As i'm sure you don't need me to tell you, keep the 10900K, its a better CPU, the 11900K is actually faster in a lot of single threaded workloads but these days that is irrelevant, and it doesn't make it a better gaming CPU, it isn't, in Multi threaded the 10900K is faster, and it uses less power.
-
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
As i'm sure you don't need me to tell you, keep the 10900K, its a better CPU, the 11900K is actually faster in a lot of single threaded workloads but these days that is irrelevant, and it doesn't make it a better gaming CPU, it isn't, in Multi threaded the 10900K is faster, and it uses less power.
This made me lol.
That is just absolutely hilarious, Rocket Lake is a serious regression for Intel in performance per watt - there you go kids, now you know, backporting is hot garbage, never do a backport
Arguably the 11400F and 11600K should make AMD at least consider a price drop on the 5600X or release a SKU to compete.
In practice though, why? And how? However much we may not like the 5000 series pricing, AMD have the superior offering and are charging for it, and the market is lapping every everything AMD put on the shelves. So if Ryzen 5000 is selling, why change price? Also, TSMC's 7nm node must be godlike yields by now, so how exactly does AMD create a non-X 5600 or 5500?
Additionally, Rocket Lake is going to be very short lived. If the rumoured Zen 3 refresh on 6nm is going to happen, it's likely these will be the counter to Intel's Alder Lake and the entire 5000 series Ryzen could get some price cuts to create the lower-tier SKUs that are currently "missing": stop making the 5900X and 5950X altogether and create new 16, 12 and 8 core SKUs on TSMC 6nm. These are the top-tier 6950X, 6900X and 6800X. The existing 5800X and 5600X can be rebranded as 6700X and 6600X and price-slashed to fill the lower price points.
Right here right now, budget gaming really belongs to Intel with the 11400F, 11600K and price-slashed 10th Gen parts. That is good competition.
Last edited:
One time I would have believed that.
Only problem is mostly nowadays competition raises the prices.
This is assuming the refresh will be on 6nm for all we know AMD may just do a 7nm XT refresh like last year and price drop the non XT sku's a little and save the 6nm parts for AM5.
Given the XT models last time represented god-tier yields and maturity from TSMC 7nm, and it's still the same process used for Zen 3, I personally don't see a Zen 3 refresh being just better yields since the yields really can't get any better. Plus the AM5 parts (presumably Zen 4) will be TSMC 5nm, so there's that, FWIW.
Conspiracy time: Zen 3 refresh will be TSMC 6nm to take wafer capacity away from Intel's DG2 Xe GPUs given they're strongly rumoured to be not ****.
But we're straying a distance from Rocket Lake now...
Conspiracy time: Zen 3 refresh will be TSMC 6nm to take wafer capacity away from Intel's DG2 Xe GPUs given they're strongly rumoured to be not ****.
But we're straying a distance from Rocket Lake now...
I'd imagine they'll go with N6 EUV, and leave the original N7 DUV for the lower end parts if they have split capacity, due to limitations on TSMC's capacity, utilising both will allow them more wafers per month, and it makes absolute sense to use the higher performing node for the newer parts, and will benefit most.
As pointed out dropping the X from the 5600 isn't an issue, and making the 5600XT (or whatever) actually faster means it needs to be something of an improvement if they want to keep the MSRP and therefore margins high. Why dilute sales with a $199 5600, and no-one buys the X(T) due to no real gain, N6 will allow them better clocks or lower power if so desired, and the $299 5600XT is born both faster than the X, and therefore more desirable.
As pointed out dropping the X from the 5600 isn't an issue, and making the 5600XT (or whatever) actually faster means it needs to be something of an improvement if they want to keep the MSRP and therefore margins high. Why dilute sales with a $199 5600, and no-one buys the X(T) due to no real gain, N6 will allow them better clocks or lower power if so desired, and the $299 5600XT is born both faster than the X, and therefore more desirable.
waste of sand title yet the best cpu in years is the 11400f for the price.....gotta love amd biased ocuk.
It was the title of the video... Or did you miss that?
Your bias shows through more than your realise sometimes, and as a hobbyist I guess that is fine, but for those if us in professions surrounding computer hardware you do better not wearing any blinkers.
people use titles to promote items...its a massive forum and often people do it on purpose maybe even for business reasons.
its actually funny really because of intels great offerings at great pricing it means the super sayen amd offerings will need to be reduced in scalped gouged prices to compete. which is actually good for us all. even the amd biased crowd on here. thank you intel.
its actually funny really because of intels great offerings at great pricing it means the super sayen amd offerings will need to be reduced in scalped gouged prices to compete. which is actually good for us all. even the amd biased crowd on here. thank you intel.
Shut up, Dg, it's Gamers Nexus 11700K review. Maybe pay attention before you start banging on about "AMD bias". Not that I can see how calling hot garbage hot garbage is somehow bias. Insufferable little troll sometimes.
Shouldn't you be also thanking AMD for actually forcing Intel to produce something that wasn't 4c/8t max for 7 years? After all we both know they wouldn't offer any of this progress unless they were forced to.
Your come across as an almost bitter PC hobbyist, that dislikes the fact we have good competition, and can't seem to shake off that Intel is best thing in almost every post, quite sad really.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
I used Intel exclusively from Core 2 Duo up to my 10900K, and the 11700k and 11900k are the largest failures ever released from Intel up to now.
11400 is a completely different thing, its not a high end chip and is great value for its money, but the whole 'waste of sand' type banter primarily concerns the 11700k and 11900k as these are the chips that most gamers / enthusiasts would be interested in.
If I were building right now and they were in stock I would def want the Ryzen 5900X and nothing else, and for my backup PC might consider the 11400, but really its meant have something even less than that.
The 11th series 86/16t offerings are better in around half the tests, and worse in the other half than the previous generation. Even when they are better, this is offset by the huge power draw, in best cases you get 1-3 FPS more than a 5900X but for how much more power usage?
The 11700K also isn't overclocking at all for people who have bought it, it looks like Intel are struggling with yields on 11900K frequencies otherwise the 11700K wouldn't be clocked so low - last gen all they needed to do to fix yield issues on the 11900K was drop the speeds by 100 Mhz for the 10850K.
11400 is a completely different thing, its not a high end chip and is great value for its money, but the whole 'waste of sand' type banter primarily concerns the 11700k and 11900k as these are the chips that most gamers / enthusiasts would be interested in.
If I were building right now and they were in stock I would def want the Ryzen 5900X and nothing else, and for my backup PC might consider the 11400, but really its meant have something even less than that.
The 11th series 86/16t offerings are better in around half the tests, and worse in the other half than the previous generation. Even when they are better, this is offset by the huge power draw, in best cases you get 1-3 FPS more than a 5900X but for how much more power usage?
The 11700K also isn't overclocking at all for people who have bought it, it looks like Intel are struggling with yields on 11900K frequencies otherwise the 11700K wouldn't be clocked so low - last gen all they needed to do to fix yield issues on the 11900K was drop the speeds by 100 Mhz for the 10850K.
Last edited:
Even compared to Pentium 4 Prescott on socket 478????
(looks over to mine weeping in the corner)
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
Oh, well since C2D anyway. I used S939 before then like most people did but can't really remember much about them after all this time.
7 years intel had 6 cores for how long ? ohh thats right 2010. the funny thing because of amd bias you trying to defend amd when....instead of raging about it think for a minute...even if you AMD BIASED... you will now get your favourite amd cpu soon for a lot cheaper because of intel. so as i said thank you intel. for if it wasnt for good pricing you would be gouged scalped by retailers for much much longer.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
You needed to buy a much more expensive motherboard and triple / quad channel ram for those which has never been useful for gaming. HEDT (High End Desktop Range) as they were called were not intended for gaming or general everyday PC use.
Dual channel ram running at higher frequency / tighter timings always outperforms quad channel in most situations, mainly gaming.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
No, people wanted more cores on mid tier boards for a very long time, Intel only offered this after Ryzen forced them to do so.