Anandtech and Gamers Nexus 11700k Reviews

kirbyrj said:
I get that, but what did Anandtech use? The notebookcheck.net article seems to imply that it is a "feature" of i9s and that i7s can't run 1:1 over 2933Mhz to artificially differentiate the product stack. Anandtech ran at 3200Mhz which might have tripped the 1/2:1 divider. So actually underclocking the memory to 2933Mhz would have given better results.
Click to expand...
When I searched for 2933MHz RAM out of curiosity, I found most sites have 3200MHz RAM but no 2933MHz RAM. In any case, I bought 3200MHz RAM waiting for the mobo/CPU.
 
chithanh said:
AnandTech are under NDA for all the information they got through the Intel briefing, and that includes the Gear 1 and Gear 2 mode. Also they are under NDA for the mobo, so cannot disclose anything about it. AT chief editor said it again in the Reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/c...techs_11700k_review_was_running_with/gqi686d/
Click to expand...
On top of that, doesn't Anandtech normally do their reviews with all stock settings, except maybe disabling core boost?
 
Manny Calavera said:
I was a week one adopter of the tech in 2019 with a Corsair MP600 2Tb drive on a Asus X570 Mobo. I own many SSD's ,in several systems including three PCIE 4 drives. In real world use they are no faster then 3.0 drives.
Click to expand...
Outside some very specific workload types the speed gained from PCIE4 storage is negligible because it isn’t the bottleneck point.
 
With the mobo under NDA, and Gear 1/2 under NDA, AT would have a hard time explaining why they limited the RAM to 2933MHz if they had done so. As already noted, 3200MHz (even at "Gear 2") is specified as stock RAM speed, so it makes sense that they used it.
 
The Hardware Luxx review appears much closer to what I was expecting for this processor's performance. I may purchase one after all so I do not need to buy another motherboard.
 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1654...fers-small-performance-gains-on-core-i711700k

Anandtech has a new article--they have a second motherboard with a newer firmware and did more testing. They also confirm they were running the memory controller at 1:1 on all their tests. (For those too lazy to scroll back, there was a question as to whether the i7 was allowed to run 1:1 or not.) It does seem to make the CPU slightly faster, although in the CPU benchmark geomean they showed, it didn't get faster than the 5800x. The peak power on the AVX-512 test dropped from 291 to 275W, and the peak temp dropped 1 degree to 103C.
 
1_rick said:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1654...fers-small-performance-gains-on-core-i711700k

Anandtech has a new article--they have a second motherboard with a newer firmware and did more testing. They also confirm they were running the memory controller at 1:1 on all their tests. (For those too lazy to scroll back, there was a question as to whether the i7 was allowed to run 1:1 or not.) It does seem to make the CPU slightly faster, although in the CPU benchmark geomean they showed, it didn't get faster than the 5800x. The peak power on the AVX-512 test dropped from 291 to 275W, and the peak temp dropped 1 degree to 103C.
Click to expand...
About what I was expecting. Thanks for posting an update.
 
somewhere between hot and hotter the 700 and 900 is about as fast as a 5800k in perfect conditions
 
StormNobleheart said:
The Hardware Luxx review appears much closer to what I was expecting for this processor's performance. I may purchase one after all so I do not need to buy another motherboard.
Click to expand...

If anything, I would have thought these reviews would show you that what you already have is just as good as what is coming. You're better off saving your money.

OrangeKhrush said:
somewhere between hot and hotter the 700 and 900 is about as fast as a 5800k in perfect conditions
Click to expand...

And at a price that's going to be higher than the 5800x.
 
kirbyrj said:
If anything, I would have thought these reviews would show you that what you already have is just as good as what is coming. You're better off saving your money.



And at a price that's going to be higher than the 5800x.
Click to expand...
The problem is.....I cannot use quite a few features of the motherboard. I cannot add a second m.2 drive without losing the optical and hard drives. I also have a 980 Pro that ended up as a waste. I am tempted to just vendor off everything and do without a computer for a while because I am so mad at myself.
 
StormNobleheart said:
The problem is.....I cannot use quite a few features of the motherboard. I cannot add a second m.2 drive without losing the optical and hard drives. I also have a 980 Pro that ended up as a waste. I am tempted to just vendor off everything and do without a computer for a while because I am so mad at myself.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
MavericK said:
Glad I went with AMD this round.
Click to expand...

I had both last time around. A 3800X and a 10700 (non-k). The difference is that I can literally drop in a better processor with AMD. I don't know that the drop in Intel CPU will actually be better or not (yet?). Looks like the biggest difference is going to be the Xe graphics vs the HD630.
 
kirbyrj said:
I had both last time around. A 3800X and a 10700 (non-k). The difference is that I can literally drop in a better processor with AMD. I don't know that the drop in Intel CPU will actually be better or not (yet?). Looks like the biggest difference is going to be the Xe graphics vs the HD630.
Click to expand...
Well, they're apparently going to come out with a Ryzen 5 5300G. But, that's a 4 core CPU. I would have been more interested in a 6 core 11400 competitor. Anyway, since my Thermalright AXP-90i CPU cooler came in, I'm very likely going Intel. lol
 
wandplus said:
Well, they're apparently going to come out with a Ryzen 5 5300G. But, that's a 4 core CPU. I would have been more interested in a 6 core 11400 competitor. Anyway, since my Thermalright AXP-90i CPU cooler came in, I'm very likely going Intel. lol
Click to expand...
If the 5600x is anything to go by, a 4 core Zen 3 should have no problem beating a 10400 in just about everything.
 
kirbyrj said:
If anything, I would have thought these reviews would show you that what you already have is just as good as what is coming. You're better off saving your money.



And at a price that's going to be higher than the 5800x.
Click to expand...
I would say yes, the 5800X turned out to be the champion chip of the generation.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I would say yes, the 5800X turned out to be the champion chip of the generation.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with that; its price-per-core is worse than every other CPU in the lineup, the gaming performance is indistinguishable from the 5600X and lags behind the 5900X in certain scenarios, and it runs hotter than either of those two chips owing to the fact that it's driving two more cores per CCD. It really is the worst chip of the generation, occupying the no-mans land between a gaming focused PC and a true high end part, and the only reason it's getting this much attention and looking as good as it does is because it's only being compared to what is generally regarded as a dumpster fire.
 
BrotherMichigan said:
I don't really agree with that; its price-per-core is worse than every other CPU in the lineup, the gaming performance is indistinguishable from the 5600X and lags behind the 5900X in certain scenarios, and it runs hotter than either of those two chips owing to the fact that it's driving two more cores per CCD. It really is the worst chip of the generation, occupying the no-mans land between a gaming focused PC and a true high end part, and the only reason it's getting this much attention and looking as good as it does is because it's only being compared to what is generally regarded as a dumpster fire.
Click to expand...

I like mine. Low inter-core latency on the single CCD. The 2 more cores over the 5600X are handy for the occasional encode. I'm running a loop with 2 radiators, so I have no heat issues.
 
chameleoneel said:
Click to expand...


Pretty much what you would expect. Motherboard manufacturers and Intel aren't going to enforce the artificial limits of the i7s...probably unless you are on a non "Z" motherboard. This is just going to be another motherboard feature like MCE, Turbo limit extension, memory overclocking, etc. that you get by paying up for the higher end chipset. If you drop an i7 into a B560, you might be limited to Gear 2.
 
kirbyrj said:
Pretty much what you would expect. Motherboard manufacturers and Intel aren't going to enforce the artificial limits of the i7s...probably unless you are on a non "Z" motherboard. This is just going to be another motherboard feature like MCE, Turbo limit extension, memory overclocking, etc. that you get by paying up for the higher end chipset. If you drop an i7 into a B560, you might be limited to Gear 2.
Click to expand...
I have an H570 and it has all of the memory features. XMP, timings, voltages, gears, various options for controlling memory training---including realtime training (another rocket lake feature), etc.

and all of the non-rocket lake specific features work with my 10700 non-k. (gears and realtime training are rocket-lake specific. Although it does have a comet lake specific training mode. Haven't tested it yet for any difference).
 
With the official spec charts now showing the all core boosts, we can see that i7 and i5, are all clocked 100-200mhz lower than their 10 series relatives.

This could make it relatively more difficult for 11400 and 11500 to match 10 series in all but multithreaded workloads.
11700 non-k is also 200mhz slower all core than 10700.

*oop, looks like the 11600k is actually 100mhz higher all core boost. Hmm!
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
With the official spec charts now showing the all core boosts, we can see that i7 and i5, are all clocked 100-200mhz lower than their 10 series relatives.

This could make it relatively more difficult for 11400 and 11500 to match 10 series in all but multithreaded workloads.
11700 non-k is also 200mhz slower all core than 10700.

*oop, looks like the 11600k is actually 100mhz higher all core boost. Hmm!
Click to expand...
CPUcomparisons.jpg
 
Great, their own web site contains information that's not consistent with their own slides. M'kay.
 
wandplus said:
Great, their own web site contains information that's not consistent with their own slides. M'kay.
Click to expand...
Well, that screenshot you posted shows "max turbo". Which usually means the max speed for two threads.
The all core/all thread speeds are often much lower. And those speeds are the ones I was commenting about. Intel also doesn't usually make all core turbo info easily available. So, the slides are interesting just for that!
11 series does indeed seem to have increased "max turbo" on seemingly every model.

Techpowerup always has a nice plot showing how the turbo speeds scale across threads. Looking forward to their 11 series reviews.
 
I kinda dismissed the very first Anandtech review as a clickbaity rush to be first because they ran prerelease microcode and BIOSes, but I'm out of excuses for Intel - this GN review is brutal.

And "Waste of Sand" might be the wittiest title ever:

 
Last edited:
DPI said:
I kinda dismissed the very first Anandtech review as a clickbaity rush to be first because they ran prerelease microcode and BIOSes, and didn't disclose that they ran the memory at 1:2 until pressed on it days later, but I'm out of excuses for Intel - this GN review is brutal. And "Waste of Sand" might be the wittiest title ever:

Click to expand...


https://www.anandtech.com/show/1654...fers-small-performance-gains-on-core-i711700k

"For the avoidance of doubt, in our testing on every microcode to date, all of our motherboards were running at a 1:1 ratio."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top