• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core i7-11700K "Rocket Lake" CPU Outperforms AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Single-Core Tests

Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
988 (0.18/day)
Location
Toronto, Ontario
System Name The Expanse
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-Pro BIOS 3405 AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0
Cooling Corsair H150i Pro
Memory 16GB Gskill Trident RGB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 GAMING 8GB
Storage Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe 4 / Samsung 860Evo 1TB x2 Raid 0 / Asus NAS AS1004T V2 12TB
Display(s) HP ZR24w + LG 24MB35 on Neo-Flex® Dual Monitor Lift Stand
Case Fractal Design Meshify S2
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi + Logitech Z-5500
Power Supply Corsair AX850 Titanium
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB
Keyboard Logitech G810
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 20H2
Benchmark Scores 3800X https://valid.x86.fr/1zr4a5 5800X https://valid.x86.fr/1bigrn
Right, sorry misquoted you which is a shame since your comedy famnboi stomping, over an unreleased chips scores on a shit benchmark just got more attention.

Don't feed the trolls :)
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,342 (0.65/day)
Location
VT
Processor Intel i7-10700k
Motherboard Gigabyte Aurorus Ultra z490
Cooling Corsair H100i RGB
Memory 32GB (4x8GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200MHz
Video Card(s) XFX 5700XT THIC III
Display(s) ASUS MG278Q / AOC G2590FX
Case Corsair X4000 iCue
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM650x 650W Fully Modular
Software Windows 10
I thought Intel uses "Realworld benchmark"

Is Geekbench a "Realworld benchmark" now ? :)
People went nuts over the M1 benchmarks on Geekbench for literally 3 months. Only seems fair.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
272 (1.52/day)
Location
Bulgaria
X86-64 has the advantage of is you want to do X in the future software and brute force will do it, ARM designs..... You need to buy a whole new device.
Brute force vs intelligence. X86 has no brain Apple has brain. exist midway between X86 and Apple? Intelligent force?
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
553 (0.18/day)
System Name Potato PC
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard ASRock B550M Steel Legend
Cooling ID Cooling SE 224XT Basic
Memory 32GB Team Dark Alpha DDR4 3600Mhz
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Mech OC
Storage Kingston A2000 1TB + 8 TB Toshiba X300
Display(s) Mi Gaming Curved 3440x1440 144Hz
Case Cougar MG120-G
Audio Device(s) Plantronic RIG 400
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Mouse Logitech G903
Keyboard Logitech G613
Benchmark Scores Who need bench when everything already fast?
Good for Intel, I'm just curious how they price these chips :D
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
272 (1.52/day)
Location
Bulgaria
Has rumors about ZEN4 for AM5 delay to Q3 2022? Why? To start together with RDNA3 cards? If that is true Intel has chance to compete Meteor lake against ZEN4 series. I hope for battle with many big cores vs many big cores!
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,022 (0.19/day)
To start together with RDNA3 cards?
Why?
I don't believe that for a second. Look what happened when RDNA2, Vermeer, XBOX and PS all launched within a few months, all coming from TSMC's production.
You think AMD wants to repeat that?

Some illiterate people even thinks those launches were paper launches, which is just hilarious and sad at the same time. It doesn't work like that. ;)

2022 sounds right tho, and maybe even Q3, although I'd guess a bit earlier in the year.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
1,198 (0.32/day)
Yes, and it proberly takes 255W of power to accomplish beating AMD, while AMD on the other hand does'nt go beyond 144W with PBO enabled and proberly alot more cores too.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,352 (0.96/day)
I think ARM has an advantage on decoder width. That's the only weak point of the x86 ISA I can think of.
x86 requires a byte-by-byte decoder, because you have 2-byte, 3-byte, 4-byte... 15-byte instructions (some of which are macro-op fused and/or micro-op split). ARM standardized upon 4-byte instructions with an occasional 8-byte macro-op fused…
Yes, it's certainly an advantage for implementing ARM, but I don't think it's such a big deal. And even with the variable instruction word width, an x86 implementation still doesn't need that many logic gates to determine the instruction length, and then pipeline even more than four decoders if needed.

I really don't think decoding width is the bottle neck for x86, well at least not now. But stay tuned for Sapphire Rapids(Golden Cove), where at least the front-end is "significantly larger" than Sunny Cove, including an 600 instruction OoO window. I expect this may be to feed more execution ports, but time will tell.

Apple has a superior decoder: just 8-uops/tick no matter what. Its the "more expensive transistor budget" compared to a uop cache. Apple can achieve 8uops/tick across the entire 192kB L1 instruction cache, while Intel Skylake / AMD Zen3 can only achieve 4-uops/tick across a 48kB L1 cache (Skylake) / 32kB L1 (Zen3) cache, and a 6-uop/tick across a smaller region inside of the uOp cache.
A little side note; don't forget ARM requires more instructions to do the same work, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. (no pun intended)

LoL I see that X86 is ok with better decoder. But isn't possible to make better decoder because has depencies how work ISA with information. This is same as ISA X86 is not ok itself.
I think you got this all wrong, a bigger decoder doesn't require any ISA changes.
Just wait for Sapphire Rapids, and you'll see a much more sophisticated x86 based microarchitecture.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,891 (0.51/day)
Processor AMD 5900x
Motherboard Asus x570 Strix-E
Cooling Hardware Labs
Memory G.Skill 4000c17 2x16gb
Video Card(s) RTX 3090
Storage Sabrent
Display(s) Samsung G9
Case Phanteks 719
Audio Device(s) Fiio K5 Pro
Power Supply EVGA 1300 G2
Mouse Logitech G600
Keyboard Corsair K95
Not a fair comparison! Intel's Rocket lake instruction set has AVX-512, ZEN 3 does not. Geekbench 5 takes advantage of this.

Hey now, let's not look at things accurately!

lol, looks like they are doing another bone headed buyback.

lmao, all those buys and the stock dropped down again.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Messages
50 (0.30/day)
Yet more benchmarks with little to no relevance for real workloads. :)
1)That was a reply with a scent of sarcasm. No AMD fan can reject cinebench. 2)Almost every CPU benchmark is useless when isolated. Many benchmarks combined with browsing speed, office work, gaming etc can show the whole potential of a CPU. That's why TPU is my first choice for reviews.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,022 (0.19/day)
Almost every CPU benchmark is useless when isolated.
Geekbench is way worse than a lot of individual benchmarks. CB does at least tell us something about rendering performance (even in programs other than C4D).
Geekbench tells us nothing, it's inconsistent with a lot of other benchmarks, and the choice of OS makes way too much difference.

Still, every CPU leak is Geekbench, and still I don't know why. Well unless it's all about accessibility.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
739 (2.38/day)
Geekbench is way worse than a lot of individual benchmarks. CB does at least tell us something about rendering performance (even in programs other than C4D).
Geekbench tells us nothing, it's inconsistent with a lot of other benchmarks, and the choice of OS makes way too much difference.

Still, every CPU leak is Geekbench, and still I don't know why. Well unless it's all about accessibility.

Geekbench is basically aimed at web-like workloads. DOM traversal (aka HTML), AES-encryption / decryption (aka: HTTPS performance), Javascript parsing, etc. etc. Its pretty well documented actually...
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,022 (0.19/day)
Geekbench is basically aimed at web-like workloads. DOM traversal (aka HTML), AES-encryption / decryption (aka: HTTPS performance), Javascript parsing, etc. etc. Its pretty well documented actually...
Sure, but is that what HW enthusiasts are most interested in when it comes to leaked info about upcoming CPU's? Before rendering or gaming performance for instance?
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
739 (2.38/day)
Sure, but is that what HW enthusiasts are most interested in when it comes to leaked info about upcoming CPU's? Before rendering or gaming performance for instance?

That their pet CPU performs better than others and that they should get into flamewars with everyone who disagrees with them?

I mean, if you're going to pose a question, you aren't necessarily going to get an answer you like :)
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,022 (0.19/day)
That their pet CPU performs better than others and that they should get into flamewars with everyone who disagrees with them?

