the ironic part of that, is intel probably would like their cpus to run as they designed it, its the motherboard makers that are setting the pl and tau limits, and intel doesnt tell them to change it.you still have to review the CPU in the way that intel intended it to run
that just sounds like you are making excuses for intel NEEDING to use all the power they can just to get the performance it needs to compete.Also people that won't be bothered to go into bios to change pl and tau won't be bothered by high power usage either because otherwise they will go into bios or run throttlestop or ixtu.
I think I'm more satisfied with the fact I got it all at retail price... and didn't really wait all that long for parts... just a week or two which was mainly due to holiday shipping slowdown. I've seen people posting that they are on a 3-4 month wait list for their AMD CPU. Nothing against that if that is what you want... but AMD wasn't a priority for me. I've had them before with the last one being the Athlon XP 1800+ in 2001... since then it's been all Intel. Not really by choice or anything just how it's worked out. In 2017 the Ryzen was just coming out and unproven so I went with the 7700k. In 2020 the Ryzen was proven but out of stock everywhere so I went with the 10900k. Is what it is.You really are satisfied with upgrade, arent you xD
I'm talking about 2 hour video encoding times going from 2 hours down to 30 minutes... saving 90 minutes per encoding job.
You went from 2 hrs to 30 minutes in 3 gens. I'd say your second quote is somewhat contradictory considering the 7700k was the single top line cpu and so is the 10900k. It's highly dependent on use, in some respects there's been massive improvements in the 14nm++++++...... clones abilities. Software can only do so much.Like you said... the CPUs just aren't massively improving from one gen to the next.
" I have a PC in the top 1%... "I think I'm more satisfied with the fact I got it all at retail price... and didn't really wait all that long for parts... just a week or two which was mainly due to holiday shipping slowdown. I've seen people posting that they are on a 3-4 month wait list for their AMD CPU. Nothing against that if that is what you want... but AMD wasn't a priority for me. I've had them before with the last one being the Athlon XP 1800+ in 2001... since then it's been all Intel. Not really by choice or anything just how it's worked out. In 2017 the Ryzen was just coming out and unproven so I went with the 7700k. In 2020 the Ryzen was proven but out of stock everywhere so I went with the 10900k. Is what it is.
But yeah, I'm satisfied overall. I have a PC in the top 1%...No regrets not waiting for 11th gen either... not a gamebreaking improvement IMO.
Now that I look at it... you do have a point! Thanks for the comment! I use my 10900k for a bit of everything... encoding, rendering, CAD stuff for work, and gaming. It does it all quite well. The biggest improvement I've noticed is the encoding already mentioned. The first one I did post build really blew my mind. So much better. I think I'll be happy with 10 cores for quite a long time.You went from 2 hrs to 30 minutes in 3 gens. I'd say your second quote is somewhat contradictory considering the 7700k was the single top line cpu and so is the 10900k. It's highly dependent on use, in some respects there's been massive improvements in the 14nm++++++...... clones abilities. Software can only do so much.
" I have a PC in the top 1%... "
Yeah, i noticed the 'short' signature below xD
MCE adds the additional power but doesn't change clocks upwards, it doesn't change any results because it won't go above stock clocks, and especially for games it reduces the single core clocks down to the multicore clocks, more power for less performance in gaming and single core results.that just sounds like you are making excuses for intel NEEDING to use all the power they can just to get the performance it needs to compete.
Sure also AMD doesn't stop manufacturers from releasing buggy mobos with reduced performance what if a review would only use a buggy mobo and would try to pass that off as normal behavior?We understand that you are an Intel apologist. However, if Intel really wanted motherboard manufacturers to not enable unlimited Tau by default they would make sure of that.
Are you implying that a trusted review site, that even gave Intel a heads up of review before posting it asking for a response, would be posting a review with known buggy behavior unless the review was designed to show the bugs? "Before publishing this review, we gave Intel advance notice to respond to us having a full review ahead of the formal release. Our email seemingly generated some excitement inside (and to our surprise, outside) Intel, but we received a response from Intel stating that they had no comment to offer." They stated that a BIOS update released at the time of release could bring minor performance or turbo response. "While we can't disclose the motherboard used due to NDA reasons, it has already been announced by the manufacturer. Meanwhile, the BIOS used is likely not the final variant that will be used for Rocket Lake's retail launch later this month, and further BIOSes may contain potential minor adjustments to performance or turbo responses." Turbo response won't help with the MT performance though as the chip ran at the all core boost on the threaded applications for unlimited time. Therefore only minor, at best, single threaded or very lightly threaded performance boost. These gains won't be enough to erase the performance deficit that already exists.MCE adds the additional power but doesn't change clocks upwards, it doesn't change any results because it won't go above stock clocks, and especially for games it reduces the single core clocks down to the multicore clocks, more power for less performance in gaming and single core results.
Sure also AMD doesn't stop manufacturers from releasing buggy mobos with reduced performance what if a review would only use a buggy mobo and would try to pass that off as normal behavior?
If this infinite turbo cuts single core to 4.6, that's what they say on page two of the review, but stock performance, not mobo stock settings but what intel uses boosts the single core to 5Ghz,that's what is listed on page one of the review, that's already a 10% difference in single core performance, if the GPU is going to limit it below that fine but anything single core that's only limited by the CPU will be running 10% faster, possibly including latency.Are you implying that a trusted review site, that even gave Intel a heads up of review before posting it asking for a response, would be posting a review with known buggy behavior unless the review was designed to show the bugs? "Before publishing this review, we gave Intel advance notice to respond to us having a full review ahead of the formal release. Our email seemingly generated some excitement inside (and to our surprise, outside) Intel, but we received a response from Intel stating that they had no comment to offer." They stated that a BIOS update released at the time of release could bring minor performance or turbo response. "While we can't disclose the motherboard used due to NDA reasons, it has already been announced by the manufacturer. Meanwhile, the BIOS used is likely not the final variant that will be used for Rocket Lake's retail launch later this month, and further BIOSes may contain potential minor adjustments to performance or turbo responses." Turbo response won't help with the MT performance though as the chip ran at the all core boost on the threaded applications for unlimited time. Therefore only minor, at best, single threaded or very lightly threaded performance boost. These gains won't be enough to erase the performance deficit that already exists.
if intel doesn't tell the mobo makers how to run the cpus, or what settings they are to use, then it IS stock settings for that board. if the board maker wants to effectively let the cpu run with practically no limits other then the cooling used. then deal with it.but stock performance, not mobo stock settings but what intel uses boosts the single core to 5Ghz
um i think they did just that, and if i remember right, the SAME THING HAPPENED THEN AS IT IS NOW. some were saying the same thing, wait till amd gets a bios update/official release bios, and see what happens, and like with amd, the bios updates still didnt change things all that much, intel still had the lead in same cases, and i sure dont expect that to change here.Sure also AMD doesn't stop manufacturers from releasing buggy mobos with reduced performance what if a review would only use a buggy mobo and would try to pass that off as normal behavior?
I think this was the most recent leak - keep in mind that it may not be concrete: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-release-date-specifications-performance-all-we-knowDo any of you happen to know if there will be a 11th gen i3, or something like that?
That's old news.I recently saw a "newer" version of intel's stock cooler, painted in black.
What cpu's will they come with,or is that cooler just a rumor?
Ok, so there have been rumors about the i3...I think this was the most recent leak - keep in mind that it may not be concrete: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-release-date-specifications-performance-all-we-know
A certain paragraph states this:
"As we can see above, Intel spreads the Rocket Lake (RKL-S) chips into the familiar Core i9, i7, and i5 families, but there's a fly in the ointment: Intel has purportedly decided to use refreshed Comet Lake (CML-R) chips for its Core i3 and Pentium families. Those chips feature the same architecture as other Comet Lake chips but come with slightly increased clock speeds and have already shown up at Malaysian retailers."
That's old news.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-revamps-boxed-coolers-for-comet-lake-processors-new-blacked-out-design
They're still crap though... but good looking crap, LOL.
Infinite turbo DOES NOT affect anything but duration. Don't go spreading that FUD. That page does not say single core dropped to 4.6GHz. Here is what it says: "This tests for 10-15 seconds and then idles for 10 seconds, and does rapidly go through any system that doesn’t run an infinite turbo. What we see here in this power only graph is the alarming peaks of 290-292 W. Looking at our data, the all-core turbo under AVX-512 is 4.6 GHz, sometimes dipping to 4.5 GHz." Turbo Boost 3.0 for 1-2c is listed at 5.0GHz with all core listed at 4.6GHz. That is all in a nice little table to look at and read. Again we understand you are an Intel apologist who believes everything Intel does it the best thing ever. However, please don't spread blatantly false information especially when you "cite" a page and don't bother to actually cite it correctly.If this infinite turbo cuts single core to 4.6, that's what they say on page two of the review, but stock performance, not mobo stock settings but what intel uses boosts the single core to 5Ghz,that's what is listed on page one of the review, that's already a 10% difference in single core performance, if the GPU is going to limit it below that fine but anything single core that's only limited by the CPU will be running 10% faster, possibly including latency.
Typically the Z series motherboards are always nice with top of the line features. I wouldn't be surprised to see TB4 and 2.5GbE on most Z series boards.What are your thought on B560 and Z590, while we are at Rocket Lake.
So far i didnt see any H510 motherboards, only H570, B560 and Z590, so is H510 coming out?
"I wouldn't be surprised to see TB4 and 2.5GbE on most Z series boards "Typically the Z series motherboards are always nice with top of the line features. I wouldn't be surprised to see TB4 and 2.5GbE on most Z series boards.
Sadly I do not. I do like the connectivity on that board you linked. That should be the standard for any high-end boards regardless of manufacturer and CPU.@jeremyj_83 Do you happen to know anything about the lower end of the new 500 series motherboards?
Like H510, H570?
What are you even raving about? Following intel's guidelines will reduce the CPU performance in multithreading so how am I defending them at al cost?terry laze, face it you are grasping at straws trying to make this joke of a cpu viable. it uses too much power over all and the performance is not that great for that power use, a bios update may not change anything if at all, then what ? will you come up with some other bs excuse to explain that ? if intel had ANY issues with the review on AT, dont you think they would of said something ? cause intel had no comment, then that means they gave AT their blessing to run the review. come one, its known you love intel and will defend and make excuses left right and center for them, but even you should open your eyes and realize, for the time being, intels cpus are just out of gas, and accept it.
if intel doesn't tell the mobo makers how to run the cpus, or what settings they are to use, then it IS stock settings for that board. if the board maker wants to effectively let the cpu run with practically no limits other then the cooling used. then deal with it.
um i think they did just that, and if i remember right, the SAME THING HAPPENED THEN AS IT IS NOW. some were saying the same thing, wait till amd gets a bios update/official release bios, and see what happens, and like with amd, the bios updates still didnt change things all that much, intel still had the lead in same cases, and i sure dont expect that to change here.
ive seen some call this cpu, intel's bulldozer, and quite frankly, it is. the comments on AT for this review, are NOT favorable to this cpu, and for good reason.
How do you know that "infinite turbo" isn't disabling turbo 2/3?Infinite turbo DOES NOT affect anything but duration. Don't go spreading that FUD. That page does not say single core dropped to 4.6GHz. Here is what it says: "This tests for 10-15 seconds and then idles for 10 seconds, and does rapidly go through any system that doesn’t run an infinite turbo. What we see here in this power only graph is the alarming peaks of 290-292 W. Looking at our data, the all-core turbo under AVX-512 is 4.6 GHz, sometimes dipping to 4.5 GHz." Turbo Boost 3.0 for 1-2c is listed at 5.0GHz with all core listed at 4.6GHz. That is all in a nice little table to look at and read. Again we understand you are an Intel apologist who believes everything Intel does it the best thing ever. However, please don't spread blatantly false information especially when you "cite" a page and don't bother to actually cite it correctly.
For every other Intel system that has allowed for Infinite Turbo it hasn't disabled or overridden Turbo Boost 2 or 3. However, now for RKL if your motherboard maker has the Tau set to infinity you can only turbo to the all core boost speed. Tell me how does that make any sense? All motherboard makers have done is allowed the power going to the chip to stay at very high levels for longer than 56 seconds. Assuming you have adequate cooling the CPU will not throttle. Seriously you are grasping at straws to come up with an argument that doesn't exist.How do you know that "infinite turbo" isn't disabling turbo 2/3?
Do you know for sure they can work alongside each other on this mobo? We don't even know which mobo they use and they are not showing any clock charts while running the single core benches.