Leaked Benchmarks Indicate IPC Rocket Lake-S to be slower than AMD Ryzen 5000

That's hardly suprising , after retail sample benchmarks we already knew intel is behind about 10%

 

This is why amd can charge premium for their cpus.

 

11900k will do about 5.3ghz+ all core (11700k does already do 5.1-5.3 all core) and 5950x does about 4.6 all core. That's the difference.

8 core in 2021 is epic fail though...

 

We need the guru3d review to put these rumours to bed already and get the definite answer.

I do have a feeling that Intel probably already planned around this. Why else would we be hearing so much about alder lake before rocket lake has even come out?

 

But it requires twice the power for half the number of cores to achieve that...

 

Well, my 11700k doesn't have any problems to be cooled with 360 radiator with silent fans....
I guess people that don't have it, has the most problems with Rocketlake LOL

It does this easy too:



Wonder if 11700k/11900k will draw way more watt per fps in games than 5800x... This will be a nice test

If you play Cinebench 24/7, 5950x/threadripper is a better choice

 

You can use cheaper cooling and motherboard for AMD, so then the Intel looks a bit expensive in comparison, you might also need a bigger case also for that sort of cooling?? Let's see the Guru3d testing first though, I still like Rocket lake as an overclocking chip...

 

That was hardly a point. No reason to ignore performance per watt.

 

That's fine as long as it's WHEA free.

 

Whatever that means.

 

not surprised but having a better IPC doesn't matter when your top 2 cpus don't exist...5950 and 5900x don't they're not even made really TSMC announced "very low" availability (understand FAB yields are so low it makes no business sense to even try to make them

plenty of 5800x at least but when you stop comparing cpus with more cores than their competitors numbers suddenly don't look "as good" still better but not by much
edit : I mean both ways, Intel does it too it's annoying that "let's compare a 10 cores to an 8 or 16 as if it was the same thing" we don't compare 4 cylinders with 6 cylinders engines in the car world

 

If you get WHEA errors, you either need to run things in standard frequencies, or RMA.

 

Well I am just an average Joe in not a very big important country and I have got a 5950X running in my PC for months so they are not that non-existent...

 

and I've got a 3090...nobody cares what a handful of people managed to get, what matters is what potential customers can actually buy now in regular retail all over the world and 5900-5950x don't exist just like my gpu

 

I have one and a 3090. They're halo products, unless the reasonably priced products are there at a reasonable price, then the average consumer has nothing.

 

You can run to WHEA with crappy dram modlues pretty fast with OC. I get WHEA above 1933 FCLK.

Get good 3600 KIT. ENABLE PBO. Don't play with curve optimizer too much. You are good. You won't get much performance above that . The cost and risk of instablity is GREATER than GAIN.

 

Based on Twitter and Anandtech posts, it seems Intel is releasing every few days a new Microcode update, which has increased the performance several percent in the new 11th generation "retail" versions.
Examples:
https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1373922086192824327?s=20
https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1372909954391236609?s=20 (ok, this is actually Adaptive Boost)
https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1371137011533373441?s=20 (which links to https://www.anandtech.com/show/1654...i711700k?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)

So there is some tiny little hope to get a few more percentages out of the initial measured performance.

 

Seems like filler in Intel's product line.
For most people, it's best to wait for Alder Lake at the end of the year.

 

Still... ryzen 5950X cost $1,199.99. 16 cores. It's ridiculously expensive...