Question I5 11400f is not better than 10400f?

Quang_2

Reputable
Apr 29, 2017
23
0
4,510
0
I watch some videos benchmark on youtube and they show that i5 11400f is only a few fps more than 10400f, some games are worse. What is going on here?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upGjxnGaJeI

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbRmlCRIrjg


I thought it should be 10-15% faster? I thought this should be the New King of Middle Range CPU? My Disappointment Is Immeasurable And My Day Is Ruined.

Maybe they're fake videos. Do you guys have any link to the official real-time benchmark video of 11400f? Why it has been two days but there aren't any official high-quality benchmark videos?
 

hotaru.hino

Respectable
Sep 1, 2020
1,843
574
2,340
70
I'm just going to take this summary from Notebookcheck (which is summarizing AnandTech's review of the i7-11700K);

Anandtech notes that Intel's 19% IPC uplift claim isn't entirely false, but it applies largely to floating point workloads than the more common integer ones, where the benefits lie in the 7-13% range. The regression in gaming performance is likely to due to the higher L3 latency (51 cycles compared to last gen's 43) going up to 28-30 ns compared to 18-24 ns in Comet Lake. The reason for this higher L3 latency is not yet known, and we may have to wait till the official architecture presentation closer to launch to know more.
 

jtk2515

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2013
745
26
19,190
75
I would recommend it if came with 750 igpu. 750 is pretty decent when overclocked for 720p gaming to hold you over until GPU prices come down. 11400 and 11400f seems pretty useless to me atm.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
It is also early days for this architecture. Software optimizations may come down the pipeline for certain games and applications, perhaps Windows. If there is anything to be done at all anyway. This is mostly a step backwards for Intel.
 

hotaru.hino

Respectable
Sep 1, 2020
1,843
574
2,340
70
Does this also apply to software or CPU intensive games? (Paradox games, Football Manager etc)
Geekbench gives the 11400f much higher core speeds compared to 10400f but I can't find any software benchmarks. If it's faster in software it might be worth it.
It depends on how much that software relies on L3 cache, but generally higher cache latency isn't a good thing.
 
Why it has been two days but there aren't any official high-quality benchmark videos?
That's because Intel doesn't send out locked CPUs to reviewers, likely because they want people to spend extra on the pricier, slightly higher-clocked unlocked parts. This generation, they only sent out the 11600K and 11900K, which is why those are the CPUs most sites have reviewed. If any reviewers want to review other parts, they have to buy them on their own post-launch. Then, they need to actually benchmark them, and write the review itself, and all of that can potentially take days for a thorough review.

As for the performance, Rocket Lake in general has been rather similar to Comet Lake for gaming, and in some cases slightly worse, likely down to the slower memory/cache latency. So the improved IPC only affects some workloads. In general, I think they've been shown to be a bit better than their 10th-gen counterparts for application workloads (aside from the 11900K, where they removed 2 cores resulting in lower multithreaded performance), though for gaming performance tends to be a bit mixed. Not bad, but probably not worth paying significantly more than 10th-gen for.

I haven't seen any detailed reviews for the 11400 yet though. I know at least one site plans to have their review ready sometime within the next week though. It possible the 11400 could fare a bit better than some of the other parts simply because the 10400 left more room on the table to increase multithreaded clock rates, but I wouldn't expect gaming performance to be any better than what those videos showed. Really though, unless you are pairing these CPUs with a high-end graphics card running at a relatively low resolution, the performance of all these processors should be more or less the same for gaming, as the graphics card will be limiting performance more than anything in any graphically-demanding title.
 
Intel's new design for 11th gen has pros and cons and performance benefit/loss depends very much on workload.
In general it seems the 11400 is a decent CPU that outperforms the Ryzen 5 3600, which traded blows with the 10400.
 
It may cost you $10-$20 to get the non f version of a processor.
These days, an integrated graphics will get you started in case you get a delay in getting a discrete graphics card. Also, there is a difference in graphics between the 11400 graphics and the 11500 graphics. The 11500 750 graphics has twice the compute elements of the 730 graphics.
The 11th gen I5 and higher processors also support pcie4 which may well play into upcoming ssd and graphics cards.
All in all, a good incremental upgrade over 10th gen
 
It may cost you $10-$20 to get the non f version of a processor.
These days, an integrated graphics will get you started in case you get a delay in getting a discrete graphics card. Also, there is a difference in graphics between the 11400 graphics and the 11500 graphics. The 11500 750 graphics has twice the compute elements of the 730 graphics.
The 11th gen I5 and higher processors also support pcie4 which may well play into upcoming ssd and graphics cards.
All in all, a good incremental upgrade over 10th gen
UHD 750 doesn't have double the graphics cores of UHD 730, only 33% more (32 vs 24). And comparing the 11500 to the 11400, at current pricing the 11500 costs $218 at major US online stores, compared to $184 for the 11400, a $34 difference, mostly just to increase the graphics performance by up to 33%. CPU performance should be nearly identical between the two when using a dedicated card. They both provide the same all-core boost, though the 11500 can boost slightly higher for lightly-threaded loads, judging by their specifications.

The F-variant without graphics doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere at the moment, though the prices being listed for it are around $168, only around $16 less than the 11400, but $50 less than the 11500. $16 might not be too much of a difference to add integrated graphics, but $50 for the somewhat faster integrated graphics arguably is. One might potentially consider the 11500 if they are going to use the integrated graphics for some low-end gaming, as UHD 750 will be a little less terrible than UHD 730, but neither integrated option will really provide a decent experience in modern games. Perhaps the pricing of the 11500 may eventually settle to be more like the $10 premium over the 11400 that the MSRP suggests though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS