Intel Announces Rocket-Lake-S (kinda)

intel needs to just stop, they don't need a new cpu every damn year, they need to shift whatever team of brainwaves are doing skylake++++++++ for 2022 and put them onto 7 or 10nm.

another 100mhz, 200mhz, is not improving the processor.

 

2 different arch per year actually and all come with new motherboards and chipsets because why not?!
Big congrats to them for milking their users...

 

Sadly not all (fabrication) "nm" are the same - measuring different things. There's innovation going on in placement, stacking and signaling as well.
My main wish is for them to keep the competition up so that we win

 

But they are not new architectures.
7 series (Kaby lake), 8 series (coffee lake), 9 series (coffee lake refresh) and 10 series (comet lake) are all based on the Skylake architecture.
It's only this new 11 series that finally has an updated core with any meaningful architectural changes.

 

its still a lake.

 

Yes but the core is Cypress Cove, derivitive of Sunny Cove that finally increased core resources significantly. Wider and upto 5 micro ops retired per cycle.

 

Finally on par with Ryzen, still has a less optimal port SMT implementation though.

 

As if someone with a 5900x (or a comparable Intel) would game at 1080p.
And considering these kind of slides usually cherry pick the best scenarios and configurations… it's doesn't look very good honestly.
I'm also curious to see power consuption numbers, probably not very good too.

Aviability and price are obviously going to be a big factor though.

 

1) For me its insane to even think about upgrading 2 generations - no matter if its 5% or 100% gain. My processor needs to go for at least 5 years before I will think about changing it. Do people really throw money after yearly upgrades? They must spend so much money for very little difference..

2) Ya 11th gen is mostly a pr core performance upgrade .. Not a full stack performance upgrade. The 11th gen will actually have less performance as it has 2 cores less. But people get caught up in benchmark tests.. Most task you do on a PC do not utilise all cores at once, so I think Intel did the right thing and gave us more pr core performance as that is mostly used. And not a lot of people use 10-12 cores anyways. Its mostly something they have an idea in their head about that they will start to use blender or something like that and need the 20 core CPU because reasons.

 

So when media (fx Gamers Nexus etc) benchmark CPUs for gaming they will resort to 1080p because they need to have the CPU as the bottleneck. Testing at 4K would mean the GPU would be the bottleneck and thus its not a test of the CPU, but rather the GPU.

Also. AMD did the same thing and showed 1-5% better performance. But when Intel does it wrong? Also power is probably gonna be fine. For gaming it doesnt make much sense to show CPU wattage. as it will flutuate and will be about TDP or less. Its not like a multi core benchmark test where they will load it with the hardest instructions like AVX512.

I cant quite figure out if you are AMD fanboy or just old and grumpy? Maybe both :-D

 

I a fan of good CPUs, brand doesn't matter.
My first AMD cpu was in the Athlon XP era, they were great for the price.
Then switched to Intel when AMD started to struggle, owned a bunch of I5, I remember that when I first bought an i5 I was left astonished by the performance gain compared to my previous AMD system, and my last INTEL cpu, a 4670K bought in 2013, is still up and running in my 3nd machine and it's probably my favorite CPU ever, in addition to being the one with the longer life span.
in 2019 bought a 3600 and in 2020 a 3950, which are now my main and 2nd systems.

When I said INTEL was cherry picking results I never said AMD didn't do the same.
The poiint was that if in the cherry picked scenario you can only show a +3-4% performance, chances are you have very little to show.

When AMD showed 1-5% more perf in games, they were showing that they finally managed to fill the gap with INTEL in gaming, while still retaining efficiency and multithreading crowns.

Things are probably different here, we all know efficency and multithreading aren't going to be as good as Ryzens, and if in the cherry picked games and settings they can only show a +4%... I can't see how they can compete if not with price and aviability.
That was the point.

 

Just to be clear it was a semi joke (hence the smiley).

But I still mean it in some way or another. I dont think you are treating the two statments as equal. Just the fact you state that "Intel" is cherry picking, is a problem. You should have said something along the lines of "the results are probably cherry picked like all manufactors do when showing performance". Then it would have been more objective. When you said "Intel" it communicates that they are doing something that the competition does not. And be aware, its 3-4% over the competitor. Not last year model of CPU from themself.

For the record. When AMD showed their benchmark results they showed the 10900K vs the 5900X. The problem with that is that the 5900X cost between 25-30% more (atleast in my modern western country). Is that fair? I dont think so. (to be clear the MSRP is only 10% more for the Ryzen, but the practical cost is what matters - just adding this to be clear). Even the 5800X is more expensive than the 10900K in my country. Its about 5% more expensive. Its the closest compeitor (price wise) so the 5% increase is okay in my mind as it will never be 0% difference. But it still needs to be taken into account when looking at the performance numbers.

Ya, my Sandy Bridge 2600K is still running. In 4K gaming it gives me the same performance as my 9900K (because of GPU bottleneck). Its crazy. 9 year old CPU. gaming in 4K in ultra settings with ray tracing. I dont understand it myself.

 

I said "these kind of slides usually cherry pick the best scenarios and configurations", the fact that the word INTEL was left out by the sentence meant that I wasn't pointing the finger to the them alone for this practice.

I agree with you on the second half ot your post though, and in fact said that a big factor is going to be aviability and price.
Ryzen 5000s are exceptional, on paper and at MSRP.
But at current prices, they just aren't worth it.

Things could change from now and late march though,

.

 

Looking good, they fully embraced the gaming application by dropping those extra cores.

 

Kinda lame..

 

So how many 10900k users cant wait to downgrade?

 

So actually they release this series just to get back the gaming king crown by 3-4% just like Zen 3 held it by this margin and Intel held it by Comet Lake agains Zen 2 but to lose performance in overall CPU power thanks to the decreased number of cores?

 

10 cores on a ring bus was a ipc decrease anyway.