Apparent how? Oh right, your preferred leaks. Has there been a single leak with power measurement? No? Guess it's just faith on your part then.
Last edited:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Page 341 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apparent how? Oh right, your preferred leaks. Has there been a single leak with power measurement? No? Guess it's just faith on your part then.
Lol, fine, dig yourself even deeper. And yes, there have been leaks.
Intel Core i9-11900 Rocket Lake-S engineering sample tested on B560 motherboard - VideoCardz.com
Another Intel Core i9-11900 engineering sample tested. Intel Core i9-11900 Rocket Lake-S Sample tested on B560 motherboard Intel is set to announce its new Core CPU series new 500-series motherboards at CES 2021. The company allegedly decided to launch the new motherboards before Rocket Lake-S...
videocardz.com
Intel Rocket Lake-S Core i9-11900K CPU allegedly boost up to 5.3 GHz - VideoCardz.com
Intel’s Core i9-11900K specifications The flagship Rocket Lake-S CPU has already leaked earlier this month through Ashes of the Singularity benchmark website. It was revealed back then that the CPU carries a base clock of 3.5 GHz. Unfortunately, the software does not report on maximum turbo...
videocardz.com
Pretty much identical PL2 values as Comet Lake. Which is to be expected given that it's platform compatible. If you actually had relevant experience, you'd know the OEMs wouldn't tolerate needing to design new motherboards to use Rocket Lake.
Lol, fine, dig yourself even deeper. And yes, there have been leaks.
Intel Core i9-11900 Rocket Lake-S engineering sample tested on B560 motherboard - VideoCardz.com
Another Intel Core i9-11900 engineering sample tested. Intel Core i9-11900 Rocket Lake-S Sample tested on B560 motherboard Intel is set to announce its new Core CPU series new 500-series motherboards at CES 2021. The company allegedly decided to launch the new motherboards before Rocket Lake-S...
Intel Rocket Lake-S Core i9-11900K CPU allegedly boost up to 5.3 GHz - VideoCardz.com
Intel’s Core i9-11900K specifications The flagship Rocket Lake-S CPU has already leaked earlier this month through Ashes of the Singularity benchmark website. It was revealed back then that the CPU carries a base clock of 3.5 GHz. Unfortunately, the software does not report on maximum turbo...
Pretty much identical PL2 values as Comet Lake. Which is to be expected given that it's platform compatible. If you actually had relevant experience, you'd know the OEMs wouldn't tolerate needing to design new motherboards to use Rocket Lake.
LOL. That's a power recommendation, not a measurement. Learn the difference.
As for motherboards, are you implying a higher powered core would always need a new motherboard? Really?
I really should stop feeding the trolls, but "PL" stands for "power limit". It's not a recommendation. Again, if you actually had the experience you claim to, I would not have to explain this.
And yes, if you increase the power the CPU's allowed to draw, you need motherboards (and cooling solutions) capable of handling that. For OEMs, who generally design as close to the minimum as possible, that translates to new motherboards. They don't like that.
Possibly also an issue with the Gracemont modules. 17.6GHz/4 = 4.4GHz. No idea if Gracemont can clock that high, but it seems within the realm of possibility.
Hulk
Diamond Member
I realize there are a lot of "garbage" leaked benchmarks out there but do you think this one has any validity?
wccftech.com
I did some quick calcs for fun.
Intel Core i7-11700K Rocket Lake 8 Core CPU Benchmarks Leak Out in Geekbench, Faster Than AMD Ryzen 7 5800X In Both Single & Multi-Threaded Performance
The latest benchmarks of Intel's Core i7-11700K 8 Core & 11th Gen Rocket Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out within Geekbench.
wccftech.com
I did some quick calcs for fun.
| CPU Name | Geekbench Single-Thread (1T) | Clock | MHz/Geekbench Point | Geekbench Multi-Thread (nT) | Performance Difference Vs (1T) | Performance Difference Vs (nT) |
| Intel Core i7-11700K | 1810 | 5000 | 2.76 | 11304 | 100% | 100% |
| AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | 1672 | 4900 | 2.93 | 16515 | 108% | 68% |
| AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | 1663 | 4700 | 2.83 | 10361 | 109% | 109% |
| Intel Core i9-10900K | 1405 | 5300 | 3.77 | 10967 | 129% | 103% |
| Intel Core i7-10700K | 1349 | 5100 | 3.78 | 8973 | 134% | 126% |
| Comet Lake vs Comet Lake | 10700k | 10900k | ||||
| Geekbench 1T | 3.78 | 3.77 | 100.2% | |||
| 10700k +0.2% (Should be a tie) | ||||||
| Zen 3 vs Zen 3 | 5950x | 5800x | ||||
| Geekbench 1T | 2.93 | 2.83 | 103.7% | |||
| 5800x +3.7% (Should be a tie) | ||||||
| Rocket Lake vs Zen 3 | 11700k | 5800x | ||||
| Geekbench 1T | 2.76 | 2.83 | 102.3% | |||
| 10700k +2.3% | ||||||
| Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake | 11700k | 10700k | ||||
| Geekbench 1T | 2.76 | 3.77 | 136.6% | |||
| 11700k +36.6% |
shady28
Platinum Member
I realize there are a lot of "garbage" leaked benchmarks out there but do you think this one has any validity?
Intel Core i7-11700K Rocket Lake 8 Core CPU Benchmarks Leak Out in Geekbench, Faster Than AMD Ryzen 7 5800X In Both Single & Multi-Threaded Performance
The latest benchmarks of Intel's Core i7-11700K 8 Core & 11th Gen Rocket Lake Desktop CPU have leaked out within Geekbench.
I did some quick calcs for fun.
CPU Name Geekbench Single-Thread (1T) Clock MHz/Geekbench Point Geekbench Multi-Thread (nT) Performance Difference Vs (1T) Performance Difference Vs (nT) Intel Core i7-11700K 1810 5000 2.76 11304 100% 100% AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 1672 4900 2.93 16515 108% 68% AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 1663 4700 2.83 10361 109% 109% Intel Core i9-10900K 1405 5300 3.77 10967 129% 103% Intel Core i7-10700K 1349 5100 3.78 8973 134% 126% Comet Lake vs Comet Lake 10700k 10900k Geekbench 1T 3.78 3.77 100.2% 10700k +0.2% (Should be a tie) Zen 3 vs Zen 3 5950x 5800x Geekbench 1T 2.93 2.83 103.7% 5800x +3.7% (Should be a tie) Rocket Lake vs Zen 3 11700k 5800x Geekbench 1T 2.76 2.83 102.3% 10700k +2.3% Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake 11700k 10700k Geekbench 1T 2.76 3.77 136.6% 11700k +36.6%
I'm beginning to think someone is overclocking their 11700K (seriously).
tamz_msc
Diamond Member
I think it can go higher. I was probably held back by the 2666MHz CL19 memory which went down to 2133MHz CL15 dynamically during the benchmark. With LPDDR4x Tiger Lake can match if not beat ZEN 3 probably.
For Geekbench, it's more helpful to pay attention to the integer and floating-point scores, rather than the overall score.
Heh. The limit is a cooling recommendation because that is the power level the PCU attempt to turbo towards during the time spent in PL2. It does not mean every part will actually reach that limit, nor does it actually say anything about the performance achieved while attempting to reach that limit, which is half the equation on power efficiency. Duh.
By the way, the fact that the motherboard can deliver adequate amperage to the socket for one CPU as another says absolutely nothing about the relative power efficiency the two different devices. It merely means neither CPU exceeded that spec with guardbanding. If your conclusion is that not requiring a new power delivery spec means it is just as power efficient, or even consumes the same amount of power, that is 100% incorrect.
Last edited:
Gideon
Platinum Member
Why are we even having this power discussion? Thet Have the same PL2 of 250W, almost exactly the same (all core) turbo frequencies and 2 less cores. All seems to point to Rocket Lake having roughly the same power draw for 8 core (AVX-512 workloads) that 10 core Comet Lake has (for AVX2 workloads).
coercitiv
Diamond Member
I'm not optimistic about RKL availability but I wouldn't trust wccftech with any leak whatsoever. If we don't get something from a half decent source I'd rather consider availability an unknown variable at this point.
uzzi38
Platinum Member
Hassan has good sources amongst mobo OEMs. There's a good possibility he's correct.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
He's also willing to lend his ear to anything, so I'd rather take my chance with somebody holding a better track record.
Why are you trying so hard to embarrass yourself?
Hulk
Diamond Member
I was confused about this as well. I was educated about this earlier in this thread. I learned that Willow has a larger but higher latency cache structure vs Cyprus. While it can be beneficial in some applications, there are many where the smaller, lower latency cache structure provides better IPC.
It should also be added that CypressCove has an inclusive cache, i.e. L1 is copied to L2 and L2 to L3 so that, for example, if any of the cores asks for the currently performed L1 core data, e.g. a) it is enough to check L3 instead of directly sending a request to L1 which causes downtime in operations on the L1 core, e.g. a). Additionally, if the core needs to re-need data that has been processed, it will most likely find it in L2 or L3 instead of reaching for much slower RAM.
WillowCove has a non-inclusive cache which means that L2 does not contain a copy of L1 and L3 does not contain a copy of L2 so either core must request access to L1 or get data from RAM. The large 1.25MB L2 and 3MB L3 are supposed to compensate for this, but are much slower than the 512KB L2 and 2MB L3.
WillowCove has a non-inclusive cache which means that L2 does not contain a copy of L1 and L3 does not contain a copy of L2 so either core must request access to L1 or get data from RAM. The large 1.25MB L2 and 3MB L3 are supposed to compensate for this, but are much slower than the 512KB L2 and 2MB L3.
Even with an inclusive cache, there is no guarantee that the most recent update is found in the L2/L3. In fact updates are only done in the L1 and only flushed to L2 on a coherency request with Intels MESI coherence protocol or provided directly L1->L1 on ARMs MOESI protocol.
MESI-protocol can also make direct L1-L1 via migratory optimizations- by moving that dirty line from core to core. ARM also did that with MESI-states, so far only AMD does have used O-state commonly and in Zen they can do both, copy dirty line (O) and move that dirty line (D in their case as they also support O-state). Doing both obviously needs some kind of tracking of dirty lines behavior but complex schemes are nowadays doable.....
But in either case line transfer from L1 to other cores L1 is by through their core-to-core interconnection - so basically through L2 and L3 caches in case of cpu's that have core-to-core connections handled by lower cache levels.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
