, to the point where it is hardly worth it.

That one sub-test on its own lifts the single-core score by 10 percentage points, so the final score is fairly misleading. Rocket Lake is an improvement, but not a 30% improvement.
Posted on Reply
#13
Steevo
jonup
You must be one of these people who ask me about the gas mileage on my cars. :roll: Wild guess: I don't care. :nutkick:
I recently built 10850k, no OC just power limits removed, 320W+. I would have put just as beefy cooling on a Ryzen CPU if I wanted to get the best out of it. And that would be pulling well over 125W rated TDP.

P.s. The owner also didn't care about his electric bill. surprise! surprise!
I'm not really concerned with energy efficiency, more so with how Intel has lied about ratings, and the ability to overclock on a old node and how many cores can maintain that level of performance. We aren't a single threaded world anymore, and it's one benchmark.

If they can make a CPU 20% faster that's great, but if they have to run it with a chiller to do it.....
Posted on Reply
#14
Mouth of Sauron
Oh, my, I'm so excited... Wait, no I'm not.

"The gaming crown" probably also goes with it, when lucky owners can play at 150-200+ FPS at... mighty FHD... Can it run Crysis? Old one?
Posted on Reply
#15
Mats
I have no doubts that the next big thing from Intel since 2015 can be this good, I just find it amusing that this could have been launched years ago, maybe instead of the 9900K. :D
It never happened, because Intel thought 10 nm was worth waiting for.. :slap:

Also, I don't trust g**kbench either.
Posted on Reply
#16
weekendgeek
Not sure why y'all have your undies in a bunch.

Only one (questionable) benchmark score, but I'd take a 34% single thread and 19% multi thread improvement for the same price, or even lower if some rumors are correct.

Obviously if your workload needs more than 8c/16t, Ryzen's still your uncle.
Posted on Reply
#17
lynx29
Legacy-ZA
I wonder how many new security flaws this generation will have. :roll:
yep I read about two more security issues with Intel just in the last few months, on top of the 50+ that have already been patched.
Posted on Reply
#18
N3M3515
Oh boy, this just keeps getting bettter and better!!, i wish they keep leapfrogging each other for the forseable future.
Posted on Reply
#19
efikkan
cyberloner
drop the price too ... let's war on price..........
With both AMD and Intel having good 6-core and 8-core options, we should expect some good deals in the next months, if they manage to make enough of these.

There will probably be many Sandy Bridge and Haswell owners looking for a good upgrade.
Steevo
I'm not really concerned with energy efficiency, more so with how Intel has lied about ratings, and the ability to overclock on a old node and how many cores can maintain that level of performance. We aren't a single threaded world anymore, and it's one benchmark.
While the rated clock speeds are a bit optimistic, their TDPs are accurate for sustained power consumption at stock.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mats
It tops out at 8C.. even if it's a threat to Ryzen, which I doubt, AMD could just drop the prices and call it a day.
Posted on Reply
#21
BigBonedCartman
Screw Intel, they price gouged for years until they were finally defeated and they’re filled with security flaws
Posted on Reply
#22
theoneandonlymrk
bluetriangleclock
There goes AMD's brief lead in gaming. :roll:

But it was never a real lead since the Ryzen 5000 launch was a paper launch.
Right, sorry misquoted you which is a shame since your comedy famnboi stomping, over an unreleased chips scores on a shit benchmark just got more attention.

@freeagent
It will be(a good year for CPU sales), but they Both could do much better if they had enough manufacturing capacity in the right places and at the right time, like now for example, hence I'm expecting these to be like unicorn tears on release and for they're life.
Posted on Reply
#23
Patriot
I wonder if they are going to have as much trouble binning them to hit the clocks like intel did with the 10900k and have to make another 10850.
Posted on Reply
#24
Mescalamba
Does it work without at least single stage cooling?

Should probably upgrade my fuse box for that..
Posted on Reply
#25
dragontamer5788
chris.london
The big jump is in indeed in the AES-XTS test which does benefit from AVX512 acceleration. The 10700K scores around 3.07GBps in the single-core test, this 11700K around 9.24GBps. There is very little difference in the multi-core AES-XTS test scores which means that the AVX512 reduces the multi-core clock quite significantly, to the point where it is hardly worth it.

That one sub-test on its own lifts the single-core score by 10 percentage points, so the final score is fairly misleading. Rocket Lake is an improvement, but not a 30% improvement.
Zen3 also benefits from AES-XTS though: albeit the 256-bit version instead of the 512-bit version. In any case, the various CPU-manufacturers are pushing faster-and-faster AES every generation. Its clearly an important workload if this much effort is being shoved into it. I dunno if its more for servers or for clients. But both sides of "https" needs AES on every single connection. More efficient AES-instructions means more efficient compute, since its certainly a CPU-heavy load.

Ultimately, that's why it is important to understand these benchmarks. Everyone has an opinion on what is, or isn't, a "standard computer workload" these days. Knowing whether to emphasize something like AES-performance or Deep-learning instructions, or 512-bit vectors... or 128kB L1 cache (M1) or 512kB L2 cache (AMD Zen3 / Intel Cyprus Cove)... like we all can invent a benchmark to make our favorite CPU win every time. The question is what is the "standard" workload that we all agree is representative of reality?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment