Intel i5-11600K benchmarked

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
The non-hotly anticipated Rocket Lake benchmarks are now in. (lol, I didn't see anyone posting this.) This shows the Intel i5-11600K in various tests: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-11600k/
Personally, I ordered the i5-11500 and it just shipped today from Canadacomputers. However, I'm still waiting for the ASRock H510M-HDV/M.2 motherboard to be in stock. I want that one despite the fact it won't have PCIe4 with that chipset because I want the RAM to go 3200MHz. On other boards like the AsRock B560M-HDV and GIGABYTE B560M D3H, they say you can have PCIe4 but an i5 if I'm correct will run RAM at 2933MHz.
These new details about RAM are all a bit confusing to me like gear 1 and gear 2 but here's one comment from Techpowerup: "Surprisingly, 3200 CL14 Gear 1 is actually faster than 3800 CL16 Gear 2".
*I'm assuming when the RTX 3050 Ti (if it ever becomes "buyable" by consumers) won't surpass the bandwidth of PCIe3. By the way, when I got the WD Blue 1TB SSD, I noticed it was the Gen 3 x4 version. It wasn't crucial to me to have Gen 4 x4 but just saying they're available now. I also bought 16GB Crucial Ballistix RAM so it would run at 3200MHz (I'm hoping it works out).
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,068
The non-hotly anticipated Rocket Lake benchmarks are now in. (lol, I didn't see anyone posting this.) This shows the Intel i5-11600K in various tests: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-11600k/
Personally, I ordered the i5-11500 and it just shipped today from Canadacomputers. However, I'm still waiting for the ASRock H510M-HDV/M.2 motherboard to be in stock. I want that one despite the fact it won't have PCIe4 with that chipset because I want the RAM to go 3200MHz. On other boards like the AsRock B560M-HDV and GIGABYTE B560M D3H, they say you can have PCIe4 but an i5 if I'm correct will run RAM at 2933MHz.
These new details about RAM are all a bit confusing to me like gear 1 and gear 2 but here's one comment from Techpowerup: "Surprisingly, 3200 CL14 Gear 1 is actually faster than 3800 CL16 Gear 2".
*I'm assuming when the RTX 3050 Ti (if it ever becomes "buyable" by consumers) won't surpass the bandwidth of PCIe3. By the way, when I got the WD Blue 1TB SSD, I noticed it was the Gen 3 x4 version. It wasn't crucial to me to have Gen 4 x4 but just saying they're available now. I also bought 16GB Crucial Ballistix RAM so it would run at 3200MHz (I'm hoping it works out).
with the 500 series motherboards, non-K processors can overclock RAM. Even if you are using a 10 series Comet Lake CPU. I'm currently using an 10700f in an Asrock H570 ITX board. DDR3600 overclocked to 4000 with no change to timings.

Most brands are updating their bios today or tomorrow. Don't forget to apply the update to whichever board you get.
 

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
Does anyone else find it just a bit odd that there are no benchmarks today on sites like Anandtech, Tomshardware and Techpowerup on the 11400 and 11500? At least they could save their reputation by showing the power consumption for those.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
Does anyone else find it just a bit odd that there are no benchmarks today on sites like Anandtech, Tomshardware and Techpowerup on the 11400 and 11500? At least they could save their reputation by showing the power consumption for those.
I mean, they'd still be high for the performance you get. Still would be interesting to see how they perform, but honestly not expecting much from locked cpus.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,225
Out of this launch 11600K is the only one that remotely makes sort of sense, but only after 10600K is sold out and no longer available. And because non-X 5600 is nowhere to be seen and AMD priced it to the moon.

I am seriously considering this because I need a new dedicated desktop PC.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
Out of this launch 11600K is the only one that remotely makes sort of sense, but only after 10600K is sold out and no longer available. And because non-X 5600 is nowhere to be seen and AMD priced it to the moon.

I am seriously considering this because I need a new dedicated desktop PC.
$300 is priced to the moon yet $270 isn't?
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,225
$300 is priced to the moon yet $270 isn't?

Here the pricing is 270e for the Intel, 320e for the Ryzen. 50 euro difference, thats 60 dollars, roughly. Not the end of the world difference but enough for me to consider twice.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
Here the pricing is 270e for the Intel, 320e for the Ryzen. 50 euro difference, thats 60 dollars, roughly. Not the end of the world difference but enough for me to consider twice.
Ah, non US pricing. Sorry for the assumption. Only because some here would consider the $30 difference here some unbreakable barrier.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
I mean it certainly seems like the 10600k is the biggest winner here especially with closeout pricing. Newegg had them at $215 yesterday on a shell shocker.
If I were building a totally new pc nowadays I'd probably grab a comet lake. Hard to say though because you could still get a Ryzen 3600 for $200 which is fine unless you need every single absolute percentage of gaming performance.

That only applies to the around $200 mark. if I was going up to $250+ I'd probably grab a 10850K for $320.
 

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
What is the huge issue with Rocket Lake anyway? I mean the heat Intel is taking for a CPU close to the Comet Lake is a bit unreal.
For a budget gaming machine that I later want to turn into a (backup) machine to watch movies/shows, it's not bad. The i5-11400 & i5-11500 for example both have onboard video for 5K resolution. And the TDP for both these CPUs is 65 watts, not 125 watts like the i5-11600K.
Look at what I got today.
IMG_20210331_121016897.jpg
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,954
What is the huge issue with Rocket Lake anyway? I mean the heat Intel is taking for a CPU close to the Comet Lake is a bit unreal.
For a budget gaming machine that I later want to turn into a (backup) machine to watch movies/shows, it's not bad. The i5-11400 & i5-11500 for example both have onboard video for 5K resolution. And the TDP for both these CPUs is 65 watts, not 125 watts like the i5-11600K.
Look at what I got today.
View attachment 343901

The huge issue is that some tasks are slower than the previous generation. It's not an upgrade when you move to a slower processor. It's a downgrade.

That being said, the 11500 is probably a pretty good bang for the buck CPU. Intel is scraping the bottom of the barrel of product segmentation though by not including the full 32 EUs on the 11400.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
The only thing getting flack atm are the K series CPUs that are reviewed because they're honestly just okay (11600k depending on your 5600x prices), pointless (11700k), or an insulting joke (11900k).

Any reviews out for the lower end parts? I'd be interested in seeing those. I've heard the igpu is disappointing compared to ryzen apus and tiger lake parts.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,068
The only thing getting flack atm are the K series CPUs that are reviewed because they're honestly just okay (11600k depending on your 5600x prices), pointless (11700k), or an insulting joke (11900k).

Any reviews out for the lower end parts? I'd be interested in seeing those. I've heard the igpu is disappointing compared to ryzen apus and tiger lake parts.
Yeah basically, the die space for the new AVX etc and also the power usage, meant they didn't have room in 14nm, to include a GPU the same size as their recent mobile parts with XE graphics.

That said, it still includes AV1 Decode and could be used for some machine learning stuff. I'm also hoping they make some noticeable quality improvements to quicksync encoding quality. But....there hasn't been any word on that yay or nay. Its the kind of thing where, the hardware could support better quality, but the tools and documentation to take advantage of it may not be integrated into consumer software and drivers, for as much as a year...
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
the 11500/400 may only be interesting in that they are cheap build parts, designed for H of B chipsets and decent entry level gaming systems with lower end graphics cards.

the 5600x at 65w and it can work well on a mid level B550 or B450 board makes it a better part if power is a factor.


AMD have confirmed 5000 series APUs in the 5300G(4/8), 5600G(6/12) and 5700G(8/16). if these are well priced it will put pressure on Intel as these are not cut back Ryzen cpus, the 5300G is the fastest quad core and the 5700G matched the 5800X. iGPU will also be very strong for integrated only SFF systems
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,954
the 11500/400 may only be interesting in that they are cheap build parts, designed for H of B chipsets and decent entry level gaming systems with lower end graphics cards.

the 5600x at 65w and it can work well on a mid level B550 or B450 board makes it a better part if power is a factor.


AMD have confirmed 5000 series APUs in the 5300G(4/8), 5600G(6/12) and 5700G(8/16). if these are well priced it will put pressure on Intel as these are not cut back Ryzen cpus, the 5300G is the fastest quad core and the 5700G matched the 5800X. iGPU will also be very strong for integrated only SFF systems

The 5600x is also $100 more expensive. And the price of the APUs is unknown because they don't exist in the wild yet. 3600 vs. 11400/500? That would be more interesting and I might lean toward Intel at that point with the IGP.
 

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
And I guess also the fact that you may need a motherboard that has a BIOS compatible with those Ryzen chips.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
And I guess also the fact that you may need a motherboard that has a BIOS compatible with those Ryzen chips.
most resellers will flash the bios if you ask, that's only relevant if you are putting a 5000 series part on a 400 series board.
 

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
Wow, they finally came out with the relevant testing, the i5-11400. Not only does it beat the Ryzen 3600 in gaming by enough of a wide margin, its temperature at idle is very acceptable. This is what I wanted to see and confirms I didn't do a booboo when I bought the i5-11500 (even though I had the audacity to order the same day the paper launch was done on March 17 then shipped on the official launch on the 30th).
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
Wow, they finally came out with the relevant testing, the i5-11400. Not only does it beat the Ryzen 3600 in gaming by enough of a wide margin, its temperature at idle is very acceptable. This is what I wanted to see and confirms I didn't do a booboo when I bought the i5-11500 (even though I had the audacity to order the same day the paper launch was done on March 17 then shipped on the official launch on the 30th).
As he says, if you are prepared to give up a lot of performance but get enough to game okay for a while then the 11400 is okay, the 3600 at stock was still competitive even though it is very old by now standard. If you can't wait for AMD new releases then it is okay
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
Wow, they finally came out with the relevant testing, the i5-11400. Not only does it beat the Ryzen 3600 in gaming by enough of a wide margin, its temperature at idle is very acceptable. This is what I wanted to see and confirms I didn't do a booboo when I bought the i5-11500 (even though I had the audacity to order the same day the paper launch was done on March 17 then shipped on the official launch on the 30th).
It looks like a solid gaming focused choice. I'd probably grab one if I didn't have a hangup over locked CPUs.

Can we now have a non-X 5600 and those apus AMD?
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,954
It looks like a solid gaming focused choice. I'd probably grab one if I didn't have a hangup over locked CPUs.

Can we now have a non-X 5600 and those apus AMD?

Exactly. As long as a Zen3 based 5600G (or whatever it's going to be called) isn't more than $250, it's going to be a better deal than the 11500 IMO.

I would have to believe that AMD ceding the sub-$300 market to Intel has to do with production. I don't blame them for wanting to make the most money with higher end parts while they have an advantage.
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
Exactly. As long as a Zen3 based 5600G (or whatever it's going to be called) isn't more than $250, it's going to be a better deal than the 11500 IMO.

I would have to believe that AMD ceding the sub-$300 market to Intel has to do with production. I don't blame them for wanting to make the most money with higher end parts while they have an advantage.
Nah, I wouldn't fault them either. I know people were upset about 5600X pricing, but it was (and still is) the best hexacore you can buy. People were perfectly fine paying the "premium" price when it came to Intel.

Now we just need an an actual replacement for the venerable 3600. Maybe even a good price drop on it if they want to keep making them.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,068
Wow, they finally came out with the relevant testing, the i5-11400. Not only does it beat the Ryzen 3600 in gaming by enough of a wide margin, its temperature at idle is very acceptable. This is what I wanted to see and confirms I didn't do a booboo when I bought the i5-11500 (even though I had the audacity to order the same day the paper launch was done on March 17 then shipped on the official launch on the 30th).

As he says, if you are prepared to give up a lot of performance but get enough to game okay for a while then the 11400 is okay, the 3600 at stock was still competitive even though it is very old by now standard. If you can't wait for AMD new releases then it is okay
I think the 11400 and 11500 are fine choices. There is plenty of performance there for gaming. And compared to Ryzen 3600, you get PCI-E 4.0 and better USB-C and thunderbolt options on motherboards. So you will be able take advantage of speedy drives and make the most from Direct Storage and RTX IO when they release.

Its true, they don't compare at all in productivity to more expensive options. But that's fine, because those options are more expensive! There is still plenty of performance there for casual/moderate productivity, as well. And in that situation, an 11400/11500 may still be a better choice than a 3600, due to PCI-E Storage options. Moving and working in large project files can be noticeably better, with faster storage.
Its also worth noting that Intel has Quicksync and its really solid for encoding speed and quality. Its faster than a Ryzen 3600 encoding via CPU. And as good or better quality, when game streaming with settings which would be realistic for a 3600 to do on CPU. But Quicksync is a lower hit to CPU use. Better framerates for you, while streaming. NVENC for Turing and Ampere is even better. But if you are on AMD or an older Nvidia card, Quicksync can be a good thing to have.

Indeed, if you do a lot of projects which take time or end up in a situation of time/money----a more expensive option would be beneficial.

I just don't really see a major case to still choose a 3600.

AMD could someday release a lower tier 6 core to compete on price. But we can only speculate about performance. And Intel still has Quicksync ;)
and there is a bit of performance to be gained from maxing out the turbo values, which Gamers Nexus did not talk about. Look at techpowerup's reviews of the 10400 and 10500 to see an relative idea on what an 11400/11500 could gain from maxing out Turbo.
 
Last edited:

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
I can't help but wonder what some people at Anandtech must be thinking now about their weird pre-release review. Not from an ethical point of view, but more from a stupidity/awkwardness point of view. How cheesy do they feel right now?
 

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
I can't help but wonder what some people at Anandtech must be thinking now about their weird pre-release review. Not from an ethical point of view, but more from a stupidity/awkwardness point of view. How cheesy do they feel right now?
What was wrong with it?
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
I think the 11400 and 11500 are fine choices. There is plenty of performance there for gaming. And compared to Ryzen 3600, you get PCI-E 4.0 and better USB-C and thunderbolt options on motherboards. So you will be able take advantage of speedy drives and make the most from Direct Storage and RTX IO when they release.

Its true, they don't compare at all in productivity to more expensive options. But that's fine, because those options are more expensive! There is still plenty of performance there for casual/moderate productivity, as well. And in that situation, an 11400/11500 may still be a better choice than a 3600, due to PCI-E Storage options. Moving and working in large project files can be noticeably better, with faster storage.
Its also worth noting that Intel has Quicksync and its really solid for encoding speed and quality. Its faster than a Ryzen 3600 encoding via CPU. And as good or better quality, when game streaming with settings which would be realistic for a 3600 to do on CPU. But Quicksync is a lower hit to CPU use. Better framerates for you, while streaming. NVENC for Turing and Ampere is even better. But if you are on AMD or an older Nvidia card, Quicksync can be a good thing to have.

Indeed, if you do a lot of projects which take time or end up in a situation of time/money----a more expensive option would be beneficial.

I just don't really see a major case to still choose a 3600.

AMD could someday release a lower tier 6 core to compete on price. But we can only speculate about performance. And Intel still has Quicksync ;)
and there is a bit of performance to be gained from maxing out the turbo values, which Gamers Nexus did not talk about. Look at techpowerup's reviews of the 10400 and 10500 to see an relative idea on what an 11400/11500 could gain from maxing out Turbo.
I see AMD selling the 5600G around the 200 mark and may be reducing the 5600x to 250. I still think we will see a 5600XT on more mature 7nm which will be around 300 as it will compete with the 8 core 11700.

the 3600 is pretty old news now and merely exists as surplus it's a year and a half old now. AMD will likely address the lower end before to long, they have had the luxury of not needing to for a long time.
 

Nasgul

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
90
I know people were upset about 5600X pricing, but it was (and still is) the best hexacore you can buy. People were perfectly fine paying the "premium" price when it came to Intel.
Both do that, but it's so odd that you can buy an Intel 8C/16T 10700K for $249.99, which everywhere else is $310, which! makes me wonder, who dictates the retail price and if Intel does, why the price difference between $249.99 and $310? Although what's the point of charging extra when as always, they can't deliver their product, maybe if they make their own wafers. TSMC laughs their way to the bank.

Reason why I jumped for a 10700K and funny that the 8C/16T from amd is $429.99 whereas their 3rd gen was $319, AND it came with a cooler.

I wouldn't go with a platform with a plethora of issues anyway. But maybe, maybe, just maybe, amd allows Intel to make their chipset.
 

wandplus

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
120
What was wrong with it?
The Anandtech pre-release article? Well, for one the unrefined BIOS. You could see the 11700 behind the 10700 in some games. Plus, the fact of not testing the 11400 or 11500 which would have shown much more reasonable temperatures and wattage. If you spent any looking at the pages and pages of comments from people bashing Intel, you'd think it was the worst company in the world. Then some people come out with positive reviews on the 11400 and all of a sudden people act like the first article never happened...
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,068
The Anandtech pre-release article? Well, for one the unrefined BIOS. You could see the 11700 behind the 10700 in some games. Plus, the fact of not testing the 11400 or 11500 which would have shown much more reasonable temperatures and wattage. If you spent any looking at the pages and pages of comments from people bashing Intel, you'd think it was the worst company in the world. Then some people come out with positive reviews on the 11400 and all of a sudden people act like the first article never happened...
I think you're a little crossed up on your narratives.

Anandtech's early article was indeed dubious and they certainly have eaten a small amount of crow, now that we are a couple of bios revisions later. However, the only reason they could post a review of the 11700k is because it hadn't been officially announced and a German retailer started selling them a month early. Anandtech imported one, tested it, and posted a review. They couldn't test any other CPUs because of either their embargo on the CPUs which Intel gave them and/or the fact that none of the other CPUs were otherwise available early to the public.

We didn't see 11400 or 1500 review until a day after release, because Intel doesn't supply locked CPUs to reviewers. Reviewers had to wait to buy them at retail, just like us.

Right now, the narrative is not people acting like Intel didn't actually make any mistakes. You can see plenty of reviews stating out right, that the i9 is a terrible value and they are not recommending that people purchase them. Likewise, several reviews still being pretty negative about the i7. It is more in balance for price. But depending upon what you need from a CPU, the improvements may or may not be important to you. And it does still use a lot of power and can be tough to cool.

Intel also forgot to post a public driver for the XE igpu. Which hasn't seemed to be noticed by all the media sites just yet. I'm expecting more coverage on Monday. But its hilarious that Intel messed that up. And also hilarious that big sites didn't seem to notice. They got pre-release drivers supplied to them from Intel. But you'd think they'd at least check out the public support on release day. Guess not!

The positivity for the 11600k, 11400, etc. is correct. They are solid CPUs, with tangible gen-on-gen improvements, and they are meaningfully lower cost than the 5600x. Well, the 11600k may not be----as AMD's price on their official website is $300 for 5600x. But, the 11600k is still a bit cheaper while being a pretty good match in many cases. It means buy intel for a 6 core is a legit option, now.

And AMD has no answer for the 11600, 11500, and 11400. And the "F" models push them even lower in price. You should be able to get an 11400F for around $150. Intel deserves those kudos.
 
Last edited:

NightReaver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
416
The Anandtech pre-release article? Well, for one the unrefined BIOS. You could see the 11700 behind the 10700 in some games. Plus, the fact of not testing the 11400 or 11500 which would have shown much more reasonable temperatures and wattage. If you spent any looking at the pages and pages of comments from people bashing Intel, you'd think it was the worst company in the world. Then some people come out with positive reviews on the 11400 and all of a sudden people act like the first article never happened...
What are you talking about? Even with release BIOS, the 11700k still loses to the 10700k in some games. Nothing has really changed there. It's an embarrassment that it can't cleanly beat it's predecessor across the board.

That's what the Anandtech early review was, it was only for the 11700k. The 11700k is still a pointless CPU. It's behavior extends to the 11900k and 11600k. Tons of power draw for....not much, except some more modern features if you need them. The 11600k barely gets a pass, and that's only if someone can't find a 5600X for MSRP or needs the iGPU.

As for the 11400 and 11500, they're good because of the price point. They do not redeem RKL as a whole, however.

So no, I still don't see anything wrong with the Anandtech article except for the 11400 and 11500 being pleasant budget surprises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,954
These non-k 6-core RKL parts really look good:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/

The 11700 could be really nice too.

I had the 10700 non-k last generation. It was $70 cheaper (and available) compared to the 10700k at launch. With an unlimited boost and a slight BCLK adjustment, you probably couldn't tell the difference between the two. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same with the new CPUs (assuming you can get one cheap enough). Budget "Z" boards were $170-200 last time around for the Z490 launch.
 
Top