Wednesday, March 10th 2021

Intel Core i9 and Core i7 "Rocket Lake" Lineup Leaked, Claims Beating Ryzen 9 5900X

Intel is planning to debut its 11th Generation Core "Rocket Lake-S" desktop processor family with a fairly large selection of SKUs, according to leaked company slides shared by VideoCardz, which appear to be coming from the same source as an earlier report from today that talk about double-digit percent gaming performance gains over the previous generation. Just the Core i9 and Core i7 series add up to 10 SKUs between them. These include unlocked- and iGPU-enabled "K" SKUs, unlocked but iGPU-disabled "KF," locked but iGPU-enabled parts, and locked and iGPU-disabled "F" parts.

With "Rocket Lake-S," Intel appears to have hit a ceiling with the number of CPU cores it can cram onto a die alongside an iGPU, on the 75 mm x 75 mm LGA package, while retaining its 14 nm silicon fabrication node. Both the Core i9-11900 series and the Core i7-10700 series are 8-core/16-thread parts, with an identical amount of cache. They are differentiated on the basis of clock speeds as tabled below, and the lack of the Thermal Velocity Boost feature on the Core i7 parts. The Core i5 series "Rocket Lake-S" parts are reportedly 6-core/12-thread.
Some additional game performance slides were leaked to the web. The first one below (also posted earlier today), deals with comparisons between the i9-11900K and the previous-generation flagship, the 10-core i9-10900K. The second slide deals with i9-11900K compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-core processor, where it's claiming anywhere between 2% to 8% performance gains, across a broader selection of games than the comparison to the i9-10900K. The performance lead gets higher with multi-threaded strategy games like "Total War," but slims down to 2% with first-person/third-person games such as "Far Cry: New Dawn" and "Assassin's Creed Valhalla."
Sources: VideoCardz, HXL (Twitter)
Add your own comment

99 Comments on Intel Core i9 and Core i7 "Rocket Lake" Lineup Leaked, Claims Beating Ryzen 9 5900X

#1
voltage
Hello Intel, get on with alder lake already. Honestly, you should have skipped rocket lake altogether.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheLostSwede
voltageHello Intel, get on with alder lake already. Honestly, you should have skipped rocket lake altogether.
But their users wanted PCIe 4.0...
Posted on Reply
#3
GeorgeMan
Hello world, buy our new 11th gen Core CPUs! NOW with: 2 less cores than previous gen (4 and 8 less than competitors), 5% more gaming performance than 2nd CPU of competitor for double the power consumption, aaaaand NEW! pci-e 4.0 support (competitor has it since 2019). Ultra fool-proof design, now i9 doesn't have more cores than i7, instead just 0,2-0,3GHz difference.

Seriously, I'll not buy. I'll not buy AMD either, I'm not paying 300€ for 6 cores in 2021. I'll stick to my 3600 and buy a used 5900X some years later...
Posted on Reply
#4
watzupken
They certainly did. They should also put a graph to show how much power their chip needs to get to that performance. It will look hilarious.
Posted on Reply
#5
nguyen
GeorgeManHello world, buy our new 11th gen Core CPUs! NOW with: 2 less cores than previous gen (4 and 8 less than competitors), 5% more gaming performance than 2nd CPU of competitor for double the power consumption, aaaaand NEW! pci-e 4.0 support (competitor has it since 2019). Ultra fool-proof design, now i9 doesn't have more cores than i7, instead just 0,2-0,3GHz difference.

Seriously, I'll not buy. I'll not buy AMD either, I'm not paying 300€ for 6 cores in 2021. I'll stick to my 3600 and buy a used 5900X some years later...
Most sensible decision ever, 3600/10400F for budget build and 5900X for high-end are best choices right now.
11900K performing within 5% of the 5900X is not enough reason to look away from the 4 extra cores that 5900X possess, even when games don't need more than 8 cores.
Posted on Reply
#6
Why_Me
nguyenMost sensible decision ever, 3600/10400F for budget build and 5900X for high-end are best choices right now.
11900K performing within 5% to 5900X is not enough reason to look away from the 4 extra cores that 5900X possess, even when games don't need more than 8 cores.
There's good deals to be had atm. The 10600K is only $30 more than the 3600.

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-10600k-core-i5-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118124
Posted on Reply
#7
ZoneDymo
oh hey, since when was the new IGPU called the UHD750? thats new, dont think I ever saw that bit of info
Posted on Reply
#8
btk2k2
That small print on the 1st slid is interesting.

11700K defaults to Gear 2 on 3200 ram. 11900K defaults to Gear 1. Artificial segmentation to make the 11900K look better at default settings?
Posted on Reply
#9
tabascosauz
ZoneDymooh hey, since when was the new IGPU called the UHD750? thats new, dont think I ever saw that bit of info
New GPU. Xe-based 32EU unit. Intel wants to upgrade its GPUs across the board so the 32EU config is now considered GT1 I think.

Obviously not the 48EU or 96EU Xe in Tiger Lake, but if the 32EU on the 11400 can match the Renoir/Cezanne Vega 7, might be in for some good news for HTPCs.

Actually, that's a good point - did Intel ever name Tiger Lake's GPU with something other than "Intel Xe"?
Posted on Reply
#10
marios15
I really hope intel can get near 5% of AMD's performance to push their prices lower. I really want the 12 core ryzen.

The only real thing from these slides is the "Massive Power" they used.
Posted on Reply
#11
evernessince
Why_MeThere's good deals to be had atm. The 10600K is only $30 more than the 3600.

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-10600k-core-i5-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118124
I don't think that's really a good deal. You are going to spend another $30 on a CPU cooler plus you are going to want a Z class motherboard if you want to get full performance. In the end you are looking at upwards of $100 more than a comparable Ryzen 3600 platform. If you are after gaming performance in the mid range the 10400f is the better choice.
Posted on Reply
#12
B-Real
Another Intel graph, another Intel lie.
Why_MeThere's good deals to be had atm. The 10600K is only $30 more than the 3600.

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-10600k-core-i5-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118124
For a budget build, a 10600K is nowhere near a 3600. If you want to have the same speed RAM (therefore want apples to apples comparison regarding performance), you need to buy more expensive mobo for a 10600K. You need to buy a cooler for the 10600K, while you get a stock for the 3600, which is enough to handle it.

Edit: Ok, evernessince already mentioned the same. :)
Posted on Reply
#13
Melvis
Hmmmm I dont think so Intel, lets see how your results turn out after 40 games are tested with your 11900K which is only what? 200Mhz faster then your 11700k that got beat by a 5800X? at BEST the 11900K will be pretty much equal to the Ryzen CPU's 5800/5900/5950X but better? Naaaa I cant see it.

Did anyone watch the live WAN Show over at Linus tech tips? when he went looking for a 5800X to show it cost alot more then a 11700K and then found it in stock at MSRP price? Made my laugh lol
Posted on Reply
#14
DeathtoGnomes
Why_Meonly $30 more
Two key words here, it follows a pattern with Intel pricing, somewhat competitive chips with less cores but really needs the higher end motherboards to be competitive. All to bilk consumers along side using that name recognition.

Yea they should have skipped Rocket Lake and moved on, but Intel.
Posted on Reply
#15
sutyi
B-RealAnother Intel graph, another Intel lie.



For a budget build, a 10600K is nowhere near a 3600. If you want to have the same speed RAM (therefore want apples to apples comparison regarding performance), you need to buy more expensive mobo for a 10600K. You need to buy a cooler for the 10600K, while you get a stock for the 3600, which is enough to handle it.

Edit: Ok, evernessince already mentioned the same. :)
You can now get B560 boards with "highspeed" memory support. Just sayin'

Although for gaming on a budget I would probably opt for a 11400/F + B560 combo in the near future. Unless AMD pulls out the regular R5-5600 at a very attractive price point.
Posted on Reply
#16
olymind1
sutyiAlthough for gaming on a budget I would probably opt for a 11400/F + B560 combo in the near future. Unless AMD pulls out the regular R5-5600 at a very attractive price point.
I agree, Intel's midrange products are becoming more and more appealing.

Sadly i don't think we'll see a cheaper 5600 model, as of lately they are just increasing prices everywhere. No wonder they introduced the pricier top 3600 XT model before Zen3, so their 5600X can be sold even higher.

To me it seems AMD is starting to become a premium gaming HW designer company. According to them "Where Gaming Begins" is at 479$. LMAO. Where are the midrange products with midrange prices on both cpu and gpu front? They becames just as greedy as the other companies.

Posted on Reply
#17
napata
evernessinceI don't think that's really a good deal. You are going to spend another $30 on a CPU cooler plus you are going to want a Z class motherboard if you want to get full performance. In the end you are looking at upwards of $100 more than a comparable Ryzen 3600 platform. If you are after gaming performance in the mid range the 10400f is the better choice.
It's only $60 more for 15-20% more performance, given that you don't need a Z board anymore. I'd say that's a great deal in terms of price/performance.
Posted on Reply
#18
ZoneDymo
olymind1I agree, Intel's midrange products are becoming more and more appealing.

Sadly i don't think we'll see a cheaper 5600 model, as of lately they are just increasing prices everywhere. No wonder they introduced the pricier top 3600 XT model before Zen3, so their 5600X can be sold even higher.

To me it seems AMD is starting to become a premium gaming HW designer company. According to them "Where Gaming Begins" is at 479$. LMAO. Where are the midrange products with midrange prices on both cpu and gpu front? They becames just as greedy as the other companies.

I dont think that is a fair statement, they had to earn (back) trust and appeal and did so by offering new cpu's at relatively rediculously affordable prices.
the 1800x was a 500 dollar 8core cpu, 8 cores!!! you had to pay 3x that amount for an intel (extreme) 6 core.

Now that they are winning in every category, I think tis only fair to up the prices.

And sure currently you might say the gap is too big, but factor into that covid, demand, competition at TSMC, competition of themselves (consoles and gpu's) and it makes sense as annoying as it may be.
Posted on Reply
#19
Chrispy_
Intel's claims of beating a 5900X are irrelevant when Anandtech has already proven them false, because they can't even beat a 5800X in any non-AVX512 task.
Posted on Reply
#20
TumbleGeorge
I lost count of pluses after 14nm five or six... seven?
Posted on Reply
#21
kapone32
I love how they used the Total War engine with the least hardware requirements.
Posted on Reply
#22
olymind1
ZoneDymoNow that they are winning in every category, I think tis only fair to up the prices.
They can up their products' prices, but not everbody will like them or buy them.

I understand the situation is pretty sh*tty, but currently Intel can sell cheapish and good CPUs (for gaming at least), so naturally ppl will start to look for their products, because reasonable ppl are not enemies of their own wallet.
Posted on Reply
#23
kapone32
olymind1I agree, Intel's midrange products are becoming more and more appealing.

Sadly i don't think we'll see a cheaper 5600 model, as of lately they are just increasing prices everywhere. No wonder they introduced the pricier top 3600 XT model before Zen3, so their 5600X can be sold even higher.

To me it seems AMD is starting to become a premium gaming HW designer company. According to them "Where Gaming Begins" is at 479$. LMAO. Where are the midrange products with midrange prices on both cpu and gpu front? They becames just as greedy as the other companies.

That is counterintuitive to everything that AMD has done so far. The only reason we may not see non X parts would be that supply cannot be maintained. I love how a Company whose stock rose by 900% which allowed them to develop the 5000 and 6000 series to the level of quality that they are. The 3100 is still for sale and even though it may only have 4 cores works great with Navi GPUs. There is also the most simple law in trade to think about; the dynamics of supply and demand. It is interesting that you can save up to $600 buying a really good pre-build vs DIY. When has that ever happened? It's 2021 and we have just lamented that it has been more than a year that we have been cooped up so it is not ending soon. As I have said before don't blame AMD for pricing their products complimentary to the market stack. That has always the been the way it was. I expect that the GPU cycle (depending on what Nvidia does) will slow down for now as well but things will improve slowly. The other thing is it looks like Bitcoin is rallying again and regardless of how one may feel about crypto it is a part of the PC experience so if a 5700 costs $700 on ebay how can you expect a compelling $300 AMD GPU right now. Every 6800XT that hits Canadian soil since it's release has been sold or has been pre ordered.
Posted on Reply
#24
Darmok N Jalad
watzupkenThey certainly did. They should also put a graph to show how much power their chip needs to get to that performance. It will look hilarious.
Yeah, a few percent more FPS in select games, way more heat and power consumed. Intel marketing slides are often good for a chuckle. I do like their Linux support though.
Posted on Reply
#25
LemmingOverlord
I like how technical marketing nailed the lingo: "Best for bursty workloads"
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment