Intel Core i9-11900K produces an ominous Geekbench single-core result that takes the i9-10900K by +32% and leaves the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5950X out of sight

[blkspade]

These amd chips cost a lot more than the 10900k and potentially the 11900k. I don't see why people say "amd better" but yet pay 2x for a 5950x.

The 5950X is literally 2 5800Xs inside the same power envelope. On a platform that could theoretically give you the option of running it as 2 8c/16t VMs  with their own dedicated GPUs, for less power still than 2 physical boxes. Its an entry level HEDT CPU on the consumer platform, that still sells for less (MSRP) than the 1st 16 core threadripper did. There are greater computing aspirations than getting the highest FPS in the latest COD game.

[Kriszhao]

The competition is the 5900 not 5950 your price point is moot as Intel literally has nothing that can compete with the 5950.

[Damien]

Intel themselves (Intel's PR department) just the other week stated Rocket Lake saw a 19% IPC improvement over Comet lake clock for clock. Yet here we have an 11900k beating a 10900k, by 32% (both running at the same clockspeed)....??  Hmmmm.  I dunno.

[Phaedo Lans]

Um...  Yeah kind of.   How many i9's are they gonna make that barely compete?   Can we even buy this concept art, or is it just more Intel click bait?   The whole reason for swapping is the waaaaaay better price model and AMD's multitasking capability.   If you're using your machine for more than gaming, AMD is a fantastic choice right now with lots of options.  Intel is playing catch-up.   Single core beyond 4.5GHz is just a perk for gamers these days.   I went from intel to AMD because intel absolutely fails at multitasking hard core.   Running a 3950x, and it smokes everything Intel has out at the moment without overclocking. I'm just saying, another i9 that wins with single core is old news.   Intel has always had good track record on that.   

[JohnR]

On "old" Asus B450-E Ryzen 9 5900x scores 1714 single core 14 120 multicore. i9 11 900k bet everything to 1 core boost speed. Intel 8 cores 16 threads for price of Ryzen 9 5900x seems meh to me.

[mrclippy]

At this point why bother going to 10 or 7nm? They can just keep making new architectures and backport it to 14nm, while refining 14nm EVEN MORE so we can get 6 Ghz (chiller not included).

[Pro]

It would be better for intel:
a) finally obtain the manufacturing edge that has purposefully surrendered to competitors
b) stop pretending it meets with difficulties to produce smaller nodes
c) stop pretending the architecture is all that there is
d) stop using cheap tricks to claim it's somehow competitive with the old 14nm or even 10 nm node.

What's next a single core geekbench score at 6ghz?🤣

[Nathaniel R Stickley]

If the rumors about AMD releasing the Zen 3+ based Warhol CPU later this year are true (potentially along with the AM5 socket and DDR5), then Intel is going to need a significant speedup like this to remain competitive.

[deksman2]

so many AMD shills, insufferable.

@deksman2
@PC gamer

what are you guys smoking? how does single core performance no longer matter? Even outside of gaming, single core determines how fast you open up / process work applications. Multi core performance is nice when you multi-task with lots of different apps or stream or render, but I'll take the single core performance superiority anyday.

Who's the shill here exactly?
I pointed out multiple things wrong with Intel hw (over twice the power consumption needed to barely edge out AMD by meager 12% in single core mainly due to higher clocks - not because of IPC gains).

As for single core mattering... please. That argument stopped being relevant a long time ago because we live in a day and age of multi-core software.
I'm not saying single core performance doesn't matter whatsoever, but I AM saying that Intel is essentially pushing GhZ for minor gains at the expense of efficiency.

These kinds of 'advantages' are pitiful.

I look at the entire package, and efficiency also matters to me because I do gaming, content creation and productivity.

For all of those things combined, AMD hw is simply BETTER because of the superior manufacturing process, superior efficiency, and superior multi-threaded performance (which I use far more).

I'm not going to quibble over a few % in games.
That's just a sad waste of time.

[Meee]

Y'all nitpick much? Just buy yer CPU & enjoy it. Seriously, this is unprecedented levels of hair-splitting & it brings out the worst in y'all.

As for the nm debate, can you see where this is going? If Intel or AMD released a 0nm CPU y'all would buy it, I swear.

For shame, for shame. :D