News Core i9-11900, Core i7-11700, Core i7-11700K Specs Reportedly Exposed In New Leak

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,181
554
2,060
0
1.8Ghz base clock? I know the chips will never run that low, but that would be disappointing for a 28W mobile CPU, let alone a 65W desktop. Color me skeptical on this rumor. Won't be much longer until we know the real specs.
 

ingtar33

Illustrious
i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,378
16
19,795
1
Why hasn't Intel released a chip comparable to AMD's AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X? No Intel 64 Core processor, I mean. Not even for bragging rights? Yeah, I get it, 64 Cores is for bragging rights at this stage of the game, so why not?
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,181
554
2,060
0
i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains
From the article:

"and we have also seen samples with 3.4 base and 5.0 turbo, which should be the i9-11900k test version, the official version of the i9-11900k is expected to be clocked at 3.50GHz, and the turbo boost can reach 5.30GHz, and the performance is basically the same as the current 10 core i9 10900k.
 

shady28

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
125
36
18,640
5
If you go to the original source version https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv8983160

Use google translate, you'll get better information.

For one, there are three ES samples and they don't actually know what SKU they represent. It's all assumption. One is QV1K and the other is QV1J. The 1J is assumed to be a 11700, and the 1K is assumed to be a 11700K.

They are only able to run its memory at DDR4-2133 and has a bug that prevents PCIe 4.0 from working.

The QV1J, which is the buggy one, is from June. The second one, the QV1K, is from August. So, this could also be the same chip with some revisions (J release, K release).

The third is the QVYE. This one allowed them to run DDR4-3200 XMP but the frequency was locked. This one allowed single core 4.5Ghz all core 4Ghz and is a 65W part. They assume it is a 10900 non-K (IDK why since it is similar to the QQV1J).

They state they have seen ES' with 5Ghz turbo, and that the 11900K is expected to turbo to 5.3Ghz.
There is a more recent leak of a QS, which is going to be close to production as it is more of a 'did we get all the bugs out' last round before production sample.

This one is a 11900K and has a 5.3Ghz single core turbo.

View: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342762159583850498
 

Conahl

Prominent
Apr 24, 2020
208
68
660
0
Why hasn't Intel released a chip comparable to AMD's AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X? No Intel 64 Core processor, I mean. Not even for bragging rights? Yeah, I get it, 64 Cores is for bragging rights at this stage of the game, so why not?
probably because they can't, or dont want to, so those what want more intel cores, have to go to the more expensive xeon platforms, this IS intel, after all, less for more as been their company motto for a few years now :)

i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains
until rocket lake actually comes out, and is reviewed by sites like Toms,AT, etc, its all speculation and rumors
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
376
147
870
1
1.8Ghz base clock? I know the chips will never run that low, but that would be disappointing for a 28W mobile CPU, let alone a 65W desktop. Color me skeptical on this rumor. Won't be much longer until we know the real specs.
No SuperFin, so base clock is expected to be low to keep to the 65W TDP limit.
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,181
554
2,060
0
No SuperFin, so base clock is expected to be low to keep to the 65W TDP limit.
If an 8 core CPU needed to drop to 1.8Ghz to guarantee staying below 65W, it would be a completely broken design and wouldn't get sold. As the article states, samples with a 3.4Ghz base have already been seen in the wild, and the final specs for the 11900k are expected to be 3.5Ghz base which is almost twice the 1.8Ghz of the engineering samples listed in the article.
 

artk2219

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2010
499
53
18,940
31
Why hasn't Intel released a chip comparable to AMD's AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X? No Intel 64 Core processor, I mean. Not even for bragging rights? Yeah, I get it, 64 Cores is for bragging rights at this stage of the game, so why not?
Intel currently does not use chiplets, AMD uses eight, eight core chiplets with an IO \ control chip to manage memory access, peripherals, etc, all connected via an interposer to get a total of 64 cores on one chip. Intel would have to make one big 64 core chip without the benefit of being able to produce all those pieces separately and then putting them together on one chip. Simply put, it would cost intel much more with a much higher likeliness of failure to make one big 64 core chip vs connecting eight, eight core chips and another control chip on a shared interface, and until they get their own chiplet process down (honestly within the next year or two), they wont make a chip that big. Frankly, their arrogance and lack of progress since after sandy bridge has cost them their lead now, and theyve been scrambling to catch up, its what happens when you sit on your hands for 5 years.
 
Reactions: Conahl

ASK THE COMMUNITY