Intel Rocket Lake 11000 retail reviews

[Valantar]

Looks like a pointed submission to me. Why did the dude run the 10900k with slower memory when he could've run it same same?

Also the memory config is different. Possibly just two ranks on the older system and definitely four on the new one.

I would guess the person in question doesn't have access to sufficient hardware to do a like-for-like comparison. To be fair, 2933 is the highest supported memory speed on Comet Lake, so they're in line with AnandTech on that point.

I didn't say there were no power consumption tests besides AVX512, and I never said you've made up any numbers. I know, because I read the article before I, you know, started this thread.

I said consumers, what matters to consumers. AVX, AVX512 and Photoscan are used in the three tests, not really consumer friendly to me. Besides that, only the freaky AVX512 result ended up in a comparing chart. TPU on the other hand shows power usage while gaming, which I find highly relevant, but that didn't happen here.

Now before you say "so what, we've got all info we need from those three power measurements". I know, most of us here thinks so, but it may not be clear enough for everyone.
All I'm saying is that it makes the article look bad, and the only power chart with competing CPU's happens to be that one exception so far that shows a crazy high power consumption.
It wouldn't be that much trouble to add gaming power consumption, and then have all four results (Photoscan, gaming, AVX, AVX512) in comparing charts.

Right now it's easy for some readers to think that RL is much hotter than CL, which I really doubt it is in most scenarios.
That's why it should've been nice to have a deeper dive into power consumption, because 290 W was a 8C WR, more or less. But like I said, I guess we have to wait a few weeks for that.

There's been ES CPU's circulating both with and without Atom cores, and AFAIK, not all of them are desktop.

To address the last point first: the ES chips I've seen circulating have all been desktop chips, but there might of course be some I've not seen. They're pretty huge chips - 8 large and 8 small cores (some chips have some of these disabled), which by itself makes it highly unlikely that these are destined for a mobile use case. Intel have been struggling to get Tiger Lake-H out the door, so even if the additional area from the 8 small cores isn't all that much, moving past that to an even larger die seems unlikely IMO.

As for the rest here: I think you're approaching the review from the wrong angle. AnandTech doesn't do general consumer oriented coverage, they do in-depth highly technical coverage presented in an impressively approachable way. They always present the reasoning in detail, and argue for their choice of benchmarks in depth. They obviously need to balance the various readerships they target, and tend to skew more business/enterprise/IT than most publications in their inclusions of office benchmarks, SPEC, and various workstation benchmarks. However, when they do so they also mostly argue how these compare to typical consumer workloads. Their #CPUOVERLOAD introduction article goes into pretty extreme detail on the reasoning behind their benchmarks.

As for the specific benchmarks chosen: they're not directly relevant to most consumers, but they cover the (currently three) major test points of all-core non-AVX, AVX2 and AVX512, and are thus reasonably representative for any all-core load in each of these classes. I understand the desire for a gaming power draw measurement, but as seen in TPU reviews, gaming power consumption testing on CPUs is pretty much meaningless. The 40W delta seen there between the lowest and highest CPU tested tells us that gaming is not a sufficiently intensive (or even) CPU workload to make out meaningful differences, especially when contrasted against the 210W delta in all-core loads. Most games stress a couple of threads heavily and a few more with light loads after all, and nobody should be using that as the basis for their cooling or PSU selection. It would certainly be interesting to see, for example, a graph showing CPU power vs. framerates across a few CPUs, but it's not a type of data that's of much use for anything. And if the argument is that games might scale to become more multi-threaded in the future, then the all-core load numbers are likely representative again.

Of course if what you're saying is just that only presenting a peak power graph visually, and no other visual comparisons, is a bit iffy, then yeah, I can agree there. It would be nice for graphs for each load category + the cumulative peak graph. But if the argument is that they should do so because idiots are going to share the peak load graph online and present it as if the Intel CPU consumes that much under normal loads? I don't think AT should base their editorial policies on the lowest common denominator of reading comprehension and the game of telephone that is idiots online screaming about their hobbies, so I don't agree wiht that.

Also, apparently I didn't spot that you were the OP here Guess that goes as a great example of "don't reply to forum posts when you're in a hurry". There really ought to be a blushing emoticon here.

 

[SL2]

To address the last point first: the ES chips I've seen circulating have all been desktop chips, but there might of course be some I've not seen. They're pretty huge chips - 8 large and 8 small cores (some chips have some of these disabled), which by itself makes it highly unlikely that these are destined for a mobile use case. Intel have been struggling to get Tiger Lake-H out the door, so even if the additional area from the 8 small cores isn't all that much, moving past that to an even larger die seems unlikely IMO.

As for the specific benchmarks chosen: they're not directly relevant to most consumers, but they cover the (currently three) major test points of all-core non-AVX, AVX2 and AVX512, and are thus reasonably representative for any all-core load in each of these classes.

Now before you say "so what, we've got all info we need from those three power measurements". I know, most of us here thinks so, but it may not be clear enough for everyone.

Of course if what you're saying is just that only presenting a peak power graph visually, and no other visual comparisons, is a bit iffy, then yeah, I can agree there. It would be nice for graphs for each load category + the cumulative peak graph. But if the argument is that they should do so because idiots are going to share the peak load graph online and present it as if the Intel CPU consumes that much under normal loads? I don't think AT should base their editorial policies on the lowest common denominator of reading comprehension and the game of telephone that is idiots online screaming about their hobbies, so I don't agree wiht that.

Wow, that was cheap. Yes, I'm aware that I shared "the peak load graph online". I don't care if you didn't mean mean me personally, just stop throwing words like lazy and idiot around. I really don't appreciate it.

We're done here.

 

[Makaveli]

The amount of people on the IDF these last few days has been incredible after that anandtech review.

 

[SL2]

Guess they didn't have anything to measure with..

Intel Core i7-11700K Rocket Lake CPU has been delidded - VideoCardz.com

Intel Rocket Lake CPU loses its integrated head spreader Out of 210 Core i7-11700K processors sold, one has already been delidded. Since the german retailer has begun selling new 11th Gen Core CPUs, many of them have ended in hands of real enthusiasts. There are still many of them waiting for...

videocardz.com

According to the quick side-by-side comparisons to Comet Lake i9-10900K, it is estimated that Rocket Lake is 260-270 mm2 in size. That’s around 28% more than 10900K.

 

[freeagent]

Sweet.. I wonder how easy it would be to cool with a high end air cooler? That is some serial real estate.. Would that be like 300 old school watts, or 300 hell hath no fury watts..

AVX512 I would imagine to be slightly intense..

 

[SL2]

Sweet.. I wonder how easy it would be to cool with a high end air cooler? That is some serial real estate.. Would that be like 300 old school watts, or 300 hell hath no fury watts..

I'd like to see a desktop build (non-tower) with ITX, riser cable, and graphics card mounted horizontally, and two beefy TR Le Grand Macho mounted side by side, one on each processor. Makes no sense, but I just want to see it.

Like this, but with both processors facing up.

 

[Tom Sunday]

It consumes 20W more...
View attachment 191198

Should I really care about power consumption? Absolutely not! For me in the end it's all about availability, price and reliability. So most what I see here is just a lot of rambling-on by the so called enthusiast's while real life and the man on the street is passing them by.

 

[HD64G]

Should I really care about power consumption? Absolutely not! For me in the end it's all about availability, price and reliability. So most what I see here is just a lot of rambling-on by the so called enthusiast's while real life and the man on the street is passing them by.

A new but less efficient than the previous gen is a rare failure for the CPU tech. And that is why I thought it deserved to be commented.

 

[HenrySomeone]

It's not less efficient though, is it? It might consume slightly more power than its direct predecessor (but slightly less than 9900k for example, so it's nothing really out of the ordinary even then), however all the multi-threaded tests show it to be noticeably faster as well, meaning it's more efficient, not less.

 

[Valantar]

Wow, that was cheap. Yes, I'm aware that I shared "the peak load graph online". I don't care if you didn't mean mean me personally, just stop throwing words like lazy and idiot around. I really don't appreciate it.

We're done here.

Wow, you're really looking to be insulted, aren't you? Why should I not call the people waging incessant online tech fanboy wars, such as the audiences of Videocardz or WCCFTech, idiots or lazy? Both are broadly accurate general descriptions of their treatments of facts, data, and their general approach to nuanced opinions and understandings. There are obviously exceptions, but it's still generally accurate. It should be pretty clear that I wasn't talking about our discussions here. We're on a specific forum after all, which is rather different from the general activity of "sharing things online" even if forums are obviously also online. So please, rather than trying really hard to read that as if it was directed at you (yeah, that "I don't care if you mean me personally" didn't quite have the CYA effect you wanted - I frankly didn't know nor care whether you shared that other places or not, nor do I tend to see people on these forums as raging fanboys) and rather read it as what it is: an argument for AnandTech to not let screaming online fanboys with severely lacking reading comprehension determine their editorial policies. I never imagined you to have any relation to said group, but rather you seemed to be arguing that AT should present their data in a way designed to fit the lowest common denominator of reading comprehension and try to make it impossible to take out of context at the cost of clarity, which is just a bad idea. I did say I agreed that there ought to have been more graphs, but ultimately it's not AT's responsibility if people take the peak power graph out of context and fail to understand what it shows.

And exactly the same goes for the "may not be clear for everyone" part about the workloads chosen. This is Anandtech we're talking about, not Tom's Guide or WCCFTech or some other outlet for the barely technically literate. Anandtech presents incredibly detailed technical analyses in easily comprehensible ways, but you still need a higher than average understanding of yhe subject matter to fully grasp most of their coverage. And that's a good thing - it means you can actually learn things by reading their content. Their target audience isn't "everyone". And it shouldn't be. The onus to improve here is on people who take graphs - which are always gross simplifications, as the entire point is literally to present data simply, at the cost of nuance and detail - as total representations of facts, and especially the ones who don't even bother to actually look into what the graph is showing. I can't recall ever saying anything close to you belonging in such a group. I'm just strictly opposed to the dumbing-down of well presented complex data for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings by people not willing to read with a modicum of care. AnandTech's editors have very good reasons behind their choice of benchmarks and presentations - which are also always presented and argued for - and it's inherent to this that the choices aren't made for the broadest possible public understanding, but to be good and representative benchmarks for their target audience. They clearly aren't immune to mistakes, but they tend to address them quickly, such as adding AVX2 numbers to the graph to allow for more direct apples-to-apples comparisons to other CPUs despite this actually hurting data presentation - it's no longer a peak power draw graph, after all. But one can't have that as a ruling principle - if so, you'd need non-AVX, AVX2 and if applicable AVX512 bars for every CPU on the graph, which would make it essentially unreadable. So I completely agree with their approach of preferring data clarity over comprehensiveness in any single graph or illustration, and putting the responsibility of gaining a broader understanding on readers.

 

[SL2]

Hooray for AVX512?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1373922086192824327

 

[londiste]

AVX512 is very much irrelevant for us on the desktop. Its power usage is non-issue for the same reason.
Even AVX2 is practically unused for desktop and gaming. Productivity applications do use AVX2 pretty heavily including stuff you might do at home like encoding/transcoding videos or maybe some rendering.

 

[SL2]

AVX512 is very much irrelevant for us on the desktop. Its power usage is non-issue for the same reason.

I was just commenting the benchmark results after updating the microcode. AVX512 testing showed 8 % higher performance, everything else is quite uninteresting. Call it sarcasm if you want.

This could be Intel's attempt to differentiate the 11900K from the 11700K.

Intel’s New Adaptive Boost Technology: Floating Turbo Comes to Rocket Lake

www.anandtech.com