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

#51
GeorgeMan
Traumadisaster
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.
Me neither, I have a triple 360 rad custom water cooling setup that handles basically the GPU, but I care if such a CPU reaches 100C with a good air cooling. Also, how about the other things I mentioned?
Posted on Reply
#52
Caring1
Traumadisaster
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.
It's really not best if you introduce yourself to the world as uncaring and inconsiderate, if more people cared about power consumption, manufacturers would make an effort to reduce it's usage, lower power chips can be made, but as long as people care more about top speed Intel at least will continue in their old ways.
Posted on Reply
#53
londiste
ZoneDymo
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.
Why the exaggerations?

1800X was an 8-core cpu at $500. True that Intel did not have more than 4 cores on desktop at that point. It took half a year to get 6 cores onto desktop as 8700K at $360.
But there was in HEDT - 6 cores for $440 and 8 cores for $1000 from year older generation.
Skylake X (6 cores for $390, 8 cores for $600 and 10 cores for $1000) was incoming but was nicely pre-empted by Ryzens.

But 1800X at $500 is missing the real point which is that there was an 8-core CPU at $329 in form of 1700.
Posted on Reply
#54
Why_Me
TheinsanegamerN
"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.
The majority of gamers still use 1080P.
Caring1
It's really not best if you introduce yourself to the world as uncaring and inconsiderate, if more people cared about power consumption, manufacturers would make an effort to reduce it's usage, lower power chips can be made, but as long as people care more about top speed Intel at least will continue in their old ways.
Ya because those few extra watts are going to cause global warming or is it climate change now.
Posted on Reply
#55
mechtech
Makaveli
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
Ya 10700f are nice price for sure
Posted on Reply
#56
GeorgeMan
londiste
Why the exaggerations?

1800X was an 8-core cpu at $500. True that Intel did not have more than 4 cores on desktop at that point. It took half a year to get 6 cores onto desktop as 8700K at $360.
But there was in HEDT - 6 cores for $440 and 8 cores for $1000 from year older generation.
Skylake X (6 cores for $390, 8 cores for $600 and 10 cores for $1000) was incoming but was nicely pre-empted by Ryzens.

But 1800X at $500 is missing the real point which is that there was an 8-core CPU at $329 in form of 1700.
And now we need 449$ for an 8-core. :) It doesn't matter if it's a far better CPU, I can't justify it. But I also can't justify Intel's offerings... So I'm just not buying in this generation yet.
Posted on Reply
#57
Metroid
Nothing new here, intel have been beating amd since 2006 in gaming, amd just closed the gap which right now is around 3 to 5% and before the 3xxx ryzen series used to be 30% or more, look that intel tdp of 125w, that is in reality 500 watts or more are 5ghz hehe
Posted on Reply
#58
DAWMan
Lots of hype from AMD & Intel for the last couple years.
All I see is AMD making them earn their money, which they deserved to lose.

Wake me up when there’s actually a CPU w/ single thread performance that has a significant increase over my i7 4790k 1U’s.
Real performance increase, not selected benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#59
evernessince
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.
8% over the 3600 (this is with a 2080 Ti, high end Z class motherboard, and at 1080p) : www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10600k/15.html

6.5% over the 10400f: www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10400f/15.html

I have no idea where you got your 15-20% figure but it's completely incorrect.

And yes, a Z class motherboard is required if you want full performance.

Entry level Z class motherboards can barley handle a stock 10600K, let alone B class motherboards. If you are going to cripple performance by cheaping out on the motherboard might as well get a 10400f.
Posted on Reply
#60
RandallFlagg
evernessince
...

Entry level Z class motherboards can barley handle a stock 10600K, let alone B class motherboards. If you are going to cripple performance by cheaping out on the motherboard might as well get a 10400f.
That's a nice clickbait title to that video, but that isn't what the content of the video actually says.

The point of that video is that you have to be careful which cheap Z490 you get, not that they all suck as you assert.

Below image is from that video, running all-core 5.1Ghz OC on a 10900K for 1hr Blender test.

Cheap Gigabyte and Asrock boards suck. Cheap Asus and MSI boards are great. That's what this video showed.

It's worth noting here, there's really no such thing as a cheap Z490 anymore, the supply seems to have dried up.

There are some cheap Z590s, and they are pretty much the same as the boards below, I'd expect similar results with high power / OC parts.


Posted on Reply
#62
evernessince
RandallFlagg
That's a nice clickbait title to that video, but that isn't what the content of the video actually says.

The point of that video is that you have to be careful which cheap Z490 you get, not that they all suck as you assert.

Below image is from that video, running all-core 5.1Ghz OC on a 10900K for 1hr Blender test.

Cheap Gigabyte and Asrock boards suck. Cheap Asus and MSI boards are great. That's what this video showed.

It's worth noting here, there's really no such thing as a cheap Z490 anymore, the supply seems to have dried up.

There are some cheap Z590s, and they are pretty much the same as the boards below, I'd expect similar results with high power / OC parts.



You seem to be confused, I never said anything about cheap Z class motherboards being bad. You are reading the title of the video and confusing that for the argument I was making.

The point I was making it that you want at least a Z class motherboard to get the most out of the 10600K, otherwise you might as well get a 10400f.

I used the video as an example as to why the 10600K requires at least a Z class motherboard to reach maximum performance, not to say that cheap Z class motherboards are bad. You clearly got the title of the video and my argument mixed up.
Posted on Reply
#63
btk2k2
Why_Me
wccftech.com/second-early-review-of-the-intel-core-i7-10700k-leaks-out-shows-significantly-better-power-numbers/
It is a different workload. Y-Cruncher is probably more like what you will see in the wild than 3DPM is but the performance uplift of the AVX 512 is negligible because it is still slower than the 5800X despite the AVX 512 enhancements.

So in a mixed workload it pulls 192W and hits 76 degree temps under a Corsair H150i Pro AIO and performs worse than the lower power 5800X
Posted on Reply
#64
Chrispy_
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 window is closing. 5600X is already in stock at MSRP in several regions now. Demand may now finally be lower than supply, which means price cuts are sure to follow to keep the product moving.

I am also half-expecting AMD to announce a vanilla 5600 just to rain on Intel's end-of-month launch parade.
Posted on Reply
#65
RandallFlagg
Chrispy_
The window is closing. 5600X is already in stock at MSRP in several regions now. Demand may now finally be lower than supply, which means price cuts are sure to follow to keep the product moving.

I am also half-expecting AMD to announce a vanilla 5600 just to rain on Intel's end-of-month launch parade.
If you have one of these... that might be useful. Otherwise CPU doesn't matter much.

Posted on Reply
#66
ThrashZone
Hi,
Not many people are crazy enough to spend nearly 2k.us for a 6-700.us gpu lol
But there is a sucker born ever second I hear that's why people try and sell items for that much :-)
Posted on Reply
#67
efikkan
Chrispy_
The window is closing. 5600X is already in stock at MSRP in several regions now. Demand may now finally be lower than supply, which means price cuts are sure to follow to keep the product moving.
We'll see, 5600X is still not widely available globally.

The lack of information about i5-11600K makes me wonder if it arrives in the first batch of Rocket Lake, or if it arrives later. i5-11600K vs. 5600X is the battle that >90% of the audience here should be focusing on.
Posted on Reply
#68
ThrashZone
Hi,
Not sure why that's a fight
Intel you need a new board
AMD is mostly an upgrade to most interested in it.

New comers there's more positive reactions to the new amd series than more of the same intel's bullshit lakes continuation.
Posted on Reply
#69
RandallFlagg
efikkan
We'll see, 5600X is still not widely available globally.

The lack of information about i5-11600K makes me wonder if it arrives in the first batch of Rocket Lake, or if it arrives later. i5-11600K vs. 5600X is the battle that >90% of the audience here should be focusing on.
The battle is all going to depend on pricing, and the noted GPU pricing issue as well.

If you are coming from say a Haswell era PC, you want to upgrade it today. You're not a gamer, you've used iGPU. You buy a 5600X. Guess what?

You need to buy a GPU. Even if you're just playing facebook games or doing Excel, you have to.

Have you seen what a 'cheap' GPU costs these days? When you could buy a $30 1030 or $60 1050 it was no big deal, not worth mentioning, but these days? To get anything like the Xe GPU, you'll be spending north of $150. And you'll have to look. The other option is to get something really, really, really old and obsolete for ~$50. Those cards won't even play a modern YouTube or Netflix stream reasonably well.

So this doesn't matter for most folks here in these forums as they already have GPUs, so they don't think about it. But it most certainly does affect the pricing of the OEM rigs, pre-builts, and non gamer DIY rigs. That's going to be a big problem for AMD in the desktop space.
Posted on Reply
#70
Why_Me
ThrashZone
Hi,
Not sure why that's a fight
Intel you need a new board
AMD is mostly an upgrade to most interested in it.

New comers there's more positive reactions to the new amd series than more of the same intel's bullshit lakes continuation.
A lot of gamers including myself could care less about an upgrade path seeing how after 4 - 5 years it's time for a rebuild .. new MB, cpu, gpu and RAM. The nice thing about Intel builds is they're usually plug & play. No having to worry about what brand and latency of RAM to get, no worrying about O/C with the locked chips .. no USB issues etc ...
Posted on Reply
#71
Pure Wop
Why_Me
The majority of gamers still use 1080P.


Ya because those few extra watts are going to cause global warming or is it climate change now.
11700K is 83W more than 5800X [Anandtech] and the number wil get more ridiculous when it comes to 11900K vs 5900X. You call those "few" extra?
Much higher requirements for cooling and no go for SFF, beefier MB & PSU, and can be a huge annoyance in summer for some especially with lesser AC: no matter the cooling system all heat is dumped to the room and it's just too hot.
Posted on Reply
#72
RandallFlagg
Pure Wop
11700K is 83W more than 5800X [Anandtech] and the number wil get more ridiculous when it comes to 11900K vs 5900X. You call those "few" extra?
Much higher requirements for cooling and no go for SFF, beefier MB & PSU, and can be a huge annoyance in summer for some especially with lesser AC: no matter the cooling system all heat is dumped to the room and it's just too hot.
That AT 80W number is peak power consumption while running POV-Ray.

Really, AT's benchmarks are almost completely irrelevant to users. They don't tell us anything about average power gaming, avg power loaded, idle loads, light loads while browsing - nothing. Just some peak number while running POV-Ray.

It is frankly useless garbage.

This is the performance side of their POV-Ray peak number.

Now how many of you all run POV-Ray as your main use case for your PC?

Posted on Reply
#73
efikkan
RandallFlagg
The battle is all going to depend on pricing, and the noted GPU pricing issue as well.

If you are coming from say a Haswell era PC, you want to upgrade it today. You're not a gamer, you've used iGPU. You buy a 5600X. Guess what?

You need to buy a GPU. Even if you're just playing facebook games or doing Excel, you have to.
In these special times, this may be a factor, for sure.
But also remember that those who buy the more powerful CPUs generally have some more demanding workflows than Excel and a web browser, many of which are GPU accelerated. Or perhaps Farmville has become more sophisticated than I remember?
RandallFlagg
Now how many of you all run POV-Ray as your main use case for your PC?
Probably about as many as there are heavy users of Cinema 4D in this forum, and judging by the obsession about obscure edge-case benchmarks there must be thousands of them in this forum alone. :P

This kind of thinking is what I was referring to in post #68; most of you should be focusing on i5-11600K vs. 5600X. There are very few real world non-server workflows which scales beyond 6-8 cores, yet so many buy 12 and 16 core CPUs, truly just for bragging rights, and then use "future-proofing" as an excuse to justify the purchase. (Well of course there are a handful who actually use the cores, I'm not talking about those)
Posted on Reply
#74
Pure Wop
RandallFlagg
That AT 80W number is peak power consumption while running POV-Ray.

Really, AT's benchmarks are almost completely irrelevant to users. They don't tell us anything about average power gaming, avg power loaded, idle loads, light loads while browsing - nothing. Just some peak number while running POV-Ray.

It is frankly useless garbage.

This is the performance side of their POV-Ray peak number.

Now how many of you all run POV-Ray as your main use case for your PC?


When one plans for cooling, MB, and PSU, one should go with the worst case power consumption to avoid accidentally frying the components or shutdowns etc, not the ideal "main use case" average.

And that's why they focus on those. It's fairly relevant. Nobody cares about consumption when idle/web browsing, because it's not going to break anything or cause any discomfort. (Unless you run idle 24/7 for some reason and really want to lower power bill) Average gaming might be useful to get an idea of summer annoyance, but it's not available right now is it?
Posted on Reply
#75
RandallFlagg
efikkan
In these special times, this may be a factor, for sure.
But also remember that those who buy the more powerful CPUs generally have some more demanding workflows than Excel and a web browser, many of which are GPU accelerated. Or perhaps Farmville has become more sophisticated than I remember?


Probably about as many as there are heavy users of Cinema 4D in this forum, and judging by the obsession about obscure edge-case benchmarks there must be thousands of them in this forum alone. :p

This kind of thinking is what I was referring to in post #68; most of you should be focusing on i5-11600K vs. 5600X. There are very few real world non-server workflows which scales beyond 6-8 cores, yet so many buy 12 and 16 core CPUs, truly just for bragging rights, and then use "future-proofing" as an excuse to justify the purchase. (Well of course there are a handful who actually use the cores, I'm not talking about those)
Completely agree with that. I've run perfmon on my box multiple times for an entire day, and at the most intense CPU use times during those measurements I would characterize the usage as 'lightly threaded' 'single core limited'. 80% of the time, it's near idle. i.e., like right now. typing this.

So really, at 6 cores, I'm just interested in the single core performance of the new chips. I would bet if people would run the same analysis of their usage, without borking the results by running a benchmark or some other artificial load, they'd find they have the same usage pattern.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment