[HN Gopher] Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Cor...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K,
Core i5-11600K
Author : pantalaimon
Score : 33 points
Date : 2021-03-30 16:04 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anandtech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anandtech.com)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| How on earth does Intel think 9 skus that are all 6 cores / 12
| threads over a difference of $100 makes any sense? 9 products
| from $157 to $262 that are all not really that different.
|
| And 5 different products all called 11700 and 5 different
| products called 11900 for a total of 10 products with 8c / 16t
| spanning from $298 to $539?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The main market for Intel is not the consumer, it's the HP's
| and Dell's of the world.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Even still those are selling to consumers. How do you expect
| an HP or a Dell to figure out how to sell a user on an
| i5-11500 instead of the slower & more expensive i5-11600T?
|
| Why isn't the i5 lineup just 11600 = the 125w part, 11500 =
| 65w part, and 11400 = 35w part? Is there _really_ enough gap
| in product stacks to justify a different 11400T vs. 11500T at
| a $10 difference?
| leetcrew wrote:
| it doesn't really make sense for dell to offer a choice
| between T and non-T for the same model. the only reason to
| use a T part is to stay under a power/TDP budget.
| andrewf wrote:
| Is it possible that this proliferation of SKUs is how Intel
| gives each of HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, etc exactly what they
| are asking for? (I presume, if you buy enough Intel CPUs,
| you have purchasing managers who are constantly chatting
| back and forth with sales engineer types at Intel)
| vbezhenar wrote:
| It's about silicone lottery. They could ignore best chips
| and sell them along bad chips at the same price. Or they
| could market best chips as another product with a higher
| price. And that's the whole spectrum.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Sure, but we're talking a $10, or ~5%, difference. Either
| these bin identically (since Intel is charging an
| ~identical amount for them), or one of these will be
| permanently out of stock making it functionally not exist
| in the stack anyway. The actual profit difference here
| will be even less as simply having that extra sku costs
| overhead. So what practically changes if the 11500T just
| didn't exist?
|
| i7-11700T vs. i7-11900T would be silicon lottery in play,
| that's $323 vs. $439 for a +100mhz clock bump. Although
| then there's the question of "what is this 35w desktop
| CPU market that will pay for a $439 CPU?"
| pantalaimon wrote:
| What boggles my mind are the inconsitencies. E.g. a i9 10900F
| is clocked lower than a i9 10850K
|
| Wouldn't you think higher number = faster, especially when core
| count is the same?
| josalhor wrote:
| I have been incredibly skeptical of frequency numbers. Case
| in point, the AMD FX-9590 had a 4.7 GHz base an 5.0 GHz boost
| back in 2013 [0]; and the Ryzen 9 5950x has a 3.4 GHz base an
| 4.9 GHz boost [1].
|
| To me, the frequency has become a "blob". It means nothing.
| If anything, I see more frequency and I think more power draw
| and less stability.
|
| Real performance is a function of IPC and frequency and that
| is the only thing that really matters.
|
| [0]: https://www.amd.com/es/products/cpu/fx-9590
|
| [1]: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x
| leetcrew wrote:
| none of those numbers fully describe the performance of a
| CPU, but idk why you would be "skeptical" of frequency
| numbers in particular. IPC itself is somewhat arbitrary. in
| the real world, IPC constantly varies with the mix of
| instructions, cache-friendliness of the program/data,
| memory performance, etc.
| josalhor wrote:
| > none of those numbers fully describe the performance of
| a CPU, but idk why you would be "skeptical" of frequency
| numbers in particular
|
| Because I have seen quite a few consumers get guided too
| much by the "more frequency, more better" motto.
|
| Moreover, it doesn't stop there. I have seen papers where
| the only thing cited is the frequency of the processors,
| and no other reference to the
| manufacturer/architecture/version of the processors used.
|
| > IPC itself is somewhat arbitrary. in the real world,
| IPC constantly varies with the mix of instructions,
| cache-friendliness of the program/data, memory
| performance, etc.
|
| Absolutely, I would also be skeptical of an "IPC" metric.
| Performance is the only thing that counts.
| tenacious_tuna wrote:
| > To me, the frequency has become a "blob". It means
| nothing.
|
| That seems reasonable across microarch versions, but
| presumably is totally reasonable within a product-release-
| cycle? i.e. to compare the FX-9590 to an FX-8350 based off
| clock speed. If it's the same core count and microarch,
| presumably clock is about the only difference, aside from
| other features like PCIE lanes, cache, etc.
| josalhor wrote:
| > That seems reasonable across microarch versions, but
| presumably is totally reasonable within a product-
| release-cycle
|
| Sure, but the performance doesn't scale linearly with the
| frequency. So how can we account for that? Also, the i9
| 10900F and i9-10850K have the same turbo. How long can
| they sustain in for? On how many cores? What frequency is
| left afterward? This gets even weirder with more recent
| technologies that push the frequency higher depending on
| power delivery stability and thermal constraints.
|
| I agree; the frequency is indicative of performance
| within a product lifecycle. But I find it too meaningless
| to give an approximate delta on the performance. And this
| assumes the process you are running is not too much
| memory bottlenecked or I/O bound and this delta in
| performance can be measured. (And the setup can sustain
| higher thermals).
|
| While not perfect, I prefer to look up benchmarks that
| resemble my workload and call it a day. Processors are
| too complicated for me to try to compare with simple
| numbers.
| belval wrote:
| This is not really new, it's because of the letter at the end
| of the product name. Traditionally Ks are power hungry
| overclockable chips while F are more energy-conscious.
|
| EDIT: Never mind I just confirmed your point. T are the
| energy-conscious ones, not sure what F are. This is all very
| confusing.
| leetcrew wrote:
| F means it lacks an IGP. in a certain sense you were right;
| the F variant sacrifices frequency for lower TDP vs a K
| variant. but there are also KF parts that are unlocked and
| also lack an IGP. and of course there's a different system
| entirely for laptop parts.
| AmVess wrote:
| Decent IPC increase, but really good liquid cooling is required
| in order to get it. Prebuilts like Dell will likely use tiny
| coolers that will limit the performance of these parts.
|
| Apple's M1 illustrates how far behind Intel is in everything, and
| AMD's upcoming Zen 4 is supposed to have a staggering 20%
| increase in IPC.
|
| It is a good thing Intel has massive market inertia, because the
| next few years are going to be rough for them from a tech
| standpoint.
| lmedinas wrote:
| Actually to me this generation seems like its even a regression
| compared to the previous due to the reduction of cores and
| increase of Power consumption.
|
| Does look good for Intel :/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-30 23:02 UTC)