Intel Core i5 11600K + Core i9 11900K Linux Performance Across ~400 Benchmarks

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Core i5 11600K + Core i9 11900K Linux Performance Across ~400 Benchmarks

Today's the day that we can finally talk about the performance of Intel's "Rocket Lake" processors under Linux. The past several weeks we have been extensively testing the Core i5 11600K and Core i9 11900K processors under Linux. Here is a look at the very exciting Gen12 Xe Graphics performance out of these new desktop CPUs, the Linux gaming performance, and then over 300 other benchmarks looking at the CPU/system performance of the i5-11600K / i9-11900K processors against the prior generation Comet Lake parts and the AMD Ryzen 5000 series competition.

https://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=30068

[angrypie]

Waste of sand indeed. Unless you really care about AVX512.

[CochainComplex]

Waste of sand indeed. Unless you really care about AVX512.

well said ....All that Silicon could have been a nice anticipated GFX Chip or even a more usefull CPU instead.

[zexelon]

LOL harsh comments... but lets be honest, its better than the netburst arch!

Other then that cant say much... a few weeks ago I built a ThreadRipper system for my development station and my gosh.... I have never seen or heard of such performance. The Zen arch currently destroys anything from Intel, and their CPU group just does not have the corporate structure to recover quickly.

That said, the one thing Intel still dominates at is supply delivery... they seem to be able to completely out produce AMD and I think that is their only fallback strategy atm.

[skeevy420]

Not really a typo, but that last half of this sentence on the bottom of page 8 could be tweaked to make a more sense.

Unfortunately no Ryzen 5000 series CPU power consumption reference points here since AMD doesn't expose that under Linux with their AMD_Energy mainline driver but only for EPYC processors

.... since AMD only exposes that under Linux with their AMD_Energy mainline driver for EPYC processors.

[CochainComplex]

LOL harsh comments... but lets be honest, its better than the netburst arch!
.

true but if you compare geometric mean and the powerconsumption you will see that this is almost scaling linear (at leas peak consumption). Meaning you might get the same result of 11600/11900 by ocing a 10600/10900 to the same powerconsumption.

btw "the waste of sand" quote origins here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n0_UcBxnpk

[zexelon]

CochainComplex That is very well pointed out! I had not made that connection. Basically meaning they did not make any significant improvement to the logic of the core?

[angrypie]

CochainComplex That is very well pointed out! I had not made that connection. Basically meaning they did not make any significant improvement to the logic of the core?

They did, but backporting from 10nm to 14nm+++++++++++ ruined everything.

[CochainComplex]

CochainComplex That is very well pointed out! I had not made that connection. Basically meaning they did not make any significant improvement to the logic of the core?

to be fair there are - 10900k is a 10C/20T CPU and the 11900K is a 8C/16T CPU and the 11900k is still slightliy ahead of its predecessor.

But 10600k and 11600k both are 6C/12T. And here I can not see much uplift which can not be gained by an almost equal power increase.

According to gamers nexus the 11700k (not here tested I know - but same gen) is not really overclockable. But it might be the case with matured microcode uodates.

IMHO intel obviously really struggles - they reached the optimization ceiling for classic x86 <AVX512 instructions only higher clocks on longer duration with higher voltages are gaining some ground. My guess 11900k is heavily binned. maybe just the very very good 11700K's .

As pointed out by angrypie the performance gains are in the AVX512 fields.

[CochainComplex]

btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4EEwEZ-2Qk