Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, and Core i5-11600K
by Dr. Ian Cutress on March 30, 2021 10:03 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- LGA1200
- 11th Gen
- Rocket Lake
- Z590
- B560
- Core i9-11900K
Conclusion
For anyone buying a new system today, the market is a little bleak. Anyone wanting a new GPU has to actively pay attention to stock levels, or drive to a local store for when a delivery arrives. The casual buyers then either look to pre-built systems (which are also flying off the shelves), or just hang on to what they have for another year.
But there is another way. I find that users fall in to two camps.
The first camp is the ‘upgrade everything at once’ attitude. These users sell their old systems and buy, mostly, all anew. Depending on budget and savings, this is probably a good/average system, and it means you get a good run of what’s available at that time. It’s a multi-year upgrade cycle where you might get something good for that generation, and hopefully everything is balanced.
The other camp is the ‘upgrade one piece at a time’. This means that if it’s time to upgrade a storage drive, or a memory kit, or a GPU, or a CPU, you get the best you can afford at that time. So you might end up with an older CPU but a top end GPU, good storage, good power supply, and then next time around, it’s all about CPU and motherboard upgrades. This attitude has the potential for more bottlenecks, but it means you often get the best of a generation, and each piece holds its resale value more.
In a time where we have limited GPUs available, I can very much see users going all out on the CPU/memory side of the equation, perhaps spending a bit extra on the CPU, while they wait for the graphics market to come back into play. After all, who really wants to pay $1300 for an RTX 3070 right now?
Performance and Analysis
In our Core i7-11700K review, our conclusions there are very much broadly applicable here. Intel’s Rocket Lake as a backported processor design has worked, but has critical issues with efficiency and peak power draw. Compared to the previous generation, clock-for-clock performance gains for math workloads are 16-22% or 6-18% for other workloads, however the loss of two cores really does restrict how much of a halo product it can be in light of what AMD is offering.
Rocket Lake makes good in offering PCIe 4.0, and enabling new features like Gear ratios for the memory controller, as well as pushing for more support for 2.5 gigabit Ethernet, however it becomes a tough sell. At the time we reviewed the Core i7-11700K, we didn’t know the pricing, and it was looking like AMD’s stock levels were pretty bad, subsequently making Intel the default choice. Since then, Intel's pricing hasn't turned out too bad for its performance compared to AMD (except for the Core i9), however AMD’s stock is a lot more bountiful.
For anyone looking at the financials for Intel, the new processor is 25% bigger than before, but not being sold for as big a margin as you might expect. In some discussions in the industry, it looks like retailers are getting roughly 20%/80% stock for Core i9 to Core i7, indicating that Intel is going to be very focused on that Core i7 market around $400-$450. In that space, AMD and Intel both have well-performing products, however AMD gets an overall small lead and is much more efficient.
However, with the GPU market being so terrible, users could jump an extra $100 and get 50% more AMD cores. When AMD is in stock, Intel’s Rocket Lake is more about the platform than the processor. If I said that that the Rocket Lake LGA1200 platform had no upgrade potential, for users buying in today, an obvious response might be that neither does AM4, and you’d be correct. However, for any user buying a Core i7-11700K on an LGA1200 today, compared to a Ryzen 7 5800X customer on AM4, the latter still has the opportunity to go to 16 cores if needed. Rocket Lake comes across with a lot of dead-ends in that regard, especially as the next generation is meant to be on a new socket, and with supposedly new memory.
Rocket Lake: Failed Experiment, or Good Attempt?
For Intel, Rocket Lake is a dual purpose design. On the one hand, it provides Intel with something to put into its desktop processor roadmap while the manufacturing side of the business is still getting sorted. On the other hand it gives Intel a good marker in the sand for what it means to backport a processor.
Rocket Lake, in the context of backporting, has been a ‘good attempt’ – good enough to at least launch into the market. It does offer performance gains in several key areas, and does bring AVX-512 to the consumer market, albeit at the expense of power. However in a lot of use cases that people are enabling today, which aren’t AVX-512 enabled, there’s more performance to be had with older processors, or the competition. Rocket Lake also gets you PCIe 4.0, however users might feel that is a small add-in when AMD has PCIe 4.0, lower power, and better general performance for the same price.
Intel’s future is going to be full of processor cores built for multiple process nodes. What makes Rocket Lake different is that when the core was designed for 10nm, it was solely designed for 10nm, and no thought was ever given to a 14nm version. The results in this review show that this sort of backporting doesn’t really work, not to the same level of die size, performance, and profit margin needed to move forward. It was a laudable experiment, but in the future, Intel will need to co-design with multiple process nodes in mind.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
279 Comments
View All Comments
Makste - Tuesday, April 6, 2021 - link
I again have to agree with you on this. Especially with the cooler scenario, it is not easy to spot the detail, but you have managed to bring it to the surface. Rocket Lake is not a good upgrade option now that I look at it.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
(Sorry I messed up and forgot quotation marks in the previous post. 1st, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs are quotes from the article.)you wrote:
‘Rocket Lake on 14nm: The Best of a Bad Situation’
I fixed it:
Rocket Lake on 14nm: Intel's Obsolete Node Produces Inferior CPU'
‘Intel is promoting that the new Cypress Cove core offers ‘up to a +19%’ instruction per clock (IPC) generational improvement over the cores used in Comet Lake, which are higher frequency variants of Skylake from 2015.’
What is the performance per watt? What is the performance per decibel? How do those compare with AMD? Performance includes performance per watt and per decibel, whether Intel likes that or not.
‘Designing a mass-production silicon layout requires balancing overall die size with expected yields, expected retail costs, required profit margins, and final product performance. Intel could easily make a 20+ core processor with these Cypress Cove cores, however the die size would be too large to be economical, and perhaps the power consumption when all the cores are loaded would necessitate a severe reduction in frequency to keep the power under control. To that end, Intel finalised its design on eight cores.’
Translation: Intel wanted to maximize margin by feeding us the ‘overclocked few cores’ design paradigm, the same thing AMD did with Radeon VII. It’s a cynical strategy when one has an inferior design. Just like Radeon VII, these run hot, loud, and underperform. AMD banked on enough people irrationally wanting to buy from ‘team red’ to sell those, while its real focus was on peddling Polaris forever™ + consoles in the GPU space. Plus, AMD sells to miners with designs like that one.
‘Intel has stated that in the future it will have cores designed for multiple process nodes at the same time, and so given Rocket Lake’s efficiency at the high frequencies, doesn’t this mean the experiment has failed? I say no, because it teaches Intel a lot in how it designs its silicon’
This is bad spin. This is not an experimental project. This is product being massed produced to be sold to consumers.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
One thing many are missing, with all the debate about AVX-512, is the AVX-2 performance per watt/decibel problem:'The rated TDP is 125 W, although we saw 160 W during a regular load, 225 W peaks with an AVX2 rendering load, and 292 W peak power with an AVX-512 compute load'
Only 225 watts? How much power does AMD's stuff use with equivalent work completion speed?
Hifihedgehog - Thursday, April 1, 2021 - link
"The spin also includes the testing, using a really loud high-CFM CPU cooler in the Intel and a different quieter one on the AMD."Keep whining... You'll eventually tire out.
https://i.imgur.com/HZVC03T.png
https://i.imgflip.com/53vqce.jpg
Makste - Tuesday, April 6, 2021 - link
Isn't it too much for you to keep posting the same thing over and over?Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
Overclocking support page still doesn’t mention that Intel recently discontinued the overclocking warranty, something that was available since Sandy Bridge or something. Why the continued silence on this?‘On the Overclocking Enhancement side of things, this is perhaps where it gets a bit nuanced.’
How is it an ‘enhancement’ when the chips are already system-melting hot? There isn't much that's nuanced about Intel’s sudden elimination of the overclocking warranty.
‘Overall, it’s a performance plus. It makes sense for the users that can also manage the thermals. AMD caught a wind with the feature when it moved to TSMC’s 7nm. I have a feeling that Intel will have to shift to a new manufacturing node to get the best out of ABT’
It also helps when people use extremely loud very high CFM coolers for their tests. Intel pioneered the giant hidden fridge but deafness-inducing air cooling is another option.
How much performance will buyers find in the various hearing aids they'll be in the market for? There aren't any good treatments for tinnitus, btw. That's a benefit one gets for life.
‘Intel uses one published value for sustained performance, and an unpublished ‘recommended’ value for turbo performance, the latter of which is routinely ignored by motherboard manufacturers.’
It’s also routinely ignored by Intel since it peddles its deceptive TDP.
‘This is showing the full test, and we can see that the higher performance Intel processors do get the job done quicker. However, the AMD Ryzen 7 processor is still the lowest power of them all, and finishes the quickest. By our estimates, the AMD processor is twice as efficient as the Core i9 in this test.’
Is that with the super-loud very high CFM cooler on the Intel and the smaller weaker Noctua on the AMD? If so, how about a noise comparison? Performance per decibel?
‘The cooler we’re using on this test is arguably the best air cooling on the market – a 1.8 kilogram full copper ThermalRight Ultra Extreme, paired with a 170 CFM high static pressure fan from Silverstone.’
The same publication that kneecapped AMD’s Zen 1 and Zen 2 but refusing to enable XMP for RAM on the very dubious claim that most enthusiasts don’t enter BIOS to switch it on. Most people are going to have that big loud cooler? Does Intel bundle it? Does it provide a coupon? Does the manual say you need cooler from a specific list?
BushLin - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
I won't argue with the rest of your assessment but given these CPUs are essentially factory overclocked close to their limits, the only people who'd benefit from an overclocking warranty are probably a handful of benchmark freaks doing suicide runs on LN2.Oxford Guy - Thursday, April 1, 2021 - link
That’s why I said the word ‘enhancement’ seems questionable.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
‘Anyone wanting a new GPU has to actively pay attention to stock levels, or drive to a local store for when a delivery arrives.’You forgot the ‘pay the scalper price at retail’ part. MSI, for instance, was the first to raise its prices across the board to Ebay scalper prices and is now threatening to raise them again.
‘In a time where we have limited GPUs available, I can very much see users going all out on the CPU/memory side of the equation, perhaps spending a bit extra on the CPU, while they wait for the graphics market to come back into play. After all, who really wants to pay $1300 for an RTX 3070 right now?’
• That is the worst possible way to deal with planned obsolescence.
14nm is already obsolete. Now, you’re adding in wating for a very long time to get a GPU, making your already obsolete CPU really obsolete by the time you can get one. If you’re waiting for reasonable prices for GPUs you’re looking at, what, more than a year of waiting?
‘Intel’s Rocket Lake as a backported processor design has worked’
No. It’s a failure. The only reasons Intel will be able to sell it is because AMD is production-constrained and because there isn’t enough competition in the x86 space to force AMD to cut the pricing of the 5000 line.
Intel also cynically hobbled the CPU by starving it of cores to increase profit for itself, banking that people will buy it anyway. It’s the desktop equivalent of Radeon VII. Small die + way too high clock to ‘compensate’ + too-high price = banking on consumer foolishness to sell them (or mining, in the case of AMD). AVX-512 isn’t really going to sell these like mining sold the Radeon VII.
‘However, with the GPU market being so terrible, users could jump an extra $100 and get 50% more AMD cores.’
No mention of power consumption, heat, and noise. Just ‘cores’ and price tag.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link
'Intel could easily make a 20+ core processor with these Cypress Cove cores, however the die size would be too large to be economical'Citation needed.
And, economical for Intel or the customer?
Besides, going from 8 cores to 20+ is using hyperbole to distract from the facts.
'and perhaps the power consumption when all the cores are loaded would necessitate a severe reduction in frequency to keep the power under control.'
The few cores + excessive clocks to 'compensate' strategy is a purely cynical one. It always causes inferior performance per watt. It always causes more noise.
So, Intel is not only trying to feed us its very obsolete 14nm node, it's trying to do it in the most cynical manner it can: by trying to use 8 cores as the equivalent of what it used to peddle exclusively for the desktop market: quads.
It thinks it can keep its big margins up by segmenting this much, hoping people will be fooled into thinking the bad performance per watt from too-high clocks is just because of 14nm — not because it's cranking too few cores too high to save itself a few bucks.
Intel could offer more cores and implement as turbo with a gaming mode that would keep power under control for gaming while maximizing performance. The extra cores would presumably be able to do more work for the watts by keeping clocks/voltage more within the optimal range.
But no... it would rather give people the illusion of a gaming-optimized part ('8 cores ought to be enough for anyone') when it's only optimized for its margin.