News Intel's Rocket Lake Core i9 Hits 98C and Gulps 250W, Just Like Comet Lake

[Admin]

Intel's Rocket Lake-S CPUs set to be as power hungry as Comet Lake-S processors.

Intel's Rocket Lake Core i9 Hits 98C and Gulps 250W, Just Like Comet Lake : Read more

 

[mrv_co]

I'm surprised processors this power hungry can be sold in the great state of California

 

[Glock24]

I'm surprised processors this power hungry can be sold in the great state of California

Maybe they'll bundle them with solar panels 😂

 

[barryv88]

So what will RL bring over current gens? I can't think of a single thing really.

• Productivity is surrendered to the higher core count Ryzens, so that's out of the window.
• Gaming will be a smidge better, again, very hard to spot and feel a difference especially when gaming at higher than HD levels where you're most likely to be GPU bound anyway.
• 250W vampire TDP sucking hog - good luck benching and overclocking on smaller PSU's.
• As mentioned above, a PSU upgrade might also be in order. More money down the drain.
• Hot as hell, good luck gaming with a machine so loud next to you that has to be super tuned to contain noise levels.
• Half the lineup consists of non K (locked) models. If AMD can offer full gens of OC'able chips (with hardly any exceptions), why can't Intel do the same?
• No 12C or 16C options. Forget upgradable options down in the future.
• PCIE4 coming like 2 years late? Or shall I say well done?
• Backported product. Knowing that your product's full potential won't be realized.
• Regressing on core count. And they wanna call their highest boosting chips "i9's" to differentiate from the slightly lower clocked i7's?
• Do you also get Farcry6 free with RL as you do with new Ryzen? Or anything else seeing that Intel has promoted it as a "gaming" chip?

I can go on and on, but my brain has finally put up the white flag. Pat should have joined 5+ years ago.

 

[usiname]

They can't have 12-16C because they must clock them at 4-4.5Ghz max. 16 cores like this with 5Ghz will hit 500W and even custom loop can't cool it, but intel will never sell that low clocked CPUs. If you look at their tiger lake you will see again much more power consumption for just 4 cores compared to 8 zen 3 cores. Alder lake wont be different and that is why they will max at 8 cores again.

 

[NP]

So what will RL bring over current gens? I can't think of a single thing really.

It is faster in lightly threaded workloads, and equally fast in productivity tasks (as Intel current gen). So all in all, it is faster than the current gen.

New cpus typically are in a the same performance ballpark as their predecessors (with some notable exceptions). No one is going to upgrade current gen to RL. But people moving up from a gens back will.

It's not interesting to the least. But its ok.

 

[Tech0000]

This looks to me to be an AVX-512 Overclocking torture test, running all 8 cores' AVX-512 units (all 8 of them) simultaneously at @ 4.8GHz for 10's of minutes. Not surprised by the power or the heat. Actually, it's impressive to be able to run all 8 AVX-512 units stable @ 4.8GHz for this long (see the graph). Side note: running AIDA64 FP only on a Cascade Lake -X results in full AVX-512 load and I assume it will be the same here.

From cascade lake-X we already know that AVX-512 is notoriously power hungry and generates a lot of heat (hence the need for high AVX-512 negative offset on cascade lake -X, especially when overclocking the rest of the CPU) and that the whole CPU down clock with the AVX-512 negative offset (AVX-512 negative offset BIOS setting) when running hard AVX-512 workloads. But in this picture RL does not seam to down clock (at all?) but stays at 4.8GHz - impressive that it's even stable... - what cooling did they use? water?
We already know that it is very hard to run AVX-512 @ 4.8 on a cascade lake X or skylake X (not sure I've see anyone do AIDA64 FP on standard air cooling with reasonable temps).

So net, net they have improved AVX-512 power consumption and temps (compared to Cascade Lake X) and if they used a bit less aggressive AVX-512 overclocking, it would go down below 80C and be a good improvement over Cascade lake - X...

 

[spentshells]

I was getting annoyed with the amd fanboism after amd actually passed intel in single core performance, people saying intel is getting wrecked after being surpassed once in the last decade, but now seeing this all I can say is this sucks, what hell is this crap?

Less cores + same heat as previous generation for slightly better performance than amd? Not worth it. 12 core amd using half the power for similar single core performance but with 8 more threads?

This is ridiculous, I think intel needs to accept that until they shrink the process they are going to need to adopt the we aren't as good so here are some deals strategy that got amd to where they are.

 

[Phaaze88]

Chiphell... pfft!

I expect it'll behave similarly to Comet Lake, with its conservative power limits.
Remove the power limits, then the Rocket can take off.

 

[TerryLaze]

This is ridiculous, I think intel needs to accept that until they shrink the process they are going to need to adopt the we aren't as good so here are some deals strategy that got amd to where they are.

Shrinking the node will have no effect on the power draw and heat of avx since any benefit would go towards running it at higher clocks, such is the way of turbo and unlocked limits.

 

[spentshells]

Shrinking the node will have no effect on the power draw and heat of avx since any benefit would go towards running it at higher clocks, such is the way of turbo and unlocked limits.

Im fine with your opinion.

 

[derekullo]

They can't have 12-16C because they must clock them at 4-4.5Ghz max. 16 cores like this with 5Ghz will hit 500W and even custom loop can't cool it, but intel will never sell that low clocked CPUs. If you look at their tiger lake you will see again much more power consumption for just 4 cores compared to 8 zen 3 cores. Alder lake wont be different and that is why they will max at 8 cores again.

Intel sees your custom loop cooling challenge and raises you

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-cpu-5ghz,37244.html

 

[artk2219]

So its hot, power hungry, has mostly locked SKU's, and likely wont take down Ryzen 5000. Please tell me its at least cheap? I can forgive alot if this thing is priced sub $300, at like $280 - $295, still not ideal, but hey its a decent price. It's funny that Intel is now getting to be the budget option, the i5 10400F isnt a bad deal if you live near a microcenter, their pricing is at $139.99 for a 6 core 12 thread chip, if it was unlocked it would be pretty awesome. Instead they want $229.99 at Microcenter for an i5 10600k, $90 bucks for something that should be allowed by default, screw you intel and your artificial product segmentation, haven't you learned yet?

 

[spongiemaster]

So its hot, power hungry, has mostly locked SKU's

So what are you running on your home PC that pegs all your cores while using AVX512 all the time? If that's not what you're doing, power consumption is pretty much a non-issue.

, and likely wont take down Ryzen 5000.

I'd like to see the benchmark comparison between retail chips you have to back up this statement.

screw you intel and your artificial product segmentation, haven't you learned yet?

Over segmentation stinks, but a segmented product you can buy is better than a non-segmented one you can't. Time will tell how available RL will be. If it has better availability than the 5000 series here in the US (which shouldn't be difficult), Intel will win by default.

 

[rluker5]

So what will RL bring over current gens? I can't think of a single thing really.

• Productivity is surrendered to the higher core count Ryzens, so that's out of the window.
• Gaming will be a smidge better, again, very hard to spot and feel a difference especially when gaming at higher than HD levels where you're most likely to be GPU bound anyway.
• 250W vampire TDP sucking hog - good luck benching and overclocking on smaller PSU's.
• As mentioned above, a PSU upgrade might also be in order. More money down the drain.
• Hot as hell, good luck gaming with a machine so loud next to you that has to be super tuned to contain noise levels.
• Half the lineup consists of non K (locked) models. If AMD can offer full gens of OC'able chips (with hardly any exceptions), why can't Intel do the same?
• No 12C or 16C options. Forget upgradable options down in the future.
• PCIE4 coming like 2 years late? Or shall I say well done?
• Backported product. Knowing that your product's full potential won't be realized.
• Regressing on core count. And they wanna call their highest boosting chips "i9's" to differentiate from the slightly lower clocked i7's?
• Do you also get Farcry6 free with RL as you do with new Ryzen? Or anything else seeing that Intel has promoted it as a "gaming" chip?

I can go on and on, but my brain has finally put up the white flag. Pat should have joined 5+ years ago.

Rocket lake will be undeniably faster in gaming than current gen AMD. And AVX512 and gpu accelerated productivity.
But while not enough faster in gaming for most to notice, people will still think it is better. Same as Ryzen vs my overclocked 2015 quad core that still holds mins over the 60 my 4k monitor can handle in all games. People playing higher refresh rates will see a higher number on their fps counter, and that will give them some satisfaction.

Of course if all you do is old fashioned non AVX512, non gpu accelerated, non latency sensitive productivity, and need the fastest current performance, you should get a Ryzen or thread ripper.

 

[artk2219]

So what are you running on your home PC that pegs all your cores while using AVX512 all the time? If that's not what you're doing, power consumption is pretty much a non-issue.

I'd like to see the benchmark comparison between retail chips you have to back up this statement.



Over segmentation stinks, but a segmented product you can buy is better than a non-segmented one you can't. Time will tell how available RL will be. If it has better availability than the 5000 series here in the US (which shouldn't be difficult), Intel will win by default.

You still cant deny that it will likely be hotter and use more power, and yes, for most of us it will be a non issue, but there are users that live in countries where power is expensive, it will be a factor, not a huge one necessarily, but one none the less. The hot is also not necessarily a terrible thing if you live somewhere cold, it'll help heat the room a bit. But again like i said in the previous post, itll just come down to pricing, if they throw it out for a decent price, none of that will matter. Honestly since the OEM's will buy and sell them like hot cakes it still doesnt matter, but it is a thing that should be mentioned. You ever tried finding a current Dell latitude or Optiplex with a Ryzen processor BTW? They dont exist. Dell only made one model for each using the original Ryzen 1000 (2000 for laptops) series chips. The Latitude 5495 and Optiplex 5055, and they were only available if you knew about them and asked your rep about them, and they haven't made anything else since, even though the demand is currently there, its.... interesting honestly.

 

[spongiemaster]

You still cant deny that it will likely be hotter and use more power, and yes, for most of us it will be a non issue, but there are users that live in countries where power is expensive where it will be a factor, not a huge one necessarily, but one none the less. The hot is also not necessarily a terrible thing if you live somewhere cold, it'll help heat the room a bit.

Yes, it will run hotter with more power, but what I am saying is that while running typical software, the difference isn't going to be 150W's. It will be more like 20-40 watts. That difference, even with expensive power, is going to be a non-issue as is the minimal additional heat.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yes, it will run hotter with more power, but what I am saying is that while running typical software, the difference isn't going to be 150W's. It will be more like 20-40 watts. That difference, even with expensive power, is going to be a non-issue as is the minimal additional heat.

Not even, at single the 10900 is 4 watts below the 5900x at stock even though it runs about 500Mhz faster and in multithreaded the 10900k is only 10Watts higher than the 5900x.
The stress test is the only thing where the 10900 will run about 30Watts higher.
And while these are 'whole system' numbers that's basically the draw of the luck that the normal user will encounter.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/19.html

 

[cryoburner]

So what will RL bring over current gens? I can't think of a single thing really.

• Productivity is surrendered to the higher core count Ryzens, so that's out of the window.
• Gaming will be a smidge better, again, very hard to spot and feel a difference especially when gaming at higher than HD levels where you're most likely to be GPU bound anyway.
• 250W vampire TDP sucking hog - good luck benching and overclocking on smaller PSU's.
• As mentioned above, a PSU upgrade might also be in order. More money down the drain.
• Hot as hell, good luck gaming with a machine so loud next to you that has to be super tuned to contain noise levels.
• Half the lineup consists of non K (locked) models. If AMD can offer full gens of OC'able chips (with hardly any exceptions), why can't Intel do the same?
• No 12C or 16C options. Forget upgradable options down in the future.
• PCIE4 coming like 2 years late? Or shall I say well done?
• Backported product. Knowing that your product's full potential won't be realized.
• Regressing on core count. And they wanna call their highest boosting chips "i9's" to differentiate from the slightly lower clocked i7's?
• Do you also get Farcry6 free with RL as you do with new Ryzen? Or anything else seeing that Intel has promoted it as a "gaming" chip?

I can go on and on, but my brain has finally put up the white flag. Pat should have joined 5+ years ago.

I would be a lot more thrilled about the Ryzen 5000 series if AMD actually had supply readily available, and if they hadn't jacked up the prices, with still no value models anywhere in sight.

You mention Intel cutting the core count for their i9s, but AMD did something similar, in that they significantly raised the minimum prices for a given core count. The only Zen3 6-core is currently priced at $300, whereas the 3600 was just $200 when it launched, with the street price being more like $160 to $170 throughout much of last year. Even just looking at the MSRPs, that's a 50% price hike, which kills a lot of the enthusiasm for the performance gains. The same goes for the 8-core model priced at $450, a $120 price hike over the previous gen's launch MSRP. Six cores now cost nearly as much as the prior-gen's 8-cores did at launch, and 8-cores cost nearly as much as the prior-gen's 12-cores, negating any performance gains in heavily-multithreaded workloads.

And despite increasing prices, they also cut the stock coolers. The 5600X is the only model that includes one now, and despite being a $300 processor, it's not the Wraith Spire or the Prism, but rather the tiny Stealth that they previously only put on sub-$200 parts, and which doesn't perform much better than Intel's stock coolers. Including a Prism might have made the price point a bit more justifiable, and they probably should have bundled one with the 5800X as well, considering the significantly higher profit margins of these processors.

The 12 and 16-core models only saw a $50 price hike as far as MSRPs go, which is a lot more reasonable given their price points, but they are rather pricey processors to begin with, and relatively few people will actually have much need those kinds of core counts any time soon.

And due to AMD not having enough 7nm manufacturing capacity at TSMC to handle the combined production of their CPUs, GPUs and console APUs, it's hard to find any of these processors in-stock, outside of places selling them for well above those already high MSRPs, even three months after launch.

As for Intel's competing unlocked models, the MSRP of the 10-core 10900KF is only around $20 more than AMD's 8-core 5800X, the 8-core 10700KF is $100 less than the 5800X, and the 6-core 10600KF is over $60 less than the 5600X. And even the locked models are worth comparing, since the current 5000-series lineup is already pushed to its limits, offering very little overclocking headroom, making that more of a non-feature. Sure, AMD's SMT implementation tends to get more performance out of heavily-multithreaded workloads, but due to the high pricing, they aren't really offering better value than Intel's parts. AMD is currently providing Intel-like performance, at Intel-like prices, and for some parts Intel has them beat from a price to performance standpoint. And while the Intel parts might have other drawbacks like their higher power draw and heat output, at least they are readily available for purchase, typically at or below MSRP.

I was kind of hoping AMD might announce more value-oriented options at CES, but that didn't happen, and current rumors seem to suggest those won't be coming for a number of months still, likely not until sometime after Rocket Lake. Of course, it's not like it's all that practical to build a performance-oriented system now anyway, due to the graphics card shortages.