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

KATEKATEKATE

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
495
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.
this way, Intel can specify a 15W TDP for the i9 12900K*! How marvelously efficient of them! Never mind the 295W PL2 that will be reached the moment the Big cores wake from idle, nothing to see here...

*at base clock, using Little cores only
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471
It really doesn't make any sense at all. There's no reason why they just can't down clock their big cores and lower the voltage. I mean they used to do this for years with speed step. The processor would run at 800 megahertz when it wasn't being fully utilized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this

KATEKATEKATE

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
495
It really doesn't make any sense at all. There's no reason why they just can't down clock their big cores and lower the voltage. I mean they used to do this for years with speed step. The processor would run at 800 megahertz when it wasn't being fully utilized.
They still do that, no? Most recent Intel I used was Skylake, and that was on mobile so I'm a bit out of the loop with how Intel handles it on desktop these days.

I think the big.little thing has to do with minimizing power consumption under light loads. ie, the big cores can stay idle during web browsing and office work and such. That would make a difference in power savings for big companies that have hundreds or thousands of PCs being lightly used all day, but I agree it's mostly pointless for [H]ardcore users like us that run heavy loads on our systems more often than not and would be better off with that die space going to more Big cores.

Speculatively, I think long-term this has to do with a possible broader ARM transition (or at least coexistence) on PCs. We might see chips with low-power ARM cores for general usage and big honkin' x86-64 cores that are optimized purely for performance for high-intensity tasks. I think AMD is going to head that direction too- anyone remember the K12 project?
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this

jerry8169

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
89
what about the 12900K ("Alder Lake-S") then? any interest? Meeho

View attachment 312687
Is it just me, or does the cpu look rectangular instead of the square we've had with the older chips? Hopefully, this doesn't mean that if I decide to upgrade, I'll need a new water block for my cpu just because they decided to change their basic shape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,400
Is it just me, or does the cpu look rectangular instead of the square we've had with the older chips? Hopefully, this doesn't mean that if I decide to upgrade, I'll need a new water block for my cpu just because they decided to change their basic shape.
new socket - new size. LGA1200 -> LGA1700
Same old intel

maybe you will get lucky and just need a new bracket.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471
But also $300-400 more dollars at MSRP.

And if Intel has more launch stock than AMD is currently suffering, another huge factor.

It's apples and oranges. Anything other than a comparison to the 5800X is meaningless. Obviously, AMD owns the higher thread counts because Intel has nothing there.

It will be interesting to see how Intel prices the processors. And if AMD responds with a price cut to the poorly priced 5800x.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
6,753
It will be interesting to see how Intel prices the processors. And if AMD responds with a price cut to the poorly priced 5800x.

I mean, let's be honest, if Intel can deliver an on-average best-in-class single-threaded performing processor, even by just a couple percent, at a price that's sufficiently lower -- reflecting the guaranteed multi-threaded performance gap -- they still have a great gaming CPU on their hands.

If we are looking at a $300 difference, then there's almost no *gaming* reason not to get something like this and a higher-end GPU, everything else being equal.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,625
Something is strange with these leaks and makes no sense. I wonder when we find out that these testers are exploiting motherboard boost states to temporarily push up the score before thermals kick in. I smell some trickery.
 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
6,753
I dunno; considering the thermals they've published I don't think they're trying to conceal any inefficiencies.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,460
really who cares? this is hardforums. power usage and node should not matter. whoever provides the best performance does.

maybe im just old school
I mean, if performance is within a few percentage points and I can choose between 88watts and 200+watts (3700x vs 10700k), I will take the lower power one. Less fans, less cooling required, less heat in my room. If the 10700k was substantially faster for the same $, sure, but it's not. I don't just care about the fastest, 2 of my 6 desktops are itx and a third is a smallish mATX. Heat generations sure does make sense to look at in many cases. Back in the day when it was 25w vs 35w and both were passive cooling, sure, nobody cared. Now if you want to even have a chance at max boost you need water-cooling and tons of case fans, yes it's a bigger deal for more people.
 

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
7,716
I mean, if performance is within a few percentage points and I can choose between 88watts and 200+watts (3700x vs 10700k), I will take the lower power one. Less fans, less cooling required, less heat in my room. If the 10700k was substantially faster for the same $, sure, but it's not. I don't just care about the fastest, 2 of my 6 desktops are itx and a third is a smallish mATX. Heat generations sure does make sense to look at in many cases. Back in the day when it was 25w vs 35w and both were passive cooling, sure, nobody cared. Now if you want to even have a chance at max boost you need water-cooling and tons of case fans, yes it's a bigger deal for more people.

Intel Core i9-11900K CPU-Z Benchmark Score Leaks


Intel Core i9-11900K Rocket Lake-S Already Pushed To 5.2GHz All-Core Overclock

"Rocket Lake Engineering Samples Benchmarked Against Zen 3" -- https://www.tomshardware.com/news/rocket-lake-engineering-samples-benchmarked
 
Last edited:

jamesv

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
109
Tiger Lake Desktop please. Otherwise Zen3 5000 desktop w/ APU gets my money you dummies.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,471
Tiger Lake Desktop please. Otherwise Zen3 5000 desktop w/ APU gets my money you dummies.

Did they make a Tiger Lake NUC? I don't see you getting a socketable Tiger Lake mainstream "S" processor for the desktop.

And on the other hand, AMD has been dropping the ball with APUs. There was no real reason the 4700G couldn't get a general release outside of OEMs.
 

jamesv

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
109
Did they make a Tiger Lake NUC? I don't see you getting a socketable Tiger Lake mainstream "S" processor for the desktop.

And on the other hand, AMD has been dropping the ball with APUs. There was no real reason the 4700G couldn't get a general release outside of OEMs.
They’re all choking for plain old desktop chips. I got 3700X and 3 x i7 4790k’s that work fine. But always got enough time to build the best 1U.
Even ASRock Rack is behind schedule. I waited 3 months last summer for the 570 board, and it’s a PITA still, BIOS updates are numerous though.

cheers
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,936
If the price and performance is right I may end up getting one of these instead of the new Ryzens.

Meaning, If I can get a 11700K or whatever the hell its called with a decent Motherboard at around $600 as opposed to $550 for just a CPU on the AMD side, I'll go with Intel.

But we'll cross that bridge when it gets here. Prices may be different come April.
 

erek

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

kirbyrj

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

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,625
Laugh out load

A default 11900k is barely good enough to beat a 5800X in just single thread. This thing needs 230w to do a basic Cinebench render on stock. The 10900k hit 340w max clocked and this chestnut will beat that.

A threadripper uses the same power but has 4x the cores and threads.


Chuck this in the hell no bucket
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,419
I would need to see idle states for the little cores but Intel and AMD are once again under fire from the EU, California, and a few other players about power draw in idle states. The ATX12VO standard has helped but the little cores could push them back into a comfortably happy area.
 
Top