hey, where is the i3 11100 ? that naming is very sexy to me, so it deserve for upgrade my HTPC rig... LOL ! 😀:D

RavenMaster:

No point in these processors even existing. Intel has nothing of value until they release Alder Lake 10nm with PCIE 5.0 and DDR5 RAM support.

It was quite embarrassing they didn't get the PCIe 4.0 working with the 10k series. They desperately need the 11k series to fix that, especially since the mobo manufacturers were already ready to sell PCIe 4.0 mobos for Intel systems, at least some of them. Nobody knows when Alder Lake might appear, so Intel needs something to sell until then. AMD is already selling a second gen with PCIe 4.0 and the new consoles have it too, with much fanfare, which isn't good for Intel reputation wise. Of course they also want the gaming crown back asap since it was Intel's sole redoubt ever since Ryzen, outside of mobile or niche applications, at least.

They exist because Intel has to release something as a response to Zen 3. They can't get into the situation they were in with Northwood and Prescott when K8 was smacking them around in all mainstream workloads. Getting the "gaming crown" back is important from a word-of-mouth/marketing standpoint. Especially nowadays. RL will be enough for that, and to tie them over until Alder lake is out. Also, what Kaarme just said.

Are these on 10 nm? If not why would you bother when the competition has equally fast 16 cores for probably similar prices and a far lower power consumption? 250 W on a mainstream CPU isn't really acceptable.

Mean't to be 10nm but they back ported it to 14nm 🙁

Kosmoz:

So let's see, Intel RKL: - still 14nm(++++++++++++++) - still vulnerabilities - still high TDP, with horrible efficiency - sill half the cores and threads as AMD 8/16 vs 16/32, so **** MT performance (2 less from previous Intel generation LOL) - LGA1200 (it's last iteration, next one will be on LGA1700), so zero future upgrades possible Yeah, great product for blind Intel fangirls that like to upgrade every year. This time to match Zen3 in gaming. Smoke Zen3 in gaming? Nah, dream on, even if it manages +5 fps (big IF), that's not smoking, unless you are smoking something, for thinking that. Rofl.

I thought Intel’s 14nm process was using a similar gate height/size to TSMC’s 7nm. The nanometer count branding is really only marketing at this point. Efficiency is highly correlated to clock speed: for instance if you look at the Xeon Scalable line, none of them touch 250 watts below 56 cores, because they run at half the frequency of consumer chips. The Pentium 4 ought to have taught consumers that clock speeds mean very little. Spectre and Meltdown are not an issue for end users unless you’re running untrusted executables with administrative privileges, at which point you are already putting your system at risk whether or not those two vulnerabilities are present. These are much more of an issue for cloud services and hosting providers, end users really shouldn’t worry. I wonder, do any users of Intel “i series” processors really need more than 8 cores? How many people who buy Threadripper processors, as well, regularly use their computers for tasks that scale past 8 cores? It seems like many consumers are being marketed and sold more than they really need. This is unfortunate for consumers.

karma777police:

Will smoke Zen 3 in gaming.

Press X to doubt. (Especially coming from a fanboy)

BLEH!:

Are these on 10 nm?

lol no.

winning.exe:

I thought Intel’s 14nm process was using a similar gate height/size to TSMC’s 7nm.

Intels 10nm is similar to TSMCs 7nm

Well I know my account name says AMDMan2016, thats because years ago all i could afford was AMD based systems for many years, after coming across some funds in late 2017, i decided it was time to go back to Intel, and Nvidia video card, and enjoy that for quite a few years. Well my Pre Built Intel Asus I7 7700 started having overheating issues after i upgraded the video card, attempted to have local shop switch it to new case, but when Input/Output shield didn't work with new case for that older Intel board, i decided i may as well upgrade to Intel 10Th Gen I7 10700 to go along with my Geforce 1660 Super, and the new case Thermaltake V200. As for upgrading to Rocket Lake it depends if my Gigabyte B460M-DS3H motherboard supports it in the future, and if i can then afford it very happy with the performance though P.S. Christmas gonna try to afford memory improvement as well for system, used the old ram that i had the Asus, DDR 4 2400, 16gb of ram, so think will grab DDR 4 2666 sticks, and have slightly faster ram to use with this system. Future CPU cooler upgrade from Stock CPU Cooler shop used planned as well, unknown when gonna get that done, maybe birthday possibly, just have to hopefully have a day in RL that is quiet, and time to get it done for first time ever doing myself.

ViperAnaf:

yep... but the amd fanboys will cry about TDP, nano meter, 7zip performance etc...

Why do clowns like you even exist......

winning.exe:

I thought Intel’s 14nm process was using a similar gate height/size to TSMC’s 7nm. The nanometer count branding is really only marketing at this point. Efficiency is highly correlated to clock speed: for instance if you look at the Xeon Scalable line, none of them touch 250 watts below 56 cores, because they run at half the frequency of consumer chips. The Pentium 4 ought to have taught consumers that clock speeds mean very little. Spectre and Meltdown are not an issue for end users unless you’re running untrusted executables with administrative privileges, at which point you are already putting your system at risk whether or not those two vulnerabilities are present. These are much more of an issue for cloud services and hosting providers, end users really shouldn’t worry. I wonder, do any users of Intel “i series” processors really need more than 8 cores? How many people who buy Threadripper processors, as well, regularly use their computers for tasks that scale past 8 cores? It seems like many consumers are being marketed and sold more than they really need. This is unfortunate for consumers.

Educate yourself more and read what Kosmoz has said. We need to move forward and not stay stagnant like what intel has done for the past 10 years - of no innovation and +5% years of pathetic "improvements". They should've made another Sandybridge like upgrade, but instead they chose not to - because of people like you and that line of thinking. XD Also, don't be like karma777police it's bad for your health XD

that 5GHZ single core Intel, I want my machine on it.

even if it does beat Zen 3 by a fair margin Zen 3 still has the core battle up it's sleeve which is how Zen 1 started the Zen revolution.

Is the ISH nonstick without teflon?

That 250W looks nice tho ... i will stick to 45W 5600X . Sorry

Kosmoz:

1. NO, Intel 14nm is not = TSMC 7nm. Link > https://www.techpowerup.com/272489/intel-14-nm-node-compared-to-tsmcs-7-nm-node-using-scanning-electron-microscope 2. Those are still vulnerabilities. Also Intel has/had dozens more. Are all fixed? Don't care, still has enough to be a minus compared to AMD. 3. With that way of thinking you would have been the perfect Intel customer for another 7 more years of 4c/8t and 5% improvements each new generation. Hardware needs to push software and vice-versa. Does not matte that 8 cores are enough now, if they push harder, 8 cores won't be enough in X number of years, where X depends on how hard the push is... but you're advocating for the opposite.

The conclusion TechPowerup reached was “While these are not much different, TSMC's node is still much denser compared to Intel's.” Much denser implies more heat in a smaller area: not very often something you want. If you see the vulnerabilities as a threat, it’s your own prerogative. The real world threat is zero. I’ve never been a customer of Intel consumer grade processors, as they generally use the lowest end scavenged silicon, and it is generally acknowledged that the best areas on the wafer are used for large Xeon dies rather than I series parts (the same goes for AMD, crippling threadripper with fewer memory channels, Epyc is lower power consumption as well. You get what you pay for). While I use Xeon processors for HPC tasks, it’s very easy to see that most people buying processors are not building multi-processor servers for HPC, or any compute for that matter. Four cores is more than enough for day to day, low impact tasks like web browsing, gaming, and light content creation.

That's what comes to my mind reading those specs.

Kosmoz:

WRONG, you're clueless or just plain BS. I opt for BS. I went from 4c/4t to 6c/12t last year and the day to day operation and those tasks which you seem to think are not affected (or don't matter) were improved by a mile and I also know 8c/16t in this same scenario makes the system even more faster/responsive than 6c/12t. You're stuck in the past buddy, you need a thinking upgrade ASAP. Stop promoting old **** and support progress (4 cores in 2020/21, do you even believe yourself?). Like I said before better hardware pushes better software and vice-versa, but the hardware is more of a driving factor, so it's more important that the hardware spearheads the advance. P.S. Also did you just include gaming in the low impact tasks group? Rolf. Yeah, BS.

4 cores and 4 threads suggests a very low end processor: Intel hyper-threads everything but the bottom of the bin SKUs. It makes sense that moving from a budget part to a high end part with hyper threading would increase speed 😉 Of course since you neglected to list part number, cache size, architecture, etc. your “comparison” could be between a 5 watt quad core Cherry Trail Atom and an 8700K. It’s nice that you think you need more than four cores, and I’m sure Intel and AMD love the huge profits they reap from consumers buying much more powerful processors than they need, but web browsing and other low impact tasks are much more heavily influenced by disk read and write speeds, memory capacity, etc. than “more cores.” I see 1-4% CPU usage with a huge number (20+) of browser windows open, and the same amount of CPU usage running games on my 4K screen (not a high refresh rate screen, 60Hz). Vulkan games often scale up to 16 cores of low to moderate usage on my system, but go no further than that. Faster hardware does not inherently promote “advanced software.” More often than not, it promotes laziness and inefficiency. What promotes better software is very often gimmick instructions and features like AVX-512, RTX, PhysX, etc. These each have provided massive, noticeable improvements in their respective fields, and are feature set changes rather than mere speed increases.