Recommend on Intel Build (wait for GPU)

[elmariachi]

The latter is faster, but just barely faster than the 11700K. After all, the key differences on specs is just 100 to 200 Mhz, but it cost a lot more. For overclocking, I expect the 11900 to utilise better quality silicon, but most of them are push to the limit in the first place, which actually leaves you with little OC headroom on conventional hardware and cooling solution.

Yup 11900k is pushed to the limit out of the box that's for sure. Tried manually overclocking mine and the difference was not worth the extra heat and slight performance. It's good he went for the 11700k instead. All recent batch 11900k's have bad bins. First batch was best I was lucky to get an SP89 one.

Single thread performance on the new 11th generation is quite impressive though they definitely run hotter and consume more power.

 

[soltrdc]

Honestly OC is a non-factor now. Between the i9 and i7 K-sku, I would go for i9 because of the TVB more than anything else. To that end I would say the 10900K or even 10850K does very well.

 

[kenzi87]

Yea for 11th gen the extra money good to be spend on else where and get 11700k, then if 10th gen 10850k also good alternative

 

[elmariachi]

11th Gen still would be better to have given PCIE 4.0 is fully enabled and if you have PCIE 4.0 components, you can run and utilise full speed.

10th Gen if you've bought earlier than keep it cause no point for 11th Gen. If you're deciding between the both, 11th Gen. 10th Gen is plagued with the WHEA issues and this has been fixed with the 11th Gen. Only way to fix this on 10th Gen is to disable HT. 11th Gen is also extremely stable compared to every other Intel CPU since Skylake.

 

[soltrdc]

I would get a 11900K if the price is better. That's secondary tho - my recommendation is regardless of 10th or 11th gen, if one is in the market for a higher end chip, get i9 because of TVB. I know 11th gen i9 additionally has adaptive boost, but based on reviews the effect is not apparent. TVB is the real deal, as it really allows for fine tuning to get best performance on less demanding workloads while keeping thermals manageable for max intensity loads.

This isn't to say the i9 chip is the only one worth getting too, rather it is what is gonna give the best return for the money. IMO, I either go wallet-friendly with the 11400 or go best performance/flexibility with the 11900K. Anything in between is, imo, not worth it. Without TVB, the 11600K and 11700K are simply overclockable Rocket Lake cores, but I don't believe overclocking is really necessary these days. I'd rather even go for the non-K SKUs, which can also be power-unlimited and undervolted via 3rd party programs, or if I really wanted a K SKU but only $600 budget, I'd get the 10850K. Currently am sitting on exactly this set up - 1 system with B560/11400 (mobo+CPU $500) and another with Z590/10850K (mobo + CPU $1200 - I got the Giga Vision D cos of the looks, but is an expensive mobo, so this number can go down significantly). Very satisfied with the price/performance of both systems at their respective levels. Only thing I am looking to upgrade is from 10850K to 11900K when the price is right.

 

[elmariachi]

I would get a 11900K if the price is better. That's secondary tho - my recommendation is regardless of 10th or 11th gen, if one is in the market for a higher end chip, get i9 because of TVB. I know 11th gen i9 additionally has adaptive boost, but based on reviews the effect is not apparent. TVB is the real deal, as it really allows for fine tuning to get best performance on less demanding workloads while keeping thermals manageable for max intensity loads.

This isn't to say the i9 chip is the only one worth getting too, rather it is what is gonna give the best return for the money. IMO, I either go wallet-friendly with the 11400 or go best performance/flexibility with the 11900K. Anything in between is, imo, not worth it. Without TVB, the 11600K and 11700K are simply overclockable Rocket Lake cores, but I don't believe overclocking is really necessary these days. I'd rather even go for the non-K SKUs, which can also be power-unlimited and undervolted via 3rd party programs, or if I really wanted a K SKU but only $600 budget, I'd get the 10850K. Currently am sitting on exactly this set up - 1 system with B560/11400 (mobo+CPU $500) and another with Z590/10850K (mobo + CPU $1200 - I got the Giga Vision D cos of the looks, but is an expensive mobo, so this number can go down significantly). Very satisfied with the price/performance of both systems at their respective levels. Only thing I am looking to upgrade is from 10850K to 11900K when the price is right.

11900k represents poor value right now when the 5900x obliterates it stock out of the box. The TVB is helpful and it's exactly the reason why this CPU is more or less maxed out of the box. Enable Adaptive Boost (11900k only), it runs even hotter but it's great for quick benchmark runs without fiddling with so many settings. So naturally it runs hotter than any other Intel before that. If you decide to go for the 11900k, you gotta have a competent AIO at least. Performance wise, no complaints. It's really blazing fast on single threaded workloads and gaming and paired with a good pair of RAMs, this thing flies. 715 on CPU-Z single core out of the box is impressive.

 

[watzup_ken]

I would get a 11900K if the price is better. That's secondary tho - my recommendation is regardless of 10th or 11th gen, if one is in the market for a higher end chip, get i9 because of TVB. I know 11th gen i9 additionally has adaptive boost, but based on reviews the effect is not apparent. TVB is the real deal, as it really allows for fine tuning to get best performance on less demanding workloads while keeping thermals manageable for max intensity loads.

This isn't to say the i9 chip is the only one worth getting too, rather it is what is gonna give the best return for the money. IMO, I either go wallet-friendly with the 11400 or go best performance/flexibility with the 11900K. Anything in between is, imo, not worth it. Without TVB, the 11600K and 11700K are simply overclockable Rocket Lake cores, but I don't believe overclocking is really necessary these days. I'd rather even go for the non-K SKUs, which can also be power-unlimited and undervolted via 3rd party programs, or if I really wanted a K SKU but only $600 budget, I'd get the 10850K. Currently am sitting on exactly this set up - 1 system with B560/11400 (mobo+CPU $500) and another with Z590/10850K (mobo + CPU $1200 - I got the Giga Vision D cos of the looks, but is an expensive mobo, so this number can go down significantly). Very satisfied with the price/performance of both systems at their respective levels. Only thing I am looking to upgrade is from 10850K to 11900K when the price is right.

i9 is certainly better because of the extra Mhz and boost clock. But the fact is that it is still pretty much an 8 core processor just like the 11700K. For the amount you need to top up for the extra but negligible clockspeed, I don't think it is worth it. By the time the value of the 11900K drops, it will also drop the value of the 11700K. If someone wants a faster processor from the Intel space, I would rather they buy the 10850K or 10900K where the extra 2 cores is more beneficial. Single core performance is generally not a good measure of performance since most applications and games that we use day to day don't just load a single or couple of cores. One does lose PCI-E 4.0 with Comet Lake, but I generally don't think current gen GPUs are anywhere saturating the PCI-E 3.0 x16 lanes. As to SSD running at half the speed, i.e. 3.5 Gbps vs 7 Gbps, it depends on whether it matters to the end user. In most cases, the lost in sequential speed is a non-issue at all, with the high sequential speed useful for people moving huge files all the time, i.e. photo editing big raw files, video editing, etc.

 

[86technie]

I will not recommend 11900k, heat is one thing but poor value.
Example 11900k with MSI Z590 Tomahawk at $1066.
Compare with AMD R7 5800X with MSI B550 Tomahawk at $989.

The R7 pose more value than i9, not to mention i9 need a decent cooler.

 

[watzup_ken]

11900k represents poor value right now when the 5900x obliterates it stock out of the box. The TVB is helpful and it's exactly the reason why this CPU is more or less maxed out of the box. Enable Adaptive Boost (11900k only), it runs even hotter but it's great for quick benchmark runs without fiddling with so many settings. So naturally it runs hotter than any other Intel before that. If you decide to go for the 11900k, you gotta have a competent AIO at least. Performance wise, no complaints. It's really blazing fast on single threaded workloads and gaming and paired with a good pair of RAMs, this thing flies. 715 on CPU-Z single core out of the box is impressive.

The i9 11900 series is really in a no man's land in my opinion. Being sandwiched between the 8 core processors and the more potent 12 core 5900X, I agree the value proposition is really bad. There should not be many cases where single core performance really matters in my opinion, unless the single core performance is abysmal to begin with.

 

[watzup_ken]

I will not recommend 11900k, heat is one thing but poor value.
Example 11900k with MSI Z590 Tomahawk at $1066.
Compare with AMD R7 5800X with MSI B550 Tomahawk at $989.

The R7 pose more value than i9, not to mention i9 need a decent cooler.

This is absolutely true. I think people look at the CPU cost in silo. But for an i9 to really take off, I think one will need to invest in a good board that tend to cost quite a fair bit more.

 

[elmariachi]

The i9 11900 series is really in a no man's land in my opinion. Being sandwiched between the 8 core processors and the more potent 12 core 5900X, I agree the value proposition is really bad. There should not be many cases where single core performance really matters in my opinion, unless the single core performance is abysmal to begin with.

Value wise definitely it is bad. Single Threaded performance is what people look at mainly for gaming and specific apps that depend heavily on this. For my usage, which is just gaming and is all I do, this works out for me. Others that use that systems for editing and other work which depends on multi-core, then yes I would agree 5900x and above makes for a much better investment.

Games are still pretty much designed to use 6-8 cores at max at the moment so 12 or 16 cores right now is not exactly useful. Perhaps down the road it might be but technology is moving so fast, you will be probably dumping it by then for a newer platform.

 

[watzup_ken]

Value wise definitely it is bad. Single Threaded performance is what people look at mainly for gaming and specific apps that depend heavily on this. For my usage, which is just gaming and is all I do, this works out for me. Others that use that systems for editing and other work which depends on multi-core, then yes I would agree 5900x and above makes for a much better investment.

Games are still pretty much designed to use 6-8 cores at max at the moment so 12 or 16 cores right now is not exactly useful. Perhaps down the road it might be but technology is moving so fast, you will be probably dumping it by then for a newer platform.

The single core performance is comparable between Ryzen 5000 vs Rocket Lake at least as far as I can tell in reviews. Even if I were to go with a Ryzen 7 5800X, I feel I am not losing out in terms of performance in games. But assuming we are comparing the price vs performance, then the i9 11900K is really more expensive than the Ryzen 9 5900X, and that is even before we factor in the motherboard prices. So between the 2, I feel the Ryzen 9 5900X is definitely much better in value. Also, the higher latency with Rocket Lake actually hurts its performance in some games.

 

[elmariachi]

The single core performance is comparable between Ryzen 5000 vs Rocket Lake at least as far as I can tell in reviews. Even if I were to go with a Ryzen 7 5800X, I feel I am not losing out in terms of performance in games. But assuming we are comparing the price vs performance, then the i9 11900K is really more expensive than the Ryzen 9 5900X, and that is even before we factor in the motherboard prices. So between the 2, I feel the Ryzen 9 5900X is definitely much better in value. Also, the higher latency with Rocket Lake actually hurts its performance in some games.

Essentially identical gaming performance in the vast majority of games but a few observations:

• i9 often draws over 50w more power than the 5900X
• i9 often sees 80-90% CPU utilization
• i9 often has higher 1% and 0.1% FPS, which means a smoother gaming experience

11900K or Ryzen 9 5900X, if they are priced competitively, users who want to pay the premium and would like more cores along with slightly more efficient power consumption, they can go AMD.

11900K I feel is more of a CPU if you want to really play with memory and fiddle around. Memory OC gains are pretty significant with this platform provided you have good sticks. And most reviews do not really show this. They basically run both Intel and AMD setups with a similar RAM frequency mainly 3600Mhz for consistency in results.

The best CPU to get is the 5800X actually even over the 11700k for that matter if you are neutral between both camps if gaming is concerned.

I think these are all excellent CPUs with viable PROS and CONS for all consumers at this price level.

 

[watzup_ken]

Essentially identical gaming performance in the vast majority of games but a few observations:

• i9 often draws over 50w more power than the 5900X
• i9 often sees 80-90% CPU utilization
• i9 often has higher 1% and 0.1% FPS, which means a smoother gaming experience

11900K or Ryzen 9 5900X, if they are priced competitively, users who want to pay the premium and would like more cores along with slightly more efficient power consumption, they can go AMD.

11900K I feel is more of a CPU if you want to really play with memory and fiddle around. Memory OC gains are pretty significant with this platform provided you have good sticks. And most reviews do not really show this. They basically run both Intel and AMD setups with a similar RAM frequency mainly 3600Mhz for consistency in results.

The best CPU to get is the 5800X actually even over the 11700k for that matter if you are neutral between both camps if gaming is concerned.

I think these are all excellent CPUs with viable PROS and CONS for all consumers at this price level.

I think the reviews don't show overclocked/ tweaked results nowadays. They generally just show the out of the box performance, which is why improvements due to faster memory will not surface.

For me, I would recommend these processors over the Intel i9 11900K, looking just at price to performance,
1. AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
2. AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
3. Intel Core i7 10850K

To me, the price premium of the i9 11900K is just too much, even when compared to the 11700K (based on prices I see on Amazon now). It is also not consistently faster than the last gen Comet Lake when it comes to games. The 1% low is generally higher with a Rocket Lake setup, but it is also insignificant. I don't think anyone will figure out the difference in smoothness without actually relying on some applications to tell them. Plus again, the 1% low is not consistently faster, where Rocket Lake wins some, and Zen 3 wins some.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2261-ryzen-5800x-vs-core-11700k-vs-10700k/

 

[elmariachi]

I think the reviews don't show overclocked/ tweaked results nowadays. They generally just show the out of the box performance, which is why improvements due to faster memory will not surface.

For me, I would recommend these processors over the Intel i9 11900K, looking just at price to performance,
1. AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
2. AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
3. Intel Core i7 10850K

To me, the price premium of the i9 11900K is just too much, even when compared to the 11700K (based on prices I see on Amazon now). It is also not consistently faster than the last gen Comet Lake when it comes to games. The 1% low is generally higher with a Rocket Lake setup, but it is also insignificant. I don't think anyone will figure out the difference in smoothness without actually relying on some applications to tell them. Plus again, the 1% low is not consistently faster, where Rocket Lake wins some, and Zen 3 wins some.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2261-ryzen-5800x-vs-core-11700k-vs-10700k/

When you are playing FPS competitively, the 1% lows is noticeable. An average user will not find any difference whatsoever and this again relates to what games you are playing.

The 0.1% and 1% lows refer mainly to how smooth and consistent the game runs. And if they are low enough, yes you will get stutter. And it is OBVIOUS. Average FPS hides away any deviations from norm, thus at best it can serve as cue that there might be stuttering. But it doesn't show how bad it is and does not confirm it either. You can have 60fps 0.1% lows that are consistent and complete jittermess.

Second problem is that stuttering occurs during dynamic moments in heat of gameplay, in other words, at the worst moments - when you actually perform actions and play game. Lots of benchmarks doesn't even show actual gameplay and doesn't get close to those worst case scenarios. But average framerates doesn't care either, to averages every single frame is equally important. But to gamer the moments in heat of battle are way more important.

Lastly, on a side note, it does impact input delay as with lower fps, you are more likely to have your input happen between frames and the time between the action and the next frame be longer. This is why hardcore gamers use frametimes and 1%/0.1% to determine gaming performance in CPUs. Average FPS is not the whole story even if they are similar between CPUs which 99% of reviews out there does.

But honestly, how many are actually going to figure this difference like you said? Probably 90% of people out there will not be able to tell the difference. For people like me, it is obvious.

 

[ragnarok95]

You can get a i9 10850K for S$420 if you reserve and walk into Micro center now. To be honest, i am damn tempt to go for it.

 

[soltrdc]

10850K going for $480 - $500 on many stores on Taobao, some including shipping.

 

[NightRaven49]

You can get a i9 10850K for S$420 if you reserve and walk into Micro center now. To be honest, i am damn tempt to go for it.

sg have micro center?

 

[ragnarok95]

sg have micro center?

That is US not singapore.

 

[kenzi87]

Back in march Micro center 10850k was 319.99 usd for in store pick up