1) When looking at the gains the 11700K makes over the 10700K, I think it's fun to put it in context of gains the 5800X made over the 3800XT.
2) We can't draw many conclusions because we don't know about memory...
3) GB5 needs to fix crypto.
GB5 results for each
11700K (from you,
link)
5800X (from you,
link)
10700K (random higher-end selection,
link)
3800XT (random higher-end selection,
link)
(and my 5600X run, for fun,
link)
-----
First, generational improvements on new core designs.
As GB5 do, I took the geomean of the tests in each category. I also corrected each geomean result for clock speed to give somewhat of a hint at uarch improvements. Here is what I found:
Single-thread tests
CL -> RL = +13.9% integer, +16.8% FP, +213.8% crypto
Z2 -> Z3 = +13.5% integer, +13.8% FP, +60.5% crypto
Multi-thread tests
CL -> RL = +8.5% integer, +7.4% FP, -6.5% crypto
Z2 -> Z3 = +5.4% integer, +7.4% FP, -16.1% crypto
This is remarkable. When compared to what AMD did with Zen 3, this is just as good. (Yes, overall, if you include crypto, Intel created an ST improvement of 27% compared to AMD's improvement of 18%, but I refused to include crypto, will detail below why it's just purely broken when comparing different CPUs.)
-----
Second, memory plays a huge role in many subsegments of the test, FP and crypto mostly. Speed is important. So are timings. You can fiddle around with memory alone and see variations of hundreds of points in MT just with relatively minor timing / speed changes. Not knowing what memory this test chip is using (or cooling, for that matter) makes it very difficult to make any ascertainments about the validity of the results.
-----
Third, the large swings in effects of crypto scores on overall scores (pulling RL and Zen3 ST scores up artificially by just including support willy-nilly for new instructions that simultaneously drag down those very chips' multi-threaded scores), is a huge issue, IMO. It's much worse now with VAES512 (RL) and VAES256 (Zen3) being included for these latest generations compared to previous ones.
While some of the negative effect of VAES256 on Zen3 multithreaded scores is mitigated by fast memory and good cooling, in no world should my 5600X, which on INT and FP tests is 10.9% slower than the above-referenced 5800X in MT loads, be 45.1% faster in MT crypto. The results just don't make much sense with crypto.
Similarly, with the 11700K vs 10700K, obviously its ST score is boosted by RL supporting VAES512, which CL doesn't support. But that's a double-edge sword, because by leveraging it, I'm guessing it increases power draw and heat generation substantially, thus gimping the multithreaded results. The 11700K is 8.1% faster than the 10700K in MT INT/FP workloads, but 6.5% slower in MT crypto.
This is actually baffling to me the more I think about it. GB5 have intentionally introduced asymmetry with adding VAES256 and VAES512 instructions, which produces vastly different results that have nothing to do with actual real-world processing power/speed. Further, the effect this has is that GB5's encryption results aren't replicable or consistent with anyone else's cryptography benchmarking results (
Phoronix,
Anandtech,
Techspot). No one is running VAES512 encryption on a single thread, yet it is a hindrance when run on multiple threads, and that's a huge barrier to its applicability to the real world. Which begs the question as to why these instructions are even included in this benchmark - they're inefficient and slow the chips down in real use (again, no one is doing encryption on a single thread), and preclude us from accurately comparing chips.
Really have to wonder what they're thinking. Including instruction sets that are not widely adopted, kill real-world performance, and aren't included on all modern chips seems like a really stupid way to run things. "How will it compare to the newest devices on the market?" Well, I don't know, because you've obscured the results behind some obtuse crypto result!