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

#176
Chrispy_
londiste
@Chrispy_, Rocket Lake is on 14nm.

10nm was too ambitious for several years but today, when competitors are already there Intel is lagging behind. 10nm was designed to be slightly denser than TSMC's 7nm. Intel supposedly game back a good bit of that density for one reason and another to get working chips out. TSMC's 5nm is clearly ahead, Samsung's 5nm is closer and more competitive today than Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.
Yes, I was replying to this post which was theorising about if Intel ever used a current process for desktop.

At the moment, 10nm is still really really broken. Intel's putting on a brave face and pretending (for the sake of its share value) that 10nm is 'much better now' with Tiger Lake laptops joining the fray, but yields are still poor, clocks scaling is too poor, quad cores are the biggest chips they can successfully produce, and their attempts to make 8-core SKUs on 10nm++ isn't going well. Feb 2020 has been pushed back twice, we're now told TGL-H series are Q1-2021 and if we don't start seeing ES sample leaks soon, followed by QS samples in March/April then you know that the Q1-2021 promise is going to be broken too.

If Intel had any confidence at all in their 10nm++ process, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions of dollars backporting Rocket lake to 14nm+++. Low-end Tiger lake at least makes sense for laptops because even with terrible yields and production problems, having a shipping product on 10nm++ gives investors a reason to stick with Intel.
londiste
Intel's comparable 7nm, which we have heard almost nothing about.
Yeah, news about Intel 7nm is just tumbleweed at the moment. I really hope they're being less ambitious and just get a half-decent process out so that they can lay 14nm+++ to rest (or at least free up 14nm capacity to make ultra-cheap Celeron/Pentium Silver CPUs, Chipsets, and less density-critical products like ethernet and wifi controllers)
Posted on Reply
#177
milewski1015
RandallFlagg
Look at NewEgg in the image below, Nvidia 16XX series, sorted lowest cost, any vendor - DG1 and DG2 will be a welcome addition in this environment.

They knew what they were doing when they decided to start making those cards at this point in time.




Don't get me wrong, they'd be welcomed with open arms - a third competitor in the GPU space would hopefully shake the game up enough so that it's not what it is now. Maybe I don't have all the information (will have to do some Intel dGPU reading), but the last I heard (aside from the article this morning talking about DG2 with 8GB DDR6) was that their dGPU performed similarly to Vega 8/11.

I should probably refine my statement a little. I could see Intel releasing a "capable" 1080p dGPU sometime this year. But they aren't going to be able to compete at the mid-range/high-end obviously. I predict something in the ballpark of 1660 performance. I'm afraid they're going to have to try and compete on price though, and we've seen how much Intel loves to do that /s. With the lower-end of Nvidia's Ampere line rumored to be DLSS-capable, that makes it harder for Intel to compete on the performance side of things. That said, if they can just be available, that'll be most competitive of all.
Posted on Reply
#178
RandallFlagg
milewski1015
Don't get me wrong, they'd be welcomed with open arms - a third competitor in the GPU space would hopefully shake the game up enough so that it's not what it is now. Maybe I don't have all the information (will have to do some Intel dGPU reading), but the last I heard (aside from the article this morning talking about DG2 with 8GB DDR6) was that their dGPU performed similarly to Vega 8/11.

I should probably refine my statement a little. I could see Intel releasing a "capable" 1080p dGPU sometime this year. But they aren't going to be able to compete at the mid-range/high-end obviously. I predict something in the ballpark of 1660 performance. I'm afraid they're going to have to try and compete on price though, and we've seen how much Intel loves to do that /s. With the lower-end of Nvidia's Ampere line rumored to be DLSS-capable, that makes it harder for Intel to compete on the performance side of things. That said, if they can just be available, that'll be most competitive of all.
On Intel GPUs - just depends on what we call mid range or high end I think.

I would be very unlikely to buy an Intel dGPU this year because as stated, they probably won't be high end enough for me (RTX 2060).

But I get the impression that normal joes are scrambling for scraps, it's a world where an RX 570 commands $200 and a 1650 is north of $250. Many people will give up on desktops because of this, and some will give up on PC gaming entirely. With the price of these desktop GPUs right now, anyone buying a whole new rig would be well advised to get a laptop instead. It's actually cheaper than trying to get a desktop with a decent GPU.

So the DG1 is unabashedly low end (RX 550 / MX330 level), but the DG2 looks to be at least 4x faster which would put it into the 1650 Super range. It may even rank up with a 1660 given that we have only seen early samples.

And if Intel sells enough of them, maybe they will make a new fab just for GPUs. Like the CPU market, if you need something Intel has it. That supply is invaluable even if you are an AMD acolyte. Imagine what a CPU, of any brand, would cost if Intel decided to shutter half its fabs. $5000 Zen 3 anyone?
Posted on Reply
#179
milewski1015
RandallFlagg
On Intel GPUs - just depends on what we call mid range or high end I think.

I would be very unlikely to buy an Intel dGPU this year because as stated, they probably won't be high end enough for me (RTX 2060).
For sure. Those terms are very subjective and dependent on perspective. I'm not in the market (my 5700XT is still doing just fine, although raytracing and DLSS are tempting), but even if I was I wouldn't spring for an Intel dGPU - don't want to be an early adopter for such a new product that will likely significantly improve year over year.
RandallFlagg
But I get the impression that normal joes are scrambling for scraps, it's a world where an RX 570 commands $200 and a 1650 is north of $250. Many people will give up on desktops because of this, and some will give up on PC gaming entirely. With the price of these desktop GPUs right now, anyone buying a whole new rig would be well advised to get a laptop instead. It's actually cheaper than trying to get a desktop with a decent GPU.
Agreed. If the new console availability wasn't also awful, they wouldn't be a bad option either if all you're looking to do is game. Obviously that's not PC gaming, but it's hard to beat the experience they can offer for the price (MSRP that is). My buddy (that I tried to get to build a gaming rig probably about a year ago) just mentioned to me the other day he wouldn't mind having a PC to run a few games. Wants to hook it up to his 4K TV. I asked what his budget was and he hit me with $500 lol. Even if prices and availability weren't insane right now there's no way $500 gets you a 4K gaming rig. He said he could bump up to $1000, but even then it'd be hard.
Posted on Reply
#180
RandallFlagg
Something perhaps humorous to the earlier topic.

I've given up on conventional methods of finding one of the new GPUs, so I've installed a scraper and run it to see when cards are in stock. I'm running two sessions, each one hits two differrent stores.

So those things put a hefty load on my PC and it's pretty sustained.

So a funny thought crossed my mind that maybe I should get a new CPU, so I can run more bots, so I can find a GPU.

Sign of the times maybe.

Posted on Reply
#181
Toretobcn
What a shame, I could not reach it, I have the 10900k at 55/54 and I do 665 points in cpuz!

The monocore performance of IPC is much better!
Posted on Reply
#182
Adam Krazispeed
AnarchoPrimitiv
Mark my words, Zen3+/XT series release will come soon after Intel's release to take the single thread crown back... Might even be on the 7nm EUV improved node
Zen3 & RDNA2 Waz also supposed to be on 7nm+ W/ EUV?? Well AMD didn't use 7nm w/EUV (BASTERDS) So why do you think Zen3+ / XT CPUs will be. Yeah id love to see that but i doubt it and we wont be able to buy em anyway :(
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment