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

[cryoburner]

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.

The CPU hierarchy list has clear issues. It uses a selection of tests that is not only very limited, but is also not particularly representative of real-world workloads, which I already went over.

And where do you get "25-30" applications from? Those charts are only based on the results of tests done in a total of 7 applications and 5-6 games, as is outlined below each chart. The single-threaded chart only consists of results from 3 applications, two of which are multithreaded renderers artificially restricted to run on one thread, making them synthetic workloads. Commonly used everyday desktop applications are more or less not represented at all.

As for the gaming chart, it's extremely questionable that a 12-thread i7-8086K that was at the top of Intel's lineup a little over 2 years ago is shown as getting outperformed by the 11900K in games by 32% at 1440p resolution, and by 42% at 1080p. And compared to the 9900K, which matches it on core and thread count, the 11900K is supposedly 20% faster at 1440p, and 26% faster at 1080p. It's also shown as being over 10% faster than a 10700K at 1440p, and over 15% faster at 1080p, whereas most reviews have shown the two processors to perform nearly identical in gaming overall, with the 10th gen processors even performing notably faster in certain titles.

Something definitely seems to be wrong with the way the gaming scores are getting calculated, and it's almost like they are stretching the results. Whatever the cause, a number of people will likely base their purchasing decisions off these charts, and someone expecting to see a big performance uplift in games by upgrading to an 11900K from their recent i7 or i9 processor will likely be disappointed in the outcome when they find their performance to be almost the same.

 

[alceryes]

I agree. I just wish there was more transparency in these review sites' testing methodology.

It's crazy how 'off' some of these last-gen CPU numbers seem to be when sites get a hold of the new, next-gen. All of a sudden the last gen, that was just touted 8 months ago, performs way lower than it should, and the new kid on the block has the best demo/benchmark runs of its life. It's almost as if these sites are getting paid, by INTEL/AMD (maybe not directly) to tout how great their new CPUs are. 🤔 Oh wait! That's right! That's EXACTLY what is happening.

Meanwhile I'm sitting back, with my finely tuned i9-9900k, scratching my head, when I look at some i9-10900k CPU scores. Unless all cores are actively getting used, I'm usually saying, "Yes. I can do that." The i9-11900k doesn't really show me anything different either.

 

[-Fran-]

I agree. I just wish there was more transparency in these review sites' testing methodology.

It's crazy how 'off' some of these last-gen CPU numbers seem to be when sites get a hold of the new, next-gen. All of a sudden the last gen, that was just touted 8 months ago, performs way lower than it should, and the new kid on the block has the best demo/benchmark runs of its life. It's almost as if these sites are getting paid, by INTEL/AMD (maybe not directly) to tout how great their new CPUs are. 🤔 Oh wait! That's right! That's EXACTLY what is happening.

Meanwhile I'm sitting back, with my finely tuned i9-9900k, scratching my head, when I look at some i9-10900k CPU scores. Unless all cores are actively getting used, I'm usually saying, "Yes. I can do that." The i9-11900k doesn't really show me anything different either.

Your post sums up almost 8 years of Intel CPUs, really...

The 11900K is just the culmination of their mediocre attempts at putting out good CPUs and, to a more severe degree, whole platforms.

Thank the flying spaghetti monster AMD kicked Intel's cage, otherwise we'd still have 4 cores selling for over $500 and get a Z board in order to be able to use faster RAM. If you want to OC, you're still kind of screwed though. Also, the "gear 1" and "gear 2" shenanigans for the i5's are dumb.

In any case, the 11900K is garbage for its price. The i5's make more sense, but I would still pass on a 6c/12t CPU today for the same exact reason I passed on a 4c/4t CPU back in 2012.

Cheers!

 

[alceryes]

Agreed @Yuka. I won't be upgrading my current system any further.
Next will be an entirely new rig from the case up, but that's probably 3+ years out.