News Intel's Enthusiast-Grade Core i9-11900KB Tiger Lake CPU Benchmarked

[Admin]

Benchmarks for Intel's NUC 11 Extreme "Beast Canyon" with a Core i9-11900KB have emerged.

Intel's Enthusiast-Grade Core i9-11900KB Tiger Lake CPU Benchmarked : Read more

 

[JamesJones44]

The benchmarks are interesting, but not surprising given the clocks. One would expect them to be slightly less given they are clocked lower with a similar architecture on a shrunk node.

I'm much more interested in the thermals and power draw. It might give some insight as to what to expect with Alder Lake. Hopefully that information comes out soon.

 

[littlechipsbigchips]

It is a good chip but the problem with intel is that it will be more expensive than a standard i9 11900 in a Mini ITX case and ITX motherboard. and I dont think that the size difference between the NUC and ITX is that big to justify the price difference.

 

[funguseater]

I guess Intel didn't want AMD CPU's on the chart?

 

[Joseph_138]

I guess Intel didn't want AMD CPU's on the chart?

This wasn't a comparison against AMD, it was a comparison against Intel's own product to highlight the differences between the two. Not everything is about competition. Leave your fanboyism at the door. Your comment sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.

 

[thGe17]

Overall quiet impressive results considering the fact that this is a 65 W mobile part.
Still, you should correct the article, because in the text and over the table you state a comparison against the 11900K ... I'll guess you compared against the 65 W desktop part 11900 w/o "K"?

• "to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake.""
• "system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W)."
• "i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'"
• "it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark"

If the "K" is correct, and it was the 125 W part, the technical details above are incorrect, so it is a little bit confusing (and the results would be even more impressive if you really compared against a 125 W desktop part ).

 

[Amelia321]

Overall quiet impressive results considering the fact that this is a 65 W mobile part.
Still, you should correct the article, because in the text and over the table you state a comparison against the 11900K ... I'll guess you compared against the 65 W desktop part 11900 w/o "K"?

• "to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake.""
• "system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W)."
• "i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'"
• "it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark"

If the "K" is correct, and it was the 125 W part, the technical details above are incorrect, so it is a little bit confusing (and the results would be even more impressive if you really compared against a 125 W desktop part ).

Thanks for pointing this out!

 

[usiname]

Overall quiet impressive results considering the fact that this is a 65 W mobile part.
Still, you should correct the article, because in the text and over the table you state a comparison against the 11900K ... I'll guess you compared against the 65 W desktop part 11900 w/o "K"?

• "to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake.""
• "system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W)."
• "i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'"
• "it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark"

If the "K" is correct, and it was the 125 W part, the technical details above are incorrect, so it is a little bit confusing (and the results would be even more impressive if you really compared against a 125 W desktop part ).

What is impressive? 65W 10nm lose to backported 65W 14nm?

 

[passivecool]

Leave your fanboyism at the door. Your comment sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.

Ditto, mister 138.

 

[watzupken]

Overall quiet impressive results considering the fact that this is a 65 W mobile part.
Still, you should correct the article, because in the text and over the table you state a comparison against the 11900K ... I'll guess you compared against the 65 W desktop part 11900 w/o "K"?

• "to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake.""
• "system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W)."
• "i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'"
• "it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark"

If the "K" is correct, and it was the 125 W part, the technical details above are incorrect, so it is a little bit confusing (and the results would be even more impressive if you really compared against a 125 W desktop part ).

I suggest that you leave the TDP out in the comparison here because you know its not staying at 65W. Considering the Tiger Lake H "45W TDP" is pulling in 90W or more easily, I am not surprise the actual power requirement is much higher in this case. It may not be pulling in as much as Rocket Lake, which makes sense because of the form factor and limited cooling, but its possible that it can draw double the supposed TDP. The lower power limit and cooling solution are probably the reason why it can't keep up with Rocket Lake despite the core being faster clock for clock. .

 

[thGe17]

That doesn't make sense, because there still exists a major difference. If the 11900 was the comapred target, this still is a regular Desktop-CPU with a different socket and much more room for a more powerfull cooling solution, therefore even if both CPUs would have been exactly the same, it might be possible, that the desktop pendant had an advantage.
If the 11900K was the compared target, it gets even more skewed, because this is a desktop CPU with already a regular 125 W TDP and it easily can use 150+ W w/o being overclocked, so this makes a huge difference.

And additionally turbo duration is a factor, because the Tiger Lake with its more limited cooling solution can keep up its highest frequency only for a few seconds, whereas the desktop chip might run at this frequency e. g. 10 times longer.

A full-blown test would have supported power consumption during a test run, because it would be interesting to compare 14nm+++ with 10nm++.
An even more in-depth test would lock both CPUs to e.g. 4,0 GHz and check power consumption with the same workload. How much better can 10nm++ perform compared to the old process node?

 

[USAFRet]

OK everyone.....play nice.
Leave the personal attacks out.

Thanks.

 

[JamesJones44]

I suggest that you leave the TDP out in the comparison here because you know its not staying at 65W. Considering the Tiger Lake H "45W TDP" is pulling in 90W or more easily, I am not surprise the actual power requirement is much higher in this case. It may not be pulling in as much as Rocket Lake, which makes sense because of the form factor and limited cooling, but its possible that it can draw double the supposed TDP. The lower power limit and cooling solution are probably the reason why it can't keep up with Rocket Lake despite the core being faster clock for clock. .

TDP isn't about power draw though and we shouldn't be making comparisons about power draw in the name of TDP. TDP just tells you what you need to cool the processor, not what you need for your power supply or power company.