Intel Core i9-11900K processor breaks 1900 point barrier - Updated: Photos of Packaging
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9-11900K processor breaks 1900 point barrier - Updated: Photos of Packaging on our message forum
Webhiker
Who said anything about gaming? How am I being hardheaded? For the things I use my PC for there is nothing better than a 5900X. Period.
Richard Nutman
This seems to amplify my view, that they should have used the thermal headroom of the 6 core and 8 core chips to run even faster, rather than sticking the best chips in the 12/16 core parts.
cucaulay malkin
amd always binned them that way.
they pretty much had to.
if they didn't bin 3900x higher than 3700x there would be 0 difference between them in gaming.
Nictron
This is a valid statement if you have a clean install with no background applications at all. Very few people run such clean installs. I bought a 5900x for that reason and a bit of a future-proofing.
schmidtbag
Get real here. This CPU isn't a 60FPS bottleneck. Remove the actual bottleneck (the GPU) and this CPU will play games waaaay beyond 100FPS. You certainly will not notice a 10% difference there.
As much as it may be stupid to get a 5950X for gaming purposes, getting an 11900K isn't any less stupid. It's probably going to cost about the same, will have worse multithreaded performance, and higher power consumption. All that just so you can squeeze in a few extra FPS that you won't notice, as though that's actually going to make you a better gamer (which it won't).
This chase for highest FPS is the most annoyingly petty thing about being a PC enthusiast, especially when you're comparing one unnecessary product to another. You don't need an 11900K to outperform a 5950X in games. An 11600K will get the job done, but will cost less and is less power-hungry. If all you care about is games, both the 5950X and 11900K are stupid choices.
mackintosh
That is exactly the point I made in my original reply. I said this CPU's only raison d'être was to brute force its way to the top of benchmarks for Intel marketing purposes and bragging rights. Now if some people are willing to pay extra just for that - that's their problem. The existence of these single-purpose halo products has been bemoaned by tech journalists for years.
Andy Watson
Forgetting the programs that run in Windows 10, what is better for the O/S? We know Windows 10 can do scheduling etc but how does a fast Intel cpu on one thread compare to a slower AMD multithread cpu just on how the operating system feels as you use it before doing dedicated workloads?
I'd rather have a speedy cpu that just flew Windows tasks ... that is a good proportion of my day afterall.
Any thoughts?
cucaulay malkin
any modern cpu will feel the same pretty much
BReal85
fast - maybe
well-priced - nope
available - nope
So it will bury nothing. How would it bury the 5000 series anyway with 2 less cores than its predecessor? LOL
Not really as 5600X will be much cheaper and not too far away from the 11900K in CPU power while having -2 cores. + You have to buy Z motherboard for Intel to be able to use RAM over 2666 MHz. So overall, the Intel system will definitely be more expensive, if you want an apples to apples comparison in performance.
Undying
Dont forget the intel 11600k could be the real winner. It should be more or less fast as 11900k and cheap as 5600x. It all end up how much boards will cost.
cucaulay malkin
oh boy it better not be another 350 six core I saw 10900k going for that much on sales
this needs to be 275 tops cause there are 8 cores selling for 300
spoken like a true unbiased
olymind1
The new intel lineup will use 3200 MHz RAM speed as default in all chipsets (though no OC in non Z), so probably and hopefully cheaper-ish H570 boards will be available too for a i5-11400.
I like AMD and their innovations, but i hope for competition, because i really dont like them for asking 355 € for a 6c/12z cpu. I planned to replace my Ryzen 5 2600 with a 200 € 6c/12z Zen3 but i don't see that happening anytime soon, if the performance and price is right, might as well replace the whole platform, if not, then i'll wait longer.
Undying
But it will be. Now that i9 is an eight core just like i7 an i5 just just another six core and yes 350$ most likely.
cucaulay malkin
there's always F version selling cheaper,and lower locked skus
we'll see, 10700KF is selling for 300eur atm and dropping
it's gonna be an alternative
Imglidinhere
Yikes, someone's a little salty aren't they? :P
You've got AMD Derangement Syndrome. Got used to seeing AMD as the trash/budget option and now can't possibly fathom them being on top.
TLD LARS
Other Performance leaks stated the 11900K to be slower in multicore then the 10900k, so maybe there has been some improvements or they could be running at overclocked speeds in this leak.
Personally I would buy a 3900X if i needed the multicore performance, I can swap out my 1700 without changing anything else and get the same multicore performance as a future 11900K.
mackintosh
Huh? The 11900K will trash both the 5950X and the 5900X in current gaming applications and that is all I am referring to in that post. For the record, I own a 5900X, but I'm not subservient to any manufacturer. Whoever delivers the performance I want at the time I want gets my money. Simple.
kanenas
The 11900K will trash both the 5950X and the 5900X.How? Here it can not exceed 10900k.
tailspin
If I was to put a hotplate on the IHS of the 11900k, how many medium-rare steak could I cook whilst playing CoD ? 😉 Maybe this should be a new benchmark 9900K - 1 medium rare steak, 11900k 5 medium-rare steaks!
Dragam1337
Convenient how only the most multithreaded titles are used in the comparison.
Titles limited by single thread performance (which the majority still are) will heavily favor the 11900k.
