11900k Reviews and discussion

[maflynn]

It would be interesting to see how these end up performing under moderate liquid-cooling solutions

Check out the first video I linked, Jayz uses an AIO on his test bench.

I don't think he over clocks this at all, an he really doesn't seem to go in-depth regarding temps

The ugliness continues with Gamer Nexus posting a review on the 11900k and he's probably the most critical so far (for good reason).

 

[I7guy]

Check out the first video I linked, Jayz uses an AIO on his test bench.

I don't think he over clocks this at all, an he really doesn't seem to go in-depth regarding temps

The ugliness continues with Gamer Nexus posting a review on the 11900k and he's probably the most critical so far (for good reason).

I saw the Gamers Nexus review, ouch, they didn't hold much back.

But in general what was interesting and was my takeaway, was that benchmarks that depended on cores we in favor of those units, including the 10th gen. Where the benchmark depended on ipc, the 11900K came out on top.

Hopefully this bodes well for Alder Lake.

 

[maflynn]

I saw the Gamers Nexus review, ouch, they didn't hold much back.

No but he really only talked about performance, I think LTT's video is the only review I've seen so far that talked about how hot the CPU can get.

Starting at (4:29) they show the power and temps once you remove the turbo limit The second screen grab is shocking where it grabs almost 300 watts and his pretty close to the 100c mark. I'm not sure when/how someone will use the AVX-512 instructions so it may be a rare thing but it does highlight the massive power consumption and heat generation

 

[panjandrum]

Check out the first video I linked, Jayz uses an AIO on his test bench.

I don't think he over clocks this at all, an he really doesn't seem to go in-depth regarding temps

The ugliness continues with Gamer Nexus posting a review on the 11900k and he's probably the most critical so far (for good reason).

Thanks for that. Good info.

 

[I7guy]

[...] the power and temps once you remove the turbo limit[...]

Agree. However:
- In a production environment one will not remove the turbo limits and probably not enable what is called "multi-core enhancement"
- The AVX-512 instructions are a big deal to certain applications including video and matrix and from what I can gather they do generate heat, which is why they are used in benchmarks.

 

[maflynn]

- In a production environment one will not remove the turbo limits and probably not enable what is called "multi-core enhancement"

No question and for my usage patterns, I'd not disable those limits, so you certainly should come to realize its probably a niche group of people wanting to push this cpu futher.

My take away from the reviews however is that the 10900k or the 11500k (which seems to be getting positive reviews) are better options if you want to stick with Intel

 

[dmr727]

Anandtech has their review up:

Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, and Core i5-11600K

www.anandtech.com

 

[c0ppo]

My desktop handles the TDP just fine (Handling the TDP could have been better, but that is my fault in choosing a not so optimal case). Benchmarks are all well and good, but to say out of the two aforementioned cpus that are the subject of this thread, that one is faster in every single use case for every person, may not be true. And faster is something that may not be noticed given the use case.

So you go with what you want, what you need, what you feel comfortable with. How many people run cinebench as a measure of their real work load?

You're defending Intel for what?
No one is claiming AMD is faster in ALL scenarios. Such CPU simply doesn't exist.
I'm claiming AMD is better for most people out there. In most scenarios it runs faster and cooler. And it won't heat up your entire building

 

[I7guy]

You're defending Intel for what?
No one is claiming AMD is faster in ALL scenarios. Such CPU simply doesn't exist.
I'm claiming AMD is better for most people out there. In most scenarios it runs faster and cooler. And it won't heat up your entire building

How could you possible know that AMD is better for most people? In my use case, an 11900K would make certain things faster and not slow anything down due to the two cores that are now gone. That is my point. (Actually as a side note, I'm guessing we will know in the future how this chip is ultimately received by consumers...I'm conceding the point Intel could have/should have done better, they sat on their fannies for tool long. But the 11th gen isn't all bad news)

(And the point about TDP, was with turbo limits off, running the instruction set that generated the most heat)

 

[c0ppo]

How could you possible know that AMD is better for most people? In my use case, an 11900K would make certain things faster and not slow anything down due to the two cores that are now gone. That is my point. (Actually as a side note, I'm guessing we will know in the future how this chip is ultimately received by consumers...I'm conceding the point Intel could have/should have done better, they sat on their fannies for tool long. But the 11th gen isn't all bad news)

(And the point about TDP, was with turbo limits off, running the instruction set that generated the most heat)

Well, looking at reviews, and year by year increasing AMD sales, I can easily say that AMD is way better option for most people. For example, I can find Intel CPUs for purchase in my country easily. Everyone has them on shelves. AMD? Good luck.

If AMD finds a way to produce more CPUs, well, their sales will increase even more.
You can deny reality all you want, but at this moment in time, AMD is a better choice for most people.

 

[I7guy]

Well, looking at reviews, and year by year increasing AMD sales, I can easily say that AMD is way better option for most people. For example, I can find Intel CPUs for purchase in my country easily. Everyone has them on shelves. AMD? Good luck.

If AMD finds a way to produce more CPUs, well, their sales will increase even more.
You can deny reality all you want, but at this moment in time, AMD is a better choice for most people.

I have no horse in this game, meaning I hold no intel or amd stock and for me Intel is actually the better option.

But if it is your opinion that AMD is a better choice for most people I accept that. Now let's see what "most people" actually buy.

 

[Chompineer]

Agree. However:
- In a production environment one will not remove the turbo limits and probably not enable what is called "multi-core enhancement"
- The AVX-512 instructions are a big deal to certain applications including video and matrix and from what I can gather they do generate heat, which is why they are used in benchmarks.

Most off the shelf Z490/Z590 boards have MCE default on. You actually have to go out of your way to disable such features.

 

[I7guy]

Most off the shelf Z490/Z590 boards have MCE default on. You actually have to go out of your way to disable such features.

Not all of them from what I can gather. I youtubed and used anandtech as a reference for many of the reviews about the z490. I know it's the games the m/b manufacturers play to one up-manship.

On my z490 I have defaults set on every single item; meaning on, off or a value.

 

[LiE_]

5900x, 40% more multicore performance and at 25% less power than the 11900k.

 

[I7guy]

Executive Review: How Does Intel's Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD's Ryzen 5800X

Intel's Rocket Lake is one of the most anxiously anticipated launch in almost a decade. It marks the first move away from the wider Skylake macro-architecture (since Haswell) and the first major revision for Intel on the 14nm process. This is the first platform from Intel that supports PCIe 4.0...

wccftech.com

 

[thedocbwarren]

Glad to finally see some reviews. I was considering a build as a final Intel system. I had a slight expectation they were going to just rearrange the cores and frequency to handle higher single core vs 10th gen. Overall this is really alarming and sad for Intel. They will need to turn this around for the long term.

 

[Chompineer]

Not all of them from what I can gather. I youtubed and used anandtech as a reference for many of the reviews about the z490. I know it's the games the m/b manufacturers play to one up-manship.

On my z490 I have defaults set on every single item; meaning on, off or a value.

My Z490 (MSI MPG Gaming Edge WiFi) was defaulted to it. Infact, try as I may, I cannot get my 10850k to down-clock for more than a few brief moments. It sits at 4.8Ghz continuously. Not really a concern in itself, considering it's still only using ~10w when unloaded, but it is somewhat annoying.

 

[I7guy]

My Z490 (MSI MPG Gaming Edge WiFi) was defaulted to it. Infact, try as I may, I cannot get my 10850k to down-clock for more than a few brief moments. It sits at 4.8Ghz continuously. Not really a concern in itself, considering it's still only using ~10w when unloaded, but it is somewhat annoying.

I am able to dial down the cpu to .87 gigahertz. Must be some motherboard settings like EIST and/or cpu states that have to be set.

 

[maflynn]

Executive Review: How Does Intel's Core i9 11900K Compare To AMD's Ryzen 5800X

Intel's Rocket Lake is one of the most anxiously anticipated launch in almost a decade. It marks the first move away from the wider Skylake macro-architecture (since Haswell) and the first major revision for Intel on the 14nm process. This is the first platform from Intel that supports PCIe 4.0...

wccftech.com

Sadly, they really didn't provide much in terms of benchmarks, just Cinebench and a couple others. For me, some of the other reviews that provided app performance gives a hint of actual usage. One thing they did go into more detail then others didn't is the AVX test and that shows the 11900k beating AMD - with that said, I have no idea how many apps can and will use that.

I will say the I5 11600k is faring better in reviews and makes a strong alterative to AMD. My own preference was to go with an i5 back when I was building a system, so I could see myself getting that (If I was in the process of building a computer today).

 

[I7guy]

Sadly, they really didn't provide much in terms of benchmarks, just Cinebench and a couple others. For me, some of the other reviews that provided app performance gives a hint of actual usage. One thing they did go into more detail then others didn't is the AVX test and that shows the 11900k beating AMD - with that said, I have no idea how many apps can and will use that.

I will say the I5 11600k is faring better in reviews and makes a strong alterative to AMD. My own preference was to go with an i5 back when I was building a system, so I could see myself getting that (If I was in the process of building a computer today).

The youtubers make a buck by being brash and outlandish.

I've seen way too many YT videos on the 11th gen, and my take away is the benchmarks don't represent my use case and the disparity between the latest Intel and the latest AMD is smaller than youtubers will admit in real life usage.

Buy what you want, think or think you need. Those who need speciality workstations who makes their $$$ depending on high powered workstations, know where to get them.

The rest of us, probably won't notice a difference.

 

[maflynn]

my take away is the benchmarks don't represent my use case

What is your use case?

the disparity between the latest Intel and the latest AMD is smaller than youtubers will admit in real life usage.

I don't think so, many of the reviewers ran real world tests, and not just Time Spy and Cinebench, Just take a look at the screen grab from Hardware Unboxed We're talking about 7.9 minutes to complete a blender task vs. 14.4 minutes. That's not a small difference.

For me, its clear that AMD's flagship absolutely decimates Intel's flagship in nearly every metric.

 

[I7guy]

What is your use case?


I don't think so, many of the reviewers ran real world tests, and not just Time Spy and Cinebench, Just take a look at the screen grab from Hardware Unboxed We're talking about 7.9 minutes to complete a blender task vs. 14.4 minutes. That's not a small difference.
View attachment 1752235

For me, its clear that AMD's flagship absolutely decimates Intel's flagship in nearly every metric.

My use case is business applications: RDP, office, etc. I'm into VMs and run a bunch of them, that's more cores and memory than brute cpu speed.

I also play two games: Flight simulator and Doom Eternal. Doom Eternal is not cpu limited (it's gpu limited), MSFS is cpu limited somewhat and gpu limited somewhat. A rocket lake would according to benchmarks provide a 20% boost.

So, for my use case a ryzen 5950, for example, would not benefit my workflow for the additional dollars.

edit: a lot of these benchmarks are all well and good. But how many of us actually zip and unzip gigabyte files as part of our professional workflow, run 3d rendering software, run heavy duty photoshop? What is the real world difference between a top of the line intel and a top of the line AMD, in ones use cases?

 

[thedocbwarren]

My use case is business applications: RDP, office, etc. I'm into VMs and run a bunch of them, that's more cores and memory than brute cpu speed.

I also play two games: Flight simulator and Doom Eternal. Doom Eternal is not cpu limited (it's gpu limited), MSFS is cpu limited somewhat and gpu limited somewhat. A rocket lake would according to benchmarks provide a 20% boost.

So, for my use case a ryzen 5950, for example, would not benefit my workflow for the additional dollars.

edit: a lot of these benchmarks are all well and good. But how many of us actually zip and unzip gigabyte files as part of our professional workflow, run 3d rendering software, run heavy duty photoshop? What is the real world difference between a top of the line intel and a top of the line AMD, in ones use cases?

I would think ryzen would benifit as it has more cores. If you are using a lot of VMs you segment your system. Honestly, docker is better for these kinds of things.

I've run a mac pro with a lot of cores for VMs before along with a 7700k-based linux box with 4 cores with simular results.

 

[maflynn]

I'm into VMs and run a bunch of them, that's more cores and memory than brute cpu speed.
...
So, for my use case a ryzen 5950, for example, would not benefit my workflow for the additional dollars.

Office apps are a push, and you're right, Intel or Ryzen, you'll not see a huge difference. Games is a toss up as well - In some games Ryzen will beat out Intel, and other games vice versa. There's only a few percentage points between either one for those use cases.

Running Vms However, that's where Ryzen will shine - The more cores/threads the better for VMs Take a look at the Ryzen 5900x it has 12 cores and 24 threads, where as the 11900k only has 8 cores and 16 threads. Even the 5800x which has the same core/thread count of the 11900k but largely out performs the i9 in nearly every category, it also runs cooler and consumes less power. And the kicker, its less expensive.

If you want intel, that's fine, its a personal decision, but I don't think you can argue that the I9 11900k is a worthy contender. As Gamer Nexus stated, its a waste of sand. I agree, In nearly every category the 11900k is inferior to both AMD and even Intel's last generation the 10900k

 

[thedocbwarren]

Office apps are a push, and you're right, Intel or Ryzen, you'll not see a huge difference. Games is a toss up as well - In some games Ryzen will beat out Intel, and other games vice versa. There's only a few percentage points between either one for those use cases.

Running Vms However, that's where Ryzen will shine - The more cores/threads the better for VMs Take a look at the Ryzen 5900x it has 12 cores and 24 threads, where as the 11900k only has 8 cores and 16 threads. Even the 5800x which has the same core/thread count of the 11900k but largely out performs the i9 in nearly every category, it also runs cooler and consumes less power. And the kicker, its less expensive.

If you want intel, that's fine, its a personal decision, but I don't think you can argue that the I9 11900k is a worthy contender. As Gamer Nexus stated, its a waste of sand. I agree, In nearly every category the 11900k is inferior to both AMD and even Intel's last generation the 10900k

View attachment 1752372

My use case I was considering for the i9 was an outlier Windows/Linux box that I would use for gaming, heavy thread load as a separate box from my M1. I looked at the 5900x and 5950x as the likely candidate but paused to see the 11900k performance. I think for gaming, it's overkill, but threads and VMs I'd say Ryzen. End goal was the last x86 platform to pick up stuff I can't on the new platform.

That all said I may not do it at all as I'm using less and less outlier stuff. So maybe the Intel review delay saved me trouble and money, not sure yet.