• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Overclocked 11900k vs 10900k gaming results

Deleted User 456458

Deleted User 456458

Deleted User 456458

Permabanned
Joined
28 Sep 2018
Posts
0
https://kingfaris.co.uk/cpu/rkl

Core, cache and mem were all oc’d. You can see the mem timings used and the test suite used: tm5/extreme, occt large/avx2.

This is more or less what can be expected when maxing out each platform for a daily system.

Buildzoid approved!

Screenshot_20210416_213002.jpg
 
Last edited:
Strange that he uses the old BIOS for the older chip, even though its the same motherboard.
All profiles have hyperthreading disabled, interesting choice, they gimped the chip in general usage in order to eek out 100-200mhz more clock speed for the games test.
I doubt anyone would run their games machine like this for any length of time, but it does make the comparison more interesting.
I bet Ryan Shrout will be using this games testing process for his future slides.
Energy consumption is absolutely bloody awful for a machine with HT disabled.

The 11 series looks bloody awful even with hyperspeed memory and tight timings :/
 
I don't get the brand loyalty thing; paying a premium for an inferior product because you're somehow admitting defeat, is hilarious.
 
No idea how you guys can call it a lemon, when it is way, way faster in Rocket League at 720p. Loads of bias noobs in this place.
 
Journey said:
No idea how you guys can call it a lemon, when it is way, way faster in Rocket League at 720p. Loads of bias noobs in this place.
Click to expand...

Mobile gaming chip confirmed? Probably couldn't find a battery big enough to support it, let alone prevent it from melting through your pocket.
 
So just another way to find out that the 11900K isn't as good as the 10900K.

As seen from the FPS data for 1080p High and 3440x1440 High, the 10900K comes ontop in every title.
The lack of cores, lack of L3 cache and higher RAM latency lead to disappointing performance of the 11900K, with the last 2 hurting performance specifically in gaming.
Based on these results, Rocketlake should definitely be skipped and I would not recommend 11th generation Intel to anyone who wants the best gaming performance. The 10900K would win in multicore performance too and hence be better for productivity. The only use I can see for 11th generation CPUs would be workloads that utilise AVX512 instructions, which is currently a very small number of software. Other than that, it is also enjoyable to overclock RAM on Rocketlake with a vastly different experience to the Skylake architecture
Click to expand...
 
random_matt said:
The CPU prices have dropped already, not sure about overclockers though.
Click to expand...

They aren't selling, this the situation on Rainforest US and has been since Rocket Lake launched, occasionally the 11400 makes it just inside the top 12, Intel are doing much better with older generations, because they are at give away prices.

kodyo2K.png
 
Destination said:
Strange that he uses the old BIOS for the older chip, even though its the same motherboard.
All profiles have hyperthreading disabled, interesting choice, they gimped the chip in general usage in order to eek out 100-200mhz more clock speed for the games test.
I doubt anyone would run their games machine like this for any length of time, but it does make the comparison more interesting.
I bet Ryan Shrout will be using this games testing process for his future slides.
Energy consumption is absolutely bloody awful for a machine with HT disabled.

The 11 series looks bloody awful even with hyperspeed memory and tight timings :/
Click to expand...

If you’re going to max out mem, you generally need to play with different bios and the find the one that works best for your kit. Wish this wasn’t the case but for pushing the limits, it is.

If gaming is your main use case, HT off is the way to go. There’s more cache available per core which helps, lower thermals and power draw allow a higher frequency which again helps more than HT. You get the occasional exception to the rule but nowhere near the norm, esp for the 10core.
 
I should note that we tested against my 9900k in a few benches as well. My 9900k won. 52 core, 48 uncore. 16-16-16/4400 SR mem.

so Intel can’t even beat their own 2 gen old platform. For gaming, rkl is an absolute failure.
 
Last edited:
Robert896r1 said:
I should note that we tested against my 9900k in a few benches as well. My 9900k won. 52 core, 48 uncore. 16-16-16/4400 SR mem.

so Intel can’t even beat their own 2 gen old platform. For gaming, rkl is an absolute failure.
Click to expand...
The 9900K turned out to be a good chip, Intel haven't really bettered it, yes the 10900K has 2 more cores but that was an idiotic attempt to keep up with AMD in the cores war, which was never going to happen, AMD can "Glue" as many cores on to a substrate as they like, Intel can't keep up with that.

So they have gone back to 8 but larger cores, and this is proof if any was needed that larger cores don't necessarily equate to faster cores, its how fast and efficiently those cores can execute that really matters.
 
silicon lottery is now selling binned 11900k.

The top of the line option is only binned for 5.1ghz all core @ 1.425v lol
 
Grim5 said:
silicon lottery is now selling binned 11900k.

The top of the line option is only binned for 5.1ghz all core @ 1.425v lol
Click to expand...

Silicon Lottery is a joke these days. Just look at the Bios profiles they recommend for stability. All average cpu's running insane voltage.

By their standards my 10900k is a super uber golden sample (which it really isn't)

You're better off buying a retail cpu and taking your chances ......
 
humbug said:
The 9900K turned out to be a good chip, Intel haven't really bettered it, yes the 10900K has 2 more cores but that was an idiotic attempt to keep up with AMD in the cores war, which was never going to happen, AMD can "Glue" as many cores on to a substrate as they like, Intel can't keep up with that.

So they have gone back to 8 but larger cores, and this is proof if any was needed that larger cores don't necessarily equate to faster cores, its how fast and efficiently those cores can execute that really matters.
Click to expand...

I think part of the reason they fail to sell, is that they are remarkably unavailable also, bar a small supply at launch, nowhere seems to actually have any of the chips.
It is an awful chip, covers nothing new, regresses in many areas, and i think is a tough to produce at binning levels thus very low availability also.
Sonner their next gen comes the better, to force AMD to continue to improve rather than stagnate with scalping.
 
Destination said:
I think part of the reason they fail to sell, is that they are remarkably unavailable also, bar a small supply at launch, nowhere seems to actually have any of the chips.
It is an awful chip, covers nothing new, regresses in many areas, and i think is a tough to produce at binning levels thus very low availability also.
Sonner their next gen comes the better, to force AMD to continue to improve rather than stagnate with scalping.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree with you completely.

But, for gaming the 5800X is the best there is at £390, Intel's best is the 10850K and that's £420, and AMD hold the crown for gaming, as well as power efficiency and productivity, Zen 3 is a significant step up from Zen 2.

Its just not possible to accuse AMD of stagnating, i know that is not what you're saying, i agree we need the competition to keep this going.

On a side note, i think for £390 the 5800X is a damned good chip, cheaper than the best Intel can offer and remember when a 7700K cost £330?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom