Thursday, December 31st 2020

Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks

Intel is preparing to launch their latest generation Rocket Lake-S processors in the coming weeks. We recently saw some leaked Geekbench 5 scores for the eight-core Intel Core i7-11700K showing it beating the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance. We have recently received some new benchmarks for the i9-11900K and i7-11700K this time in CPU-Z showing them once again best AMD in single-core performance.

The Cypress Cove core design found in these upcoming processors is expected to bring double-digit IPC gains over Skylake and this is reflected in these scores. Take all these benchmarks with a healthy dose of skepticism as we have no way of confirming these numbers until we can test the chips ourselves. The Intel Core i9-11900K gets a single thread score of 695.4 and a multi-thread score of 6522.1 which puts it 19% ahead of the i9-10900K and 3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in single-threaded performance. The processor still falls far behind the Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance due to it having half the number of cores.
The Intel Core i7-11700K CPU-Z benchmark results were also leaked however the photo has been edited to hide the exact score. The i7-11700K scores 67X in single-threaded performance, and 63XX in multi-threaded performance. This puts it 18% ahead of the i7-10700K and close to or slightly below the Ryzen 9 5950X in single-core performance.
Sources: @9550pro, @OneRaichu, VideoCardz, guru3D
Add your own comment

183 Comments on Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks

#102
weekendgeek
Lionheart
If any moderators see this, I kindly ask of you...... Can you do something to rid this site of obvious fanboyish trolls? They're degrading the quality of this site by their mere presence.
I wish people would realize that we're here as tech enthusiasts and that we have more in common with each other than we do with any of the big tech companies.

All of the energy spent flexing e-peens rather than enjoying the best performance in computers there's ever been. The forums are just becoming a toxic mix of people regurgitating the same old company talking points.

That said, I'm looking forward to Rocket Lake and whatever AMD responds with.
Posted on Reply
#103
Lionheart
weekendgeek
I wish people would realize that we're here as tech enthusiasts and that we have more in common with each other than we do with any of the big tech companies.

All of the energy spent flexing e-peens rather than enjoying the best performance in computers there's ever been. The forums are just becoming a toxic mix of people regurgitating the same old company talking points.

That said, I'm looking forward to Rocket Lake and whatever AMD responds with.
Thankyou, well said.
Posted on Reply
#104
Xuper
who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere
Posted on Reply
#105
micropage7
i really expect something not just speed and price that vaporing the wallet
Posted on Reply
#106
RandallFlagg
Xuper
who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere
AMD won't drop price, and won't need to, they aren't making enough chips to supply current demand by a wide margin anyway. AMD could probably bump up their charge to their distribution partners and MSRP by 30 to 50% and the chips would sell.

I suspect that Intel will price the 10700K in the $350-$400 range, just as they've always priced the top of the i7 line. The i9's tend to be in the $500-$600 range. The existence of Zen 3 doesn't really alter that because Zen 3 isn't really present in any quantity in the larger market. Until you see at least one or two of the major OEMs selling Zen 3 systems, its sales volume is miniscule.

The main thing Zen 3 did was drive up the price of Zen 2. People are weird like that, halo effects are real.
Posted on Reply
#107
R0H1T
Xuper
who does think AMD will drop price? I doubt , they will never do that.Intel can now charge more money .Just look at RDNA2 vs ampere
They will but it's probably gonna take a good 6 months (from launch) before zen3 becomes readily available & affordable.
Posted on Reply
#108
Turmania
With this rate of supply problems, we probably have to wait for zen4 and next gen nvidia/radeon cards.... this generation i just regard it as a paper launch.
Posted on Reply
#109
Crackong
Is this performance exclusive with EK cryo cooler ?
Posted on Reply
#110
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
Crackong
Is this performance exclusive with EK cryo cooler ?
Would be a great way to demo its performance
Posted on Reply
#111
ixi
Turmania
With this rate of supply problems, we probably have to wait for zen4 and next gen nvidia/radeon cards.... this generation i just regard it as a paper launch.
Next one should be the same, sadly. I'm still without pc because of the increased prices through the roof... Aint gonna pay for ngreedia, sh1ntel nor amd for more than 100e of msrp.
Posted on Reply
#112
AusWolf
RandallFlagg
AMD won't drop price, and won't need to, they aren't making enough chips to supply current demand by a wide margin anyway. AMD could probably bump up their charge to their distribution partners and MSRP by 30 to 50% and the chips would sell.

I suspect that Intel will price the 10700K in the $350-$400 range, just as they've always priced the top of the i7 line. The i9's tend to be in the $500-$600 range. The existence of Zen 3 doesn't really alter that because Zen 3 isn't really present in any quantity in the larger market. Until you see at least one or two of the major OEMs selling Zen 3 systems, its sales volume is miniscule.

The main thing Zen 3 did was drive up the price of Zen 2. People are weird like that, halo effects are real.
Agreed. The other thing is, with 8 cores maximum, Intel can only compete in the ryzen 5-7 range. Besides, even if they price their new i7 and i9 competitively relative to the ryzen 7 5800X, you still have to pay the Intel motherboard premium. They have to price the new CPUs at least $100 below the 5800X to make total system costs match, which absolutely won't happen.

I didn't mention ryzen 9 on purpose. With 12 and 16 cores, they're a totally different class. Intel proved with the i9-10900K that they can't compete in this class on 14 nm. I just wish to see more innovation at least on the core i7 range, and reasonable prices from both companies in the future.

All things considered, AMD has no reason to drop prices at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#113
goodeedidid
Oh boy, I was hoping Intel would lead at least with 10%-20% in single core performance for gaming but there is no advantage over AMD. 3% is in the margins of error.. lol what a joke.
Posted on Reply
#114
londiste
AusWolf
Besides, even if they price their new i7 and i9 competitively relative to the ryzen 7 5800X, you still have to pay the Intel motherboard premium. They have to price the new CPUs at least $100 below the 5800X to make total system costs match, which absolutely won't happen.
Have you looked at motherboard prices lately? The days of cheap AM4 motherboards is somewhat over and Z490 boards are priced right between B550 and X570. When looking at boards full of nice features they are in the same price range.
Posted on Reply
#115
AusWolf
londiste
Have you looked at motherboard prices lately? The days of cheap AM4 motherboards is somewhat over and Z490 boards are priced right between B550 and X570. When looking at boards full of nice features they are in the same price range.
I actually have. Z490 boards are generally £50 more expensive than B550 variants of the same range (Asus Strix, Asus TUF Gaming, etc). As far as I'm concerned, comparing to X570 is irrelevant, as it is a B550 with a couple extra PCI-E gen 4 lanes and a PCI-E gen 4 link to the CPU which you never feel in daily use. What justifies buying Intel is the pricey nature of the Ryzen 5000 series CPUs. If I wanted to build an Intel system now, I'd go with a B460 motherboard (I always buy the x60 series anyway), and a Core i7-10700 or 10700F. A Z490 motherboard with a K processor comes with a price premium that makes B550 with a Ryzen 3000 series CPU a much better value.
Posted on Reply
#116
Vayra86
yukinin97
This almost reads like a satirical comment. Imagine shilling so hard for any single corporation, none of which give a single F about you... how do you personally benefit from doing that? Most of us are just enjoying the increased competition but you're out here propping up Intel like your life depends on it lol. I never realized how bad the fanboyism I kept hearing about was until I came into this forum. Yikes.

And when was the last time that AMD was relevant to you? Their marketshare has doubled YoY while Intel's has decreased by 20%... Lastly, Zen 4's release date on AMD's own CPU roadmap was slated for late 2022 LONG before we saw announcements of Apple securing 80% of TSMC's 5nm production capacity. Intel doesn't need to worry about that since they're still stuck with their 14nm++++++++++++++:laugh:.
Well... its just a tiny minority of leftovers that still try that. Its good laughing stock. We bash back and that's that.

