As others have pointed out, something in these results just seem to be "off". The biggest problem with CPU-Z is the validation / benchmark test doesn't really push a system very hard making unrealistic benchmark scores possible. I've been overclocking every system I've ever owned (going way back to Core 2 Duo) and use to get into the "how high can I validate" a long time ago, but years ago I stopped because really (unless your going to a LN2 world record) it doesn't mean anything. Now when I overclock a system I first check for total system stability, run a suite of benchmarks and stress tests to ensure stability then and only then validate the results with a full suite of benchmarks to show a much fuller overclock result. At the end of the day a high overclock (AMD or Intel) means nothing if all you can do is load into windows long enough to validate it.
I have my system currently rendering a project in the background (running a CPU-Z benchmark now would be fruitless) but I have this validation from when I first obtained full stability on my Ryzen 5900X. This benchmark was run on a Asus Dark Hero motherboard so I am utilizing the dynamic OC switcher with PBO curve optimization for single core. My single core boost is 5Ghz and for this run my all core overclock was 4.65Ghz (my 24/7 overclock, my max overclock is 4.7Ghz).
https://valid.x86.fr/5d32t2
For reference with this overclock I get ~650 in CB R20 single core and ~9240 in multicore. I am at thermal limitation with my setup as at my max all core overclock (4.7Ghz) I am hitting temps of 86C, at 4.65Ghz all core my temps spike around 80C which I believe is much safer long term. I am on full air cooling with a Noctua NH-U14S, so someone with a better AIO or custom loop could get better overclocking results.
I believe that the earlier CPU-Z benchmarks we have seen from Rocket Lake are much more realistic. The 11900K scoring ~700, 706 in single core @ 5.2 - 5.3Ghz would be in line with the IPC advantage Zen 3 still has which is exactly what AnandTech found in their early review of a retail 11700K. In single core a Zen 3 processor @ 5Ghz will be more or less equal to Rocket Lake @ 5.2 - 5.3Ghz in some benchmarks. I also expect to see that benchmarks that push the processors harder will show Zen 3 retain their max single core boosts longer than Intel's thermal velocity boost. In these reported benchmarks we don't know what the system configuration was, what cooling was used, and what overclocks were applied. I would make an educated guess that the Rocket Lake processors were hitting single core clocks of 5.3 - 5.4Ghz and were more than likely unstable past running a quickie validation. Saying I am already getting ~700 CPU-Z single core scores with a fully stable overclock I'm sure if I were to push my system past stability I could hit single core boosts near 5.05, maybe 5.1Ghz and match or beat these posted CPU-Z results for Rocket Lake. I just don't see any reason to as if the system is not stable and will crash under any real workload, then what is the point?
We will have to wait for the real unbiased reviews, but I fully expect at the end of the month we will see Rocket Lake's flagship CPUs obtaining relative parity with Zen 3 in single core applications and gaming while being outperformed in multi core workloads (AMD's SMT is simply superior to Intel's hyperthreading). The 11700K and Ryzen 5800X will be the closest match up for single and multi core performance, but if Intel prices their 11900K in the same price bracket as the 5900X its going to be bloodbath. The two processors will more than likely have near parity in gaming and single core execution (depending on Rocket Lake's latency and achievable sustained thermal velocity boost) but the 5900X will decimate the 11900K in all multi core workloads. While I believe Intel has made the best out of the bad situation they find themselves in I think there is a reason why we have such relatively easy availability of retail processors a month before unbiased reviews can be published.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram