News Intel Core i7-11700K Already on Sale, 10700K Hits New Low

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Passable performance per dollar above the 11600k, horrible performance per watt too. When you launch new CPUs and can't break into Amazon's top-10 best sellers for CPUs, you know you need to do something to get sales off the ground. The 11700k sale may not be an isolated incident.
 
logainofhades said:
More like 10900k or bust. The 11700k and 11900k are a waste of sand. 11600k is ok.

Also for those near a Microcenter, the 10700k is $249.99 right now.
Click to expand...
Just IMO, I'd prefer the 11900K over the 11700K, 11600K and 10900K because of ABT + TVB.
I've had my fun with OC'ing - it's in the past now. If all I gotta do is put a big ol' cooler on it, and use offset/adaptive voltage, that would be darn fine by me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyrusfox and sdmf1974
Phaaze88 said:
Just IMO, I'd prefer the 11900K over the 11700K, 11600K and 10900K because of ABT + TVB.
I've had my fun with OC'ing - it's in the past now. If all I gotta do is put a big ol' cooler on it, and use offset/adaptive voltage, that would be darn fine by me.
Click to expand...
The 11900K is the absolute worst of the Rocket Lake lineup. It's just a slightly better-binned 11700K at a $140 premium, and in practice the performance difference between the two should be imperceptible. Had Intel kept their i9s at 10 cores rather than cutting them down to 8 and effectively rebadging an i7 as an i9, they might have made a little more sense. Increasing the MSRP by over $50 compared to the prior 10-core model just makes things worse, especially considering the older chips are now available for even less. Performance ends up mixed compared to the last gen, generally being worse at multithreaded workloads due to the removal of cores, similar or in some cases worse at games due to the slower memory latency, and the only real gains are in lightly-threaded applications. And even an enthusiast willing to pay a premium for the best might as well go with AMD. Those chips also get the most out of their silicon without the need for overclocking.

If an enthusiast wants to go with Intel, Alder Lake will probably be a better time to upgrade, though I'm not confident that we will see desktop options launch before early next year. At least that should bring a much-needed node-shrink in addition to updated architecture though.
 
logainofhades said:
More like 10900k or bust. The 11700k and 11900k are a waste of sand. 11600k is ok.

Also for those near a Microcenter, the 10700k is $249.99 right now.
Click to expand...
If the 11700k and 10700k were the same price, there isn't any good reason to go with the 10700k. This is one of the reasons Intel didn't used to put soon to be replaced CPU on fire sale. You just end up competing with yourself.

The 11900k is just smart business. If the world was ruled by common sense, it would never sell, but that's not how the world operates. If people with money just have to have the best and don't care what they have to pay to get it, why not take their money?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyrusfox
Tom's - It's time for a mid-level build contest. Let's put the new 11600K and the equivalent AMD chips in new machines, pair them with a mid-level last gen card or maybe two (same one for all competing machines)and show what an affordable gaming machine looks like today.

I would like to see the CPU/GPU balance point explored in real-world builds?
 
Co BIY said:
Tom's - It's time for a mid-level build contest. Let's put the new 11600K and the equivalent AMD chips in new machines, pair them with a mid-level last gen card or maybe two (same one for all competing machines)and show what an affordable gaming machine looks like today.

I would like to see the CPU/GPU balance point explored in real-world builds?
Click to expand...
You do realize those "mid-level last gen cards" are completely out of stock at the usual stores and priced 2-3 times their MSRPs from resellers right now, right? <_<
 
logainofhades said:
More like 10900k or bust. The 11700k and 11900k are a waste of sand. 11600k is ok.

Also for those near a Microcenter, the 10700k is $249.99 right now.
Click to expand...
Wow you suck up to your idols verbatim. If you had a mind of your own you might take more than just core count into account. It would be foolish to buy a 10900k imo. I suppose your gonna pair up your outdated chip with a z590 motherboard too?
 
Geezus guys/gals. Make love, not war!

logainofhades said:
The 10850k/10900k are better, and cheaper, than an 11900k.
Click to expand...
That's why I said, IMO, and why in my 2nd post.
I was eyeing it with a certain perspective in mind.
I know the price is cringe - was putting that aside for a moment.
I know the power consumption is wasd - IF you let it. I put that aside too.
I don't need that many cores for an all purpose machine.
I would like to see Intel pass down Thermal Velocity Boost and Adaptive Boost Technology on their future i7s and i5s at least, not keep it i9 exclusive.
Just looking at the specs/features alone, I, in particular, like it; it is more attractive to me than any of the other Comet and Rocket Lake cpus.

If I gotta drag AMD into an Intel thread: the 5600X is one cool customer; the power consumption is ridiculous on that thing - in a good way - and I'd love to have a cpu like that can hang with some of the best out there currently.
It already behaves similarly to TVB and ABT; I don't gotta overclock, but keep a big ol' cooler on it.
 
Yea the 5600x is an amazing CPU, and for a gaming only build, makes spending more kinda pointless. Some prefer Intel, which is cool, but other than the 11600k, I wouldn't bother with 11th gen. The 11600k's positioned quite well.
 
logainofhades said:
That's your opinion, but I have yet to see a reviewer recommend them over a 10900k. Z490 or Z590 would depend on board pricing/availability. No different than people that ran B450 boards, vs B350 boards, for 1st gen ryzen chips.

View: https://youtu.be/mxiuvQPL_qs?t=1083
Click to expand...
Because trashing products using extreme hyperbole with clickbait headlines/screen grabs is what gets clicks, not just objectively reviewing the data. Have you looked at Tom's updated CPU hierarchy?

1080p gaming
11900k - #3 98.65%
10900k - 90.69%

pretty solid win for 11900k

1440p gaming
11900k - #1 overall 100%
10900k - 94.08%

Another solid win for 11900k at a resolution that matters for this class of CPU

Single threaded benchmarks
11900k - #1 overall 100%
10900k - 86.68%

Pretty convincing win here for 11900k.

Multithreaded benchmarks
11900k - #14 36.01% (#1 is a 64 core Threadripper, not exactly a competing CPU)
10900k - 33.79%

In a cpu group that contains Threadrippers and Intel HEDT CPU's, the 11900k's ranking takes a beating, but it still manages to edge out the 10900k.

In summation, that's two #1 overall finishes and 4 wins for the 11900k vs the 10900k with no losses. The raw performance of the 11900k is objectively very good. If they were the same price and you were choosing now, the 11900k would be the easy choice. It won't beat the 10900k in every test, but for a typical enthusiast, it will be a faster overall CPU, sometimes by quite a bit. In the tests that the 11900k loses to the 10900k, you'd be far better off going with an AMD CPU than a 10900k. The one major downside of the 11900k is the power draw which is flat awful. Some people will care, some won't, so nothing really to discuss there. The last part is price, with the 10900k seeing frequent discounts recently, it's very difficult recommend an impossible to find 11900k over a discounted 10900k, but this current state of the market isn't likely to last for very long.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
 
 
Co BIY said:
Tom's - It's time for a mid-level build contest. Let's put the new 11600K and the equivalent AMD chips in new machines, pair them with a mid-level last gen card or maybe two (same one for all competing machines)and show what an affordable gaming machine looks like today.

I would like to see the CPU/GPU balance point explored in real-world builds?
Click to expand...
Forget the 11600K. You can pair up a 11700F with a B560 board that will beat the 11600K + Z590 board in nine out of ten games and do it for cheaper. You lose out on 4 PCIe lanes with the B560 but not a big deal seeing how in two to three years from now the majority of gamers will be changing out their boards, cpu's and RAM for DDR5 builds.
 
spongiemaster said:
Have you looked at Tom's updated CPU hierarchy?
Click to expand...
Tom's Hardware's CPU hierarchy is not particularly representative of how these processors have been shown to perform in nearly all reviews, and has some major issues that affect placement, and arguably make it a bad resource in its current form.

For their gaming tests, they average the performance of just 6 games for 1080p, and 5 games for 1440p, so the results of any given game can potentially throw off the average by a fair amount. And realistically, even with a high-end graphics card, gaming performance is going to be mostly GPU-limited at 1440p, resulting in nearly identical performance across modern AAA games with most recent processors. So something is very wrong with the data, or how its presented, if they are showing processors like the i7-8086K down around the 75% mark for 1440p gaming, and 69% for 1080p.

And for the single-threaded numbers, they only average the results from three programs, Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME. No one is going to run Cinema4D or Pov-Ray (or any renderer) on only one thread, so those results are completely meaningless. Artificially restricting that software to run on a single thread effectively makes those nothing more than synthetic benchmarks. LAME is the only real-world single-threaded workload there, so the results are only based on LAME and two synthetic tests, not on the kinds of single-threaded software most people are using on a daily basis.

The multithreaded tests are more extensive, including Cinebench, POV-ray, V-ray, four Blender tests, Y-Cruncher, and two Handbrake tests. Though the results are a bit renderer-heavy, Y-Cruncher is arguably a synthetic test, and encryption/compression tests are left out for whatever reason. In any case, showing the 11900K outperforming the 10900K with 25% more cores goes in contrast of most of the multithreaded benchmark results I've seen for those processors, and doesn't even align with Intel's claimed IPC gains.

Overall, the rankings in all of the charts seem a bit questionable, to say the least. I would hardly read much into them as an accurate performance comparison.
 
cryoburner said:
You do realize those "mid-level last gen cards" are completely out of stock at the usual stores and priced 2-3 times their MSRPs from resellers right now, right? <_<
Click to expand...

I was thinking a lot of people have them in machines they own already. Lots plan to put the older card in the new computer and then buy a new card when they become available. Whether that's a great strategy I'm not sure but people are doing it.

Anything paring mid-level GPUs with the mid-level CPU's would be appreciated. Would the differences even be noticeable ?

I put an old 750TI in my son's recent "school work" build based on a 10400. But we had been telling his mom that it wasn't for gaming but remote learning.
 
cryoburner said:
Tom's Hardware's CPU hierarchy is not particularly representative of how these processors have been shown to perform in nearly all reviews, and has some major issues that affect placement, and arguably make it a bad resource in its current form.

For their gaming tests, they average the performance of just 6 games for 1080p, and 5 games for 1440p, so the results of any given game can potentially throw off the average by a fair amount. And realistically, even with a high-end graphics card, gaming performance is going to be mostly GPU-limited at 1440p, resulting in nearly identical performance across modern AAA games with most recent processors. So something is very wrong with the data, or how its presented, if they are showing processors like the i7-8086K down around the 75% mark for 1440p gaming, and 69% for 1080p.

And for the single-threaded numbers, they only average the results from three programs, Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME. No one is going to run Cinema4D or Pov-Ray (or any renderer) on only one thread, so those results are completely meaningless. Artificially restricting that software to run on a single thread effectively makes those nothing more than synthetic benchmarks. LAME is the only real-world single-threaded workload there, so the results are only based on LAME and two synthetic tests, not on the kinds of single-threaded software most people are using on a daily basis.

The multithreaded tests are more extensive, including Cinebench, POV-ray, V-ray, four Blender tests, Y-Cruncher, and two Handbrake tests. Though the results are a bit renderer-heavy, Y-Cruncher is arguably a synthetic test, and encryption/compression tests are left out for whatever reason. In any case, showing the 11900K outperforming the 10900K with 25% more cores goes in contrast of most of the multithreaded benchmark results I've seen for those processors, and doesn't even align with Intel's claimed IPC gains.

Overall, the rankings in all of the charts seem a bit questionable, to say the least. I would hardly read much into them as an accurate performance comparison.
Click to expand...
I guess Intel got lucky that Toms coincidently picked the only 25-30 applications that make the 11xxx series look good before the CPU's were even released. Unfortunate for anyone who doesn't use any of those applications. The aggregate scores are calculated using a geometric mean, not an average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom