Core i9-11900K CPU-Z benchmark result leaks?

Sir, a 5800X costs 450$, and already has better multicore performances than that benchmark and 2.5% lower single core at stock, and has lower power consumption, and is available now.

The "flagship" 11900K I doubt that will cost 450$, but we will see later in march, and you may probably need a new motherboard for it anyway.

As games already use multiple cores, it would be hard to call it King of gaming.

 

I thought more about this and i have to say i don't get why anyone bothers with CPU-Z scores. I mean it's a 2-3 second test which is always gonna favor cpus that can boost higher but for only seconds at a time. I've said it before but Intel has doubled the amount of time a single core can boost to it's max but in real world usage we have no idea what that means.

It honestly sounds and probably feels like cheating by Intel. Lets allow one core to boost really high but only for 50 seconds so for benches they are always gonna score high because most of them(benchmarks) are finished in under a minute. I don't want a CPU that can only boost for a very limited amount of time. I want a CPU that can hold it's boost speed constantly and we have more of an avg over time score and over time energy usage too.

 

450 for 5800x is way too high already for an 8/16 it's back to where 9900K was for very little if any performance increase,just with a red logo so that everyone from the red team that hated intel for 9900k could buy this one two years later and say it's different cause it's amd
500 for a 8/16 gaming cpu ? no way in hell.
a gaming 8/16 should be $350 these days max, closer to $300.
It's right where you can find 10700KF/10700F these days and intel should use it as reference for their 8/16 cpus. If they raise the price to $450 that's gonna be disappointing.

 

Also great news to me i got AMD,
And i really dont care if its 7 nm or 14 nm as long it get higher fps ingaming.

 

the benchmark obsession with tools that dont represent real life usage always makes me laugh....
the way I see it benchmark tools only exist to make sure your hardware function correctly compare to similar hardware and to compare similar architecture cpu/gpu to each other...
the bottom line is 5950x shows 15% more performance boost in single core benchmarks and almost 90% in multicore BUT only SLIGHLY surpasses 10900k in most game titles (some the same and very few even under)....
When we compare the current Rocket Lake increase of performance using benchmarks tools TO THE SAME ARHCITECUTE 10900k and we are getting 18% increase in performance it is likely to say that in real life gaming it will open Ryzen 3 a new S hole... (and im using 5950x btw, only picked it up because i bought a new pc and wanted not to be held back by pcie gen 3.0)
TDP might be relevant in laptops but i couldnt care less on a desktop with water cooling.... the bottom line is how much fps i see on screen...

 

you mean its gonna be a REAL gaming room heater and a electricity eater too.

 

Too say AMD let us down since launch of ryzen is a major fanboy thing to say. I get people going intel after bulldozer.
I did. But I also got insanely lucky with deals.

When I went from my 1055t, I landed a brand new MSI X58 board for $100, 12GB DDR3 1600 for $60, oCZ 1000w for $80, and a X5650 for $70 at the time. I was on a 6 core xeon that overclocked to 4.2 on that board. I stayed with Intel, even buying a way over priced 3930k setup until I went Ryzen in 2017. Now I have had 1500x, 2x 1600, 2700x, and 1920x.

I just cant find a legit reason to go to intel. If they release something new, and not this 10mn ported trash, I would consider it now, because of AMD Intel is having to be competitive finally.
Being on a X470, I literally can slap in a 5600x/5800x and not have to buy a new board. I am more AMD partial then I used to be, but that is because of Intel bull as a company. Its the same thing with Nvidia for me right now. I have both sides in my rigs. But I can not stand NCP anymore.

People act like Intel has never had issues, nor nvidia. And that is a fanboy mindset. Nvidia has tons of driver issues right now, but they act like its nothing. AMD has any, and everyone attacks them as the worse driver ever. Its insane fanboyism to the max. People blame AMD for cpu performance in game, when intel had a monoply and 10+ years of the same design being coded for games by crappy devs. So once again, where does the crayness actually stand.

And lastly I never quoted you as a fanboy, but that moron that posted the comment is.

 

Jesus Christ people get hanged up to gaming performance... It is not nearly as important with a modern cpu in most cases you will be gpu bound end of story any 6core + from intel or amd last 4 years is capable of delivering 100+ fps. Also assuming that 18% is there does not mean 18% increase in fps except if you play a software rendered game then yeah maybe .

 

cml-s is as energy efficient for gaming as r3000 on 7nm just faster



hard to say about rkl but those pl2 limits are mostly for synthetic benchmarks (cinebench) and rendering software

 

you are right there , cpu -z its the shittiest benchmark i know .

 

never happened.

 

HU tested 1600 and 1700 vs 7600 and 7700 and they are pretty comparable now. Ryzen even egdes them out in most core heavy games.

 

the revisit videos show entirely the opposite with the gotcha being that 3.9 overclock.

a stock 1700 doesn't come close to the 7700 in gaming.

first gen zen and + were a good step up from the Fx architecture, but it wasn't good enough.

 

They ware good enough to presure intel making more cores like 8700k and 9900k. Seeing how more and more games using more cores revisiting those was interesting. Today 1700x is usable and 7700k is just a 4core cpu needing an upgrade. An i3 in this day and age. 7600k is a crap tbh.

 

a few recent games do indeed run poorly on 4 core 4 thread chips, HWU should have benched those too.

Ryzen's architecture is designed for performant SMT, but the first gen were just crippled by the memory speed requirements, and i still think they need one more iteration of boosting IF bandwidth before i jump fully onto an AMD upgrade.

 

Cyberpunk high density crowd kills the 4core cpus even with ht. An 8core with ht does not even feel it.

 

6/12 is best value these days for budget oriented builds (apart from 5600x cause of how expensive it is)

https://www.purepc.pl/cyberpunk-207...en-vs-intel-core-ile-rdzeni-potrzeba?page=0,6

10100 to 10400 is almost 30%,52 vs 66 fps min
10600k to 10900k is 15%

both are inadequate
with one difference - 1700x was never good for gaming.slow single core,little OC,very harsh memory limitations,and pretty high power draw.
to make it better than 7700k you have to try to cherry pick conditions,which I'm sure HWunboxed did.

 

Actually happend . Tested by few tech channels. 7600K is better example tho.

 

I would not agree. 7700k had a big fall from grace. From best to unusable.

1700x on the other hand...

 

lol,crushes modern games
dunno how these channels are coming up with results like that
1700x is like half 5800x in min. fps and well behind in average
min. fps is dropping into 40s in every other tested game where 5800x stays at 85-115
not exactly a gaming phenomenon.



only 1000 series cpu that is somewhat decent is 1600af as long as you can run it at 4.2G with +3200 c14 ram