Intel Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake" Boosts Up To 5.30 GHz, Say Rumored Specs

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
18,894
IMO, the big question is whether you can actually buy one easily. Like it was mentioned earlier in this thread - if you can actually buy one at retail price, there's something to be said for that.
 

KATEKATEKATE

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
495
Pentium D Electric Boogaloo.

The Pentium D 840 XE was known to pull almost 300W under heavy load. AMD had their smokin hot CPU as well, the FX 9370 and 9590.
What really gets me worked up isn't entirely the scale of the power consumption as it is the inconsistency of the official specs.

Like, it was obvious what to expect from chips like Smithfield or Vishera. But the past few years Intel has increasingly been on this nonsense where they base their efficiency claims on an unrealistically-low PL1 "TDP" while the performance numbers come from an absurdly-high PL2. That sort of behavior kiiiind of makes sense on mobile (even if it's also frustrating there, she types while glaring at her Sandy Bridge laptop) but on desktop it just seems misleading at best and outright lying at worst. The result being that users of pre-builts that respect PL1 are getting the advertised efficiency but not the advertised performance- while DIY'ers whose boards are set for infinite Long Turbo window are getting the promised performance but their perf/W is like half of what Intel insinuates.

blah, sorry for the rant. this TDP thing sets me off. I know AMD does it too, but Intel is just unhinged and shameless about it lately.
 

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,004
IMO, the big question is whether you can actually buy one easily. Like it was mentioned earlier in this thread - if you can actually buy one at retail price, there's something to be said for that.
I expect the launch to be like comet lake, very low supply on launch. Mobos might be easier to find since it's just the refresh.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471
I expect the launch to be like comet lake, very low supply on launch. Mobos might be easier to find since it's just the refresh.

Motherboards are coming out in January. They should be in ready supply for a March launch.

The big question is when is the 12th gen coming out. I don't think rocket lake is going to make it through the end of 2021 before it is replaced.
 

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,004
Motherboards are coming out in January. They should be in ready supply for a March launch.

The big question is when is the 12th gen coming out. I don't think rocket lake is going to make it through the end of 2021 before it is replaced.
Why is 12th gen supposed to be the big jump in performance?
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471
Why is 12th gen supposed to be the big jump in performance?

They are doing that whole big/little thing, and rocket lake is just a stand in until that's ready. Performance is anyone's guess, but it sounded like the end of 2021 for Alder Lake. Looks like Intel is pulling a Kaby Lake with this launch (e.g. all of 8 months of support and then BAM you have to buy a new motherboard). DDR5 support also.
 

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,004
They are doing that whole big/little thing, and rocket lake is just a stand in until that's ready. Performance is anyone's guess, but it sounded like the end of 2021 for Alder Lake. Looks like Intel is pulling a Kaby Lake with this launch (e.g. all of 8 months of support and then BAM you have to buy a new motherboard). DDR5 support also.
Yeah I just looked and 12th finally moves to 10nm. I expect stock on that launch to be pitifully low.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,558
But the past few years Intel has increasingly been on this nonsense where they base their efficiency claims on an unrealistically-low PL1 "TDP"
That's for OEMs. I've mentioned this before. My work PC is an i7-8700 non-K Dell. Dell rigidly enforces PL1 such that if I run anything that will fully load the CPU, anything from a stress test to a long compile, after a minute or so it will drop to 65W usage, no more. As it happens, that comes out to a couple of bins below the all-core boost speed. I'd be willing to bet HP and other desktop makers do the exact same thing. (I won't even get into laptops except to point out my Acer Swift 5 with an i5-8250U does this as well, except Acer apparently chose the 25W TDP up option in this case, so the CPU steady state is closer to 1.9GHz than the rated 1.6. It certainly won't hold the rated 3.4GHz boost for any length of time.)
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,558
Apropos of nothing, I've never noticed this horrid bit of grammar before.

1608771081212.png
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,218
really who cares? this is hardforums. power usage and node should not matter. whoever provides the best performance does.

maybe im just old school

For me, the past 8 or so years of people constantly crying about perf/watt when it suits them. It means I hold them to it when they all of a sudden switch tracks and care only about raw performance. Too much debate over being green and hating high power bills while turning around and talking about how they're going to overclock the heck out of their new efficient cpu that isn't so efficient when overclocked even a few hundred mhz.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,432
What really gets me worked up isn't entirely the scale of the power consumption as it is the inconsistency of the official specs.

Like, it was obvious what to expect from chips like Smithfield or Vishera. But the past few years Intel has increasingly been on this nonsense where they base their efficiency claims on an unrealistically-low PL1 "TDP" while the performance numbers come from an absurdly-high PL2. That sort of behavior kiiiind of makes sense on mobile (even if it's also frustrating there, she types while glaring at her Sandy Bridge laptop) but on desktop it just seems misleading at best and outright lying at worst. The result being that users of pre-builts that respect PL1 are getting the advertised efficiency but not the advertised performance- while DIY'ers whose boards are set for infinite Long Turbo window are getting the promised performance but their perf/W is like half of what Intel insinuates.

blah, sorry for the rant. this TDP thing sets me off. I know AMD does it too, but Intel is just unhinged and shameless about it lately.

Everyone hates that Intel blatantly lies about their TDP numbers, from product engineers to consumers. Designing a laptop cooling system for Intel parts is basically impossible without having the chip in-hand to test because you can't trust their datasheets. It's why we've had decades of laptops that severely overheat and require those dumb cooling pads with fans in them to keep them from going thermonuclear. Same with Desktops, OEMs have been stuck with the same garbage corn cob OEM Intel cooler for 15 years.

Whenever I spec a cooler for a system build for an Intel part, I always double or triple the number I get from the CPU specs and usually get somewhere in ballpark range. Unfortunately it can't be done with Laptops.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,419
Wait - did you say performance per watt? Where the fuk are the Apple/ARM fans?
I need it, I’m required to submit all power and gas bills to the government for auditing and I am incentivized to stay below certain curves and falling outside them effects budgets when I request special funding for upgrades or projects.
My newest recruits to the cause are the EPYC 3251, those little work horses are now sitting at the top of my racks and let me virtualized like 5 appliances into one. Shaved like 250w out of each rack.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,400
I need it, I’m required to submit all power and gas bills to the government for auditing and I am incentivized to stay below certain curves and falling outside them effects budgets when I request special funding for upgrades or projects.
My newest recruits to the cause are the EPYC 3251, those little work horses are now sitting at the top of my racks and let me virtualized like 5 appliances into one. Shaved like 250w out of each rack.
I want to see the the "guys" with the CFO wives that penny pinch the shit out of them in here,
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471

This shouldn't be surprising otherwise there would be no reason to "upgrade." As it is, there's barely a reason to upgrade. Besides, the most interesting thing on these new chips is the Xe graphics. The KF doesn't have them.

Edit: My favorite CPU in the whole Comet Lake lineup was the 65W 10700. You could turbo it to death with the power limits or let it run at 65W and it had an IGP for QuickSync. With some bios trickery it would boost to 4.8Ghz all core within spitting distance of the 10700k for some $70 less. I might be interested in a 11700 non k again assuming Intel allows the same type of customization of power limits.
 
Last edited:

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
7,716

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,400
It's at least something new and will be interesting to see how the big+little thing pans out on desktop. DDR5 gen could also be the death of lower end dGPUs, which hopefully brings the midrange back to sane pricing.
I really don't understand this big-little shit for the desktop. I get it for mobile but seems silly in this application.

edit: sounds like intel just ran out of die space again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,332
I really don't understand this big-little shit for the desktop. I get it for mobile but seems silly in this application.

edit: sounds like intel just ran out of die space again.
It sounds too stupid to be true. So either Intel is beyond incompetent, gave up on desktop for now, or know something we don't.
 
Top