SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the notsogood-things-come-to-those-who-wait? dept.
Intel's next-generation "Rocket Lake" CPUs will be some of Intel's last desktop models on a "14nm" node, and include "backported" Willow Cove cores (referred to as "Cypress Cove") from "10nm" Tiger Lake mobile CPUs, with improved instructions per clock. Notably, the lineup only goes up to 8 cores, instead of 10 cores for the previous Core i9. The review embargo ends on the launch date, March 30th, but some retailers have been selling the CPUs early. AnandTech obtained an 8-core i7-11700K and wrote a review of it. The results were not great.
Power consumption of the 125 W TDP chip peaked at 224.56 W when running an AVX2 workload, compared to 204.79 W for its i7-10700K "Comet Lake" predecessor and 141.45 W for AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X. The i7-11700K reached 291.68 W with an AVX-512 workload.
The i7-11700K not only failed to beat the 5800X in many benchmarks, but trailed the previous-gen i7-10700K in some cases. The major exception is performance in AVX-512 workloads. Gaming performance of the i7-11700K was particularly bad, in part due to an increase in L3 cache and core-to-core latency.
It's possible that there will be some improvements from a final microcode update before launch. There's also models like the Core i9-11900K, which have the same 8 cores but can clock up to 300 MHz higher.
Related: Linus Torvalds: Don't Hide Rust in Linux Kernel; Death to AVX-512
Former Intel Principal Engineer Blasts the Company
Gigabyte Confirms Intel Rocket Lake Desktop CPUs Will Launch in March
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday March 07 2021, @08:36AM (3 children)
the site i linked ran standard benchmarks and shows the opposite result. more importantly, does it make sense to you that the new and improved generation of a cpu is slower than the previous? does it make sense to you that a cpu with a smaller cache performs worse? yes, we know a larger cache increases latency slightly. and as is always the case, the speedup from the larger cache is expected to increase the overall performance.
anandtech results don't match all the others out there - google it. they also don't make any common sense. what's interesting is people look at this one result, an uncommon and illogical result, and fight tooth and nail that it's correct, instead of the obvious -they're either lying for some reason, which they've been known to do under the new management, or they ran a bad test - also something they've been known to do under the new management.
so take one of the rest of the tests - just from google - that shows the new cpu is faster. and examine That for the test methodology. find anything wrong? no? oh, so nothing wrong by your opinion in tests showing opposite results? then something's wrong with how you determine the validity of the test.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday March 08 2021, @02:30AM (1 child)
My cynical little voice wants to know if anandtech has an advertising contract with AMD.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08 2021, @03:15AM
That's from the Intel playbook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08 2021, @05:17PM
No... but can you tell we with a straight face that Pentium 4 was better than Pentium 3? And do you remember the scandal when some some Centrino CPUs were better than Pentium ones (and Intel subsequently gimped the Centrino ones to maintain market segmentation). Stuff happens.
Frankly, given how much Intel games benchmarks, plus all the other scandals (e.g. The security flaw... rowhammer? Whatever, the one they tried to snowball the world and Linus into saying "not a bug, and even if it is, AMD has it too.), I'd trust Anandtech over them. They also have more vested interest in bias news than Anandtech does. Plus, as mentioned by others, Anandtech is a old and vaunted name in tech journalism and testing.