I mean, if you're going to pose a question, you aren't necessarily going to get an answer you like :)
Am I supposed to stitch together a conspiracy theory here, about about how various HW sites pay Geekbench to make a benchmark that's as least useful for f**boys as possible, in order to calm down forums? :roll:

AMD users may like CBench, while Intel users may prefer gaming benchmarks, but my question is, who does Geekbench cater to among HW enthusiasts?
Do we really find a substantial amount of those people in HW forums, for instance? I don't think so.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
739 (2.38/day)
AMD users may like CBench, while Intel users may prefer gaming benchmarks, but my question is, who does Geekbench cater to among HW enthusiasts?
Do we really find a substantial amount of those people in HW forums, for instance? I don't think so.

Geekbench caters towards web users. Which happens to be everyone reading this forum.

Each click you make on this website kicks off HTTPS AES Decryption, followed by HTML + Javascript Parsing. Every post you have made is inside of a Javascript WYSIWYG GUI, parsed into an HTML form, packaged into an HTTPS Encrypted message and piped to the server. The very stuff that composes the Geekbench suite.

I said that before, but maybe if I say it again with more explicit examples, you'll get what I'm trying to say.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
988 (0.18/day)
Location
Toronto, Ontario
System Name The Expanse
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-Pro BIOS 3405 AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.0
Cooling Corsair H150i Pro
Memory 16GB Gskill Trident RGB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 GAMING 8GB
Storage Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe 4 / Samsung 860Evo 1TB x2 Raid 0 / Asus NAS AS1004T V2 12TB
Display(s) HP ZR24w + LG 24MB35 on Neo-Flex® Dual Monitor Lift Stand
Case Fractal Design Meshify S2
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi + Logitech Z-5500
Power Supply Corsair AX850 Titanium
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB
Keyboard Logitech G810
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 20H2
Benchmark Scores 3800X https://valid.x86.fr/1zr4a5 5800X https://valid.x86.fr/1bigrn
Am I supposed to stitch together a conspiracy theory here, about about how various HW sites pay Geekbench to make a benchmark that's as least useful for f**boys as possible, in order to calm down forums? :roll:

AMD users may like CBench, while Intel users may prefer gaming benchmarks, but my question is, who does Geekbench cater to among HW enthusiasts?
Do we really find a substantial amount of those people in HW forums, for instance? I don't think so.

in the grand scheme of things geekbench scores mean nothing.

Its the only number they seem to have do what I do ignore them and wait for a production review. Which won't be until the March 2021 time frame.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
6,476 (4.29/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Deepcool Gammaxx L240 V2
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX - 3333 Mhz CL16
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080 with Kraken G12 + Water 3.0 Performer C
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Deepcool Matrexx 70
Power Supply GPS-750C
Geekbench caters towards web users. Which happens to be everyone reading this forum.

Each click you make on this website kicks off HTTPS AES Decryption, followed by HTML + Javascript Parsing. Every post you have made is inside of a Javascript WYSIWYG GUI, parsed into an HTML form, packaged into an HTTPS Encrypted message and piped to the server. The very stuff that composes the Geekbench suite.

The question is will 6 Gb/s worth of AES encryption performance gonna matter as opposed to just 5 Gb/s ?

I don’t think so.

Am I supposed to stitch together a conspiracy theory here, about about how various HW sites pay Geekbench to make a benchmark that's as least useful for f**boys as possible, in order to calm down forums? :roll:

Nah, what happened is GB was always used in the context of iOS vs Android because the benchmark would always get updated to make Apple chips look better whenever a new one was released. Then what happened was that people noticed that those absurd numbers where becoming comparable with desktop chips so now it’s used everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
1,022 (0.19/day)
Geekbench caters towards web users. Which happens to be everyone reading this forum.

Each click you make on this website kicks off HTTPS AES Decryption, followed by HTML + Javascript Parsing. Every post you have made is inside of a Javascript WYSIWYG GUI, parsed into an HTML form, packaged into an HTTPS Encrypted message and piped to the server. The very stuff that composes the Geekbench suite.
That goes without saying, but what does that have to do with measuring performance for those who doesn't care about that, ie most people here, presumably?

All over the net you'll find "Let's build a render box!", or "Ultimate ITX gaming" kind of guides, as a consequence of lots of people use Blender, etc, or play AAA games.
How many build a "Fastest HTTPS AES Decryption rig"? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that they're small minority, most likely.

Back to square one, if GBench shows web performance, and most people wants to know other kind of performance, how come GB is still the first one to pop up in leaks??

It's a mismatch, to say the least.
That's without touching the aspect of benchmark quality. There are more suitable benchmarks, but they never show up in leaks.

The question is will 6 Gb/s worth of AES encryption performance gonna matter as opposed to just 5 Gb/s ?

I don’t think so.
Exactly. It doesn't define the next build, far from it. (Admittedly, no individual benchmark does, but you get my point.)

Nah, what happened is GB was always used in the context of iOS vs Android because the benchmark would always get updated to make Apple chips look better whenever a new one was released. Then what happened was that people noticed that those absurd numbers where becoming comparable with desktop chips so now it’s used everywhere.
Yup. Just look at Ryzen 5000 Hacintosh machines, way ahead of W10 counterparts. It's supposed to be OS agnostic tho.. :D
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
411 (0.70/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard Asus TUF Gaming X570-Plus
Memory 32 GB 3600 MT/s CL16
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64
Storage 2x 500 GB SSD, 2x 3 TB HDD
Case Phanteks P300A
Software Manjaro Linux, W10 if I have to
That goes without saying, but what does that have to do with measuring performance for those who doesn't care about that, ie most people here, presumably?

All over the net you'll find "Let's build a render box!", or "Ultimate ITX gaming" kind of guides, as a consequence of lots of people use Blender, etc, or play AAA games.
How many build a "Fastest HTTPS AES Decryption rig"? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that they're small minority, most likely.

Back to square one, if GBench shows web performance, and most people wants to know other kind of performance, how come GB is still the first one to pop up in leaks??

It's a mismatch, to say the least.
That's without touching the aspect of benchmark quality. There are more suitable benchmarks, but they never show up in leaks.


Exactly. It doesn't define the next build, far from it. (Admittedly, no individual benchmark does, but you get my point.)


Yup. Just look at Ryzen 5000 Hacintosh machines, way ahead of W10 counterparts. It's supposed to be OS agnostic tho.. :D
AES en/decryption is very relevant, but no on the client side (mainstream/desktop), but on the server side. So I would agree it's not a relevant benchmark for these mainstream parts.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
739 (2.38/day)
That goes without saying, but what does that have to do with measuring performance for those who doesn't care about that, ie most people here, presumably?

All over the net you'll find "Let's build a render box!", or "Ultimate ITX gaming" kind of guides, as a consequence of lots of people use Blender, etc, or play AAA games.
How many build a "Fastest HTTPS AES Decryption rig"? I'm not saying they don't exist, just that they're small minority, most likely.

Back to square one, if GBench shows web performance, and most people wants to know other kind of performance, how come GB is still the first one to pop up in leaks??

It's a mismatch, to say the least.
That's without touching the aspect of benchmark quality. There are more suitable benchmarks, but they never show up in leaks.

Geekbench5 assigns 5% to the Cryptography score (AES benchmark), which seems reasonable to me. Do you think it should be greater, or less than 5%?

1609347934611.png


The integer workloads are 65% of Geekbench.

1609348015733.png


Which consists of compression, HTML5, PDF rendering, and other such common tasks.

CLang is probably not so common, but probably is representative of Javascript. SQLite is in a bunch of random stuff, so its probably a good benchmark today.

---------

Raytracing, Machine Learning, etc. etc. are Vectorized-based tasks, taking 35% of the weight. The vectorized / floating point tasks are clearly aimed at the scientific community, I guess the "hardcore" benchmarks you're interested in. But I would argue that those tasks are quite uncommon for a typical computer user today.
 
Top