Sunday, March 7th 2021

Intel Rocket Lake Early Gaming Benchmarks Show Incremental Improvements

We have recently received some early gaming benchmarks for the upcoming Intel Core i7-11700K after German retailer MindFactory released the chip early. The creator of CapFrameX has managed to get their hands on one of these processors and has put it to the test comparing it with the Intel Core i9-10900K in some gaming benchmarks. Intel has promised double-digit IPC improvements with the new Rocket Lake generation of processors however if the results from this latest benchmark are representative of the wider picture those improvements might be a bit more modest then Intel claims.

The processors were paired with an RTX 3090 and 32 GB of 3200 MHz memory as this is the new stock maximum speed supported versus 2933 MHz on the Core i9-10900K. The two processors were put to the test in Crysis Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077, and Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, with the i7-11700K coming ahead in all three tests by ~ 2% - 9%. These tests are unverified and might not be fully representative of performance but they give us a good indication of what Intel has to offer with these new 11th generation chips.
Source: @CapFrameX
Add your own comment

69 Comments on Intel Rocket Lake Early Gaming Benchmarks Show Incremental Improvements

#3
lynx29
the problem isn't the performance, the problem is how many watts are needed to get that performance... my 5600x draws 75 watts in most games, and beats or ties this which is running at prob double the wattage... lol if not more.
Posted on Reply
#4
ZoneDymo
As we said, with Alderlake looming, Intels own 10 series (10850 for sub 400) and lets be honest, the more desirable AMD 5000 series, this better be priced properly
Posted on Reply
#7
londiste
Intel has promised double-digit IPC improvements with the new Rocket Lake generation of processors however if the results from this latest benchmark are representative of the wider picture those improvements might be a bit more modest then Intel claims.
Looking for the stated "IPC" increase in games, when has that ever been the case? SPECstuff benchmarks is probably where Intel got its increase from, it might show up in some heavy load test like Cinebench. Anandtech review shows SPECstuff increasing at various percent which may be double digit on average. Cinebench had double-digit improvement. Jury for games and whatnot is still out there and we will need to wait for proper reviews - anandtech showed mostly regression, CapFrameX results are a small improvement.
lynx29
the problem isn't the performance, the problem is how many watts are needed to get that performance... my 5600x draws 75 watts in most games, and beats or ties this which is running at prob double the wattage... lol if not more.
For gaming? Look at TPU review results - Gaming power consumption difference between 5600X and 10900K is ~30W :)
Games and non-productivity or non-science software is not using AVX2 all that much, much less AVX-512 where power consumption concerns really creep in.
Posted on Reply
#8
nguyen
lynx29
just go to the wattage page at the end of that review, you already can see who the winner is. lol
These 11th gen chips probably use around 100W under gaming workload, not 200W+. For gaming-only rig these Intel 11th gen seems pretty competent, even the 11700K is beating the 10900K
Posted on Reply
#9
watzupken
Depending on pricing, I feel this product will not entice people to upgrade given the limited improvements over the outgoing Comet Lake, existing Ryzen 5000 competition, and Intel's incoming Alder Lake.
Posted on Reply
#10
Cobain
lynx29
the problem isn't the performance, the problem is how many watts are needed to get that performance... my 5600x draws 75 watts in most games, and beats or ties this which is running at prob double the wattage... lol if not more.
Your 5600x also costs 350€ here on Europe, while 10600k uses 20watts more in gaming while being 10% behind AMD.

It costs 200€ tho, almost half.

Paying 350€+ for a 6c/12t in 2021 feels silly to me
Posted on Reply
#11
watzupken
Cobain
Your 5600x also costs 350€ here on Europe, while 10600k uses 20watts more in gaming while being 10% behind AMD.

It costs 200€ tho, almost half.

Paying 350€+ for a 6c/12t in 2021 feels silly to me
I agree that the pricing of Ryzen 5000 series isn't great at this point in time. However, I don't think you should look at the cost of the CPU in silo, considering that you will need a good Z490 board to get the most out of the 10600K, while you can make do with a cheaper B550 board for the Ryzen 5000, assuming you will be overclocking them. Even without overclocking, one can buy an A520 board to go with the 5600X with no detrimental effects to performance because RAM overclocking is still enabled on the AMD board, but not so for Intel's boards. I believe Intel relaxed ram overclocking on certain 500 series chipset now.
Posted on Reply
#12
lynx29
watzupken
I agree that the pricing of Ryzen 5000 series isn't great at this point in time. However, I don't think you should look at the cost of the CPU in silo, considering that you will need a good Z490 board to get the most out of the 10600K, while you can make do with a cheaper B550 board for the Ryzen 5000, assuming you will be overclocking them. Even without overclocking, one can buy an A520 board to go with the 5600X with no detrimental effects to performance because RAM overclocking is still enabled on the AMD board, but not so for Intel's boards. I believe Intel relaxed ram overclocking on certain 500 series chipset now.
ye have saved me time, I therefore, beseech you thus gift of never speaking in olde English again

Posted on Reply
#13
nguyen
watzupken
I agree that the pricing of Ryzen 5000 series isn't great at this point in time. However, I don't think you should look at the cost of the CPU in silo, considering that you will need a good Z490 board to get the most out of the 10600K, while you can make do with a cheaper B550 board for the Ryzen 5000, assuming you will be overclocking them. Even without overclocking, one can buy an A520 board to go with the 5600X with no detrimental effects to performance because RAM overclocking is still enabled on the AMD board, but not so for Intel's boards. I believe Intel relaxed ram overclocking on certain 500 series chipset now.
For 350e I could buy a used 9900K + Z390 board though, which I did, that blows 5600X + B550 out of the water even at stock clock. Intel entire 10th gen was sort of a joke already, hopefully the 11th gen could somehow make a comeback.
Posted on Reply
#14
john_
watzupken
I agree that the pricing of Ryzen 5000 series isn't great at this point in time.
As someone who is buying AMD CPUs the last 20 years ( an i5 4460 I had until a few months ago, landed on my hands for free, as a gift) those prices are not "not great", they are a tragedy. "Not great" where the MSRP prices of 5000 that AMD announced. In the past we where laughing at intel CPU pricing. As for mobos? You could buy a top AM3+ motherboard at 100 euros a few years ago. Today you have to go over 200 euros.
Posted on Reply
#15
lynx29
nguyen
For 350e I could buy a used 9900K + Z390 board though, which I did, that blows 5600X + B550 out of the water even at stock clock. Intel entire 10th gen was sort of a joke already, hopefully the 11th gen could somehow make a comeback.
i mean at 4k gaming, you wouldnt even be able to tell difference between that 9900k and a 2700x... but at 1080p gaming which is what I enjoy since i was 165 fps 165hz in all my games, my 5600x does indeed beat your 9900k across the board and handily.
Posted on Reply
#16
nguyen
lynx29
i mean at 4k gaming, you wouldnt even be able to tell difference between that 9900k and a 2700x... but at 1080p gaming which is what I enjoy since i was 165 fps 165hz in all my games, my 5600x does indeed beat your 9900k across the board and handily.
need sources on that claim because I checked youtube and it show the other way.
Like this one or this one (oced vs oced though)
And your 4K low FPS claim is also wrong, I can easily get 200fps+ at 4K with competitive settings in any competitive shooter game
Posted on Reply
#17
lynx29
nguyen
need sources on that claim because I checked youtube and it show the other way.
Like this one or this one (oced vs oced though)
And your 4K low FPS claim is also wrong, I can easily get 200fps+ at 4K with competitive settings in any competitive shooter game
thats great for you, I play games like AC Valhalla not competitive shooters, and those benches were done with low ram, no SAM, etc. i am running high end ram 4000 cas 16-16-16 2000:1 Infinity Fabric dual ranked (yes dual ranked matters for ryzen fps increases), and SAM on. so im pretty sure im beating 9900k. ram is important for ryzen to work its fastest
Posted on Reply
#18
nguyen
lynx29
thats great for you, I play games like AC Valhalla not competitive shooters, and those benches were done with low ram, no SAM, etc. i am running high end ram 4000 cas 16-16-16 2000:1 Infinity Fabric dual ranked (yes dual ranked matters for ryzen fps increases), and SAM on. so im pretty sure im beating 9900k. ram is important for ryzen to work its fastest
Funny thing is Intel CPUs benefit from Dual Channel Quad Ranks, high frequency RAM just as much as AMD. You can use your RAM on any Z370, Z390 and Z490 and get the same performance boost on Intel 8th, 9th and 10th gen Intel K CPU.
And resizeble bar support is coming for Z300 chipset too (well at least with MSI boards).
So yeah in any case 9900K win, not the mention the 1% low FPS which 5600X will no doubt suffer in the near future.
Posted on Reply
#19
lynx29
nguyen
Funny thing is Intel CPUs benefit from Dual Channel Quad Ranks, high frequency RAM just as much as AMD. You can use your RAM on any Z370, Z390 and Z490 and get the same performance boost on Intel 8th, 9th and 10th gen Intel K CPU.
And resizeble bar support is coming for Z300 chipset too (well at least with MSI boards).
So yeah in any case 9900K win, not the mention the 1% low FPS which 5600X will no doubt suffer in the near future.
I'd rather have slightly worse 1% lows than 500+ security patches
Posted on Reply
#20
nguyen
lynx29
I'd rather have slightly worse 1% lows than 500+ security patches
Now that another +5% boost for Intel when you remove all those security patches :roll:. All those vulnerability need physical access to your computer, which is just fear mongering at best.
Posted on Reply
#21
medi01
nguyen
All those vulnerability need physical access to your computer
No, you've mistaken it for something else.
Posted on Reply
#22
chris.london
The guy has a 10900K vs 5900X review on his site. He didn’t do any Crysis or Cyberpunk benches but here are the results for SW Jedi Fallen Order at default settings:

10900K at stock with DDR4-2933 memory
Average FPS: 105.9FPS
1% percentile: 83 FPS
(no 0.2% percentile)

New results: 108.8 and 74.8.

The hardware setup was probably the same. It is a relatively old game, no new patches, likely no driver tweaks since the original test. There is no built-in bench in this game, but CapeFrameX follows PCGH’s benchmarking guidelines, so there shouldn’t be much difference in benchmark runs.

And yet the new results show a 10% regression in minimum frame rates while average is improved by 3%.

Let’s just say I am super sceptical about the new results.
Posted on Reply
#23
lynx29
nguyen
Now that another +5% boost for Intel when you remove all those security patches :roll:. All those vulnerability need physical access to your computer, which is just fear mongering at best.
it's not a big deal, main thing is to enjoy gaming and be thankful we have anything to enjoy gaming with. i'm afraid the future is bleak for years to come, I don't see the mining craze going away this time sadly. so time to game
Posted on Reply
#24
1d10t
I'm a little confused about this benchmark, at what resolution they conduct?



Seem too low for 1080p and 1440p, but suspiciously high for UHD.
Posted on Reply
#25
ZoneDymo
nguyen
need sources on that claim because I checked youtube and it show the other way.
Like this one or this one (oced vs oced though)
And your 4K low FPS claim is also wrong, I can easily get 200fps+ at 4K with competitive settings in any competitive shooter game

?
1d10t
I'm a little confused about this benchmark, at what resolution they conduct?



Seem too low for 1080p and 1440p, but suspiciously high for UHD.
80fps on the AMD 5000 series at 1440p with a rtx3090, and in this benchmark the 10900k does 78 and the 11700k does 79.6, sooo not seen the problem here.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment