I remember thinking back to November and going, this cannot be good or end well going from 10 cores to 8. When everyone keeps wanting more cores.
You don't go from something better to downgrading then trying to dress it up with marketing.
-
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.
Rocket Lake Review: A waste of sand...
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
I remember thinking back to November and going, this cannot be good or end well going from 10 cores to 8. When everyone keeps wanting more cores.
You don't go from something better to downgrading then trying to dress it up with marketing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,579
I tend to agree though I can also see the logic behind dropping to 8 cores - Intel had already long since lost the mainstream productivity crown to the 3900X/3950X.
There was really no chance of them competing with the 5900X etc for productivity so might as well go for the 'gaming crown' which generally operates in the 2-8 core space. So if one could drop 2 cores but then boost speeds/IPC to put some good distance ahead of the 5800X, then at least that would be something.
That seemed to the plan on paper. Alas, the reality is far from that but the contingency seems to be having something out is better than nothing at all - no matter how much it might get panned by the tech press.
Last edited:
If they do so would it be due to them wanting to associated their final 14nm product with a cold iceberg? Rather than an ill-fated ship.
If they crank the power up a bit more they could call it Geyser Lake or Boiling Lake with the slogan "is your PC up to Geyser Lake?" meaning it might cause AoI cooler to steam or boil.
....but um, um - Ryzen & USB! Intel's the only choice
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,584
- Location
- Rutland
11600K is good value but awful power consumption. Its petty much the only one that stands out as not terrible.
You have to factor in a decent cooler in the price. The 5600X comes with one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
No you are not missing it, but suggestion is the 10600 is the same prospect for you.
The 11700 and 11900 are complete waste of money in comparison, if you game go 11600 or x5800, if you do production go AMD.
You mean the 10600KF?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Aye
Its pretty crazy when you think about it, 7 years of CPU launches and they only equate to an extra 20 frames per second.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,579
Best to give percentages as 20fps on 40fps might not be too terrible whereas 20fps on 200fps is probably pitiful.
It's not that surprising really, when you consider that those seven years were all covered by a single console generation. The 4790K came out six months after the PS4 and Xbone, which were only replaced a few months ago. Those machines have been holding back progress and what developers can do thanks to their truly godawful CPUs and glacial hard drives, so PC requirements haven't really risen that much either. You can still get away with one of the better quad-cores in most games. Hopefully we'll see some real progress now that the new consoles are kitted out with fairly high end CPUs and fast SSDs.
When you look at it from the point of view of "what can it do at 1080P or 1440P" you're actually looking more at the performance of the GPU they used rather than the CPU, so CPU's with very different levels of performance all look very roughly about the same on these charts, most mainstream reviewers do that these days. But for a couple of games where the GPU is easily fast enough to be bottlenecked by even high end CPU's at these resolutions, on those couple of occations buried in the slide stacks is where you see what is more the actual difference between theses CPU's.
As one example, the 5900X here scores 314 FPS, vs a 7700K at 180 FPS, the 11900K is at 281 FPS, very clear differenced between these CPU's, and while on the subject of the 4790K it would probably score around 120 to 140 FPS, which is great, that's near enough 144Hz and of course that's some good frame rates. in that sense there is nothing wrong with the 4790K, but it does show how much faster these new CPU's actually are. As a matter of fact it looks to me in this slide that at the point of the 5600X its starting to become rather GPU bound.
If you push the resolution up to 4K i'm sure the 4790K would not look that much slower, if any, when compared with the 11900K, but that's far from saying the 11900K is no better, such a slide would be very deceiving.
As one example, the 5900X here scores 314 FPS, vs a 7700K at 180 FPS, the 11900K is at 281 FPS, very clear differenced between these CPU's, and while on the subject of the 4790K it would probably score around 120 to 140 FPS, which is great, that's near enough 144Hz and of course that's some good frame rates. in that sense there is nothing wrong with the 4790K, but it does show how much faster these new CPU's actually are. As a matter of fact it looks to me in this slide that at the point of the 5600X its starting to become rather GPU bound.
If you push the resolution up to 4K i'm sure the 4790K would not look that much slower, if any, when compared with the 11900K, but that's far from saying the 11900K is no better, such a slide would be very deceiving.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 704
Most of the world unfortunately.
Kitguru said that their k CPU doesn't overclock very well. So ou might as well get the base model and save £100 on the 5600. My main interest is the 11400f which will save you even more money. I expect it to be the CPU of choice for cost-conscious gamers who game at higher resolutions which are GPU-limited as well as those who game at 1080p and just need something that is good enough.
I've seen one person get 5.3ghz using 1.46v overclock on the 11900k (water cooled) and that person is a professional benchmarker who holds 3D Mark top 10 records.
Every other example I've seen has only managed 4.9ghz to 5.1ghz (and this is why most reviewers did not put up overclocking results, because the overclocks that were stable resulted in lower performance than stock)
And the pro benchmarkers don't care about stability, you just need the CPU to complete your benchmark, rest of tasks/games etc is meaningless so cause a pro got 5.3ghz doesn't mean you can do it and be stable.
Every other example I've seen has only managed 4.9ghz to 5.1ghz (and this is why most reviewers did not put up overclocking results, because the overclocks that were stable resulted in lower performance than stock)
And the pro benchmarkers don't care about stability, you just need the CPU to complete your benchmark, rest of tasks/games etc is meaningless so cause a pro got 5.3ghz doesn't mean you can do it and be stable.
Last edited: