News Intel Core i5-11400 Review: Unseating Ryzen's Budget Gaming Dominance

[Admin]

Intel's Core i5-11400 takes the mainstream gaming segment by storm with the best blend of price and performance on the market.

Intel Core i5-11400 Review: Unseating Ryzen's Budget Gaming Dominance : Read more

 

[Reginald_Peebottom]

The review is good generally but the author pounds on the “value” aspect while only paying lip service to the added cost of a decent cooler (he’s using a water cooler). Doesn’t the $50 for the decent cooler kinda moot the value especially when you factor in the considerably higher power draw? The author needs to quantify that issue not just say it in passing - one more chart in a sea of other charts wouldn’t hurt except it would take the “sting” out of the article title.

I also encourage readers to go back about a decade and read the same type of AMD vs intel reviews and pay attention to the power draw portion of the reviews and the tone/importance placed on them. Now, it’s “well...ok...yeah intel draws a lot more power BUT...” and more of an apologist piece.

 

[-Fran-]

Finally some numbers to de-mystify how good this CPU actually is. Sure, it's beating AMD at that price point, but I have to seriously question what low end motherboards will allow you to run this CPU with MCE and TB2 enabled. I'm pretty sure low end ones, like H410 chipsets are capped at 95W of socket power, so forget using any Intel CPU for a "budget" build with those and as soon as you find a motherboard that can get you to 140W (!) for this budget CPU, you definitely start wasting that saved money on cooling and the motherboard, so while the CPU when you look at it with tunnel vision is "ok", you have to really consider the bigger picture of what Intel is really offering here.

It was a very good review, but I would've like a bit more thinking on the conclusion given what I mentioned above. This doesn't negate the fact it's, probably, the best CPU in that price bracket, but platform cost should be as important as the CPU cost and the conditions in which it* can really stretch its legs. Losing ~20% MT performance because you have to run it at 65W mode is not trivial. And this is also assuming low cost motherboards can actually use gear 1 (or "OC" mode) for whatever RAM over 2933Mhz you want to use. Which is also something that was missed form the review: a "full" stock test. Unless I missed something.

Cheers!

 

[jgraham11]

The review is good generally but the author pounds on the “value” aspect while only paying lip service to the added cost of a decent cooler (he’s using a water cooler). Doesn’t the $50 for the decent cooler kinda moot the value especially when you factor in the considerably higher power draw? The author needs to quantify that issue not just say it in passing - one more chart in a sea of other charts wouldn’t hurt except it would take the “sting” out of the article title.

Agreed, considering power limits are unlocked by default, if users used the stock cooler, the CPU would be running at its temperature limits on an almost continuous bases, limiting the life of the product. This was touched on early in the article but once we got to the Gaming and Productivity benchmarks, the default configuration with the stock cooler was not included... Interesting eh.

I also encourage readers to go back about a decade and read the same type of AMD vs intel reviews and pay attention to the power draw portion of the reviews and the tone/importance placed on them. Now, it’s “well...ok...yeah intel draws a lot more power BUT...” and more of an apologist piece.

Yeah of course, Tom's has favoured Intel in their review for a while, this insn't anything new. I think its kinda like Intel's Bapco relationship, remember the synthetic benchmark that was built by Intel Engineers for Intels chips. This is just a media arm, always trying to cast Intel products in good light.

 

[larkspur]

The review is good generally but the author pounds on the “value” aspect while only paying lip service to the added cost of a decent cooler (he’s using a water cooler). Doesn’t the $50 for the decent cooler kinda moot the value especially when you factor in the considerably higher power draw?

Even when you compare it on stock settings (power limits enabled) with the stock cooler it still beats the higher-priced 3600. When you add that expensive AIO and drop the power limits the thing obviously performs better (but only 7fps more on the geomean gaming chart). So yes the value proposition is not as attractive IF you decide to put a good cooler on it and drop the power limits. But if you leave it stock with stock cooler and power limits enabled you still have a winner for an entry-level chip. And it wins across the board except in efficiency of course IMO this is the only Rocket Lake chip worth considering. The $157 F is an absolute steal.

 

[larkspur]

Agreed, considering power limits are unlocked by default, if users used the stock cooler, the CPU would be running at its temperature limits on an almost continuous bases, limiting the life of the product. This was touched on early in the article but once we got to the Gaming and Productivity benchmarks, the default configuration with the stock cooler was not included... Interesting eh.

He tested with the power limits enforced and the stock cooler. It's in the gaming charts. It still performs great. He also tested with the stock cooler and no power limits in the multithread bench suite toward the top of the article. He even explains that although you can get more performance by eliminating the power limits with the stock cooler, the chip is excessively throttling in heavily multi-threaded tasks (typical games aren't heavily multithreaded). Pretty straightforward. If you run with no power limits and run heavily multi-threaded apps then you should definitely get a better cooler.

Sure it'd be great to get a Ryzen 5600x but the price puts it in "mainstream" territory while the 11400 is basically "entry-level". I don't see a better option at this price.

 

[InvalidError]

Finally some numbers to de-mystify how good this CPU actually is. Sure, it's beating AMD at that price point, but I have to seriously question what low end motherboards will allow you to run this CPU with MCE and TB2 enabled. I'm pretty sure low end ones, like H410 chipsets are capped at 95W of socket power, so forget using any Intel CPU for a "budget" build with those

It would be interesting to see how far the 11400 can go on a 95W power limit. I'm starting to have an itch to get a 11400 to upgrade my 3470 and 95W is exactly the number I had in mind so I can reuse one of my CM 212s. In typical overclocking scenarios, it is the last few MHz that cost the bulk of incremental power so a 95W 11400 should deliver 50+% of no-PL performance bump and still beat the 3600X.

Motherboard-wise, a decent B550/X570 AM4 motherboard with everything I want is currently about $20 cheaper than B560/H570/Z590 motherboards with everything I want, so I consider that a non-object. I would be using the same or equivalent aftermarket cooling since neither stock HSF is good enough to prevent thermal throttling with power limits loosened and same memory in either case too, so those would be a non-factor as well.

The 5600X may have slightly better overall system performance per dollar but it costs another $100 extra on top. Personally, I'd prefer setting that $100 aside for my next platform upgrade 4-8 years down the line where it will get me 5-10X more bang per buck.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

The review is good generally but the author pounds on the “value” aspect while only paying lip service to the added cost of a decent cooler (he’s using a water cooler). Doesn’t the $50 for the decent cooler kinda moot the value especially when you factor in the considerably higher power draw? The author needs to quantify that issue not just say it in passing - one more chart in a sea of other charts wouldn’t hurt except it would take the “sting” out of the article title.

I also encourage readers to go back about a decade and read the same type of AMD vs intel reviews and pay attention to the power draw portion of the reviews and the tone/importance placed on them. Now, it’s “well...ok...yeah intel draws a lot more power BUT...” and more of an apologist piece.

We covered every aspect mentioned in this comment.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Finally some numbers to de-mystify how good this CPU actually is. Sure, it's beating AMD at that price point, but I have to seriously question what low end motherboards will allow you to run this CPU with MCE and TB2 enabled. I'm pretty sure low end ones, like H410 chipsets are capped at 95W of socket power, so forget using any Intel CPU for a "budget" build with those and as soon as you find a motherboard that can get you to 140W (!) for this budget CPU, you definitely start wasting that saved money on cooling and the motherboard, so while the CPU when you look at it with tunnel vision is "ok", you have to really consider the bigger picture of what Intel is really offering here.

It was a very good review, but I would've like a bit more thinking on the conclusion given what I mentioned above. This doesn't negate the fact it's, probably, the best CPU in that price bracket, but platform cost should be as important as the CPU cost and the conditions in which it* can really stretch its legs. Losing ~20% MT performance because you have to run it at 65W mode is not trivial. And this is also assuming low cost motherboards can actually use gear 1 (or "OC" mode) for whatever RAM over 2933Mhz you want to use. Which is also something that was missed form the review: a "full" stock test. Unless I missed something.

Cheers!

The full stock test is, as mentioned in the article, the "Stock cooler" configuration. This config is with power locked to 65W Intel guidelines, stock cooler, stock DRAM @ 2933 Gear 1.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Agreed, considering power limits are unlocked by default, if users used the stock cooler, the CPU would be running at its temperature limits on an almost continuous bases, limiting the life of the product. This was touched on early in the article but once we got to the Gaming and Productivity benchmarks, the default configuration with the stock cooler was not included... Interesting eh.


Yeah of course, Tom's has favoured Intel in their review for a while, this insn't anything new. I think its kinda like Intel's Bapco relationship, remember the synthetic benchmark that was built by Intel Engineers for Intels chips. This is just a media arm, always trying to cast Intel products in good light.

Please read (or perhaps look at the charts) before commenting. The locked power configuration with the stock cooler is in every single chart. It is literally labeled "Core i5-11400 Stock Cooler."

 

[catavalon21]

...The $157 F is an absolute steal.

Everything at MSRP is, or would be, an absolute steal. The Egg has nothing for less than $200, series F or otherwise. Amazon has the F for over $200, the the non-F won't be in stock until June. Interesting both Amazon and the Egg are charging more for the F series chips than for the chips with iGPU.

 

[InvalidError]

The Egg has nothing for less than $200, series F or otherwise.

Meanwhile in Canuckistan, the 11400 is available for as low as $235, which should translate to about $180 US.

 

[-Fran-]

It would be interesting to see how far the 11400 can go on a 95W power limit. I'm starting to have an itch to get a 11400 to upgrade my 3470 and 95W is exactly the number I had in mind so I can reuse one of my CM 212s. In typical overclocking scenarios, it is the last few MHz that cost the bulk of incremental power so a 95W 11400 should deliver 50+% of no-PL performance bump and still beat the 3600X.

Motherboard-wise, a decent B550/X570 AM4 motherboard with everything I want is currently about $20 cheaper than B560/H570/Z590 motherboards with everything I want, so I consider that a non-object. I would be using the same or equivalent aftermarket cooling since neither stock HSF is good enough to prevent thermal throttling with power limits loosened and same memory in either case too, so those would be a non-factor as well.

The 5600X may have slightly better overall system performance per dollar but it costs another $100 extra on top. Personally, I'd prefer setting that $100 aside for my next platform upgrade 4-8 years down the line where it will get me 5-10X more bang per buck.

This is an interesting topic, I have to say. I recently built an HTPC around the 5600X, only because of how power efficient it is and the absurd amount of performance it brings to the table at that power point. I wouldn't say it's a "cheap" thing/platform to build around, but it is definitely something you may want to seriously consider if price is not an objection. I'm not using AIO or Liquid anything and I have to say it beats my 3800XT in almost everything with half the cooling capability (case, airflow and cooler). It's bonkers:

• CM Elite 361
• beQuiet! Rock TF 2
• 2x80mm beQuiet! fans
• 1x120mm Noctua fan

In any case (pun not intended), this is not to say the 11400(F) doesn't have a place in the world or in any build, but an "SFF" or even HTPC build... I'm not sure... I'd be willing to seriously question it, specially when the 5600X can run under 50W if you want it to without losing much of its peak performance. Unless you want it (edit: the Intel parts) to thermal throttle or you have liquid cooling for it, but then again why use it instead of something better from Intel or AMD? That's kind of where I'm coming from, since if you're going to be using this CPU with a "budget" mentality, you'll have to also consider everything else budget. That being said, there are some good coolers at around ~$40 that would do a way better job than the Intel stock one, but that still makes it too darn close to the much cooler options from AMD, so...

The full stock test is, as mentioned in the article, the "Stock cooler" configuration. This config is with power locked to 65W Intel guidelines, stock cooler, stock DRAM @ 2933 Gear 1.

Ah, I knew I missed something. Thanks for mentioning it, Paul.

Regards!

 

[spongiemaster]

Everything at MSRP is, or would be, an absolute steal. The Egg has nothing for less than $200, series F or otherwise. Amazon has the F for over $200, the the non-F won't be in stock until June. Interesting both Amazon and the Egg are charging more for the F series chips than for the chips with iGPU.

Best Buy has the 11400 in stock for $190.

 

[waltc3]

Lengthy format for telling us what was already obvious: Intel is now the value-priced go to for CPUs...swapping places neatly with AMD pre-Ryzen. However, there is a fly in the ointment...and a fairly large one...if you do not already have an Intel-compatible motherboard...well, the "value" just got nuked out of existence, I'm afraid. And that's not even counting the heat sink expense these 14 nm dinosaurs will require....

 

[InvalidError]

However, there is a fly in the ointment...and a fairly large one...if you do not already have an Intel-compatible motherboard...well, the "value" just got nuked out of existence

Many people had sticker shock when 500-series AMD boards launched at $50-100 higher MSRPs than their 400-series counterparts. Give Intel's 500-series board pricing a few months to settle down and there should be quite a few more affordable options. For now, motherboard manufacturers have the same component shortage issues as everyone else so they are focusing on their higher-profit SKUs first and street prices get wonky from spotty availability.

If you don't mind giving up on the 500-series boards' updates, there is no shortage of 400-series Intel boards around $100 that would work with Rocket Lake too as long as you leave PL on.

 

[HideOut]

"AMD desperately needs a Zen 3 chip in this price bracket to be competitive, but it's hamstrung with Zen 2 processors for now. AMD won't have an answer to the Core i5-11400 until it releases its non-X version of the 5600X to retail,"

the 5600X IS the 5600. They charge even more this generation for the chips than just a basic price increase as it seems. The 5600x is the 65W part so there will not be a 5600 non X, as the "X" is typically the 105/1xx part, with the non X models being 65W. They are basically now overpriced, as this story just proves. 5 months ago they wernt I guess cause intel didnt have a strong reply, but the 11600/11400 changes that.

 

[hotaru251]

the 5600X IS the 5600

AMD's also said later this yr they are goign to make the zen 3 apu available to public.

looks to be nearly same as 5600x, just lower l3 cache and maybe few mh lower base/boost (but oc likely be same)

 

[Why_Me]

Finally some numbers to de-mystify how good this CPU actually is. Sure, it's beating AMD at that price point, but I have to seriously question what low end motherboards will allow you to run this CPU with MCE and TB2 enabled. I'm pretty sure low end ones, like H410 chipsets are capped at 95W of socket power, so forget using any Intel CPU for a "budget" build with those and as soon as you find a motherboard that can get you to 140W (!) for this budget CPU, you definitely start wasting that saved money on cooling and the motherboard, so while the CPU when you look at it with tunnel vision is "ok", you have to really consider the bigger picture of what Intel is really offering here.

It was a very good review, but I would've like a bit more thinking on the conclusion given what I mentioned above. This doesn't negate the fact it's, probably, the best CPU in that price bracket, but platform cost should be as important as the CPU cost and the conditions in which it* can really stretch its legs. Losing ~20% MT performance because you have to run it at 65W mode is not trivial. And this is also assuming low cost motherboards can actually use gear 1 (or "OC" mode) for whatever RAM over 2933Mhz you want to use. Which is also something that was missed form the review: a "full" stock test. Unless I missed something.

Cheers!

H410? Your a generation off in MB chipsets. The 10400F beats the 3600 eight out of ten games. The 11400F annihilates it.

Intel i5 11400F <--- $175

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157994 <--- $135

or ...

https://www.provantage.com/msi-b560mbaz~7MSTB127.htm <--- $141

https://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master-RR-212S-20PK-R1-Contact-Silencio/dp/B07H25DYM3/ < --- $39

 

[InvalidError]

H410? Your a generation off in MB chipsets. The 10400F beats the 3600 eight out of ten games. The 11400F annihilates it.

Intel 500-series motherboards are kind of expensive at the moment, so if you want to match Intel vs AMD prices part-for-part in a low-budget build, you kind of have to go back one generation on Intel's side at last for now. To be fair though, most of AMD's 500-series boards were a shocking step up in launch pricing too.

 

[rpgurd]

Intel's Core i5-11400 takes the mainstream gaming segment by storm with the best blend of price and performance on the market.

Intel Core i5-11400 Review: Unseating Ryzen's Budget Gaming Dominance : Read more

The article suggests that the core i5-11400 has UHD750 graphics, whereas in fact it has UHD730 graphics. To get UHD750, you have to move up the the core i5-11500. This minor error obviously has no impact on the reported benchmarks, since they all relied on having a graphics card.

 

[C Murder]

H410? Your a generation off in MB chipsets. The 10400F beats the 3600 eight out of ten games. The 11400F annihilates it.

Intel i5 11400F <--- $175

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157994 <--- $135

or ...

https://www.provantage.com/msi-b560mbaz~7MSTB127.htm <--- $141

https://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master-RR-212S-20PK-R1-Contact-Silencio/dp/B07H25DYM3/ < --- $39

So what happens when the 5600G comes out to the public? OEMs are just now putting them in systems. Should be retail by June-July, I wonder what the price will be. Will likely sell my 3600x and get one of those.

 

[TerryLaze]

The full stock test is, as mentioned in the article, the "Stock cooler" configuration. This config is with power locked to 65W Intel guidelines, stock cooler, stock DRAM @ 2933 Gear 1.

Actually if you locked it to 65w you undervolted/powered it since the whole point of turbo is to give the CPU more power whenever there is any turbo budged left over and there is enough cooling, intel guidelines is with pl2 at 154 .

 

[C Murder]

5600G AMD Ryzen 5 5600G is a 6-core and 12-thread SKU with a base clock of 3.9 GHz and turbo up to 4.4 GHz. The 4-core and 8-thread part known as Ryzen 3 5300G would offer a base clock of 4.0 GHz and boost up to 4.2 GHz. That said, all frequencies have been increased by 200 MHz compared to Ryzen 4000G “Renoir” series.

Many people had sticker shock when 500-series AMD boards launched at $50-100 higher MSRPs than their 400-series counterparts. Give Intel's 500-series board pricing a few months to settle down and there should be quite a few more affordable options. For now, motherboard manufacturers have the same component shortage issues as everyone else so they are focusing on their higher-profit SKUs first and street prices get wonky from spotty availability.

If you don't mind giving up on the 500-series boards' updates, there is no shortage of 400-series Intel boards around $100 that would work with Rocket Lake too as long as you leave PL on.

By that time wont the 5600G negate the performance crown if it comes in at the sub 200 price (pre covid) lol? It supposedly will hit retail in the next two months.

 

[Why_Me]

So what happens when the 5600G comes out to the public? OEMs are just now putting them in systems. Should be retail by June-July, I wonder what the price will be. Will likely sell my 3600x and get one of those.

What happens in the future is just that .. the future. Presently the 11400F/11400 is the budget king.