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

#126
Cobain
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:
Because PC gaming market has a LOT of players using high refresh rate monitors and very high framerates to play multiplayer games like Apex legends, fortnite, Warzone, pubg, valorant, etc etc. Having a locked 200fps (or more) is great for smooth aiming and low input lag with a Mouse.

Then se have single player gamers where I personally can Cope with a locked synched 60fps without any problema with good eye candy depending on the game.

PC gaming is not all about 4k and textures. Many type of gamers, many experiences.

I like to play RTS games a lot and I do prefer a smooth Mouse behaviour to Control all units and explore the map. And I do prefer high framerates on that type of game, compared to 60hz/60fps
Posted on Reply
#127
sepheronx
Both are fine.

I go for whatever is price to performance. Intel, believe it or not, has a good price to performance ratio at the moment. A 10400F can be had here for about $200 brand new while 3600 (non x) is $300. The 10400f does perform better on average. The 5600 is a fantastic processor but rather expensive and not available here. Motherboard prices are also through the roof but all in all, a good b460 or z490 can be had at similar price to what AM4 has.

I'm not a fan of how rocket lake looks in that it has only 8c/16t max and integrated GPU. It's a waste imo.
Posted on Reply
#128
RandallFlagg
AusWolf
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.
Well, if steam survey is representative (and it's probably over representative, by a wide margin) then > 8 cores amounts to under 1.5% of the market. Since there are boatloads of corporate PCs with zero exposure on Steam, not to mention tons of cheap PCs sold to non gamers and non enthusiasts, that's probably a way high number.

In other words, even within the enthusiast / gaming segment there aren't that many people using > 8 cores, and those 10+ core segments are not growing much. 6 and 8 core are the ones that are growing.

If they wanted to compete in core count for this segment of DIY/enthusiast/gamers they need do nothing more than drop the iGPU, something AMD doesn't have and which takes up 1/3 of the die on a 10700K and about 1/4 on a 10900K.

The fact they aren't doing that and are actually going the other way (bigger / faster iGPU) illustrates where their priority is - the big OEMs. That is Intel's real primary customer, and those 4650 Zen 2 APUs haven't really made a dent in that.

Intel has had 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core 14nm X-Series since gen 7 for those that really want big core counts. Those are labelled as their enthusiast chips to start with, and they don't have iGPU. It will be interesting if rocket lake makes it into those.
Posted on Reply
#129
londiste
sepheronx
I go for whatever is price to performance. Intel, believe it or not, has a good price to performance ratio at the moment. A 10400F can be had here for about $200 brand new while 3600 (non x) is $300. The 10400f does perform better on average.
10400F (at ~145€) is about half the price of 5600X (~300€) at the moment, at least in Europe. It does not perform better, both lower IPC and runs at lower clocks but the performance cap it has (while lower than 5600X's) is high enough that GPU you need to exceed the cap on higher resolutions is in a whole different price range. Basically it is the exact same argument Ryzen 1000/2000 (and partially 3000) had :)
RandallFlagg
If they wanted to compete in core count for this segment of DIY/enthusiast/gamers they need do nothing more than drop the iGPU, something AMD doesn't have and which takes up 1/3 of the die on a 10700K and about 1/4 on a 10900K.

The fact they aren't doing that and are actually going the other way (bigger / faster iGPU) illustrates where their priority is - the big OEMs. That is Intel's real primary customer, and those 4650 Zen 2 APUs haven't really made a dent in that.
In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.

That additional die space is not useful for more cores in Intel's case anyway, the amount of cores is limited primarily by power.
Posted on Reply
#130
dirtyferret
1d10t
I mean, with nowadays game, common denominator is still a GPU.
Nowadays? The GPU has always been the dominant factor when it comes to gaming. The rest is a bunch of people having a zero sum argument about who has the right or wrong part in their PC based on benchmarks they may not be able to achieve or even see with their current set up and by the time they can achieve and see said benchmarks they will have moved on to a new platform.
Posted on Reply
#131
RandallFlagg
londiste
In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.
I think it is there because the OEMs want it, not because it's useful to DIY / enthusiasts. I always point out, 85% of the PCs sold are those big OEMs, and 2/3 of the client PC market is laptops. From what I can tell, the number of discrete GPUs sold even this past year where they've sold gangbusters is less than 10% of the number of CPUs sold.

That would imply that something over 90% of all client PCs are running an iGPU or AMD APU.

What I'm saying is that PCs with a dGPU are actually a small market segment. I wouldn't call it "niche", but catering to the < 10% has hidden costs. It's probably just not cost effective to split production up that way, plus the iGPU has uses even in the presence of a dGPU. Strategically, making sure that iGPU is there in 99% of situations helps them maintain developer support. This may be even more of a factor beyond encoding / streaming uses with AI coming into play.
Posted on Reply
#132
dirtyferret
RandallFlagg
Well, if steam survey is representative (and it's probably over representative, by a wide margin) then > 8 cores amounts to under 1.5% of the market. Since there are boatloads of corporate PCs with zero exposure on Steam, not to mention tons of cheap PCs sold to non gamers and non enthusiasts, that's probably a way high number.
The majority of people still game at 1080p with a 60 refresh rate. I post on some game sites in their hardware sections and for every person looking to do a build to run the game at max levels there is a person posting trying to get the game to work at the lowest levels. It's easy to look at our builds on the forum and think everyone has something similar but we are the enthusiasts of the PC world not the norm.
Posted on Reply
#134
sepheronx
londiste
10400F (at ~145€) is about half the price of 5600X (~300€) at the moment, at least in Europe. It does not perform better, both lower IPC and runs at lower clocks but the performance cap it has (while lower than 5600X's) is high enough that GPU you need to exceed the cap on higher resolutions is in a whole different price range. Basically it is the exact same argument Ryzen 1000/2000 (and partially 3000) had :)


In addition to OEM targets and actually not creating too many different dies, why not have iGPU? It is genuinely a value-add. It does not limit performance in any significant way and the only downside is some additional production cost (which may or may not transfer directly to consumer). The fact that AMD doesn't have one is probably a good motivation to keep it.

That additional die space is not useful for more cores in Intel's case anyway, the amount of cores is limited primarily by power.
But I am not wrong in saying it performs better than 3600 which is my statement.

Hence why to me it is a far better buy at this point in time. Cheaper than 3600, 5600 isn't available and its price is over $400 here in Canada (ranges from $400 if you buy bulk to $450).

iGPU is a waste on the die for higher end models. I doubt it is limited by power for those cores. I understand people do want a igpu but the same people spending on anything higher than a 10600 is probably going to have a dgpu already, and that is with prebuild companies (Acer and the like). Never seen ones here in Canada that has a 10600 and that doesn't have a dgpu.
Posted on Reply
#135
RandallFlagg
sepheronx
But I am not wrong in saying it performs better than 3600 which is my statement.

Hence why to me it is a far better buy at this point in time. Cheaper than 3600, 5600 isn't available and its price is over $400 here in Canada (ranges from $400 if you buy bulk to $450).

iGPU is a waste on the die for higher end models. I doubt it is limited by power for those cores. I understand people do want a igpu but the same people spending on anything higher than a 10600 is probably going to have a dgpu already, and that is with prebuild companies (Acer and the like). Never seen ones here in Canada that has a 10600 and that doesn't have a dgpu.
There are tons of iGPU systems being sold so saying you've never seen a 10600+ without a dGPU is kinda hyperbolic. I just pulled up the #1 selling i7 desktop at Best Buy and it is an HP Envy with a 10700 and uses an iGPU. #2 has a dGPU, but #3-6 are iGPU 10700's.

For gaming, unless you have a 2070 Super or higher higher any cores beyond 6 with performance beyond a 10400 or R5 3600 is a complete waste. Most of what is selling right now is the 1660 Super / Ti. You can occupy one of those just fine with an i3-10100.
Posted on Reply
#136
Chrispy_
1d10t
But still, I don't get it why "gaming" is all that important.
It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.

That tiny, insignificant Intel advantage right here:

....is literally the only thing good about Intel right now. That is the one, the only, performance win Intel have, if you can even call it relevant enough to be a win. It's almost completely irrelevant, it's extremely petty, and it's very misleading if you look at it in isolation.

But, it's all they've got. They're flogging this dead horse so hard that there's almost nothing left of the original corpse at this point and every time an Intel fanboy swallows that misleading info and goes on a rabid crusade about how Intel are still faster than AMD, it is another victory for Intel's marketing department. All they have to do is ignore the stupid platform segmentation, the costs, the security vulnerabilities, the power consumption, the cooling requirements, the productivity performance, the missing platform features, the lack of upgradeability, the list of negatives that fanboys simply don't talk about because they've swallowed the Intel marketing is so huge that you basically need to be oblivious to fact and so closed-minded as to be deaf to any and all arguments :P
Posted on Reply
#137
sepheronx
RandallFlagg
There are tons of iGPU systems being sold so saying you've never seen a 10600+ without a dGPU is kinda hyperbolic. I just pulled up the #1 selling i7 desktop at Best Buy and it is an HP Envy with a 10700 and uses an iGPU. #2 has a dGPU, but #3-6 are iGPU 10700's.

For gaming, unless you have a 2070 Super or higher higher any cores beyond 6 with performance beyond a 10400 or R5 3600 is a complete waste. Most of what is selling right now is the 1660 Super / Ti. You can occupy one of those just fine with an i3-10100.
I checked back and couldn't find any link you provided regarding it. So I apologize if I have missed it.

It is possible outside of Canada such machines are very popular but that is a terrible deal all in its own to pair such a wonky setup. I know OEM's are rather much like that were they do odd pairings or setups altogether. I just never recommend those setups to anybody who orders from me. I tell them if they are to game, a dgpu is more important than the cpu. Office machines do not need a high end processor. At my other job, I have to do heavy cpu work with various scripts we build to automate processes. Most of it works fine with very little difference in performance between using a i3 and an i7. So a build where there is an i7 and a iGPU always left me scratching my head.

And yes, I agree with your second point.
Posted on Reply
#138
londiste
Chrispy_
It's not any more important than non-gaming, it's just a topic of contention because Intel have been losing to AMD so catastrophically in every other metric for the last few years that "gaming" is all they have left and they're constantly banging that drum with FUD and distraction tactics. Their PR department is running in overdrive, sponsoring videos, branding products, and focusing on Intel's gaming prowess over AMD.
This is an interesting point of view. And I would argue at least for Intel 10-series vs Ryzen 3000 and earlier you are wrong. Something like 10400F vs 3600, 10600K vs 3600X, 10700K vs 3700X shows they are about on par with performance, about the same price and Intel was actually cheaper before Ryzen 3000 got really cheap in anticipation of Ryzen 5000. What Intel was and is losing at is power consumption.

Where AMD really got ahead is Ryzen 5000 which is a very recent development and comes at a price. While prices may vary in regions, EU prices seem to be at least on par with performance difference.
10600K is about 225€ right now, full 25% cheaper than 5600X - the cheapest Ryzen 5000 - at 300€.
10700 is ~300€ with 10700K at 350€, 33% and 22% cheaper than 5800X. There is even a 10c/20t 10850K at ~425€ that is slightly cheaper than 5800X.

The other part where Intel clearly does not have an answer is 12/16 core CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#139
DemonicRyzen666
low
Haha ... this was made with special watercooling maybe outside. At Stock this 11900k is faster than ryzen 5950x at stock. With OC this 11900k is the fastest SC CPU.

Here is the problem: you have to pay again 550 Bucks for this i9 with only 8 cores. At the end of the year you will see Alderlake (new socket1700, new DDR5, maybe PCI-E 5.0).
he also has it at 713 too. You're right about pricing
I just hope they don't try to price the thing around the 5950x's price that would be an awful mistake from intel. I could seem them doing this because it's "The fastest gaming CPU"
edit: my notification on here are awful slow lately :/
Posted on Reply
#140
ThrashZone
Hi,
AMD 30 series prices dropped mostly because amd flooded the market
If they do the same with 50 series the same will happen retail stores don't care they just don't want to be stuck with old series stock.

Intel has the best price drops atm with a lot in stock
Even amd 30 series back up in price because no 50 series are in stock.
Posted on Reply
#141
sepheronx
I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles. If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490. If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.
Posted on Reply
#142
ThrashZone
sepheronx
I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles. If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490. If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.
Hi,
Canada yeah I looked at micro center stock 10900k down to 499.us
Maybe check out B&H before
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/CPUs/ci/19865/N/3835434461
Posted on Reply
#143
dirtyferret
sepheronx
I am just waiting on to see if there is a clear difference in gaming with PCI-e 4.0 vs 3.0 with NVME in the future due to texture streaming being pushed for consoles. If there is, then I can upgrade with my existing z490. If there isn't and it doesn't matter between the two PCIe's, then I am just gonna buy a 10900 ES chip from Aliexpress for cheap.
You will be waiting a while
Posted on Reply
#144
phanbuey
Chrispy_
But, it's all they've got. They're flogging this dead horse so hard that there's almost nothing left of the original corpse at this point and every time an Intel fanboy swallows that misleading info and goes on a rabid crusade about how Intel are still faster than AMD, it is another victory for Intel's marketing department. All they have to do is ignore the stupid platform segmentation, the costs, the security vulnerabilities, the power consumption, the cooling requirements, the productivity performance, the missing platform features, the lack of upgradeability, the list of negatives that fanboys simply don't talk about because they've swallowed the Intel marketing is so huge that you basically need to be oblivious to fact and so closed-minded as to be deaf to any and all arguments :p
Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)

I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.


That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.

AMD on the other hand....
Posted on Reply
#145
ThrashZone
Hi,
Yep amd prices are high still so is their single core scores though lol
Posted on Reply
#146
phanbuey
ThrashZone
Hi,
Yep amd prices are high still so is their single core scores though lol
Yeah they are seriously awesome -- just not enough supply.
Posted on Reply
#147
sepheronx
dirtyferret
You will be waiting a while
That is what I'm also thinking. That the difference will be nothing. But I tend to upgrade every 5 or so years.
Posted on Reply
#148
TheinsanegamerN
fancucker
For me this is truly representative of superior performance because ST + 8 cores remain the optimal configuration. Most of AMD's success is build upon the 10nm failure and not genuine architectural innovation.
Hmmm.....

www.techpowerup.com/276250/the-ultimate-zen-amds-zen-3-achieves-89-higher-performance-than-first-generation-zen

Do you enjoy being ignorant? It's pretty obvious that AMD had made a number of massive architectural leaps the last 4 years, and that is very simple to measure.

Meanwhile, at intel HQ, they are FINALLY moving away from haswell+++++ and are going to Rocketlake, which is STILL on 14nm +++. It would appear that it is intel, not AMD, who have utterly failed at architectural upgrades and are relying on absurd clock speeds and heat output to compete.
Posted on Reply
#149
ThrashZone
Hi,
Think all Intel releases qualify as Lavalakes lol
Posted on Reply
#150
Chrispy_
londiste
This is an interesting point of view. And I would argue at least for Intel 10-series vs Ryzen 3000 and earlier you are wrong. Something like 10400F vs 3600, 10600K vs 3600X, 10700K vs 3700X shows they are about on par with performance, about the same price and Intel was actually cheaper before Ryzen 3000 got really cheap in anticipation of Ryzen 5000. What Intel was and is losing at is power consumption.

Where AMD really got ahead is Ryzen 5000 which is a very recent development and comes at a price. While prices may vary in regions, EU prices seem to be at least on par with performance difference.
10600K is about 225€ right now, full 25% cheaper than 5600X - the cheapest Ryzen 5000 - at 300€.
10700 is ~300€ with 10700K at 350€, 33% and 22% cheaper than 5800X. There is even a 10c/20t 10850K at ~425€ that is slightly cheaper than 5800X.

The other part where Intel clearly does not have an answer is 12/16 core CPUs.
The 10400F vs 3600 - the 3600 is significantly faster than the 10400F on 2666MHz RAM in most of the non-gaming tests. There's no argument in games, Zen 2 closed the gaming gap to intel but only fanboys are going to tell you Zen2 was better. Reviews paint Zen 2 as closer to Coffee Lake for gaming.

The 3600X is pointless because the vanilla 3600 and a basic B450 board are already both unlocked and restriction free. The 3600X wasn't competitive or a sensible option even in an AMD vacuum, so I'm not even going to attempt to defend it against Intel.

For the overlap period of the 10700K and Zen2, the 3900X has always been the closest price match to the 10700K and that ignores the mandatory Z-series chipset tax at ~$50:
camelcamelcamel.com/product/B086ML4XSB matches the $420 of a 3900X at the same time, and most reviews of the 10700K mentioned/paired the 3900X as the AMD competition to the 10700K.

So, in the comparisons you just made, yes - Intel were about on par with performance, but those comparisons never happened because Ryzen was out in the market a full year before 10th Gen Intel and by the time 10th Gen launched, Ryzen 9 was priced at parity with i7 and i5K + Z490 tax was more expensive than 3700X. Price trackers and launch reviews of the 10-series confirm that.
phanbuey
Actually, what they got is cheap multi-core chips in stock... the 10850K and a 10700K are dirt cheap and awesome for gaming (since there's almost no difference between the top chips anyways.)

I was able to snag a 10 core 10850k for $380 and you can still pick it up for $400.


That's basically a $400 10900K... less than the cost of a 5800x, and in stock, ready to ship.

AMD on the other hand....

Can't argue with that; If you need to buy a CPU right now, then the product that's out of stock everywhere is automatically eliminated from the competition.

Before the buying frenzy and subsequent availability/scalping problems muddied the water, I didn't really like the 10850K because of the overall cost; It's not $400, it's $400 plus an expensive $200 Z-series board that can handle a 250W PL2 limit plus the necessary ~$100 of AIO. $675 for 10 cores against $420 for 3900X with a pretty decent cooler and $95 for a perfectly decent B550 board (DS3H or A-Pro are fine for a 3950X). That leaves $160 more in your wallet, a much cooler more efficient CPU, and you get PCIe 4.0 as a bonus if that matters to your workloads.

For gaming, sure - the 10850 is potentially better than a 3900X if you're running at super low res on a high-end GPU, but for gaming you don't need an i9 or a Ryzen 9, you should be allocating as much of your budget as you can to the GPU instead, or holding off to see whether Rocket Lake availability and pricing is any better than Zen3, assuming it's still not going to be "normal" by then!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment