asturur:

The amount of cache would go finally on par with ryzen.

They're at 32mb now ryzen is. Intel keeps playing the catch up game as of right now.

So basically Intel is moving to 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++ ? Let me get my 1600W PSU order in.....

So.... how exactly is this supposed to be substantially faster? I doubt that's 5.5GHz on all cores, and if it is, this thing is going to run HOT. Even if it were on 10nm, it would still be very hot. Games are slowly starting to use AVX more often, but I don't see AVX512 being used any time soon (especially since next-gen consoles don't have it) and that'll make the CPU run even hotter, if the frequencies are to be maintained. A larger cache is nice, but bigger isn't always better. The larger the cache, the slower it is to read/write. I predict in some cases, Intel might actually lose performance as a result of this.

wavetrex:

IPC increase is the result of more transistors. More execution units, more parallelization, more cache, wider data paths and so on. The entire thing gets "wider".

IPC is also affected through software, like scheduling and power governors. This is why Ryzen performed so poorly in Windows (at least at first), because the scheduler would hurt performance by not pairing up alike threads and by swapping threads between core clusters, which would force the cache to rewrite and move over the Infinity Fabric.

When stuck on the same node, more transistors mean more power used at the same clock, and obviously more heat generated.

All processors seem to have a "sweet spot" for clock speed efficiency. The higher you push the clocks, the less efficient they get. From what I can tell, more transistors uses less power than more Hz once you're past that "sweet spot". The reason Intel keeps pushing for things like AVX512 is because if utilized [properly], it offers a tremendous performance increase at a lower wattage.

Clock hype is all wrong , i dont get people hyped by it , like everyone forgot pentium / athlon era , similar situation starting to happen again , who cares for mhz? All we care is performance/$ or just performance if you want the best. I dont care if it runs 10ghz or 3 ghz ...

I love how Intel always leaks how good their future CPUs are going to be right after AMD announces their new CPUs... AMD should learn this useful trick from Intel, it would be handy when Nvidia released Ampere... Anyway, more important than still being stuck on the 14nm process, is to finally release a new arch with better IPC so they can compete against the new Ryzen CPUs in equal footing, more or less...

kapu:

Clock hype is all wrong , i dont get people hyped by it , like everyone forgot pentium / athlon era , similar situation starting to happen again , who cares for mhz? All we care is performance/$ or just performance if you want the best. I dont care if it runs 10ghz or 3 ghz ...

Well to be fair, that is what Intel is giving you - they are lowering their prices lately and cranking up Hz, so, performance/$ is getting better. For me personally, I prefer the cheapest and most efficient platform that will readily handle current games (which in this case refers to PS5 or XBSX) at 60FPS. Anything beyond that just dumps more heat in the room, makes fans louder, and increases the price tag for no gain. The tricky part is, we don't yet know what next-gen games demand, so I'm probably going to be sitting out these next-gen CPUs. A 3700X could be all we need. It's also possible a 5900X might not even be enough.

southamptonfc:

Hmm 5.5gz on 14nm. That would be 250W+ TDP then... Core i9 EE

EE as in Exceedingly Electric? 😉

Probably has Blast Processing. It worked for Sonic.

Taking bets on how long it will take until there's a security vulnerability mitigation needed.

I can see the Marketing strategy of Intel... "buy a I9 11XXX and get a free AIO 360mm of your choice" Come on man.... until when Intel will sell 14nm++++++++ CPUs?!?!?! Just crazy people to buy an Intel processor nowadays... completely crazy!

I'm down for a i9 Rocket, to replace my i7 Comet, when the time is right of course.:D Any why? Cause it's my hobby and it's my money.

If it's true that the top tier model will go back to 8 cores, it doesn't really matter.

Honestly, If I buy a new motherboard right now, it would be for new Ryzen. And I am Intel biased.

I am afraid that this article is based on pure speculation. No way Intel has a 5.5GHz chip in their labs and it would not try to ruin AMD's party with a "leak". And if they only have ES chips below 5GHz ... how can someone "know" that final CPUs will reach 5.5GHz? This said, Intel is late to the game, rocket lake comes in Q1 ... if it would be a blast they would have rushed production in the past months and we would have a lot of data "leaking". Rocket lake will have cores backported from 10nm cores not originally intended to be portable to older processes. From what I understand they had to make some cuts to the core to make it viable in 14nm (so potentially worse than the Tiger Lake generation cores ... considering when the new 14nm core should have started its implementation it could even be a derivative of an older 10nm core ... lets remember there are also the "forgotten" cores of Cannon Lake). So, in 6 months there will be something new from Intel for the desktop which could be better or not than what will be available in a few weeks from AMD. Basically we got a "guarantee" that for 6 months there won't be a new Intel king of desktop CPUs ... ... and in 6 months I would be seriously asking myself if I want to invest in the "last glory" of generation 4 (DDR4 and PCIE4) or wait a few months and go with the DDR5 (and maybe PCIE5) offerings from both camps. ((Personally I am updating the second PC from a glorious 3770 to a 5900x next month. Fun part, the 3770 works at the same 4.8GHz (some serious OC at the time).))

More FUD from Intel. Bring the chips to retail.

This is my Delidded 10900k on watercooling @ 5600mhz. Not that hard to get 5.4ghz o 5.5ghz on this plattform. So if the new Rocketlake cpu's are even more "refined" 5.5ghz is very doable 🙂

Running 5.5ghz "24/7"

My 10700k does 5.3ghz, currently running at 5ghz due to power supply /longevity of cpu.

NCC1701D:

Probably has Blast Processing. It worked for Sonic.

The sense of speed in sonic was mind blowing back then XD Clock speed meh to at this 4ghz is more then enough architecture is what need to be improved not clock speed clock speed just increase the heat and the tread of cpu using more and more wattage and getting hotter dont need to be made worse by clock be pushed, to. Amazing break threw to me would be 8/16 or more with amazing performance like ryzen and some these highend intel stuff, but with wattage range for like 50w or less, i dont see it happen though cause if and when that is possible if it isnt already which I think it is they will just push the wattage anyway

karma777police:

10900k will reach 5.3Ghz easy and it will run cooler than any Ryzen CPU. 5.5 on 8/16 is realistic plus will bring IPC improvement, in other words it will beat the crap out of Ryzen in gaming.

But cinebench 😛 But power consume in Cinebench gaming 😛 But noone play games in lower than 4k in 2020 😛 But 14nm+++++++

whatever we just need to keep AMD in check, heh, how the tables have turned... intel for the budget build! with the underdog Xe GPU for the best bang for buck combo!