Quote from: Will on February 25, 2021, 14:15:03
125+ Watts? No thank you.

I think that would be closer to 250W... because Intel clocks their CPU's much too high for the node they're on... so they gain relatively small boosts for large power draw.

In comparison, this Intel cpu also has 13% higher boost clocks on single core...
So, its more like 13% increase in clocks (compared to AMD Zen3) for a minor increase in performance and MASSIVE uptake in power draw.

Guys, if intel would not sponsor most of these reviews in most of these tech sites, there would be no tech sites to go to.
You have to understand, these sort websites are not really news or reviews sites, these are all just shopping catalogs presented as independent news portals. Most if not all articles here nothing more than a few page long paid ads.
It's the way industry been working for at least the last decade, there nothing to be upset about, it's completely normal.

Notebookcheck do yourself a favor and stick to reviewing notebooks. Your misleading title and poor presentation of one product vs another is hard tell that you're getting paid to push intel. Your review is a mediocre fake-amazon review at best.

125+ Watts? No thank you.

It is a real shame that we get such poor quality journalism these days, whatever happened to balanced and objective articles and sensible headlines? It isn't just this site but so many these days seem to churn out a constant stream of pro Intel headlines and articles time after time, if we all only or even mainly buy Intel even during their 'bad' times then there is no or reduced competition which is bad for consumers everywhere (and progress). For a little bit of personal historical reference my last CPU was an Intel 6700k and my current CPU is an AMD 5600X, so I am not an AMD evangelist by any stretch!

At the moment for the high end I wouldn't generally lean towards an Intel chip although it is good to see they can remain competitive in single core and gaming. They also have some fantastic budget options out there which a few years ago was what AMD was mainly offering (where the price to performance was their only way of competing). However any multicore workloads now or desktops that need lower power consumption then AMD is the clear winner. Laptop wise AMD seem to be struggling to get their 5000 series chips out so if I had a choice I'd go 5000 if I don't I'd rather an Intel 11 gen than the older Ryzens.

AVX512. Nothing I know even uses it.

Quote from: Ssaa on February 24, 2021, 12:29:49
Maybe it could be seen as an unfair comparison, but at least it's an interesting and mandatory one, as both chips have 8C/16T. The results show how the intel still has a lot to say in terms of raw performance, this is undeniable. Nevertheless, raw perf is meaningful only when factored over power consumption, and here is where the 14 nm process is going to expose its flanks.

I'm not really seeing much raw performance here.
For the most part, Intel boosts to 5.3 GhZ on single core, whereas AMD boosts to 4.7GhZ on single core.

Core for core, Intel needs 13% higher clocks to give itself an edge it does in single core benchmark while seemingly requiring A LOT more power.

To top it off, geekbench is not necessarily indicative of real world performance because it supports AVX512... something that AMD doesn't have... so this and other caveats are something to keep in mind.

This is why we need independent testing... plus, the pricing of this 8c/16th part puts it in the same price category as 5900x (which has 50% higher multi-threaded performance).

Quote from: Padmakara on February 24, 2021, 12:05:03
I think this article doesn't do justice.
The 11900k should be compared to the 5900x , they are at the same price point, also the x900 name. So you'll see Intel is about 5-10% faster in st and AMD is 25-30% faster in multi thread.
You can't compare Mercedes S class with BMW 5 class, it should be compared with 7th class.
11600 with 5600, 11700 with 5800 and 11900 with 5900. AMD 5950 is in a different class, like the Maybach or Rolls Royce of cpus multitasking.
Thr article writers of Notebook check should do justice and show professionalism when comparing 2 things.

My mistake, 5900x on geekbench 5 has a score around 15-16000 in multi thread, so that it makes it around 50% faster than 11900k.
To the one below who said it is an interesting conparison, maybe it is, but a professional should compare 2 or more things at the Same Price  point, otherwise is useless and is misleading the reader and the customer

Maybe it could be seen as an unfair comparison, but at least it's an interesting and mandatory one, as both chips have 8C/16T. The results show how the intel still has a lot to say in terms of raw performance, this is undeniable. Nevertheless, raw perf is meaningful only when factored over power consumption, and here is where the 14 nm process is going to expose its flanks.

+1 VERY WELL SAID.
Very little professionalism trying to fool readers and throwing stones at AMD with uneven benchmarks.
In short, INTEL MARKETING is very powerful and they have much more money than AMD that can only compete by making better quality / price products and that is currently the case.

I think this article doesn't do justice.
The 11900k should be compared to the 5900x , they are at the same price point, also the x900 name. So you'll see Intel is about 5-10% faster in st and AMD is 25-30% faster in multi thread.
You can't compare Mercedes S class with BMW 5 class, it should be compared with 7th class.
11600 with 5600, 11700 with 5800 and 11900 with 5900. AMD 5950 is in a different class, like the Maybach or Rolls Royce of cpus multitasking.
Thr article writers of Notebook check should do justice and show professionalism when comparing 2 things.