Intel Core i7-11700K beats Ryzen 9 5950X by 8% in Geekbench 5 single-core benchmark

[Dave2150]

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-c...50x-by-8-in-geekbench-5-single-core-benchmark

I was going to buy a 5900X, on release, though couldn't find any in stock. Also wanted the Dark Hero motherboard (passive chipset, I hate small fan noise) but these are unobtainable also.

Looks like this has worked out great for me, as Rocketlake will restore Intel's gaming performance crown, which is the most important metric for me personally. I also favour stability, it's been quite surprising seeing so many memory/motherboard/BIOS issues with the 5000 series on this forum and others, by now the AM4 platform should be Intel levels of stable surely...

Happy that Rocket Lake has been pushed forward, hopefully Intel will flex their 16 fab strong manufacturing might to produce millions of 11th gen CPU's, they can probably produce more in a day than AMD can in a month, due to being contractually obligated to produce millions of PS5/XboxX/S chips with their wafer allocation from TSMC.

Big upgrade to my 6700k inc!

 

[Dave2150]

People here don't want to hear that.
This is like a forum run by the AMD union or mafia.
If you talk up the opposition, expect to find a horse's head in your bed or your dog stapled to the garage door.

I suspect a few of them have requested it gets deleted already, quite a sad state off affairs.

The quieter majority will just buy the fastest gaming CPU when it's available, which will be Rocket Lake Can't play Cinebench as a game, and the vast majority have no use for multi-thread performance beyond 8 cores.

 

[Dave2150]

Can’t play cinebench as a game yet is quoting geek bench data as a performance metric .

Have we not already had a bait thread like this?

Other single threaded benchmarks will also show the big improvement in single thread performance, what is your point? Obviously this is just one benchmark from a leak.

 

[Dave2150]

The majority doesn't care about gaming - that's why you will see 80-85% sales share for AMD Ryzen.

AMD literally cannot produce enough CPU's to take a 10% share of the overall CPU market. They have no fabs, so have to ask TSMC to make their CPU's for them. TSMC are in demand by everyone, so the amount of wafers AMD get is relatively small.

I think your confusing those mindfactory sales graphs with the overall world sales? Mindfactory are just one enthusiast style retailer in Germany, their sales don't reflect the entire world of consumer, business, server, datacentre, embedded and all the other segments. Intel still sells millions more CPU's than AMD buddy.

 

[Dave2150]

The point is it’s speculation not yet proven. It’s on 14nm so will be power hungry and hot and still has limitations compared to Amd.

Amd already have their CPUs out, they have numerous people who are able to upgrade from the 2nd or 3rd generation chips and when all said and done they will drop the price of the 5000 series to combat Intel. Those that purchase Ryazan can have nearly all the single threaded performance and considerably higher multithreaded performance, without needing expensive cooling on top.

Sorry but I not seeing what is so appealing with the new Intel chips, they stink of desperation from Intel.

As Nvidia's 3000 series has shown us, the majority of gamers don't care about power consumption, as long as the performance is there. It will be the same for CPU's, as long as Intel beats AMD in gaming (which they absolutely will, based on this leak and others) Intel will be more popular and will sell more CPU's.

The 11th gen of desktop CPU's also feature AVX-512, something AMD doesn't have the hardware or software support for, this must be one of the limitations you speak of, though it's AMD's limitation, not Intel's. Intel is pushing developers to use AVX-512 as much as possible, so we'll likely see more and more applications that benefit from this. Kinda Intel's version of Nvidia's Gameworks/RTX.

 

[Dave2150]

I would hope it is higher than that Dave, that's only 0.6% faster than my stock 5950X which has been tuned with 3800Mhz memory and 1900Mhz FCLK.

ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser

I believe Intel's 'K' series of CPU will also be capable of overclocking, Matt. Unsure about memory scaling, probably going to loads to learn, with this being Intel's first new architecture since Skylake's debut in 2015.

Also, as I understand it, the 5950X is the most expensive CPU AMD offer in the 5000 series, while the leaked CPU is just an I7. Probably better to compare the i9 11900k vs the 5950x, as they will be the flagships of both ranges.

Can't wait to see performance of stock i7,i9 11th gen vs stock 5800x, 5900x and 5950x in gaming, along with overclocked, memory tuned versions, fun times ahead!

 

[Dave2150]

Yeah but it will consume a hell of a lot more for minor single threaded performance gains at 1080p (Anybody still gaming at 1080p?) and a large multi threaded deficit. Sound very appealing.

Those 1080P games you mention, that love single thread CPU performance, often only have 2-4 threads, I.E., they only use 2-4 cores of a CPU, regardless of the amount of cores the CPU has. The power consumption of a CPU is determined by how many of the cores/threads at at load. In this scenario, where an 8 core CPU is only using 2-4 cores, the CPU will be running at low levels of power consumption...

If we fire up blender, or Cinebench (applications that use all cores, threads etc), then the CPU will be running at it's maximum power target, consuming the most power.

I'm sure rocketlake will consume more power overall compared to Ryzen in games, though it will be running those games faster, which is the important point. As the Nvidia 3000 series have shown us, the masses don't care about power as long as it takes the performance crown.

 

[Dave2150]

You get that with both sides. Amd nearly did die remember the bribing scandal? They were on the brink of bankruptcy and from that and almost complete market domination from Intel we now have superior cpus being produced by Amd. Competition has changed the whole cpu landscape from 2/4 cores to 6/16 cores. We’ve never had it better.

I recall many threads/posts mocking AMD when they launched bulldozer, though I don't recall threads where people "wanted AMD to die" - the intelligent amongst us wanted them to do well so that there's competition, and look what we do have now.. competition!

This is a great time for us consumers.

You can tell there are people in this thread that are furious that Intel will beat AMD in gaming, and that Zen 3 took the performance crown for just 3 months from Intel. They genuinely can't accept this and feel threatened.

The rest of us just buy the fastest CPU/GPU available at the price point we're happy with when it comes time to upgrade.

It's time to upgrade for me, I'll be picking the fastest gaming CPU and will enjoy it

 

[Dave2150]

power matters cost you need bigger better PSU. If you GPU can peak 350w and your CPU can peak 250w then allowing for fans, motherboard, ram, SSD etc you are looking at min 1000w PSU if you dint want to change PSU ever so often.

GPU power to an extent is irrelevant because it comes with its own cooler so Nvidia/AMD/AIB has to come up with cooling solitons that work.

but CPU, the onerous is on the consumer. So you will be looking at some fairly exotic cooling solutions which again add to cost.

850w to 1000w PSU is like a £80 price hike min.

air cooling or basic AIO to much more substantial AIO is £100 jump. If you need custom loop then sky is the limit.

not to mention all the heat needs to go somewhere so more fans and even more electricity. It’s like a nuclear arms race.

Errrr, not sure if you replied to the wrong thread?

Ryzen 5000 and Intel 11th gen do not require 1000W PSU's, even when coupled with 3080's or 3090's. SLI requires 1000W PSU's though, though SLI is dead these days, so no point beyond benchmarks.

 

[Dave2150]

Will you be playing at 1080p on that 3080 you have? Or like me do you play at 4K where my cpu does next to nothing. Sorry but like I said those minor single threaded gains (if true) will do nothing for me or you I suspect. You just like banging on your Intel drum.

Read my signature to see what resolution I game at. You're the one who brought up 1080p, with a silly incorrect statement about how a CPU will run at maximum power consumption in a lightly threaded 1080P game.

You have a 3070 as I recall, so of course you'll be GPU limited at 4K in almost everything.

I have a 3080, which places my quad core 6700k @ 100% load in several games, 4 core 8 thread CPU's now belong in the bin, gaming wise, hence why I'm in the market for a shiny new CPU. I literally get stuttering, drops to 20-30FPS in parts of some games that are heavy on the CPU, such as the towns/cities with loads of NPC's in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, or anywhere in Cyberpunk

Also planning to pickup a 3080ti on launch, I got my 3080 back in early November as I was fedup being stuck at 60Hz on my CX48 with my Radeon VII.

 

[Dave2150]

Wow my cpu utilisation is below 50% see if you weren’t such an Intel fanboy you could have been playing on a 3600 or 3700 and then upgraded to a 5000 series.

So basically you agree that these CPU’s only slightly make sense if your gaming at 1080p otherwise that extra 8% is irrelevant to quite a lot of people. You could just a get a 5000 series and enjoy a less power hungry, heat producing and better all around cpu experience.

I recommend you take a English comprehension refresher course, this will improve your ability to understand others, especially the written word.

I stated that I game at 4k on my CX48 and have found my 3080 becomes bottlenecked by my 6700k in certain parts of some games. You're the one who started talking about 1080P, this is a old redundant resolution no longer relevant to most.

Even at 4K, CPU's matter, especially when running a 3080 or above. Oh, and in regards to FPS, I still average more FPS than your rig, as you have a 3070 versus my 3080, though at this point we're just willy waving.

Looking forward to upgrade to a 11900k to get the most out of my 3080 and eventual 3080ti, hopefully Intel produces millions and avoids a paper launch like the one that plagued the Ryzen 5000/RX6000 phantomware series.

 

[Dave2150]

So presumably the 11900K is going to be the best gaming CPU to get if money is no object.

Yeap, followed by the i7 11700k. Though the i7 will likely be the better buy, assuming it can be overclocked to i9 levels.

 

[Dave2150]

You say it WILL be Rocket Lake, have you anything to substantiate this or are you just basing it on a leaked Geekbench result? Also AMD may have to use TSMC but at least they are not stuck in 2014 producing 14nm parts. As games move forward they will be requiring more and more cores / threads so even if this does end up winning in some gaming benchmarks it will not provide longevity as new title are released

Nope, developers will develop for the common spec out there, which is usually determined by the current generation of consoles. The new consoles have 8 cores, 16 threads, so it's entirely logical to expect all games to gradually require a similar CPU for the PC ports. This will take a few years though, so still some life left in 6core/12 thread CPU's.

 

[Dave2150]

Based on your sig i do not see a new Intel chip being any better for you than the 5000 series from AMD. Unless of course you run your LG and 3080 at 1080p which would be totally stupid but even then i doubt Intel improve enough to show any real relevance. This thread is nothing more than an Intel fan boy thread trying to troll AMD users

We're all free to spend our money as we please mate. Ill be buying the fastest CPU for gaming, which will be the 11700/11900k. At 4K, I agree there'll be very little difference between a Ryzen 5000 and 11 series CPU, though there will be a difference. For those 1% lows at 4k, an extra few FPS can make a difference.

I also think it's a good idea to get a CPU that supports AVX-512, as I'll likely keep this CPU for several years. I'm sure Intel will be pushing developers to implement AVX-512 code, as this will artificially cripple AMD. Nvidia do the same thing, with Gameworks, RTX, DLSS etc. Ugly, but usually the companies with the most money win.

 

[Dave2150]

You just contradicted yourself. In reply to my previous comment you said developers will develop for the common spec which is console based 8 core 16 thread. Yet above you say Intel will push them to use AVX512 and Nvidia will do the same. Yet both consoles are using AMD so no AVX-512 and DLSS

I did no such thing, you just assumed I meant game developers. Games don't use AVX, well hardly any do, only one I remember from age old debates was Serious Sam 3. AVX is used more for productivity applications, examples of which include the following:

1. Adobe Photoshop.
2. Adobe After Effects.
3. Adobe Premiere.
4. Photoshop / After Effects / Premiere Plug In's.
5. PeaZip / 7 Zip / WinRar.
6. x264 / FFMPEG (Used by many desktop applications, for instance, Firefox and VLC Player).
7. Excel.
8. MATLAB / Octave / Python (Numpy, Scipy, TensorFlow, etc...).
9. Julia.
10. Numeric Libraries (Used intensively in many applications).

I imagine if Intel are successful in getting software developers (not game developers) to implement more AVX-512 instructions, it won't matter how many additional cores AMD have, as they'll simply not be able to use the more efficient, faster AVX path. Raja Koduri of Intel seems to believe it's a much loved feature for the HPC community, AI community and data centre customers.

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/intel-defends-avx-512-against-torvalds/

AVX isn't important to me currently, though as it comes free of charge it's nice to tick that box, and have a CPU that supports it. If Intel are successful in increasing AVX-512 support, it will pay off down the line.

I feel we're going off at tangents here so will be withdrawing from this discussion, I'm just excited to pickup the fastest gaming CPU in a couple of weeks/months, hope everyone is happy with the competition that we now have between Intel and AMD, enjoy whichever CPU you go for

 

[Dave2150]

Honestly i think Apple are the only company that could have pulled this off. Rumours of a 32 core chip for the imac and Mac Pro are going to blow everything out the water when it comes to production tasks i believe

Grim doesn't realize that many buy PC's for gaming and many despise all things Apple.

 

[Dave2150]

You keep switching from gaming to productivity. You start odd saying Intel for gaming because of AVX 512, people then point out AVX 512 is not used in games so you list a load of productivity apps that use AVX 512 then people point out that people using these are likely to go Apple so you switch back to a gaming argument

Learn to read, it will help you. I said AVX is a bonus that you get for free, which is always nice to get. Nowhere did I say that I'm basing my next CPU purchase on AVX-512 support, I'm basing it on gaming performance. I suppose that's why you didn't quote me saying this, as the post literally doesn't exist.

AVX-512 is just a nice free addition, like getting some extra's included for 'free' with a brand new car etc.

 

[Dave2150]

You get nothing for free, all is included in the price of any product. You may get that extention at the cost of thermals and power consumption but nothing comes for free, its lead there will create a pitfall elsewhere

I believe Intel will price 11th gen rocket lake very competitively vs Ryzen 5000, as they know TSMC has increased the prices of the wafers AMD is buying. Intel have a good opportunity to twist the knife here.

Lets assume i9 11900k is priced similarly to the 5900x. In that respect, you're getting AVX-512 for 'free', as the AMD parts simply lack it.

 

[Dave2150]

If that's priced similarly to the 5900X it's a total losing proposition, as you only get 66% of the processing power. It needs to compete with the 5800X on price to be at all worthwhile.

I'm sure they'll price it based on it's performance. If it's the top performing gaming CPU, by a decent margin, then it will command a premium.

Not that many care about how much faster it will complete cinebench apart from those who need 10, 12, 16, 32 cores etc. Those people know what they want, and are likely using purpose built workstation type systems (Xeon, Threadripper etc). Time is money for content creators, who do hundreds of hours of video rendering, encoding etc, so I'm sure those invested professionally have 28 core Xeons, or 64 core threadrippers etc

 

[Dave2150]

More good news!

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-11900k-rocket-lake-s-cpu-z-benchmark-score-leaks

The Core i9-11900K allegedly scores 695.4 points in the single-threaded CPU-Z benchmark which is 19% faster than Core i9-10900K in the same test. The CP also appears to be 13% faster in the multi-threaded benchmark (6522 vs 5765 points), despite featuring fewer cores.

In comparison to Ryzen 9 5950X, considered the fastest CPU in the Vermeer (Zen3) series, the leaked score puts Core i9-11900K faster by nearly 3% in a single-threaded benchmark, but AMD’s flagship 16-core CPU is still 90% faster in the multi-threaded benchmark.

According to the latest rumors, Intel is set to announce its 11th Gen Core series at CES 2021, but the CPUs are not expected to be available till the end of March or maybe even early April. According to Uniko’s Hardware, the series will be officially released on 15th March (which is probably the embargo for reviews).

Really nice stock ST score, this is going to dominate in games, especially if it can overclock!

Probably high power consumption, though as with Nvidia's 3000 series, people don't care as long as the performance is there

P.S. Imagine the performance when/if Intel eventually release a 10nm/7nm CPU.... Will literally make Ryzen look like Bulldozer again Though perhaps they'll be on 14nm for the next 10 years, who knows LOL