Intel has shared a PCMark 10 storage performance benchmark result for the i9-11900K that shows the upcoming Rocket Lake-S chip ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X by +11%. Additionally, a new CPU-Z result for the Intel Core i9-11900K has helped bolster its reputation as a soon-to-be single-core performance champion.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-teases-i9-11900K-s-11-lead-over-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X-in-PCMark-10-benchmark-and-a-new-CPU-Z-run-confirms-the-Rocket-Lake-chip-s-position-as-a-single-core-sovereign.524198.0.html
This is all a conspiracy theory until evidence comes out.
Wow, that edited image is massively misleading. As is the angle of this article. The (claimed) 11% lead doesn't actually relate to CPU performance, but PCIe controller performance and storage performance. This article goes a long way towards making this seem like it's somehow a benchmark of CPU (core) performance, which it really isn't.
I don't think that for 1.1% people buy an Intel vs AMD
This Intel 11th Generation manufactured at 14nm ++++ vs AMD 7nm
This intel consumes a lot of energy and produces high temperatures.
Intel forces you to change the Board if you already have an INTEL.
This intel will not be compatible with anything that comes after.
In just 8 months an Intel compatible with DDR5 and Pci 5.0 comes out
And to top it off we still don't know the PRICE.
I have it very clear AMD vs INTEL
The title is misleading and this is nonsense article. The only purpose is to be opened.
Intel is know for meddling with benchmarks, when it comes to Intel i just don't trust benchmarks anymore.
It's all academic these days. If you are in the market for one of these beasts, you will buy the one you can actually get, at a decent price. And in that context, AMD sucks more than the Intel's power draw
First of all the title is misleading!
Intel has according to their own report a 11% faster PCIE storage performance compared to a 5950X.
This means also just 11% faster when compared to a 5600X.
I'm excited to see official benchmarks because Intels benchmarks are very questionable in the past years.
If Intel is pricing the i9 11900K in the range of $300-399 it could sell well, otherwise in my opinion a 10850K for 380€ makes more sense if you don't need PCIE Gen. 4.
For me personally it would be interesting to see how Intel's top of the line CPU compares to my current midrange Ryzen 7 5800X along with the Radeon RX 6900 XT.
If the price is right, I might get one just to benchmark it against my current system.
I'm always glad to see balanced copy being written WRT the various trade-offs of Intel and AMD's platforms, but I feel like that gets spoiled a bit when someone else pulls a massive bait-and-switch with the headline.
"storage performance benchmark" needed to be in the headline.
Quote from: Valantar on February 25, 2021, 13:42:42
This article goes a long way towards making this seem like it's somehow a benchmark of CPU (core) performance, which it really isn't.
Well the article also includes CPU-Z benchmark where Intel leads in single core. So it is safe to assume i9 - 11900K or i9-11900KF will be faster than any Ryzen 9 CPU in 99%+ games or may be 100% of the games.
Single core like it's 2007.
Intels forte, and reason to exist in the last 4 years, games, now load at least 6 threads. This thing is going to turn into a nuclear core.
But rest assured someone will use an industrial chiller on this so Intel can claim performance victory while using 300 watts.