11900k Reviews and discussion

[maflynn]

The largely ignored embargo has been lifted, here's JayZ's review and I wanted to point out a couple of things.
Obviously no surprise to anyone, AMD is beating Intel still and I'm not sure what the point of this 11th gen CPU is but at the end of the video, Jay shows scalpers trying to cash in with selling their "confirmed pre-orders" around the 900 dollar range What's baffling and its mentioned in the video, is that you can get a 5800x right now for nearly half of that 900 dollar range.

I'm an Intel fanboy, or at least I was, but you cannot ignore the results and AMD is rolling out innovative products where Intel has stuggled for years to get itself off of 14nm. I see nothing compelling in the 11900k that would tempt me (if I were building a new system)

***********************************************************
Edit I updated the title as it better describes the discussion of the 11900k
************************************************************

 

[dmr727]

Yeah, my last desktop build was with AMD (3900x) and I never looked back. I'd love to switch to AMD for my next laptop, but it seems manufacturers are a little slow to adopt their latest mobile offerings, at least in any configuration that interests me. I'm in no hurry though.

 

[MBAir2010]

I just ordered a ssd drive for the Dell XSP before the prices go up, as PC world claims.

there is really nothing we can do about avoiding intel for us who purchased a laptop already.
personally, i think we are overloading ourselves on Intel and their hopeful demise,
which is just the nature of humans to engage in conflict.

 

[maflynn]

Yeah, my last desktop build was with AMD (3900x)

I was bending over backwards and also ignoring logic in wanting an Intel CPU. I'm not knocking anyone choosing team blue and the only reason I ended up on AMD was due to the CPU/Motherboard being DOA when I was building my system. I'm not sure which one (or both?) was defective. My local Microcenter only had AMD processors and motherboards in stock.

Now in hindsight, I'm so happy that I was forced into the AMD camp. Performance is better, temps are better and most of all I have a silent desktop case which was my goal.

there is really nothing we can do about avoiding intel

I don't think Intel is bad, and in some ways to be actively avoided but for system builders the choice is clear imo. For laptop users Intel still makes a lot of sense. I've not done enough research to know how it performs and its battery life and more importantly who's going to be making laptops with AMD processors.

 

[maflynn]

Here's LTT's take on the processor.
Their take is that it can run hot

 

[c0ppo]

If I recall correctly, first 14nm Intel CPU was announced in 2014. That year Apple announced A8, a 20nm chip.
In almost 7 years, Intel has moved an inch, while rest of the industry (AMD, Apple, Huawei, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc.) have moved to another planet.

It's not a good thing Intel is failing. Because if they continue to do so, AMD will just become new Intel. It's the nature of things. Competition is good, really, really good. Intel is now lacking because they had no competition for years, heck, even decades.

But Intel was also holding everyone back. I believe we would still be using quad core CPUs if it weren't for AMD.

 

[MBAir2010]

Every processor manufacture is picking their chins off the benches and wondering how ARM M1 can get 20 hours battery life, which i think will happen with Intel, only if they can convince Dell, HP, Lenovo and the others to buy their entire logic boards, which might not happen.
this is were Apple has an advantage being their own manufacture and control over all their products.

 

[maflynn]

Every processor

Lets keep this on topic of Intel's new CPU and not how great Apple's Macs are.

 

[maflynn]

But Intel was also holding everyone back. I believe we would still be using quad core CPUs if it weren't for AMD.

This is where competition has benefited the consumer. Intel got into the habit of small inexpensive improvements because their biggest customers, Dell, HP run on razer thin margins and don't want to see large price increases to pay for the R&D. AMD had nothing to lose and designed some great processors, at the right time, that is just as Intel could not figure out how to get off 14nm - even this CPU is a 10nm (7?) design that got back-ported onto a 14nm die and that I think has caused other issues related to heat and performance.

 

[MBAir2010]

Lets keep this on topic of Intel's new CPU and not how great Apple's Macs are.

oops,
i forgots!
but these macbooks are still infused with apple's short leash on their products
and log in every cmd_c cmd-p function we perform.

 

[qoop]

I'd be delighted if Apple brought out a Threadripper Mac, but I don't think it'll happen. Nothing wrong with Intel's chips though, it's just that AMD are faster at the moment.

(I'm running 12 core Xeon Macs at the moment.)

 

[Chompineer]

Here's LTT's take on the processor.
Their take is that it can run hot

To be fair, the 5800X also runs very hot due to it's thermal density.

I have both a 10850k and 5800X machine and the 5800X actually tends to run hotter, both on similar cooling.

I don't understand the point of 11th gen other than for Intel to get a product out. AVX-512 is incredibly niche, the average consumer doesn't care about boosting it's performance.

 

[maflynn]

I don't understand the point of 11th gen

That's my wonderment as well. When those early reviews from content creators who bought the processor in Europe and bypassed the NDAs, I was scratching my head on the purpose of this processor

 

[itsmeaustend]

That's my wonderment as well. When those early reviews from content creators who bought the processor in Europe and bypassed the NDAs, I was scratching my head on the purpose of this processor

Because they’re still 20% faster than the 10th gen when you look at the raw stats (and real world benchmarks too).

y’all are just fanboying, hard, and it’s not a good look.

Just look at the review for the 11700k and compare it to the 10700k.

UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-10700K vs i7-11700K

Oh, and not to mention this:

UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X vs Intel Core i7-11700K

 

[I7guy]

Gamers Nexus had made the comment, waste of sand. I'm still a huge intel fanboy and if I built a computer today I would still get an intel 11th over an AMD, except in one situation. Time is money and the type of work I was doing, whether it is photoshop or video editing or some 3d rendering, made a huge difference on an AMD chip vs Intel.

 

[maflynn]

Gamers Nexus had made the comment, waste of sand

I saw that as well, and I'm still an Intel fan, but for my uses, AMD is so much a better option.

 

[dmr727]

This is where competition has benefited the consumer.

Yeah, I don't have a 'bandwagon' when it comes to hardware - I buy whatever makes sense at that moment - but I'm happy to see AMD out there smacking Intel around if for no reason than force Intel to step up. It's good for all of us.

 

[maflynn]

Because they’re still 20% faster than the 10th gen when you look at the raw stats (and real world benchmarks too).

Yes and No. On a single core test, its faster. On multicore core tests its significantly slower. Workloads in this day and age use multiple cores and threads and if a processor has less cores/threads then another, then that processor will have inferior performance regardless of how fast a single core may be. I mean that's been AMD's claim to fame for the last few years. Single Core was slower but AMD threw more cores/threads and has been out performing intel.




Nearly every benchmark in this review shows the 11900k to be slower then the 10900k

Edit: This reviewer even states (near the end of the YT) that he believes its a step back from the 10900k and so far from all of the reviews that i've read/seen its been all negative when compared to AMD and even its prior generation

 

[I7guy]

Unless rendering 3d is your life-blood, cinebench is a good theoretical benchmark.

Then there is this:

Intel’s 11th Gen Core i9 processor boosts Microsoft Flight Simulator by 20 percent

Intel’s latest processors offer speedy PCIe 4.0 support and more.

www.theverge.com

I play MSFS, it's dependent on single core performance.

 

[c0ppo]

y’all are just fanboying, hard, and it’s not a good look.

I really don't care what company makes my CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD/etc., as long as it's best for the money I'm willing to spend. And Intel is far from that title at the moment. Why is that being a fanboy?

 

[I7guy]

I really don't care what company makes my CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD/etc., as long as it's best for the money I'm willing to spend. And Intel is far from that title at the moment. Why is that being a fanboy?

Don't think anyone was being called a fanboy, think it was more of a general statement in that benchmarks don't show real world use cases and the 11th gen Intel CPUs may not show much of a difference depending on the use case and workflow as compared to AMD. (or alternatively, maybe there is a huge difference)

 

[c0ppo]

Don't think anyone was being called a fanboy, think it was more of a general statement in that benchmarks don't show real world use cases and the 11th gen Intel CPUs may not show much of a difference depending on the use case and workflow as compared to AMD. (or alternatively, maybe there is a huge difference)

It's not just about benchmarks. Intel CPU heats up way more, TDP is way higher than AMD counterpart. And still Intel can't even match AMD.

This is even more obvious on laptops. AMD is simply crushing Intel on laptops. Or are you saying way less heat, more battery life, less noise, and better performance in general aren't obvious in real life scenarios?

 

[I7guy]

It's not just about benchmarks. Intel CPU heats up way more, TDP is way higher than AMD counterpart. And still Intel can't even match AMD.

This is even more obvious on laptops. AMD is simply crushing Intel on laptops. Or are you saying way less heat, more battery life, less noise, and better performance in general aren't obvious in real life scenarios?

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?

 

[panjandrum]

It would be interesting to see how these end up performing under moderate liquid-cooling solutions. I hope to build my next VR rig within the next 12 months or so, and I'll go for "best bang for the buck" on both CPU and GPU at the time. I'm kind of hoping that will be AMD, because I like what I see them doing, but ultimately I'll choose what looks to be best for me. I usually like to build with simple, moderately-priced self-contained liquid-cooling solutions (I.E. Corsair or NZXT type configs), as they allow me to push the OC a bit and keep the noise down. I don't go for extreme overclocking as I like to build for stability and longevity, as well as keep the price of the build reasonable. I haven't done a ton of research yet, but AMD has a relatively new feature that allows the GPU and CPU to talk with each other even faster if you stick to an all AMD build. Stumbling-block to that, however, is that NVidia has been so dominant for so long that there remain some issues with VR in general on AMD cards, so that would have to be resolved before I could consider migrating back to AMD for my video card (currently on a 2080 Super, but frequently max the 8GB of VRAM, so I eventually need a card with more even if I complete my new build initially using my existing 2080 Super). Anyway, I have begun to ramble, but ultimately how these chips perform under mild to moderate overclocking with basic liquid-cooling solutions is going to be what decides my purchasing decision at that time.

 

[Bustycat]

Because they’re still 20% faster than the 10th gen when you look at the raw stats (and real world benchmarks too).

y’all are just fanboying, hard, and it’s not a good look.

Just look at the review for the 11700k and compare it to the 10700k.

UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-10700K vs i7-11700K

Oh, and not to mention this:

UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X vs Intel Core i7-11700K

UserBenchmark is one of the worst ‘benchmark’ references.