Much like this Intel release.
Patr!ck
NVidia RTX 3000 mobile chips
Patr!ck
Xe-HPG gaming GPUs on the laptop market.
Completely irrelevant to the cutting edge. Laptop performance always trails it, and is a derivative of what the desktop gets. Not a single chip manufacturer can run a business on laptop chips. Not one. Its an intermediate form factor - its a little bit of everything, jack of all trades master of none. How do you design for that anyway? What laptops get is refined process and sometimes better binning on the same architectures as desktops already got.

And let's not forget ARM.

Also... Xe-HPG gaming GPUs in 2021? Where are those? So far Raja showed us a football field sized scalable mega chip with unknown performance and we saw some rebrands of the eternal Intel integrated nonsense. Its a complete laugh so far, there's less development in that area than we see from their CPUs. They're not competitive by any stretch of the imagination yet.
Posted on Reply
#117
Chrispy_
Vayra86
Well... its just a tiny minority of leftovers that still try that. Its good laughing stock. We bash back and that's that.

Much like this Intel release.
The more unreasonable and zealously one-sided someone is, the more entertaining their comments are, a bit like reading the SCROTUS twitter feed. It's all drivelling nonsense from a foaming-mouthed madman but the schadenfreude makes me chuckle.

You just have to enjoy rabid fanboy posts for their ridiculousness and it also serves as a useful reminder of what can happen if you stop critically analysing the arguments on all sides and instead start drinking the marketing department Kool-Aid of just one company.
Posted on Reply
#118
Cobain
Too much fanboyism on this thread, from both sides.

I used Intel for almost 20 years and recently got a 5600x. This chip doesn't exceed 75w (according to Hwinfo) and it gets very high framerates on every game, providing you dont't have a gpu bottleneck. According to GamerNexus, Anandtech, LTT, Guru3d etc, it is Faster than a 10700k/10900k in most games apart from a few exceptions like RDR2.

Imo the 5600x is the "new" 2500k or Athlon X2.

Fanboys saying Intel still leads in gaming need to check the reviews again. I know for a fact 10900k at 5,2ghz can average 170fps on Warzone for example, while 5600x gets 200fps on every Map location. This is just an example.

Zen 3 is very strong because of its IPC, low cache latency, new ccx layout etc it uses less power than Intel, needs less expensive Cooling and gets Higher frames.

With that being Said I dont agree with guys that come here and Say this new Intel launch is irrelevant. It isn't. They Will probably be the best gaming chip again, as from the leaks we seen the scores are really amazing. Now it all comes to final real world performance, pricing, temperatures, power usage.

And we might end up having great options from both sides. 11400f on a B560 motherboard + 3200mhz RAM, might BE really interesting for gaming Riga.
Posted on Reply
#119
londiste
Cobain
Zen 3 is very strong because of its IPC, low cache latency, new ccx layout etc it uses less power than Intel, needs less expensive Cooling and gets Higher frames.
Upgraded to R5 5600X from i5 8400. In my particular case - 1440p at Ultra-ish settings - GPU is the major bottleneck. In a bit of surprising way (5600X should have more headroom and I expected it to run with lower load = cooler) power usage and need for cooling is practically the same (cores and CPU stuff at max 65W) but around 12W of additional system usage is concentreated into CPU package on Zen2/3, PPT and Package Power is 76W for 5600X. Over-dimensioned cooler or (rather PITA) curve tweaking is needed to avoid fan ramp-ups due to high and quickly changing temps. Not the smoothest of transitions but better than Zen2 was.
Posted on Reply
#120
Chrispy_
Cobain
Too much fanboyism on this thread, from both sides.

I used Intel for almost 20 years and recently got a 5600x. This chip doesn't exceed 75w (according to Hwinfo) and it gets very high framerates on every game, providing you dont't have a gpu bottleneck. According to GamerNexus, Anandtech, LTT, Guru3d etc, it is Faster than a 10700k/10900k in most games apart from a few exceptions like RDR2.

Imo the 5600x is the "new" 2500k or Athlon X2.

