News A first look at Intel's UHD 750 Graphics on 11th Gen Rocket Lake CPUs

[Admin]

Someone in China got their hands on a Core i5-11500 with Intel's new UHD 750 graphics and tested it in 3DMark.

A first look at Intel's UHD 750 Graphics on 11th Gen Rocket Lake CPUs : Read more

 

[cryoburner]

The tester ran 3DMark TimeSpy on both the Core i5-11500 and the Core i5-10400, the Rocket Lake chip managed a score of 11500 points and 10400 points for the older Comet Lake part.

I'm pretty sure those are the model numbers of the processors, not the points they scored. : P

 

[purple_dragon]

I can see the 12 gen chips performing better when Intel actually gets on a new process node and can pack more transistors on a chip.

 

[TerryLaze]

I can see the 12 gen chips performing better when Intel actually gets on a new process node and can pack more transistors on a chip.

They don't need a new node to add more transistors, they just add as many transistors as they like and make the die bigger.
https://www.techpowerup.com/267649/...idding-reveals-accurate-die-size-measurements

 

[usiname]

New node won't change the things much. You can see that with their mobile CPUs on 10nm++, same transistor density as TSMC 7nm, but still their 4 core consume more power than AMD's 8 core while are more than two times slower.

 

[Blas]

I'm pretty sure those are the model numbers of the processors, not the points they scored. : P

And yet, no one corrected the original article, a day and a half later. Tom's going down the drain...

 

[panathas]

And yet, no one corrected the original article, a day and a half later. Tom's going down the drain...

Yeah, it's more quantity over quality these days...

 

[everettfsargent]

I'm pretty sure those are the model numbers of the processors, not the points they scored. : P

And yet, no one corrected the original article, a day and a half later. Tom's going down the drain...

Yeah, it's more quantity over quality these days...

Or maybe those numbers are labels for each image? There are other numbers of interest within each image ... 1053/693 - 1 = 52% improvement in the GPU benchmark.

From the article ...
"The difference in performance accounts for a 52% generational improvement between the two chips, which falls right in line with Intel's promised 'up to' 50% faster graphics over the previous generation. "

D'oh!, D'oh! and D'oh!

 

[Blas]

Or maybe those numbers are labels for each image?

Well... of course they are labels, to know which results are for which cpu.

The problem in the article is...
"The tester ran 3DMark TimeSpy on both the Core i5-11500 and the Core i5-10400, the Rocket Lake chip managed a score of 11500 points and 10400 points for the older Comet Lake part. "

D'oh!, D'oh! and D'oh!

 

[rtoaht]

...still their 4 core consume more power than AMD's 8 core while are more than two times slower.

This is hyperbolic and also not true.

 

[usiname]

This is hyperbolic and also not true.

What did you say?

View: https://youtu.be/kImqzdaTihE?t=405

 

[TerryLaze]

What did you say?

That is 0.5 times slower not 2 times slower.
Also according to your video it's more like 0.3 or 30% at lower W even.

View: https://youtu.be/kImqzdaTihE?t=1064

 

[usiname]

That is 0.5 times slower not 2 times slower.
Also according to your video it's more like 0.3 or 30% at lower W even.

View: https://youtu.be/kImqzdaTihE?t=1064

30% in the eyes of intel fanbots, can you read the graph? There are single core results. If you are not aware 1185g7 is 28w at base frequency, 45w at turbo. Still two times slower with more power.
Btw 0.5 slower is same as two times slower which mean the faster is 100% faster.

 

[ginthegit]

30% in the eyes of intel fanbots, can you read the graph? There are single core results. If you are not aware 1185g7 is 28w at base frequency, 45w at turbo. Still two times slower with more power.
Btw 0.5 slower is same as two times slower which mean the faster is 100% faster.

Strictly, the statement is not true, but your concept is correct. "0.5 x Base speed of the AMD chip" or "the Intel chip is 0.5 x the Speed of the AMD chip" is more like the claim meant. But yes, it does equate to the meaning of AMD is 2x the Speed of the Intel chip in concept.
0.5 x Slower is not the same as 2x slower, it is mathematically wrong. it cannot be 0.5 and 2 times slower. It is either 2x faster for the AMD or 0.5 times the speed of the AMD.

It is also Hyperbolic in that these speeds are relative only to Benchmarks or potentially un-optimised software. So it is untrue in the sense that you can apply this stat across the board with all applications and OS's.

We get the point, you are an AMD fanboi and the other guy is an Intel Flunkie, but who really cares anymore.

I supported AMD while it was the underdog, and with its low prices. But clearly they are now turning into the same as Intel with Greed with pricing. So AMD and Intel are now looking to be the same with ripping off consumers with Bloated prices, purely based on theoretical benchmark performances and cores.

I am happy AMD is kicking azz again, but unhappy to see the new pricing model.

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/leaked-rocket-lake-reviews-hint-amd-has-nothing-to-worry-about

 

[eye4bear]

And yet, no one corrected the original article, a day and a half later. Tom's going down the drain...

The article still has the error in it and it is now Monday morning... Clearly in the pictures of the benchmark outputs it shows "Graphic Score 7342 for the newer and 6020 for the older.