Friday, April 16th 2021

Intel 11th Gen "Rocket Lake" Pricing Already Going Down on Amazon

Prices of retail 11th Gen Intel Core "Rocket Lake" desktop processors are beginning to settle down close to the "1,000-unit tray" prices on Amazon (US). The 1K-unit tray prices have traditionally served as a de facto baseline for retail prices, and as of today (April 16), we see several SKUs popular with gamers and PC enthusiasts approach levels close to the baseline. This wouldn't strictly be a price-cut, since they are still higher than the baseline, but would be a trimming of the retailer mark-ups traditionally attached to new processor launches.

As of this writing, the retail Core i7-11700K is listed on Amazon (US) for USD $404, practically identical to the $399 1K-unit tray price. The i7-11700 (non-K) can be had for $339.99, very close to the $323.99 tray price. The Core i5-11600K is going for $264.99, which is almost identical to the $262 tray price. Lesser "locked" SKUs such as the i5-11500 are within $10-15 of their tray pricing. It's only the top-dog Core i9-11900K and i9-11900KF that remain heavily marked up by sellers on Amazon. At these prices, the 11th Gen Core processors are expected to apply pressure on sellers of AMD Ryzen 5000 series processors to review the prices of SKUs such as the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 5 5600X; and on AMD to release cheaper Ryzen 5000 series SKUs in the retail channel.
Add your own comment

94 Comments on Intel 11th Gen "Rocket Lake" Pricing Already Going Down on Amazon

#26
Tomgang
No thanks. I´m not impressed by rocket lake. Actually a bit dissapointed to be hornest. Besides i all ready got the CPU´s i want (Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 9 5950X).
Posted on Reply
#27
1d10t
Still, more or less, tough sell to anyone looking for simple upgrade from B/H and i3/i5 combo, unless you already on Z platform.



Z390 is quite popular on Amazon, and I think most people would be reluctant adopting new platform any further.
Posted on Reply
#28
Vanny
TheLostSwede
Imho, right now is simply not a good time to buy tech. We know both Intel and AMD will be moving to new platforms soon, so pretty much everything available right now is going to be the end of the road for said platforms. Sure, there are some rumours that AMD might have a Zen 3+ or something along the lines of that, but so far it doesn't seem to be something they've shared with the motherboard makers.
Sure, if you really, really need to buy a new computer, by all means, go ahead, neither option is going to be crap at least, but for anyone that's looking at getting something that they might be able to upgrade a couple of years down the road, the current platforms are not a great choice.
Then again, DDR5 is highly likely going to be costly for at least a couple of years and it seems like the first batch of Intel boards will only see DDR5 on the very high-end models, as the board makers are expecting high costs and low demand. No idea what AMD is working on with regards to that, but maybe they'll do something similar to Intel and integrate two memory controllers so we get DDR4 and DDR5 boards.
Suddenly, buying my 3900X in August of last year, just before the release of Zen 3, which at the time I thought was a bad idea, turned into the best idea I've ever had. 12 cores at $380? Yes please.
Posted on Reply
#29
WhiteNoise
phanbuey
I do like that people are hating on intel though there are some sweet deals to be had.

That 10900F @ $350 with turbo limits removed is bonkers.
Yeah I would love to own the 10900F but I'm not sure I feel like pulling the 10850K out though. Thats a great price though!
Posted on Reply
#30
InVasMani
lexluthermiester
That has been said time and again each time AMD made big strides. Intel will bounce back as they always have. And when they do, it will be a great level competition in the industry which will be good for all of us.
Both companies would prefer to milk consumers I think there will just be a lot of alternating tic tok leads and lapses until one or the other has a misstep similar to bulldozer.
Posted on Reply
#31
Why_Me
CrAsHnBuRnXp
No one wants an 11th gen intel CPU when they are worse than 10th gen.
Posted on Reply
#32
R-T-B
CrAsHnBuRnXp
No one wants an 11th gen intel CPU when they are worse than 10th gen.
If they are immune to a few meltdown/Spectre variations I'd consider them over 10th gen, but I have heard nothing on that front.
Posted on Reply
#34
TheinsanegamerN
lexluthermiester
It not that they're worse perse, just that the improvements to not justify a full generational jump.
Rocket lake pulls mroe power then comet lake, runs at a lower max clock speed, and the IPC jump has done diddly squat for games. AND their top tier lost 20% of its core count, meaning that in productivity benchmarks rocket lake also tends to lose to its predecessor, again while pulling more power. The onyl time it wins conclusively is in AVX 512, which is almost nonexistent in consumer applications and turns the 11 series into furnaces rivaling chernobyl. Depending on the reviewer you look at rocket lake is either almost identical or slightly slower then comet lake in games. In productivity AMD still crushes intel, witht he 5900x being the same price as a 11900k and being 40+% faster. And dont forget the memory controller on rocket lake being not only power hungry but also unable to hit the same 1:1 speeds that comet lake can. Some reviewers have had a hard time hitting 3800mhz when comet lake could do 4000+ out of the box.

The most interesting parts of this generation are the 11400f and 11700f, not because they perform well, as the same complaints apply to them in regards to gaming performance, but rather because they are being sold at competitive prices that AMD has just decided to up and abandon. You can buy a 11400f, B560 motherboard, and some of your memory for the price of a 5600x, assuming the 5600x isnt being scalped. Granted the only reason you can OC memory on B560 is thanks to AMD, but still that doesnt change the fact AMD has left budget users high and dry. Not saying its right or wrong either, just that it is.

Especially given the price cuts on the 10th series, the 10850k is only $380. The 10900f is only $348, only 18 more then a 11700. And you get 2 mroe cores. The 11th gen is a total dud from a value standpoint, and its performance doesnt justify it.

Unlike many, I dont see alder lake fixing anything. Shoving atom cores into a desktop design isnt going to fix the performance gap, and zen 4 threatens to widen it significantly.
Posted on Reply
#38
1d10t
Why_Me
And your point is ..?
What does 'HOT SELLER' mean in US English?
Posted on Reply
#39
Why_Me
1d10t
What does 'HOT SELLER' mean in US English?
I quoted someone who said nobody was buying Intel cpu's these days and I linked said poster to Scan which happens to be the largest PC hardware retailer in the UK. Some of you people either fail to read the post including the quotes are you flat out fail to read period.
Posted on Reply
#40
evernessince
phanbuey
I do like that people are hating on intel though there are some sweet deals to be had.

That 10900F @ $350 with turbo limits removed is bonkers.
Is it though? $350 is still more expensive than the 5600X. The pros and cons would be as follows:

10900F Pros

Higher multi-threaded performance

Cons

Higher platform cost
Higher cooling cost
Higher power draw
Higher product cost
No PCIe 4.0
Slower single thread outside of games


If you are using this CPU for professional work that requires the use of those cores you don't really want to be overclocking either. Trust me on that one, I've had overclocks on my 5820K that were 24 hour stress test stable that would causes issues once every month. Took forever to find the issue and fixed by removing the OC.

I feel like the 5900X is just the all round better choice for gaming / multi-thread. It'll be more expensive but it will also be significantly faster in multi-thread. If you are just gaming a 5600X is all you need.
Posted on Reply
#41
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Why_Me
Please forgive this ignorant American, but what does 'HOT SELLER' mean in UK English?

www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-core-i5-11400f-s-1200-rocket-lake-6-cores-12-threads-26ghz-44ghz-turbo-12mb-cache-65w-retail
It just means something that's selling very well.

I'm not sure why you've asked me this question whether you were being serious or not, because a couple of seconds on Google reveals the meaning of this term and it's kinda obvious anyway. Was there another point that you're trying to make?
Posted on Reply
#42
Why_Me
qubit
It just means something that's selling very well.

I'm not sure why you've asked me this question whether you were being serious or not, because a couple of seconds on Google reveals the meaning of this term and it's kinda obvious anyway. Was there another point that you're trying to make?
Did you forget your post that I quoted? I've done so many UK builds these past three months that I could move to the Midlands right now and not miss a beat. The Brits are loving the hell out of the 10400F and now the 11400F in regards to gaming builds.
Posted on Reply
#43
tabascosauz
I remember being on my ailing 3700X, waiting on my 5900X and getting excited for Rocket Lake because of this board and this board alone:



It's an extraordinary day when you realize that despite having the Z490I Ultra's VRM, one of the strongest contenders last gen, this board probably struggles thermally with a power uncapped RKL 8-core judging from the even stronger Z590I Ultra's results. Despite the fact that both handle the 10900K just fine.

Hell would probably freeze over before Gigabyte gives me a B550 equivalent with Thunderbolt, because the Intel and AMD boards share nothing aside from the M.2 heatsink. Guess I'm waiting for the next upgrade cycle. Thanks for nothing, Intel.

Real eye-opener that there's about 1 SKU in the entire stack worth buying. Watched the store inventory counts when RKL released and for about a week, none of the SKUs budged. And I do mean *none*. People bitched about Comet Lake but still ended up buying them up in droves like 8th and 9th gen.
Posted on Reply
#44
HisDivineOrder
evernessince
Is it though? $350 is still more expensive than the 5600X. The pros and cons would be as follows:

10900F Pros

Higher multi-threaded performance

Cons

Higher platform cost
Higher cooling cost
Higher power draw
Higher product cost
No PCIe 4.0
Slower single thread outside of games


If you are using this CPU for professional work that requires the use of those cores you don't really want to be overclocking either. Trust me on that one, I've had overclocks on my 5820K that were 24 hour stress test stable that would causes issues once every month. Took forever to find the issue and fixed by removing the OC.

I feel like the 5900X is just the all round better choice for gaming / multi-thread. It'll be more expensive but it will also be significantly faster in multi-thread. If you are just gaming a 5600X is all you need.
Comparing 10900F to 5600X

Pros

10 cores vs 6
Cost per core
Actual Cost in the Market
Guaranteed USB3 stability

Cons

MSRP
Heat
Power
PCIe 4

Pretty strange for someone to be talking about production systems preferring more cores when AMD can't even and hasn't even been for months ensuring USB stability while using that PCIe 4 that's so important in your list. Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't be buying into a platform that right now doesn't have production, final BIOS support for pristine USB device validation, either. I'd probably steer clear for a months to let everything shake out.
Posted on Reply
#45
ThrashZone
Hi,
Not surprising 11 series was stupid priced out the gate.
Posted on Reply
#46
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Why_Me
Did you forget your post that I quoted? I've done so many UK builds these past three months that I could move to the Midlands right now and not miss a beat. The Brits are loving the hell out of the 10400F and now the 11400F in regards to gaming builds.
So, you were being sarcastic. :rolleyes: Slow clap.

I was referring more to the higher end RL CPUs which are somewhat lemons, just see the TPU reviews. Be careful what you assume people say. Clarify first.
Posted on Reply
#47
Vanny
HisDivineOrder
AMD can't even and hasn't even been for months ensuring USB stability while using that PCIe 4 that's so important in your list. Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't be buying into a platform that right now doesn't have production, final BIOS support for pristine USB device validation, either. I'd probably steer clear for a months to let everything shake out.
Here with a PCIe 4 GPU, PCIe 4 NVMe, all USB slots used, including a VR headset. Have yet to encounter these so-called USB instabilities. Not denying their existence - a friend with the same board confirmed it. But why be so adamant about it as if they aren't actively implementing fixes in BIOS updates (which fixed the problems said friend was having)? Rocket Lake isn't the most stable platform either, as Comet Lake was on launch, full of BIOS bugs. Those will get ironed out too, but when it's Intel, nobody bats an eye because "it'll get fixed anyway". When AMD has an issue, suddenly everyone is investigating. Double standards at their finest.

As for the 5600X, if only AMD hadn't gone completely mental and priced a 6 core CPU at $300 in this day and age. And if only they could keep up their stock availability. Then the 10900F might actually be in trouble.
Posted on Reply
#48
TheinsanegamerN
Vanny
Here with a PCIe 4 GPU, PCIe 4 NVMe, all USB slots used, including a VR headset. Have yet to encounter these so-called USB instabilities. Not denying their existence - a friend with the same board confirmed it. But why be so adamant about it as if they aren't actively implementing fixes in BIOS updates (which fixed the problems said friend was having)?
Playing devil's advocate here, anecdotal "I've never had these problems" or "My friend updated his BIOS and it was all fixed" don't prove anything in regards to whether AMD's USB issues have been genuinely fixed or not. And if you were not denying their existence, then your system's experience is utterly pointless to mention unless you WERE denying the issues were a problem and wanted to wash your hands of any objective true/false statement.
Vanny
As for the 5600X, if only AMD hadn't gone completely mental and priced a 6 core CPU at $300 in this day and age. And if only they could keep up their stock availability. Then the 10900F might actually be in trouble.
IF only Intel had 10nm out in 2016 AMD wouldnt be competitive either, hypothetically. If ands and buts are as useful as tissue apper armor. The fact is that AMD's 5600x is dramatically overpriced for the performance it offers, and that gives Intel an advantage in the low end market. As it stands AMD has abandoned the budget market and intel's 10th gen i9 have little to worry about.
Posted on Reply
#49
Vanny
TheinsanegamerN
Playing devil's advocate here, anecdotal "I've never had these problems" or "My friend updated his BIOS and it was all fixed" don't prove anything in regards to whether AMD's USB issues have been genuinely fixed or not. And if you were not denying their existence, then your system's experience is utterly pointless to mention unless you WERE denying the issues were a problem and wanted to wash your hands of any objective true/false statement.
It proves that they're doing something about it despite what some of these people are claiming. My point was these people always bringing up the USB issues when it comes to an argument about AMD like it has any substance. Let's just ignore the multitude of BIOS issues Intel faced on Comet Lake & Rocket Lake's launch. Or the fact that AMD got in contact with people to try and fix it. The double standards bother me more than them complaining about the USB issue in the first place. New platform has issues that need to be ironed out, which applies to both companies? Who tf woulda thunk. But let's make a big deal out of it because they're named AMD and not Intel.
TheinsanegamerN
IF only Intel had 10nm out in 2016
Sad that they didn't.
TheinsanegamerN
As it stands AMD has abandoned the budget market
Sad that they did.
TheinsanegamerN
The fact is that AMD's 5600x is dramatically overpriced for the performance it offers
When did I ever say that it isn't? To me the 5600X is the one CPU I'd avoid. Absolutely dogshit price/performance. I'd rather buy a 10400/11400. Or to be honest, I wouldn't buy anything nowadays and just wait.
Posted on Reply
#50
Gmr_Chick
Why_Me
Please forgive this ignorant American, but what does 'HOT SELLER' mean in UK English?

www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-core-i5-11400f-s-1200-rocket-lake-6-cores-12-threads-26ghz-44ghz-turbo-12mb-cache-65w-retail
Why_Me
I quoted someone who said nobody was buying Intel cpu's these days and I linked said poster to Scan which happens to be the largest PC hardware retailer in the UK. Some of you people either fail to read the post including the quotes are you flat out fail to read period.
qubit
It just means something that's selling very well.

I'm not sure why you've asked me this question whether you were being serious or not, because a couple of seconds on Google reveals the meaning of this term and it's kinda obvious anyway. Was there another point that you're trying to make?
Don't feed the troll @qubit
Why_Me
Did you forget your post that I quoted? I've done so many UK builds these past three months that I could move to the Midlands right now and not miss a beat. The Brits are loving the hell out of the 10400F and now the 11400F in regards to gaming builds.
qubit
So, you were being sarcastic. :rolleyes: Slow clap.

I was referring more to the higher end RL CPUs which are somewhat lemons, just see the TPU reviews. Be careful what you assume people say. Clarify first.
Stahp it! Stahp feeding teh troll!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment