News Tiger Lake-H Tested: We Benchmark Intel's Top-End 8-Core i9-11980HK

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
-Gives clearance to take the hood off.
-Motherboard isn't upside down like it usually is, so all you get is backside, LOL.
That felt somewhat troll-y.

How many laptop models sporting this chip are going to get gimped below the 65w(that's high for a laptop) TDP? Combined with w/e the gpu is, that won't be nothing nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Of Gilead
Seems that Intel is coming back… competition is about to heat up. I wonder how Alder Lake will compare? AMD may be in trouble until Zen 4 drops. Only time will tell.
 
excalibur1814 said:
"also explains the constant fan noise. "

One day, it would be nice for an oem to make a nearly silent/quiet gaming laptop. Heck, gimp on everything but the cooling.
Click to expand...

That already exists... To maximize all the heatsinks and fan sizes, the motherboard ends up being around 12" x 10". The cooling solution for the GPU and CPU would be independent of each other and thus the GPU would be easily user swappable too! (Bonus, the board has up to 7 swappable expansion ports that's PCIe compatible for whatever else you fancy!)

I'm afraid this is more or less the nature of the beast, without giant towering coolers fan noise will forever be an issue... To overcome this would also end up being 6+" thick laptop. Or basically a mini desktop with a integrated screen on the case...
 
This does not look good for Intel at all. Its flagship loses in most games to an AMD 45W TDP CPU. Even the margins in benchmarks that it manages to pull ahead in are not convincing if you consider that they are about 10% better for a part that consumes at least 44% more power (which is not the case because of 110W L2 power) and will be undoubtedly very expensive offering. The efficiency is even worse when compared to a 35W HS series Ryzen, which is not far off. Naturally we need more tests of the 45W Intel CPUs to be able to draw more meaningfull conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Of Gilead
I don't browse too many laptop threads, but ~man... to heck with how it performs, 65w BASE TDP is a lot on a cpu.
People already complain about Intel cpu thermals and noise in 35 and 45w packages, like WTH.
This cpu should not be found in ANY kind of laptop that cuts cost on cooling - I wouldn't even think to look at one under 3500USD - maybe 3000.

That's not even including the gpu, with this cpu I believe the heatsinks should be separated, not shared, which many cheaper models do.


-quiet, or close to it
-excellent cooling
-great performance
-lightweight
-affordable, or not as hard on the bank
At best, one can do 4 out of 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FakeMike and Roland Of Gilead
geekbench intel wins barely over amd...which is also running nearly 600mhz slower than the intel... totally fair right? (yet u removed stronger gpu as it wasnt fair in the handbrake test....)


can't be "fair" in some and not all i mean you are already not showing how well ryzen can do with taking time to fiddle with RAM timings.
 
The results are not looking that good for a 65W TDP processor. Not that its bad, but Intel definitely can't pull themselves away from AMD with existing 10nm Tiger Lake H. In addition, I feel the Intel sample system tend to be the best case scenario for the processor to stretch its legs, as shown in their original Tiger Lake U sample laptop. In reality, the performance varies a lot due to different cooling solution and parts used by other OEMs/ PC maker. The fact that they chose a system where the cooler is hidden at the top tells me they probably focused a lot on the cooling solution to allow this review unit to perform very well by maintaining very high clockspeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FakeMike
hotaru251 said:
geekbench intel wins barely over amd...which is also running nearly 600mhz slower than the intel... totally fair right? (yet u removed stronger gpu as it wasnt fair in the handbrake test....)


can't be "fair" in some and not all i mean you are already not showing how well ryzen can do with taking time to fiddle with RAM timings.
Click to expand...
The 5900HX runs 400Mhz slower in single, max turbo, but also 700Mhz faster in base clocks...
The 11980 also has quicksync that the review also didn't use although every user would use that.
 
TerryLaze said:
The 5900HX runs 400Mhz slower in single, max turbo, but also 700Mhz faster in base clocks...
The 11980 also has quicksync that the review also didn't use although every user would use that.
Click to expand...
unless ur throttling your always going to be above baseclock. thats irrelevant. max speeds are what matter in most stuff as thats what you will be at when pushing your system in gaming/workstation loads.
 
hotaru251 said:
unless ur throttling your always going to be above baseclock. thats irrelevant. max speeds are what matter in most stuff as thats what you will be at when pushing your system in gaming/workstation loads.
Click to expand...
More to your point: Intel's TDP calculation is done using base clock and I'm pretty sure the sample notebook has MCE turned on which basically makes the reported TDP (edit: and base clocks) irrelevant.

As other have said above, it would be interesting to see what cooling configuration they used, as it seems this notebook would otherwise melt, lol.

Cheers!
 
hotaru251 said:
unless ur throttling your always going to be above baseclock. thats irrelevant. max speeds are what matter in most stuff as thats what you will be at when pushing your system in gaming/workstation loads.
Click to expand...
You will always be above base but you will also always be below max single thread turbo when running multi core stuff.
So then you have no idea at what exact clocks the two CPUs were running that specific workload, so your original point is also irrelevant.
The performance that the user will get at the end is all that matters to the users.
 
TerryLaze said:
You will always be above base but you will also always be below max single thread turbo when running multi core stuff.
So then you have no idea at what exact clocks the two CPUs were running that specific workload, so your original point is also irrelevant.
The performance that the user will get at the end is all that matters to the users.
Click to expand...
There's a breakpoint to be had though: thermals, battery performance and portability.

You can't argue that, past a certain point, you'll be better off just buying a 11400/F and build a desktop instead, no? For what some of the "better built" laptops will cost and, from what I can see here, their portability would be like (if you want it to perform close to AMD's equivalent), Intel is in a worse shape by a lot. To put it in a slightly different perspective, you can put a full 5600X in the same laptop encasing Intel used.

Thermals and power may not matter as much in Desktop, but you cannot say it doesn't in laptops. Sure, the performance is there, but at what trade off / cost?

Regards,
 
I'm actually impressed by the 11980HK, I was wondering last month why Intel have a gaping hole above the i7 11735H.

Now, I'm wondering when (if ever) Intel will release the i9 11980XE for high core count performance, the R9 5950X roams uncontested with only the almost 2 year old i9 10980XE, surely Intel will bring the competition up there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom