News Leaked Rocket Lake Reviews Hint That AMD Has Nothing To Worry About

spongiemaster

Admirable
Dec 12, 2019
2,156
1,180
7,560
0
Foreign media outlet and YouTuber release early reviews of Intel's 11th Generation Core i7-11700K and Core i9-11900K (Rocket Lake-S) CPUs.

Leaked Rocket Lake Reviews Hint That AMD Has Nothing To Worry About : Read more
From the author of the article in the comment section:

"In 99% of cases we tested ESs based on retail silicon. QS, so to speak. This time I had an alpha sample, so there may be differences. And new bios appear in the meantime. See you in March "

An alpha sample is like an ES1 based sample. I would not put much stock in such an early test sample. In the end it will come down to availability and prices.
 
Reactions: Why_Me

waltc3

Reputable
Aug 4, 2019
340
175
4,860
0
It's a value CPU now taking AMD's former position in pricing and demand. How much blood can Intel get out of this 14nm turnip?...;)
 

watzupken

Respectable
Mar 16, 2020
892
417
2,270
1
To be honest, the power consumption of the chip should not come as a shocker for anyone. I believe Intel have already listed the PL2 power @ 250W, which I feel is a conservative number and there may be instances where it may draw more. It will however become an attractive option for those who are tired of waiting for Zen 3 chips due to inavailability. Its been 3 months since the launch of Zen 3, and supply is still really bad. For those willing to wait, I feel Rocket Lake is not worth the upgrade because before its launched, Intel have already made it obsolete by announcing a Q3 release of Alder Lake.
 

VforV

Respectable
BANNED
Oct 9, 2019
578
287
2,270
1
Its been 3 months since the launch of Zen 3, and supply is still really bad. For those willing to wait, I feel Rocket Lake is not worth the upgrade because before its launched, Intel have already made it obsolete by announcing a Q3 release of Alder Lake.
US is not the entire world, so no, availability is not really bad at all in general, but only depending on the place. It's really not the case of RX 6000s GPUs where they are everywhere unavailable...

Many countries in EU had Zen3 since day 1 and still have them in stock right now. At decent prices too.

I do agree with the 2nd statement.
 

Glock24

Distinguished
Sep 5, 2014
84
12
18,635
0
To be honest, the power consumption of the chip should not come as a shocker for anyone. I believe Intel have already listed the PL2 power @ 250W, which I feel is a conservative number and there may be instances where it may draw more. It will however become an attractive option for those who are tired of waiting for Zen 3 chips due to inavailability. Its been 3 months since the launch of Zen 3, and supply is still really bad. For those willing to wait, I feel Rocket Lake is not worth the upgrade because before its launched, Intel have already made it obsolete by announcing a Q3 release of Alder Lake.
The new Intel CPU are like the new P4 Prescott, very hot and power hungry with little performance gains.
 
Keep in mind that this is the architecture that intel was ready to release against ZEN1, the 10nm node wasn't ready back then but this architecture was, put that into perspective when looking at these numbers.
 

Ogotai

Prominent
Feb 2, 2021
113
59
660
0
The new Intel CPU are like the new P4 Prescott, very hot and power hungry with little performance gains.
not according to the intel shills everywhere.

Keep in mind that this is the architecture that intel was ready to release against ZEN1, the 10nm node wasn't ready back then but this architecture was, put that into perspective when looking at these numbers.
keep in mind, that didnt happen now did it ? intel was too cocky too aggressive, to complacent, and lazy. put that into perspective when looking at these numbers. intel pretty much has a history of this, get on top, well a head of the competition, then falls asleep. only NOW are they actually getting off their butts and doing something.
 
intel pretty much has a history of this, get on top, well a head of the competition, then falls asleep. only NOW are they actually getting off their butts and doing something.
Yes they get so far ahead that they have to stop for a few years to wait for AMD to catch up. You call it falling asleep they call it making twice the money with old tech they already have and that has already paid itself fully.
 

Ogotai

Prominent
Feb 2, 2021
113
59
660
0
nope, as i said, intel was too cocky too aggressive, to complacent, and lazy.

<Moderator edit for content>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reactions: VforV

Ogotai

Prominent
Feb 2, 2021
113
59
660
0
yes, too aggressive on their process tech, and to lazy to actually innovate, and put out products that actually were an upgrade worth the money vs their previous gen. i know a few people that are now considering upgrading their haswell/skylake/kaby lake/coffee lake cpus, and they are all looking at AMD more then intel, because of this.

<Moderator edit for content>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VforV

Respectable
BANNED
Oct 9, 2019
578
287
2,270
1
Too aggressive, while at the same time being too lazy? That's a pretty remarkable combination of achievements.
Instead of aggressive, I would say they were too cocky in their ability to jump to 10nm and 7nm, fast and with big improvements, which never materialized. Which also showed they were lazy.
And with their pricing greedy, giving too little for high prices. Even if I don't like the new AMD prices, at least they give you more for more $...
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Conahl
yes, too aggressive on their process tech, and to lazy to actually innovate, and put out products that actually were an upgrade worth the money vs their previous gen.
We can't judge if they were really too aggressive because we have no knowledge of what happens inside the company, you could also say that AMD was too aggressive on the process tech they wanted which lead to them not having much product available at the moment, an older node would have had much higher availability and would be cheaper leaving AMD in a much better position than even now.
Sure intel is not innovative, that's why they are coming out with a whole new design of GPU/iGPU and a big.bigger core design while all that AMD is doing is to add moar cores which is what they have been doing since forever.
 

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
515
61
19,070
1
Evidently AMD has lots to worry about:

AMD Ryzen 5000 ‘Zen 3’ desktop CPUs and X570 motherboards are said to have high failure rates and DOA, according to PowerGPU
15. February 2021 06:39
Igor Wallossek

"PowerGPU reports that of the 50 Ryzen 9 5950X units they received, 8 CPUs were DOA (Dead on Arrival). Below is the breakdown of the AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU failure rate as reported by Custom DIY PC Builder:

AMD Ryzen 5950x x50 units 8 doa
AMD Ryzen 5900x x50 units 4 doa
AMD Ryzen 5800x x100 units 4 doa
AMD Ryzen 5600x x120 units 3 doa

At the same time, PC Builder reports that they only received 1 Intel CPU that turned out to be DOA in the same time, and that was an older Core i7-9700K. PowerGPU also mentions that prior to AMD’s Ryzen 5000 CPUs, the failure rate was 80% Intel and 20% AMD, and they had only lost one CPU in the last 2 years. But since the launch of the Ryzen 5000 CPUs, AMD chips have had a much higher failure rate. The problem isn’t just specific to CPUs either, even X570 boards have been reported to have very high failure rates."

 
Feb 15, 2021
2
0
10
0
100% fake news .. fake data ...


I think when we get full test in real APP or games Intell hit AMD - 200%

other thing is price ... if price on Intell will be same or litte more it good ...

also power energy take ... yes here possible Intell lose ...

but in app & game I give 200% new processor from intell hit amd !

time will tell, - soner or later .... sooner or later ...... time will tell ...
(c) red-alert


===
 

dalek1234

Reputable
Sep 27, 2019
103
29
4,610
0
Even if Intel gave these processors away at "cost of production" price, or even lost money on them, just to keep the market share, their CPUs are still a much worse value when compared to AMD. Long term, you have to account for the electricity usage, which cost money. A few years of your electrical bills with Intel will end up costing you more than AMD overall. I'm not even sure if these Intel CPUs could be of better value long-term, even if Intel gave them away for free.
 
Feb 15, 2021
2
0
10
0
electricity usage for Intell is - really big problem ..

they need new technologys to solve this porblem ...it true .. Intell still big company ...

But that may be the problem ... they have become too clumsy and behind the trends ... like Kodak or Nokia in their day...
 

watzupken

Respectable
Mar 16, 2020
892
417
2,270
1
US is not the entire world, so no, availability is not really bad at all in general, but only depending on the place. It's really not the case of RX 6000s GPUs where they are everywhere unavailable...

Many countries in EU had Zen3 since day 1 and still have them in stock right now. At decent prices too.
I'm not based in US though, and the supply situation where I am based is no better than in US. Sure I can find Zen 3 processors, but they are at an inflated priced because of scalpers and mostly limited to Ryzen 5 and 7 series. Ryzen 9 are still mostly MIA. I've heard that supply is better in Europe, but again, I believe their situation is the same, i.e. sold by scalpers/ retailers at inflated price, because AMD is not supplying sufficient chips. I do agree that RDNA2 graphic cards are super rare, but expected. Considering both Zen 3 and RDNA2 are manufactured on the same TSMC 7nm node, it is significantly more profitable for AMD to produce the chiplets than to produce the monolithic GPU.
 
Reactions: VforV

watzupken

Respectable
Mar 16, 2020
892
417
2,270
1
Evidently AMD has lots to worry about:

AMD Ryzen 5000 ‘Zen 3’ desktop CPUs and X570 motherboards are said to have high failure rates and DOA, according to PowerGPU
15. February 2021 06:39
Igor Wallossek

"PowerGPU reports that of the 50 Ryzen 9 5950X units they received, 8 CPUs were DOA (Dead on Arrival). Below is the breakdown of the AMD Ryzen 5000 CPU failure rate as reported by Custom DIY PC Builder:

AMD Ryzen 5950x x50 units 8 doa
AMD Ryzen 5900x x50 units 4 doa
AMD Ryzen 5800x x100 units 4 doa
AMD Ryzen 5600x x120 units 3 doa

At the same time, PC Builder reports that they only received 1 Intel CPU that turned out to be DOA in the same time, and that was an older Core i7-9700K. PowerGPU also mentions that prior to AMD’s Ryzen 5000 CPUs, the failure rate was 80% Intel and 20% AMD, and they had only lost one CPU in the last 2 years. But since the launch of the Ryzen 5000 CPUs, AMD chips have had a much higher failure rate. The problem isn’t just specific to CPUs either, even X570 boards have been reported to have very high failure rates."

I am not too sure if the sources are credible.

In any case, DOA means the product is dead on arrival. How do they test if the item is DOA when the seller don't test them? Because by the time someone brings it home, someone may have meddled with it and claimed DOA after messing up. So how do they prove that it is DOA and not because of excessive tampering? From an Intel perspective, I suspect most chips sold are in the i5 range which mostly comprises of locked CPUs, thus, reducing such issues. Anyway, this is just my opinion, so no supporting for what I mentioned.
 
Reactions: Conahl

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
515
61
19,070
1
Even if Intel gave these processors away at "cost of production" price, or even lost money on them, just to keep the market share, their CPUs are still a much worse value when compared to AMD. Long term, you have to account for the electricity usage, which cost money. A few years of your electrical bills with Intel will end up costing you more than AMD overall. I'm not even sure if these Intel CPUs could be of better value long-term, even if Intel gave them away for free.
The numbers I've seen in the past indicate that the difference between a low power usage PC vs a higher usage one is about $20 a year in US if run at peak intensity for longer periods. Not a big number especially since no normal user runs PC at peak all the time.

I live in Ohio with four season weather where there are only about 3-4 months of air conditioning use in the summer where heat from my PC is a problem and costs me additional money. The rest of the time the heat generated helps warm my home. Further I'm usually only using my PC for intensive usage/gaming in evening or later at night when outside temps are lower and air conditioning may not even be needed.

Th e only other issue with heat is if your case doesn't have adequate ventilation and the heat can't escape your case and throttles performance. I've wised up and now have a Thermaltake P-3 open frame with the AIO cooler mounted next to motherboard and a vertically mounted GPU extender to keep its heat away from the rest of my mother board. So no case fans required to provide airflow. Only have the two 140 fans on AIO, the PSU fan and the gpu fans all with temp controls so noise from PC is reduced since they don't operate unless temps reach a higher level.

Long story to say that the electrical usage argument really is pretty irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
515
61
19,070
1
I am not too sure if the sources are credible.

In any case, DOA means the product is dead on arrival. How do they test if the item is DOA when the seller don't test them? Because by the time someone brings it home, someone may have meddled with it and claimed DOA after messing up. So how do they prove that it is DOA and not because of excessive tampering? From an Intel perspective, I suspect most chips sold are in the i5 range which mostly comprises of locked CPUs, thus, reducing such issues. Anyway, this is just my opinion, so no supporting for what I mentioned.
Igor Wallossek is a well respected and connected PC expert/engineer who formerly worked with the TH team doing technical reviews. The source he quoted is coming from a professional custom PC builder relating to 320 (pretty decent sample size) total 5000 series AMD CPUs purchased and delivered directly to their shop not an inexperienced amateur DIY home builder who purchased retail. Any professional custom builder is going to test the PCs they build before selling/shipping them to customers or they won't be in business long. The article also noted that this was a far higher DOA rate than that of Intel or for previous gen AMD CPUs.

The fact that the article also states there are reports on social media also points to this not being an isolated issue. If nothing else this points to inadequate or faulty testing of AMD 5000 series CPUs prior to shipping. This article raises lots of questions which hopefully will be followed up with further investigation and conversations with AMD.
 
Last edited:

Conahl

Commendable
Apr 24, 2020
243
82
1,660
0
Long story to say that the electrical usage argument really is pretty irrelevant.
maybe for you, and where you are, but in other areas or countries, some people ARE concerned about power usage, as power may not be cheap where they are.
the difference between a low power usage PC vs a higher usage one is about $20 a year in US
and that WHOLE line there, is the KEY.... " in US "

if this is so reliable, how come so far, NO ONE else has reported it ?
 

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
515
61
19,070
1
maybe for you, and where you are, but in other areas or countries, some people ARE concerned about power usage, as power may not be cheap where they are.

Gurg said:
the difference between a low power usage PC vs a higher usage one is about $20 a year in US

and that WHOLE line there, is the KEY.... " in US "

if this is so reliable, how come so far, NO ONE else has reported it ?
Based upon the ridiculous assumption of running prime 95 at full load on CPUs for a year the maximum difference between 11700k and 5800x is 62 wattsx24hrs. x365days /1000watts per kwh totals 543 kwh times $0.1331/kwh US cost = $72 per year total cost of power usage difference between the two CPUs if you ran prime95 full load for a year. No one runs maxed out CPU 24 hours a day or even 8 hours a day where the differential would be $24 dollars per year.

Just for reference the average US household used around 900kwh monthly which at $0.1331/kwh is about $119 monthly. If you live in another country find your rate and see the cost differential. The Samsung 4k 50" TV I just purchased is estimated to use 131kwh and cost $16 to operate annually. The 60 watt differential between these CPUs is close to the commonly used light bulb in a lamp.

The $20 a year number I used above is the approximation for a 50 watt max differential for 8 hours per day usage and will show up occasionally in reviews. Given how CPU usage jumps around in gaming or other PC uses even for a PC used 8 hours a day the real energy cost differential between these CPUs would probably be under $5 a year or less. Not a very sexy number to gain eyeballs or comments in a review.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY