Well that's a bit unfair. 11600K is often available for $100 less so it $ has it's own niche at least before 5600X is at 300 and 5600 is available. 10600KF and 10400F are particularily good deals now (and all available here in Estonia).The only part worth looking at is 11600K and that is only if you cannot grab 5600X.
One can meme about "tehh power draw!!" all it wants but these 6-cores are actually genuinely decent value (not just because of AMD's bad availability) and it's unfair to ignore it.
The 11600K is better for the money but really Z490 + 10850, 10700 or 10400 are probably the best choices depending on price point and use case if you are buying a whole new platform.
It might have been OK to get an 11900K for some OC fun, but the price completely shuts down any incentive to get one. How they are charging a similar price as a 5900X has me feeling pretty confused.
Yeah, the 11400F is the best value by far, its a strange world when Intel is forcing AMD to lower prices and it also has the best IGP (in notebooks), WTH is going on here.
I'm wondering how Intel 10ESF will compare to TMSC 5nm in terms of transistor density and power? Will the gap be larger than 14nm vs. TMSC 7nm which exists currently?
Another cost of back porting, had to cut it way, way down...
Also overclocking looks to be pretty much on existent as well. It is an IPC step but the down sides are too great.
Literally nobody has ignored the 6 core i5s in the past 1-2 years. It's been the FIRST day of the review cycle, I don't really understand the drama the tweeting person's going through.Well that's a bit unfair. 11600K is often available for $100 less so it $ has it's own niche at least before 5600X is at 300 and 5600 is available. 10600KF and 10400F are particularily good deals now (and all available here in Estonia).
And even though the power draw is far from great, for 6 cores it's around 5800X, which is managable. Just Check HWUB's review for gaming power draw:
Oh and in UK Intel Core i5-11400f and a MSI B560M MORTAR is £50 cheaper (£288) in total, than AMD Ryzen 5 5600X alone, which is currently £328.
One can meme about "tehh power draw!!" all it wants but these 6-cores are actually genuinely decent value (not just because of AMD's bad availability) and it's unfair to ignore it.
11900K should have been $380.
Blanket statements on Rocket Lake prices are not accurate.I didn't know Rocketlake increased MSRP over Cometlake. 10% increase over 10900K, are you kidding me? They are LUCKY prices are whack due to supply constraints. Unfortunately for Rocketlake, Cometlake is still cheaper.
I suspect they will be able to sell a lot of these low end chips but it won't be an improvement to their ASP. The low end chips seem to have the same MSRP as the previous series. In an attempt to increase ASP they are pricing the top end chips, in my opinion, too high. But they'll probably sell enough anyway...As Anand used to write, "There are no bad products, only bad price points."
So as I read it, Gear is limited by the QCLK ratio of 29RKL IMC has been changed a lot so that memory configuration is more complicated than before
(Gear 1 stall at 3866mhz if i'm reading it correctly)
View attachment 42235
I assume you are talking about MSRP. Thing is though, there are some good discounts on CL. The actual market price for CL most likely will be lower than for RL, at least initially.Blanket statements on Rocket Lake prices are not accurate.
So, if you are looking at the flagship Rocket Lake processors, it is a bad deal. Find an AMD chip.
- 11900K and 11900KF got $50 and $41 price increases
- 11700K and 11700KF got $25 price increases.
- Everything else Rocket Lake is basically even (from $1 more to $2 less).
But, all the rest of the lineup, Rocket Lake is quite an improvement over Comet Lake. Think of a new 11600K vs new 10600K system. For the same price, the 11600K gets you:
To me, that is quite a lot of gains for the same price. Thus, Rocket Lake has a strong mid-range use case until Alder Lake comes along.
- PCIe 4.0
- Average of 13.35% gain (13.21% geomean gain) on Anandtech's non-gaming and non-AVX tests.
- Average of 3.86x gain (3.46x geomean gain) on Anandtech's AVX tests.
- Better iGPU.
- Motherboard dependent:
- Possibly 2.5 gigabit internet.
- Possibly more PCI lanes.
- Possibly native USB 3.2.
I challenge you to describe a situation for me, where AVX-512 improvement is a factor that's worth mentioning as a bullet point, talking about an i5, seeing as you so generously managed to exclude gaming performance.Blanket statements on Rocket Lake prices are not accurate.
So, if you are looking at the flagship Rocket Lake processors, it is a bad deal. Find an AMD chip.
- 11900K and 11900KF got $50 and $41 price increases
- 11700K and 11700KF got $25 price increases.
- Everything else Rocket Lake is basically even (from $1 more to $2 less).
But, all the rest of the lineup, Rocket Lake is quite an improvement over Comet Lake. Think of a new 11600K vs new 10600K system. For the same price, the 11600K gets you:
To me, that is quite a lot of gains for the same price. Thus, Rocket Lake has a strong mid-range use case until Alder Lake comes along.
- PCIe 4.0
- Average of 13.35% gain (13.21% geomean gain) on Anandtech's non-gaming and non-AVX tests.
- Average of 3.86x gain (3.46x geomean gain) on Anandtech's AVX tests.
- Better iGPU.
- Motherboard dependent:
- Possibly 2.5 gigabit internet.
- Possibly more PCI lanes.
- Possibly native USB 3.2.
Yes, MSRP. Wait a couple weeks for the initial buyer penalty to go away and the retail prices will be similar.I assume you are talking about MSRP. Thing is though, there are some good discounts on CL. The actual market price for CL most likely will be lower than for RL, at least initially.
As an aside, I just dont understand how Intel could screw up so badly on RL. Obviously, they were not going to win the multi threaded lead when dropping to 8 cores from 10 (or 12 Ryzen). So the only thing they could hope to gain was to equal or surpass Ryzen in gaming performance. Yet, despite a nice IPC gain, they managed to bork the gaming performance so that it was no better than CL, (edit: with a few exceptions that showed a nice gain, like Flight Simulator).
I suspect they will be able to sell a lot of these low end chips but it won't be an improvement to their ASP. The low end chips seem to have the same MSRP as the previous series. In an attempt to increase ASP they are pricing the top end chips, in my opinion, too high. But they'll probably sell enough anyway...