• 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...

Raiden85 said:
Terrible generation, even the single and multi-core power consumption is ridiculous, and this is stock :eek:

Multi

08bZoXzh.jpg
Click to expand...
WOW the power difference between the 8700k & 9900k it not far off being double :eek::(
 
chaparral said:
WOW the power difference between the 8700k & 9900k it not far off being double :eek::(
Click to expand...

That's because in this ringbus architecture, adding cores produces a logarithmic increase in power draw - so adding 33% more cores gives you much more than 33% higher power usage. Instead of Rocket lake, if Intel refreshed Comet lake and produced a 5-5.3ghz 12 core 11900k it would most likely have power usage at around 400w
 
Grim5 said:
That's because in this ringbus architecture, adding cores produces a logarithmic increase in power draw - so adding 33% more cores gives you much more than 33% higher power usage. Instead of Rocket lake, if Intel refreshed Comet lake and produced a 5-5.3ghz 12 core 11900k it would most likely have power usage at around 400w
Click to expand...
I would guess the 'on-the-edge' turbos (for the process) are playing a role too, since e.g. the i5-8400 is very efficient versus the quad cores, but it caps out below 4 Ghz.
 
Grim5 said:
That's because in this ringbus architecture, adding cores produces a logarithmic increase in power draw - so adding 33% more cores gives you much more than 33% higher power usage. Instead of Rocket lake, if Intel refreshed Comet lake and produced a 5-5.3ghz 12 core 11900k it would most likely have power usage at around 400w
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how this is due to the ring architecture? Are you sure it's not related to more aggressive boosting in the later CPUS? Also, do you mean exponential rather than logarithmic?
It got me thinking so I had a really quick google and found this comparison here : https://www.techspot.com/review/2068-intel-core-i7-8700k-revisited/
That shows the 9900k as having an increased power consumption which looks in line with the increased performance.
It would be interesting to see what the actual performance numbers and boost clocks were in that other R20 comparison.

*disclaimer* I didn't look at the whole review.
 
Grim5 said:
These don't really reflect gaming performance though, they could be +100% and still doesn't reflect gaming. and Userbenchmark is a Intel shill
Click to expand...

Out of interest, what's considered a reputable, unbiased benchmark site these days?
 
Pretty much as expected. The 11900k is just a slightly better binned 11700k and doesn't really have any reason to exist
 
Paging Dave....Paging Dave....hmm, i don't think the forum has the ability to penetrate the Bunker he took cover in :p
 
Apparently the B560 boards are going to support higher memory speeds so B560 + 11400 should be a good low-end choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom