Rocket Lake not looking too good...

[cst1992]

Found on NotebookCheck:
"Intel's i5-11400 6-core Rocket Lake-S CPU appears on Geekbench, lags behind similar AMD Ryzen 3000 / 5000 models"

Intel's i5-11400 6-core Rocket Lake-S CPU appears on Geekbench, lags behind similar AMD Ryzen 3000 / 5000 models

The Rocket Lake-S hexa-core is around 10% faster than the Comet Lake-S predecessor, and it almost matches the i7-8700K with considerably higher clocks, but it still lags behind the Ryzen 5 3600X in multi-core loads, while the Ryzen 5 5600X is on a completely different level with 31% higher...

www.notebookcheck.net

Intel REALLY needs a die shrink...
Hope Gelsinger leads Intel forward to some proper improvement.

 

[8BitZ80]

A bit ominous, although objectively it's strange how they're comparing a low-power Intel six-core to AMD's flagship six-core. The Core i5 11600K (which would seem like a more reasonable chip for comparison) should be closer to 5.0GHz and add a decent chunk of extra multi-core performance.

 

[ratirt]

A bit ominous, although objectively it's strange how they're comparing a low-power Intel six-core to AMD's flagship six-core. The Core i5 11600K (which would seem like a more reasonable chip for comparison) should be closer to 5.0GHz and add a decent chunk of extra multi-core performance.

It would have been better to get a 11600K comparison but if what they say is true and the 11400 is 31% slower than a 5600X, I doubt the 11600K can fill the void between the two. When the time comes, I'm sure there will be 11600K vs 5600x comparisons. We just need to wait some time. They are showing what they've got. Intel CPUs are not out yet so no surprise there.

 

[londiste]

11400 is also half the price...
It would be nice to know the clocks and power usage 11400 ran at.

The GeekBench results are pretty variable too, my 5600X got 1625p and 8215p right now (all stock and 3600 RAM with crap timings).

 

[BSim500]

As always the only real answer is "wait for the in-depth reviews". And even then ignore the comically inaccurate "pricing calculations" done by reviewers and work out the figures for your own country. Eg, if the i5-11400F is going to be a same price replacement for the i5-10400F, then in my country prices are £128 i5-10400F vs £299 5600X (and the i7-10700F is £280). After AMD's recent price increases the 3600 is £180-£200 whilst you'd have to drop down to a 2600 match the same £130, ie, for budget buyers not interested in OC'ing, selecting CPU's +130% price points apart is a total "apples vs cauliflower" comparison little different to comparing an i3-6320 vs i7-6700 from a few years back.

 

[cst1992]

CPU prices are absolutely ridiculous these days.
Back in 2015 I got my 4690k for INR 17,850 - and it was supposed to be the top-of-the-line i5. I didn't want to get the i7 4790k because it was essentially the same CPU with just more threads, why bother when you're getting 4 independent cores which you could overclock to match 4.4GHz frequency?

Now even the R5 5600x is INR 27,999 and the 5800x is 41,850. So no hope for me if I wanted to go for 5000 series.

As for the Ryzen 3000 series, the prices are still high:
R5 3600 - INR 17,262
R5 3600X - INR 21,432
R5 3600XT - INR 22,500 (is this the same cooler as the 3600X, just with the cooler?)

R7 3700X - INR 28,818
R7 3800X - INR 31,558
R7 3800XT - INR 32,749

My inclination would have been to go with the 7 series because of their 8 cores, but as you can see, they're almost 2x the price.

 

[Bill_Bright]

A bit ominous, although objectively it's strange how they're comparing a low-power Intel six-core to AMD's flagship six-core.

Strange? Maybe. Surprised? Not at all. Why? Because that so-called review or report was not objective at all.

11400 is also half the price...

^^^THIS^^^

Clearly, the reviewer is biased. Why else would one pick Item A for $100 and Item B for $200 then criticize Item A for being inferior unless you wanted it to "appear" inferior?

If Item A is being marketed by the maker as their competing product to Item B, then fine. But if not, don't compare them with each other. Just review one and reports its specs and performance, pros and cons. There's no need to compare with some arbitrarily chosen other product so you can criticize one and praise the other. Just run your standard tests and benchmarks and list the results. If a comparison is really desired, post a full, extensive chart with every tested product and let the readers decide for themselves.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Market is flooded with Intel and 3k amd series and prices are lower than first release.
Only 5k amd series is lost in space.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is my 10400. It's high for a 10400 but it's clear that they hobbling that 11400 in some way :

Besides the false comparison to a 5600X which is likely 50% to 100% more expensive (if you can get it at MSRP, which you can't), they probably have the 11400 running with DDR4-2400 or something equally stupid like not running on a supported BIOS or on an early beta BIOS.

 

[dyonoctis]

Rocket lake K are noticeably faster in geekbench:
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z490 AORUS MASTER vs Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z490 AORUS MASTER - Geekbench Browser

 

[Deleted member 193596]

i think we all can agree how pathetic it is from intels side... a company that could buy AMD X Times struggling with a 14nm++++ Process from more than half a decade ago.

and it took them 5 years to make a "new" architecture while taking away two cores and still running at their 14nm thousand watts per Cinebench Point node.
even worse that their 5 year long development has a lower ipc gain than AMD achieved in ~12 months. a company that was predicted to be bankrupt in 2020.

 

[trickson]

Intel the chip maker of Ten thousand lakes.

 

[cst1992]

I agree. I'd have preferred The Five Great Lakes, but I guess there are too many swans around.

 

[tussinman]

11400 is also half the price...
It would be nice to know the clocks and power usage 11400 ran at.

Yeah Intel is now the new value king which is funny. 11400 should be exactly at 5600x level game performace at both 1080p and 1440p and will be almost half the price while still being a 65w chip.

I'm not going to complain, intel at it's worst is still pumping out good sub 200 dollar options

 

[EsaT]

...while still being a 65w chip.

Aren't you forgetting that when talking about Intel's watts you're supposed to double the advertised value to get real full all core load power draw?
And top model's TDP going up while core count goes down with current models being landfill fires in full all core load... Oh boy.

Well, AMD keeping upper hand for some years will only do good for future competition, because AMD needs to keep up R&D and also built some cash buffer.
Can't expect AMD to have everything going for them forever and without spare cash that could cause problems.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is a bit more reasonable, an 11500.

My heavily tweaked 10400 on the left that almost matched that so-called "11400", and 11500 on the right. Thats +31% single core vs my 10400 and is in line with average 5600X scores.

Mine is running on an Asus Prime Z490M with DDR4-3200 CL16 RAM, subtimings heavily tweaked along with BCLK at 102.5. My scores here are around 8-10% higher than stock + XMP DDR4-3200 scores with a 10400.

Thats +31% single core vs my 10400 and is in line with average 5600X scores. Multi-core seems to be underperforming a bit here, about 10% below a 5600X and only ~8% faster than my 10400. If that is a stock 10500 it's going to be a killer for gaming.

Intel Corporation Rocket Lake Client Platform vs Intel Corporation Rocket Lake Client Platform - Geekbench

 

[tussinman]

Aren't you forgetting that when talking about Intel's watts you're supposed to double the advertised value to get real full all core load power draw?

The model I was giving (successor to the 10400) no that's not the case. The 10400 was the sweet spot in terms of wattage efficiency/speed.

 

[RandallFlagg]

11375H cinbench R20 score showing up as 690. From a dam laptop. Tiger Lake H looks to be a gaming laptop killer, and this is just the H35, H45 should be coming as well.

Intel Core i7-11375H in purported MSI Stealth 15M laptop shown to be 46% faster in single-core compared to Core i7-10750H, indicative of longer sustained 5 GHz boost

We have received a Cinebench R20 single-core score from what appears to be an MSI Stealth 15M laptop powered by the Core i7-11375H Special Edition Tiger Lake-H35 processor. While we have previously reported about leaked scores for this processor, the new score shows it to be much faster and...

www.notebookcheck.net

For reference :

 

[tabascosauz]

Aren't you forgetting that when talking about Intel's watts you're supposed to double the advertised value to get real full all core load power draw?
And top model's TDP going up while core count goes down with current models being landfill fires in full all core load... Oh boy.

Well, AMD keeping upper hand for some years will only do good for future competition, because AMD needs to keep up R&D and also built some cash buffer.
Can't expect AMD to have everything going for them forever and without spare cash that could cause problems.

Tell me, how exactly does the "power draw" personally affect you?

5600X might be king, but the locked 6-cores don't have much power draw. And by now you should already know that "65W" and "105W" are a load of bollocks over at AMD as well, because TDP means next to nothing about practical power consumption for either product.

And that "power draw" still resulted in a family of chips that ran 10-20C cooler than Ryzens That lower power draw did......what, exactly, for Ryzen 3000 and 5000 owners? Allow us to live life on the edge with a 450W PSU?

Do people get some sort of kick out of bringing up "power draw" every time INTEL shows up in ctrl+F?

 

[cst1992]

Last time I read, a 100W CPU dissipated 100W of heat.
How are your CPUs dissipating twice the heat as the power consumption? Are you mounting one over the other, or something?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Last time I read, a 100W CPU dissipated 100W of heat.
How are your CPUs dissipating twice the heat as the power consumption? Are you mounting one over the other, or something?

When talking about a 100W CPU, that usually means 100W TDP, or thermal design power. It's a design envelope meant to inform the cooling solution. For this hypothetical processor to operate as designed, the cooler should be capable of dissipating 100 watts. The processor itself may or may not draw that amount of power. There are any number of Intel CPUs that were manufactured as 65W parts; good luck getting many of them to draw even close to that, particularly dual-core models. The i9-9900K, on the other hand (IIRC), is known for blowing past its 125W TDP under certain conditions.

 

[cst1992]

When talking about a 100W CPU, that usually means 100W TDP, or thermal design power. It's a design envelope meant to inform the cooling solution. For this hypothetical processor to operate as designed, the cooler should be capable of dissipating 100 watts. The processor itself may or may not draw that amount of power. There are any number of Intel CPUs that were manufactured as 65W parts; good luck getting many of them to draw even close to that, particularly dual-core models. The i9-9900K, on the other hand (IIRC), is known for blowing past its 125W TDP under certain conditions

Right, but I'm a bit confused by this:

when talking about Intel's watts you're supposed to double the advertised value to get real full all core load power draw?

When running my 4690k at stock clocks, I'd be hard-pressed for it to cross 75W power consumption, even in p95.
Only when I overclocked it to 4.4GHz and raised the power limit in the BIOS that I was able to exceed its TDP: I was drawing 84W-94W at 4.3GHz and now drawing 98W at 4.4 when set in the BIOS at 100W max.

 

[Calmmo]

Post ryzen intel cpu's in particular can consume a lot more power, and boards override the out of the box boosting behavior to last effectively infinitely so.. yeah they do consume a lot more than the tdp number on the box would lead you to believe. My 4820k is also very cool and... predictable, things are a bit different now, they had to change in order to keep up.

 

[nguyen]

Recently I set up a ultrabook for my pal with the Tiger Lake i5-1135G7 and I gotta say these tiny CPU are quite speedy in what they are meant to do - web surfing, website load instantly and I can even tell the improvement even against 5ghz 9900K with tuned RAM. Yes a tiny Ultrabook can load website faster on WIFI against an OCed rig on wired connection.
With the IPC improvement and most video games only use 8 cores or less, Intel can takes back the gaming and general usage crowds with this 11th gen CPU.

 

[cst1992]

Post ryzen intel cpu's in particular can consume a lot more power, and boards override the out of the box boosting behavior to last effectively infinitely so.. yeah they do consume a lot more than the tdp number on the box would lead you to believe. My 4820k is also very cool and... predictable, things are a bit different now, they had to change in order to keep up.

That's such a shame.