Fanboys saying Intel still leads in gaming need to check the reviews again. I know for a fact 10900k at 5,2ghz can average 170fps on Warzone for example, while 5600x gets 200fps on every Map location. This is just an example.

Zen 3 is very strong because of its IPC, low cache latency, new ccx layout etc it uses less power than Intel, needs less expensive Cooling and gets Higher frames.

With that being Said I dont agree with guys that come here and Say this new Intel launch is irrelevant. It isn't. They Will probably be the best gaming chip again, as from the leaks we seen the scores are really amazing. Now it all comes to final peixinho, temperatures, power usage. And we might end up having great options from both sides
There's a good article here on TPU about just how much better Zen3 is over 10th-Gen Intel. For the most part, the age-old generalisation that we are GPU bottlenecked still holds true, so when people are bickering over single-digit differences between AMD and Intel gaming performance, they're not actually seeing either CPU being fully used and are still hitting a GPU bottleneck:


The minute you actually load up the CPU and take away the GPU bottleneck, Zen3 is so far ahead of Intel in gaming that I'm not even sure the 13-14% IPC gains of Rocket Lake are going to be enough to make up the difference. Sure, it'll get Intel much closer to Zen3 and there's a good chance that Intel, with their own 14nm fabs will be able to meet demand better than AMDs small slice of TSMC. We just need Intel to not be total douchebags with regard to arbitrary crippling of their lower-end CPUs on non-Z platforms this time around.

As a consumer, rather than an Intel or AMD shareholder, what matters is fierce competition, to drive down prices and spread the demand evenly between both suppliers. If team A and B have equal supply but team A's products suck, that means that there's only one viable choice in the market and therefore only half the effective supply. For us all to win, we need Intel to not be dicks, and for both AMD and Intel to fight each other hard to out-supply and undercut each other on pricing. That's why there's no room for fanboyism in 2021. You'll buy whatever's available if you need to at the moment, because there's so little supply and so much demand that you don't have the choice to buy your best option, you'll likely need to settle for anything that works - and that's not a good situation for us as consumers.
Posted on Reply
#121
londiste
Chrispy_
We just need Intel to not be total douchebags with regard to arbitrary crippling of their lower-end CPUs on non-Z platforms this time around.
Yeah, that part I do not get. What are they thinking with? They could get away with this without competition but with Ryzen in the picture, the memory speed limitation in particular is biting them really hard and there are no good arguments for still having it in place.
Posted on Reply
#122
Chrispy_
londiste
Yeah, that part I do not get. What are they thinking with? They could get away with this without competition but with Ryzen in the picture, the memory speed limitation in particular is biting them really hard and there are no good arguments for still having it in place.
DDR4 3600 kits are now almost as cheap as the cheapest DDR4 you can find of any speed grade, and when your B460 limits your CPU to 2666MHz then that's a lot of performance that's just thrown in the dumpster by Intel for no good reason, justified by outdated and now irrelevant pRoDuCt SeGmEnTaTiOn. When you don't have the best product and there's a shortage of all product, artificially crippling anything you offer for sale is downright stupid.
Posted on Reply
#123
R0H1T
Why? I guess none of you remember that Z chipsets actually carry a premium, not just for the privilege of using unlocked processors but also for supporting higher memory speeds! Intel's gone out of the way in blocking & bricking systems in the past where non Z OCing worked ~ yes I know it was never officially sanctioned by Intel but went on for as much as a year back in Haswell days :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#124
1d10t
But still, I don't get it why "gaming" is all that important. I mean, with nowadays game, common denominator is still a GPU. $500 CPU doesn't get anywhere near $500 GPU. Funny until the very end of this decade, people still parroting "CPU for gaming". Well I don't blame them, someone, I mean, some major company still lives in CRT era. Thanks to them, PC community are now laughing stock from console fanboy, they can do UHD 120Hz while we still debating which is faster in 720p and 1080p :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#125
londiste
1d10t
$500 CPU doesn't get anywhere near $500 GPU.
Up until 3 years ago $300 was horribly expensive for a CPU...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment