Wednesday, January 27th 2021

Intel "Rocket Lake-S" i9-11900K, i7-11700K, and i5-11600K Specs Confirmed, Native DDR4-3200 Support

A leaked marketing slide from MSI Japan confirmed specifications of three 11th Gen Core "Rocket Lake-S" desktop processors that gamers and enthusiasts have their eyes on—the flagship Core i9-11900K, the next-best Core i7-11700K, and the performance-segment Core i5-11600K. The slides confirm that both the i9-11900K and i7-11700K are 8-core/16-thread parts, while the i5-11600K is 6-core/12-thread. With the "Rocket Lake-S" die capping out at 8 cores, Intel's product managers have lesser wiggle room to segment the Core i7 part from the Core i9 flagship.

The i9-11900K comes with a base frequency of 3.50 GHz, Turbo Boost 2.0 frequency of 5.10 GHz, Turbo Boost Max 3.0 frequency of 5.20 GHz, and Thermal Velocity Boost frequency of 5.30 GHz. Its all-core boost frequency is 4.80 GHz. The i7-11700K, on the other hand, lacks TVB. It ticks at 3.60 GHz base, 4.90 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, and 5.00 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0. The i5-11600K lacks Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and TVB, it does 3.90 GHz base, with 4.90 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0. The Core i9 and Core i7 parts are joined at the hip with not just identical core counts, but also the same amount of L3 cache, at 16 MB. The i5 comes with 12 MB. All three Unlocked "K" SKUs come with native support for DDR4-3200 memory frequency, and their TDP is rated at 125 W. Intel is expected to launch these processors by late-March, 2021.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

28 Comments on Intel "Rocket Lake-S" i9-11900K, i7-11700K, and i5-11600K Specs Confirmed, Native DDR4-3200 Support

#1
Flanker
Next generation i5/i7/i9's will all have 6 cores at this rate
Posted on Reply
#2
ViperXTR
is there a reason to get the i9 11900K at all?

Edit: In comparison to the i7 11700K
Posted on Reply
#3
Punkenjoy
Well Zen 3 already show that faster core are better than more core in many situation and even more in gaming (up to a point, indeed).

But in this case, we will have to see how Intel managed to control the thermal and power requirement. It still 14nm after all.
Posted on Reply
#4
Cobain
I hope 11600k doesnt exceed 270€, want to pair One with a z490 2nd hand mobo. I refuse to pay 350€ for a 6 Core (5600x) in 2021.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mats
ViperXTR
is there a reason to get the i9 11900K at all?
- You must update to every new Intel generation because OCD.
- You want to upgrade your LGA 1200.
- You hate AMD, and stuff like that.
- You don't know what to do with all your money.
- September is several days from now.
- You must have the latest, regardless.
- You love the smell of mature 14 nm in the morning.
- You need a new one since the FBI took your machine last week.
Posted on Reply
#6
Post Nut Clairvoyance
Mats
- You must update to every new Intel generation because OCD.
- You want to upgrade your LGA 1200.
- You hate AMD, and stuff like that.
- You don't know what to do with all your money.
- September is several days from now.
- You must have the latest, regardless.
- You love the smell of mature 14 nm in the morning.
- You need a new one since the FBI took your machine last week.
(X) You need a new one since the FBI took your machine last week.

well, there are no bad products, just bad prices. I’ll take the 6 month wait and check in then. Hopefully cheaper than AMD (heh)
Posted on Reply
#7
hardcore_gamer
ViperXTR
is there a reason to get the i9 11900K at all?
Yup, if

1. Priced below / comparable to AMD's offerings
2. You don't care about high power consumption/cooling requirements
3. You do care about a 4-5% increase in framerates
Posted on Reply
#8
phanbuey
ehhhh... fewer cores and less cache... yes they are faster cores but... more stuff is going to be MT now more than ever and these are actually slower than the last gen in MT.

They really should have released a 10 core part for enthusiasts, who cares if it was a 150W part

Unless these are priced at $330-$350 and I can sell my current proc for at least $200 maybe... but even then I'm not even sure it's worth the effort. And Alder lake is a few months away...

This might be up there with the 7700K for the most pointless release ever, if the leaked gaming benches hold true.
Posted on Reply
#9
sepheronx
I think I will stick with my 10500ES till I can find a cheap 10900K or something.
Posted on Reply
#10
ViperXTR
Mats
- You must update to every new Intel generation because OCD.
- You want to upgrade your LGA 1200.
- You hate AMD, and stuff like that.
- You don't know what to do with all your money.
- September is several days from now.
- You must have the latest, regardless.
- You love the smell of mature 14 nm in the morning.
- You need a new one since the FBI took your machine last week.
Post Nut Clairvoyance
(X) You need a new one since the FBI took your machine last week.

well, there are no bad products, just bad prices. I’ll take the 6 month wait and check in then. Hopefully cheaper than AMD (heh)
hardcore_gamer
Yup, if

1. Priced below / comparable to AMD's offerings
2. You don't care about high power consumption/cooling requirements
3. You do care about a 4-5% increase in framerates
Sorry, should have added the i7 11700K, i mean why would anyone bother with 11900K if the 11700K exists, the only difference seems to be the Thermal Velocity boost, can't you at least OC the 11700K at least close to the ones 11900K is getting?
Posted on Reply
#11
blu3dragon
ViperXTR
Sorry, should have added the i7 11700K, i mean why would anyone bother with 11900K if the 11700K exists, the only difference seems to be the Thermal Velocity boost, can't you at least OC the 11700K at least close to the ones 11900K is getting?
If it's anything like the 10900k then the 11900k will be a better bin than the 11700k and use a little less power / oc a little higher as a result. So, for those that need the last 100-200Mhz it will be the one to get. For everyone else, there's the 11700k (or maybe even an 11700).

The thing that doesn't make sense is why the 11700k has a 100mhz higher base frequency than the 11900k. That could be a typo.
Posted on Reply
#12
tfdsaf
So less cores, less cache, from leaks its slower in multithreaded and costs as much as a 10900k with 2 more cores for just 4-5% faster single threaded performance. WOW! Intel doesn't deserve ANY sale they get. They deserve to go bankrupt, even when losing in all aspects to AMD, they still have the audacity to release shitty processors at overpriced prices.
Posted on Reply
#13
1d10t
Grab your 10900K now before scalpers do!
Posted on Reply
#14
ZoneDymo
ViperXTR
is there a reason to get the i9 11900K at all?

Edit: In comparison to the i7 11700K
the artificial lock out of thermal velocity boost I guess? idk, not really no
Posted on Reply
#15
beautyless
They have changed architecture and this is not a small improvement.
Posted on Reply
#16
watzupken
hardcore_gamer
Yup, if

1. Priced below / comparable to AMD's offerings
2. You don't care about high power consumption/cooling requirements
3. You do care about a 4-5% increase in framerates
Actually, the prices of Intel processors are only 1 part of the actual ownership cost. To really make the most of these high end i7/i9 chips, you need a good Z series board which costs a lot since the chip are supposed to draw 250W. Whereas you can buy a mid range AM4 motherboard, and be able to overclock and run even the Ryzen 9 processor well. I will not factor in cooling because while the Intel processors are likely going to be very difficult to cool, you will need to get a decent cooler for AMD's processors as well since the higher end Ryzen 7 and 9 no longer comes with a stock cooler.
ViperXTR
is there a reason to get the i9 11900K at all?

Edit: In comparison to the i7 11700K
For most people, no. If you want the best bin to squeeze every single Mhz out of it, then you will want to get the 11900K. But again, the gains will be negligible and only useful to show a higher benchmark number. Even that extra 100MHz from the thermal velocity boost is not going to add a lot of value, not to mention you will probably need some kind of high end custom cooler to have the thermal headroom for the boost to happen. 250W is a lot of heat to move.
beautyless
They have changed architecture and this is not a small improvement.

Single core performance defintely improved. But if you are using an application that likes more cores, then the 10900K is still going to be better. Interestingly from the image you shared, there is no improvement in the 4 cores comparison, and as number of cores increases, the gap seems to become smaller.
Posted on Reply
#17
Mats
beautyless
They have changed architecture and this is not a small improvement.
Yup, for the first time since 2015, so that's exciting.

What's not exciting is:

- Still on 14 nm (but yeah, we don't know what that means in terms of performance).
- Fewer cores (not an issue for everyone tho).
- Gets replaced within 6 months, kind of implying that Intel don't believe in it.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
So.... Intel has a spec sheet for 11th gen that looks worse than the model it succeeds.

Nice. That's gotta be some really special architecture... oh wait, its not.
beautyless
They have changed architecture and this is not a small improvement.

Theoretically not. Practically? Whatever. They lost core count and frequency to end up 7% higher. Somebody explain the madness here, this is what a salvaged backport looks like. Not something that is meant to last.

They actually had to lose cores to get their performance at that clock, so what really happened here is they took another architecture way out of its comfort zone and maxed it within a very high TDP budget. Its so end-of-the-line already that they even run it for only six months. Even Intel doesn't believe in incrementally improving this. Their node just won't do more.

The fact they're still selling this as K-CPUs is the cherry on top, maybe they'll bundle a printout of the famous Intel forum post saying 'don't OC too much now'. Realistically all K stands for now is Intel already maxed out the clock for you, in the most scrapyard-style way they could. Burst to oblivion and boom back to baseclock. That's fine if you have thermal headroom, but when you don't...
Posted on Reply
#19
ViperXTR
watzupken
Actually, the prices of Intel processors are only 1 part of the actual ownership cost. To really make the most of these high end i7/i9 chips, you need a good Z series board which costs a lot since the chip are supposed to draw 250W. Whereas you can buy a mid range AM4 motherboard, and be able to overclock and run even the Ryzen 9 processor well. I will not factor in cooling because while the Intel processors are likely going to be very difficult to cool, you will need to get a decent cooler for AMD's processors as well since the higher end Ryzen 7 and 9 no longer comes with a stock cooler.


For most people, no. If you want the best bin to squeeze every single Mhz out of it, then you will want to get the 11900K. But again, the gains will be negligible and only useful to show a higher benchmark number. Even that extra 100MHz from the thermal velocity boost is not going to add a lot of value, not to mention you will probably need some kind of high end custom cooler to have the thermal headroom for the boost to happen. 250W is a lot of heat to move.


Single core performance defintely improved. But if you are using an application that likes more cores, then the 10900K is still going to be better. Interestingly from the image you shared, there is no improvement in the 4 cores comparison, and as number of cores increases, the gap seems to become smaller.
Didn't they demo this TEC cooler on their chips last time
Posted on Reply
#20
Durvelle27
So next gen i9 is already DOA

Better off getting a i7 and Overclocking it
Posted on Reply
#21
xSneak
I'm excited to see what the memory controller can do on these cpus. I bought some nice memory for my 5800x but it was really wasted since amd didn't update their imc.
These should really blow out amd in gaming when paired with some 4000+ mhz memory.
Posted on Reply
#22
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
tfdsaf
So less cores, less cache, from leaks its slower in multithreaded and costs as much as a 10900k with 2 more cores for just 4-5% faster single threaded performance. WOW! Intel doesn't deserve ANY sale they get. They deserve to go bankrupt, even when losing in all aspects to AMD, they still have the audacity to release shitty processors at overpriced prices.
Yeah, good idea. Lets just hope the only competition to AMD goes bankrupt....

The f*** inflammatory posts these days towards Intel is ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
#23
ZoneDymo
MxPhenom 216
Yeah, good idea. Lets just hope the only competition to AMD goes bankrupt....

The f*** inflammatory posts these days towards Intel is ridiculous.
calm down man, if anything people are frustrated Intel is not doing way worse then they are, because they do deserve to do way worse atm.
Posted on Reply
#24
bug
Everyone just relax. These are just for show. Intel wants to get people talking about their upcoming core design, they don't actually want to sell a lot of them.
Just wait for benchmarks, see where it lands and then move on.
Posted on Reply
#25
Mats
MxPhenom 216
The f*** inflammatory posts these days towards Intel is ridiculous.
The FACT that Intel keeps rocket lake on life support for a whopping six months is just as inflammatory.

Alder Lake, on the other hand, is much more interesting simply because it's replacing rocket so soon.
bug
[...] ...and then move on.
Just like Intel! Cheers.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment