News Rocket Lake Eight Core CPU Is A Strong Rival For Ryzen 7 5800X

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
956
94
19,070
3
Will be interesting to see Rocket lake vs 5800X but I need more than geekbench scores. That benchmark like the userbenchmarks site are not on my list for go to info.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
is this still 14nm+++++++++++++ with 300w+ power draw?

or is this finally a new smaller node with reduced power consumption?

simply matching single core ipc is not a bad thing but doing it while using 3x the power makes it a non-starter in my simple logical way of looking at things.
 
Reactions: drivinfast247

Late_Apex

Prominent
Dec 31, 2019
4
0
510
0
Parity with a chip already in possession (5800x) with yet another new motherboard requirement. Hard pass. Also picked up 5900x in my transition away from Intel.
 
is this still 14nm+++++++++++++ with 300w+ power draw?

or is this finally a new smaller node with reduced power consumption?

simply matching single core ipc is not a bad thing but doing it while using 3x the power makes it a non-starter in my simple logical way of looking at things.
Stop propagating misinformation.
The only way to get power draw that high is to use a terribly miss configured bios.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4th6YElNm5w


Only 8 cores max? Is Intel even trying at this point?
Just like with disabling HTT from gen to gen, going with 8 cores will allow them to release a second gen or refresh with 10 cores, double the money.

This has been known for months now.

going over 8 cores with blow up the power budget they are still on 14+++
They could do the same thing AMD does and run 10 cores at just above 4Ghz having higher IPC they would need less clocks.
 
Last edited:

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
789
355
1,260
0
Parity with a chip already in possession (5800x) with yet another new motherboard requirement. Hard pass. Also picked up 5900x in my transition away from Intel.
New motherboards are for PCIE4 support among other things and are not required. Rocket Lake is supposed to be compatible with existing LGA1200 motherboards.
 
Reactions: Gurg
Stop propagating misinformation.
The only way to get power draw that high is to use a terribly miss configured bios.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4th6YElNm5w
Will the chip even in perfectly stock configuration draw up to 250W? Yes. Therefore it isn't misinformation at all. The chip can and will draw that much power in a fully stock situation for a maximum of 56 seconds. If it cools down the the boost budget, for lack of a better term, will be refilled and it could boost to 250W again. That said if you just set it to 100% utilization for an hour, the average power draw will not be 250W if everything is at stock settings. However, what is stock for Intel as they pretty much look away the entire time for any BIOS configuration that will put them in a better light. That means that you will find that the CPU will probably be running close to 200W the entire time if you just plug the CPU in to the motherboard and leave it like 99% of people do.
 
With all limits enabled, the 10900k PL2 is set at 250w, meaning it can draw 250w stock, for a limited duration at least.

If 250w wasn't bad enough, many motherboards exceed these power limits out of the box, meaning that the chip can draw 300+ watts with completely out of the box stock settings. OUCH.

To quote toms launch review of the 10900k:
To find the power limit associated with our chip paired with the Gigabyte Aorus Z490 Master motherboard, we ran a few Prime95 tests with AVX enabled (small FFT). During those tests, we recorded up to 332W of power consumption when paired with either the Corsair H115i 280mm AIO watercooler or a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Yes, that's with the processor configured at stock settings.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
956
94
19,070
3
Stop propagating misinformation.
The only way to get power draw that high is to use a terribly miss configured bios.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4th6YElNm5w



Just like with disabling HTT from gen to gen, going with 8 cores will allow them to release a second gen or refresh with 10 cores, double the money.


They could do the same thing AMD does and run 10 cores at just above 4Ghz having higher IPC they would need less clocks.
Intel has been relying on clock speeds for many years now to give them an advantage. The higher IPC of the new core will allow them to run lower clocks for the same performance but I highly doubt you will see a 10 core part at 4Ghz from intel.
 
Intel has been relying on clock speeds for many years now to give them an advantage. The higher IPC of the new core will allow them to run lower clocks for the same performance but I highly doubt you will see a 10 core part at 4Ghz from intel.
We know that Intel is going to have to crank up the clock speed on Rocket Lake. Without clocking to ~5GHz boost Rocket Lake will not be able to be competitive with Zen 3. Not to mention a clock speed of 4.5GHz or less will mean it couldn't beat the current Comet Lake.
 

purple_dragon

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2012
42
6
18,535
0
The truth is that AMD is ahead of Intel because of architectural and smaller node process. However, Intel is not that far behind if they can get their cpu's on 10nm or even 7nm they would be tied with AMD. Intel would likely win single core performance while AMD would take the multitasking crown but they would basically be even IF Intel can actually make a chip with more than 12 cores! Right now AMD is the go to for any new build and probably stays that way for 2 years.
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
it is impressive what they can do with the 14++++++++++++++++ chips but the power draw is just not worth it for "pretty much a tie"

not when the other side of the tie is well below that mark. the extra cost of a better mobo, the "k" chip tax and cooling for it all makes "the tie" much less of a tie and not really that close of a choice.

well unless you just really really love intel and will buy them no matter what.
 

purple_dragon

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2012
42
6
18,535
0
it is impressive what they can do with the 14++++++++++++++++ chips but the power draw is just not worth it for "pretty much a tie"

not when the other side of the tie is well below that mark. the extra cost of a better mobo, the "k" chip tax and cooling for it all makes "the tie" much less of a tie and not really that close of a choice.

well unless you just really really love intel and will buy them no matter what.
I wasn't calling it a tie on 14nm+++++ I was saying if Intel can get to a 7nm node they would be on par with AMD in all aspects (with the possible exception being core count but that should go up when using a better node) including power if their new architecture is what they claim. Also, that is why I said AMD will likely be the go to purchase for the next 2 years. I wouldn't buy Intel products until they get their act together.
 

Notorious^

Prominent
Feb 17, 2019
99
16
545
4
Taking these results with a grain of salt. Hopefully this was just a engineering sample as the multicore score was lackluster and would expect a bit higher turbo boost clock. If this does turn out to be close to what we will see in the "K" sku, it looks like a lot of people like myself will skip Rocket Lake and see what Alder Lake turns out be followed by Meteor Lake.
 

watzupken

Proper
Mar 16, 2020
204
61
160
0
Intel has been relying on clock speeds for many years now to give them an advantage. The higher IPC of the new core will allow them to run lower clocks for the same performance but I highly doubt you will see a 10 core part at 4Ghz from intel.
For the sake of remaining competitive, it is unlikely for Intel to lower clockspeed despite the IPC improvement. There are few reasons for them to keep Rocket Lake on 14nm ++++++ (I lost track of number of + now), and one of them is certainly because of the "maturity" of the node to provide high clockspeed. 10 core Rocket Lake is unlikely because I doubt there is enough space on the die that will continue to fit the existing socket. And even if they managed to squeeze in the extra 2 cores, I feel cooling the chip will be really tough even for high end air cooler/ AIO.
 
Reactions: Makaveli

watzupken

Proper
Mar 16, 2020
204
61
160
0
Stop propagating misinformation.
The only way to get power draw that high is to use a terribly miss configured bios.
While it is true that you can optimize power consumption by making tweaks in BIOs, but not everyone will do that. Generally you should consider out of the box performance and power consumption, with the assumption that not everyone is savvy to make these fine changes in the BIOs.
In any case, most reviews agree that the power consumption is very high, i.e. easily north of 200W in PL2 state. It just shows that Intel threw power efficiency out of the window just to squeeze more performance out of an aged CPU architecture.
 

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
131
44
18,610
0
Skylake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Coffee Lake Refresh, Comet Lake, Rocket Lake...
So, 14nm plus 5?
___
- Intel's 14nm History -
NOTE: 14nm was two years late

14nm:
2014: BroadWell = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwell_(microarchitecture)
2015: SkyLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)

14nm+:
2016: KabyLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaby_Lake

14nm++:
2017: CoffeeLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Lake
2018: WhiskeyLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Lake_(microprocessor)

14nm+++:
2019: CometLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lake_(microprocessor)

14nm++++:
2021: RocketLake = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lake
___
 

Kamen Rider Blade

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2013
131
44
18,610
0
Fanboys will say "but it overclocks further".

Honestly who knows at this point. It might not.
Who cares about OCing it further, the power draw ain't worth it IMO.

With all limits enabled, the 10900k PL2 is set at 250w, meaning it can draw 250w stock, for a limited duration at least.

If 250w wasn't bad enough, many motherboards exceed these power limits out of the box, meaning that the chip can draw 300+ watts with completely out of the box stock settings. OUCH.

To quote toms launch review of the 10900k:
Hardware Unboxed got similar numbers under Blender when running Blender at Stock


Gamers Nexus also got similar power consumptions numbers, especially once you OC.
 
That said if you just set it to 100% utilization for an hour, the average power draw will not be 250W if everything is at stock settings.
No it will draw125W as advertised because it has to cool down enough for it to boost again.
However, what is stock for Intel as they pretty much look away the entire time for any BIOS configuration that will put them in a better light. That means that you will find that the CPU will probably be running close to 200W the entire time if you just plug the CPU in to the motherboard and leave it like 99% of people do.
With that logic how much power does ryzen draw?
PBO on the 3900x has an upper limit of 1200W ...
The upper limit is not the normal power draw and does not tell you how much power the most power hungry software will use.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc
" On the Gigabyte X570 Master with the 3900X, PBO limits were as follows: PPT 1200W, TDC 540A, and EDC 600A. "
 

Math Geek

Champion
Ambassador
No it will draw125W as advertised because it has to cool down enough for it to boost again.

With that logic how much power does ryzen draw?
PBO on the 3900x has an upper limit of 1200W ...
The upper limit is not the normal power draw and does not tell you how much power the most power hungry software will use.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc
" On the Gigabyte X570 Master with the 3900X, PBO limits were as follows: PPT 1200W, TDC 540A, and EDC 600A. "
ok so we have clearly left all form of reality behind now so i'm just gonna move on to more important things. enjoy the fanboy rants anyone brave enough to stay and try to help these delusional folks.......
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS