Intel 11400 - a gem for gamers?

[chef-borjan]

I did a stress test to check the temps on my 11400f and it hits 90c before coming down to 60-70... this also coincides with the live bench score reducing simultaneously and probably suggests thermal throttling.
This was late last night and have yet to revisit but I read about some new power settings that are present with these new 11th gen. i don’t think I’ve changed those but I think maybe if a high power limit has been added then my system does not like it at all.
It’s being cooled by a 120mm aio in an ITX system.

Thanks, at least it means that my cooler seems to be on properly if those are your temps.

From looking around, it looks like an unlocked power limit is giving 10% extra in terms of performance.

Considering all the other upgrades I will need to the cooling/motherboard/PSU, I don't think I will bother. In a few years time I will grab the next budget option and be happy with that, I'd rather spend my money elsewhere!

 

[dazzlaa]

Thanks, at least it means that my cooler seems to be on properly if those are your temps.

From looking around, it looks like an unlocked power limit is giving 10% extra in terms of performance.

Considering all the other upgrades I will need to the cooling/motherboard/PSU, I don't think I will bother. In a few years time I will grab the next budget option and be happy with that, I'd rather spend my money elsewhere!

oh yeah, it does sound like yours is behaving correctly indeed.

 

[spluff]

I’m thinking about getting the 11400 and someone tried explaining but didn’t really answer....

Can someone explain why using a i5-11400 which has base clock 2.6Ghz and boost 4.4GHz would be better than my i7-6700k which has base clock 4Ghz and boost 4.5Ghz (OC)

unboosted it 1.4ghz less and boosted its .1ghz less....

I know it’s got 1 extra core but the MHz speed is slower normal and boosted.... seems to be a huge difference between normal and boost....

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

I’m thinking about getting the 11400 and someone tried explaining but didn’t really answer....

Can someone explain why using a i5-11400 which has base clock 2.6Ghz and boost 4.4GHz would be better than my i7-6700k which has base clock 4Ghz and boost 4.5Ghz (OC)

unboosted it 1.4ghz less and boosted its .1ghz less....

I know it’s got 1 extra core but the MHz speed is slower normal and boosted.... seems to be a huge difference between normal and boost....

The cores are a lot faster than previous gen chips, 100mhz slower on the 11400F is still going to be a lot better than your 4.5 Ghz 6700K.

Alternatively you could opt for the 11500 or 11600K if you wanted faster.

 

[spluff]

The cores are a lot faster than previous gen chips, 100mhz slower on the 11400F is still going to be a lot better than your 4.5 Ghz 6700K.

Alternatively you could opt for the 11500 or 11600K if you wanted faster.

can you explain to me what you mean by the cores are a lot faster than previous gen chips?

the speed looks slower on both normal and boost

I would prefer the 11400f for value

 

[Kirby Wurm]

If you buy a F + K edition, in the UK, I feel a branding opportunity is being missed

Hahahaha!

 

[KompuKare]

can you explain to me what you mean by the cores are a lot faster than previous gen chips?

the speed looks slower on both normal and boost

I would prefer the 11400f for value

Well, Intel finally released a new architecture (for desktop), so Rocket Lake is finally not yet-another Skylake-core based CPU.
The theory is that if two CPUs (A and B) both ran a 4GHz but B did 20% more per clock (IPC) than A it would effectively be the same speed as if A was running at 4.8GHz.
Intel claimed around 15% to 18% more IPC. Actual reviews showed less.
Unfortunately, it has been a bit one step forward, one step backwards mainly due poorer latency (think gaming) but at some tasks Rocket Lake is a lot faster per clock.

 

[spluff]

Well, Intel finally released a new architecture (for desktop), so Rocket Lake is finally not yet-another Skylake-core based CPU.
The theory is that if two CPUs (A and B) both ran a 4GHz but B did 20% more per clock (IPC) than A it would effectively be the same speed as if A was running at 4.8GHz.
Intel claimed around 15% to 18% more IPC. Actual reviews showed less.
Unfortunately, it has been a bit one step forward, one step backwards mainly due poorer latency (think gaming) but at some tasks Rocket Lake is a lot faster per clock.

thank you for that explanation

so the 10400f will be worse for gaming latency wise than my 6700k?

 

[KompuKare]

thank you for that explanation

so the 10400f will be worse for gaming latency wise than my 6700k?

That's harder to answer as most reviews were versus Comet Lake 10600K's etc. But Comet Lake was still Skylake architecture like your 6700K.
Don't forget that the 11400F is 6C/12T versus your 4C/8T. What memory speeds you are running is another factor.
Value wise the Comet Lake 10400F might be better than the Rocket Lake 11400F.
You might want to find some reviews which benchmarks some of your usage.

 

[Journey]

Value wise the Comet Lake 10400F might be better than the Rocket Lake 11400F.

If you are playing games it 100% is, ~£120 vs 25% more for the 11400f, with either no difference , some regression, or a couple of percent increase at best. if you are doing other things, e.g. actual work then the 11th Gen CPU's have the edge due to the architectural changes. However pure budget where VFM (cost per frame) can't be beaten is 10400f/B560/3200MHz+ RAM, plus cheap tower cooler.

 

[~>Dg<~]

thank you for that explanation

so the 10400f will be worse for gaming latency wise than my 6700k?

both the 10400 and 11400 will be far better than the 6700k.

 

[humbug]

@spluff there aren't any charts with the 6700K on it, but the 7700K is like a 6700K overclocked.

So when looking at this chart the 10/11400 are around where the 3950X is, it is a significant upgrade, about 25%.

 

[g67575]

Meh, if people want a 6 core rather than 8, 5600x is the winner hands down, especially for gaming. Just need to wait for prices to fall. You can import them from US for around ~£270.

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Meh, if people want a 6 core rather than 8, 5600x is the winner hands down, especially for gaming. Just need to wait for prices to fall. You can import them from US for around ~£270.

Lol 11400F is over £100 less than that.

People aren't looking for a '6c rather than 8' for gaming here, they're looking at a £150 chip that is on par with £300+ chips for gaming.

 

[g67575]

Fair enough, could be a good stop gap upgrade then (at least, for people with a LGA1200 board who don't already have something equivalent / better), especially since a min FPS of ~60 or more should be achievable in games (would need to check this).

Edit - Wouldn't the 10400F be a better choice for a cheap 6 core CPU? It's around £125

 

[BallistixOnZ490]

Fair enough, could be a good stop gap upgrade then (at least, for people with a LGA1200 board who don't already have something equivalent / better), especially since a min FPS of ~60 or more should be achievable in games (would need to check this).

Edit - Wouldn't the 10400F be a better choice for a cheap 6 core CPU? It's around £125

Depends.

You get the latest Intel architecture, PCIE 4.0, and a bit more performance with the11400F.

If thats not worth £25 to someone, they can go with the 10400F.

Intel 11th gen is also said to offer better memory overclocking too, but overclocking on the K chips this time around is terrible. None of the 'high end' offerings in 11th gen are worth it over s 5900X or 10850K.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i think especially at the moment with gpus being scalped to stupid prices. anything saved that can help get you a decent gpu is great. its not only that the 10400f and 11400 are really good performers not adequate. if it was purely for gaming its the only two cpus id buy for a pc. nothing amd wise is worth the cost. not for gaming vs one of these.

 

[KompuKare]

i think especially at the moment with gpus being scalped to stupid prices. anything saved that can help get you a decent gpu is great. its not only that the 10400f and 11400 are really good performers not adequate. if it was purely for gaming its the only two cpus id buy for a pc. nothing amd wise is worth the cost. not for gaming vs one of these.

At the beginning of the next gen of consoles having just increased their CPU power around 400%, I cannot see 6 core CPUs ageing that well.

 

[Journey]

At the beginning of the next gen of consoles having just increased their CPU power around 400%, I cannot see 6 core CPUs ageing that well.

When you are spending ~£120-50 on the 6 core it doesn't need to age well, especially when the next step up 8c is double the price or more. If in 18-24 months time you are struggling then you drop in a bargain basement 8c/10c/12c chip and you'll have spent the same in the long term as buying the 8c for more in the first place.

 

[KompuKare]

When you are spending ~£120-50 on the 6 core it doesn't need to age well, especially when the next step up 8c is double the price or more. If in 18-24 months time you are struggling then you drop in a bargain basement 8c/10c/12c chip and you'll have spent the same in the long term as buying the 8c for more in the first place.

True enough.
I was more thinking of all those i7 6700K and i7 7700K which aged badly and weren't cheap.
Intel being the budget champion is all so new!