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

#26
B-Real
napata
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.
15-20%? More like 10% assuming you are using it on FHD with the fastest GPU. The CPU performance itself is only 5% better.
olymind1
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.
Well, when Intel had the price premium for their not too much performance uplift (we are speaking of Zen area, not Bulldozer), many were claiming yes, it was more expensive but was faster. That's the same story now with AMD.
Posted on Reply
#27
TheLostSwede
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.
Ah, but the fanbois are waiting for a microcode update that will fix that on the 30th of March...
LemmingOverlord
I like how technical marketing nailed the lingo: "Best for bursty workloads"
:roll:
Sorry, you made "burst" out laughing.
Posted on Reply
#28
Dave65
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.
You're not supposed to remember that.. Smoke and mirrors!
Posted on Reply
#29
kapone32
Dave65
You're not supposed to remember that.. Smoke and mirrors!
I know that TPU may not be able to point out the Elephant in the room but I can't stop smiling.
Posted on Reply
#30
olymind1
B-Real
Well, when Intel had the price premium for their not too much performance uplift (we are speaking of Zen area, not Bulldozer), many were claiming yes, it was more expensive but was faster. That's the same story now with AMD.
True, but then i also didn't buy any Intel for the same reason as i don't buy Zen 2 or 3 now, they were/are pricey.
Posted on Reply
#31
ThrashZone
LemmingOverlord
I like how technical marketing nailed the lingo: "Best for bursty workloads"
Hi,
And probably very brief duration too
Default z490 settings or Intel chip power limitations are pretty much a sad joke can't even make it through R20 without throttling before the completion of it's short render lol
Posted on Reply
#32
RedelZaVedno
The only decent CPU in the Rocket lake lineup MIGHT be i5 11400F IF it sells south of 160 bucks and is really 10% faster in gaming than 10400F. Coupled with something like Gigabyte B560M AORUS PRO & DDR4 3600Mhz might be a good budget option in times when 5600X is so silly expensive.
Posted on Reply
#35
btk2k2
TheinsanegamerN
Boasting 5% faster then the 5900x?

www.anandtech.com/show/16535/intel-core-i7-11700k-review-blasting-off-with-rocket-lake

Intel, we KNOW you're lying. The cats been out of the bag for a week now. You cant touch the 5800x most of the time, sometimes you cant even meet the 10900k, and you expect anyone to buy the "faster then 5900x" line?
HardwareLuxx have a review.

Pretty much mirrors what Anandtech said. Gaming looks a bit better here vs Anandtech but that could be down to the selection of games. They also run 3200 C14 ram rather than 3200 C20 than Anandtech run so maybe RL scales slightly better with tighter timings. Pretty sure that will be tested thoroughly come launch.
Posted on Reply
#36
Traumadisaster
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...
Hello world I need another gaming cpu for the family, I’ll take increased performance thank you!

I just bought an independent ice maker that runs alongside the fridge and dedicated freezer and I don’t even know what power it uses nor do I care what power the half dozen consoles, cpus, TVs etc use. I don’t think the directv boxes have ever been turned off and you want me to care about the cpu chip efficiency?

I need a gaming cpu so I’ll get the latest and pass my 10600k down the line.
Posted on Reply
#37
maxfly
Nobody cares about rocket lake. Much ado about nothing. Once 12th gen comes out they will be fire selling them just like MC is 9th and 10th gen procs now. They are single handedly undercutting AMD today.
Posted on Reply
#38
ThrashZone
btk2k2
HardwareLuxx have a review.

Pretty much mirrors what Anandtech said. Gaming looks a bit better here vs Anandtech but that could be down to the selection of games. They also run 3200 C14 ram rather than 3200 C20 than Anandtech run so maybe RL scales slightly better with tighter timings. Pretty sure that will be tested thoroughly come launch.
Hi,
3200c20 if it even exists is some real junkyard dog garbage lol
Posted on Reply
#39
btk2k2
ThrashZone
Hi,
3200c20 if it even exists is some real junkyard dog garbage lol
That is JEDEC standard which is what Anandtech use.
Posted on Reply
#40
Why_Me
RedelZaVedno
The only decent CPU in the Rocket lake lineup MIGHT be i5 11400F IF it sells south of 160 bucks and is really 10% faster in gaming than 10400F. Coupled with something like Gigabyte B560M AORUS PRO & DDR4 3600Mhz might be a good budget option in times when 5600X is so silly expensive.
The 10400F with 3200MHz RAM beats the 3600 like a rented mule in regards to gaming. All the 11400F has to do is come in under $200 seeing that's what the 3600 is priced at.
Posted on Reply
#41
ThrashZone
btk2k2
That is JEDEC standard which is what Anandtech use.
Hi,
If that's the goal to have latency as high as amd is, they did well lol
Posted on Reply
#42
TheLostSwede
ThrashZone
Hi,
If that's the goal to have latency as high as amd is, they did well lol
Their goal is to test what most people would end up with if they buy a computer for Dell, HP, etc.
It's not really all that strange.
Is it what we would use? Hell no, but it is fair as a performance comparison standard.
What they should've added, was some benchmarks with faster memory speeds to show what most DIY builders could expect.
Posted on Reply
#43
ThrashZone
TheLostSwede
Their goal is to test what most people would end up with if they buy a computer for Dell, HP, etc.
It's not really all that strange.
Is it what we would use? Hell no, but it is fair as a performance comparison.
Hi,
Not really none of those system would be running at 3200 of any kind at optimized defaults.
Last I saw Dell you can build your own system but even a moron wouldn't buy 3200c20 lol
Posted on Reply
#44
Darmok N Jalad
ThrashZone
Hi,
And probably very brief duration too
Default z490 settings or Intel chip power limitations are pretty much a sad joke can't even make it through R20 without throttling before the completion of it's short render lol
I think what Anandtech said is that most of the board manufacturers are completely ignoring the TDP boost guidance and overbuilding the system to accommodate sustained workloads well past the time limit. I suspect Intel has no problem with this, or maybe even quietly recommends this so their blue slides can still say their guidance is one thing, even though that's not what's actually happening in reality.
Posted on Reply
#46
efikkan
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.
Wait and see, these two CPUs will balance the power differently, and the i9 is a higher bin, so there might be slight differences in their characteristics, more than their rated clock speed may indicate.

But no one should expect any huge leads in most games, as many games are not bottlenecked by the Skylake family. But games tend to get more demanding over time.
TumbleGeorge
I lost count of pluses after 14nm five or six... seven?
So you lost count when counting to … two? What do they teach in schools these days? :P

It's still 14nm++.
This term denotes node iteration, not design iteration.
ThrashZone
Not really none of those system would be running at 3200 of any kind at optimized defaults.
Last I saw Dell you can build your own system but even a moron wouldn't buy 3200c20 lol
What you call "optimized" is actually overclocking. No one wanting a stable system should overclock. Overclocking should be done by those who build a machine for that purpose, everyone else should stick with JEDEC speeds.
Posted on Reply
#47
ThrashZone
Darmok N Jalad
I think what Anandtech said is that most of the board manufacturers are completely ignoring the TDP boost guidance and overbuilding the system to accommodate sustained workloads well past the time limit. I suspect Intel has no problem with this, or maybe even quietly recommends this so their blue slides can still say their guidance is one thing, even though that's not what's actually happening in reality.
Hi,
Not in z490 case
Board manufactures if you were lucky only gave bios setting to stop throttling optimized defaults were complete rubbish so they did follow intel limitations.
efikkan
Wait and see, these two CPUs will balance the power differently, and the i9 is a higher bin, so there might be slight differences in their characteristics, more than their rated clock speed may indicate.

But no one should expect any huge leads in most games, as many games are not bottlenecked by the Skylake family. But games tend to get more demanding over time.


So you lost count when counting to … two? What do they teach in schools these days? :p

It's still 14nm++.
This term denotes node iteration, not design iteration.


What you call "optimized" is actually overclocking. No one wanting a stable system should overclock. Overclocking should be done by those who build a machine for that purpose, everyone else should stick with JEDEC speeds.
No system uses 3200 at any cl so the speed is totally wasted
Last I noticed on my intel systems optimized default/ bios F5 will only use so much memory frequency 2133 last I noticed and will never turbo higher period
So if amd does it would be news to me lol
Posted on Reply
#48
TheinsanegamerN
Why_Me
The 10400F with 3200MHz RAM beats the 3600 like a rented mule in regards to gaming. All the 11400F has to do is come in under $200 seeing that's what the 3600 is priced at.
"Beats"? You looking at the same 10400f the rest of us are looking at?

Because the one the rest of us are looking at is margin of error faster at 1080p with a 6900xt, otherwise you are consistently GPU bound.
Posted on Reply
#49
efikkan
ThrashZone
No system uses 3200 at any cl so the speed is totally wasted
Last I noticed on my intel systems optimized default/ bios F5 will only use so much memory frequency 2133 last I noticed and will never turbo higher period
So if amd does it would be news to me lol
You clearly don't understand how the memory standards work.
Memory modules have different profiles, usually multiple JEDEC profiles (sometimes called SPD speed in specs), these are the only standards compliant configurations supported by the memory modules. Provided you have a compatible CPU and motherboard, it will default to the highest of these profiles. If you go and buy a computer from Dell, Lenovo etc. with 2666 MHz memory, it will run at 2666 MHz, because they list the JEDEC speeds.

Additionally, some memory modules have what we call "XMP profiles", these configurations are not standards compliant, and you have no guarantee that they will work, and they will not be 100% reliable over time. Memory like the ones you have listed in your profile (Trident-Z 3600C16) only supports a measly 2133 MHz JEDEC speed I believe, that's why your computer defaults to 2133 MHz. You always have to manually apply overclocking, and rightfully so, since it will void your warranty and wear your your CPU faster. I'm sorry to tell you that you have probably overpaid for "lousy" memory modules. It annoys me that so many like you are mislead by buying recommendations trivializing overclocking and making it the "default recommendation". I always say, unless you are building for the purpose of overclocking, you should stick with the fastest JEDEC speed of your CPU, and you will save a lot of headache and money. :)
Posted on Reply
#50
Makaveli
mechtech
Good deals yes
www.newegg.ca/intel-core-i7-10700f-core-i7-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118131

Intel better value than AMD, who would have thought and good stock!!

www.newegg.ca/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/p/N82E16819113567
www.newegg.ca/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666
If you are buying in Canada I would shop around and not just look at newegg.ca

www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=4_64_1969&item_id=183432

5600X and 5800X have been in stock and going in and out the last two weeks at CC.

5600X $439.99
5800X $639.99

17-10700F $369
17-10600K $299


These are good discounted prices for Comet Lake, RL pricing is going to be much higher since performance is closer to Zen 3
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment