If you are deciding on intel I would go for the 10900k over the 11

for multicore Ryzen Zen 3

If deciding for Gaming between Intel VS Ryzen, depends on what resolution you are playing at

For 4K which is what I use, 5600x or 5800x Would be my Choice Currently on a 5800x even a 3600x is a good pick at 4K.

Gaming on intel, 10900k would be my pick

Intel Core i9-11900K 8 Core Rocket Lake Flagship CPU Benchmarked at 5.2 GHz, Faster Than Core i9-10900K In Single-Core But Slower in Gaming & Multi-Threaded Apps

The Intel Core i9-11900K flagship Rocket Lake CPU has been compared to the Core i9-10900K with a 5.2 GHz overclock in various benchmarks.

wccftech.com

 

@Clausewitz

To answer bluntly, they aren't 'as bad' as everyone makes them out to be. They are 'as bad' if you are simply looking at it from a price-to-value comparison; as the 11900K has two less cores than the 10900K. Yes, the IPC did improve - therefore - single core usage scenarios would be 11900K > 10900K. But the performance in day-to-day and real-world implications are so close that the high cost of the new chip essentially invalidates the value perspective when comparing both chips.

FWIW~

 

It has the best IPC but let’s be real here… you buy the 11900K for the box.

 

The expectations are absurdly high for new intel chips. Unless the 11900k doubled the performance of 5950x with only 8 cores, people will say its garbage.

 

What 90 percent of people dont realize is that ryzen 3xxx and 5xxx/ intel 8th gen and newer is more then enough at 4k... That is unless you wanna cap 144 at 4k. Id be willing to bet my 7800x at 5ghz could push any modern gpu in 4k as well as any other cpu.

 

That depends on the game (engine). You won't be able to hit 144 fps solid with an old CPU like that in Warzone thats for sure. Highly CPU limited engine, like many other games.

I loose like 25 fps average on my 9900K at 5.2 GHz by changing to stock profile, 500 MHz less on all cores. Hard to measure in a dynemic game like this, but the difference in performance is highly noticeable.

At 1440p I'm getting 200 fps average with a 3080, which is somewhat perfect for my 1440p IPS 240 Hz panel.

People that play at 4K/UHD are usually satisfied with 120-144 fps tho. Most high refresh 4K pc gaming monitors can't do HDR at 144 Hz, too little bandwidth, so many use 120 Hz option.

I have tested Warzone on my LG OLED too; 4K/UHD at 120 Hz native with Gsync. There is STILL clearly higher performance when CPU is running 5.2 GHz, especially in dense / large open areas with tons of objects.

Playing at high resolution does not lower your CPU needs IF GOAL IS HIGH FPS. People STILL to this day don't understand this it seems ... HIGH FPS = CPU BOUND ... SUB 100 FPS = GPU BOUND (but it can happen at 80-90 too, in some games).

Being GPU bound at 4K is easier yes, but if you CHASE HIGH FPS and lower graphical settings you will be just as CPU bound here. Most will have to lower alot of settings to get 120-144 fps solid at 4K/UHD so you will take a hit if your CPU is weak for sure.

Nothing has changed. 4K gamers mostly are NOT fps junkies tho, because if they were, they would be at the sweetspot res; 1440p.

Around 200 fps at 1440p/240 Hz is NIGHT AND DAY smoother than 2160p/120 Hz/fps for me. Huge difference in terms of responsiveness.

 

^ ding ding ding

 

NO!!! Do you know there exists a special 11900k version called “Maoshan Taoist Brand ”？, it's really excellent .
Because some medias dont have the Maoshan Taoist 11900k, so they say 11900k is not good.
So you should buy Maoshan Taoist 11900k, i think this special 11900k should become international in future.

 

NO!!! Do you know there exists a special 11900k version called “Maoshan Taoist Brand ”？, it's really excellent .
Because some medias dont have the Maoshan Taoist 11900k, so they say 11900k is not good.
So you should buy Maoshan Taoist 11900k, i think this special 11900k should become international in future.



**The special 11900k is produced by a Chinese gamer called “taoist”, he buys some 11900k, put them at Maoshan(a famous mountain in China), let them absorb the soul of sun and moon, so this 11900k will have excellent silicon quality, such as 53/47 with 4000 gear1 is really very common within Maoshan Taoist 11900k

I am trying to spend less money on products made in China. But shut up and take my money.

 

The simple fact that microcenter has the 10850k at $320 and the 11900k at $470 for one in the same should make the answer pretty obvious. If it were me and cost were no object, 11900k all the way, because I find single core does make things seem quicker overall. I have a dual xeon computer with a multi scoring the same as an overclocked 8700k, but the 8700k would blow its doors off in everything. I can only assume in a purely mutli task like video editing, they would be equal, beyond that...single core speed triumphs as far as I'm concerned.

But cost is an object I assume and are you actually getting $150 more performance? I don't think so. The scores don't lie but the 10th gen stuff is no slouch either. This is like a curved 120hz monitor vs flat 144hz monitor debate. You will be happy with both, so why blow a ridiculous $150 more to get it. If cost is no object, go for 11th. If it is........the 10850k will happily do the job negligibly as good.

 

Been using my 11900k for a few days and I will admit it is not bad.
The one issue I found is the unfixed bug in the Unreal Engine where I have to create a new environment variable in windows so I can actually run some older games I like.
There is an intel fix on the official page for this.

Regarding temps this is a hot cpu that is for sure.
I am using XMP I with Asus MCE and the clocks stay between 4.8GHz all core to 5.1 GHz and 5.3 GHz on some cores.
If I disable the limits and enable ABT, my Cinebench run will put the CPU at 5.1 GHz all core with temps hitting 86-88 degrees.

This was a reality check for me as I have some decent cooling for my system.

 

You shouldn't use ABT I find it overvolts the CPU under load. Much rather you do 5.1/4.5-4.6 looking at your SP rating and prediction.

 

what about the 11900 with unlocked power limits, can save nearly $200 aud.

 

Then I would get the 11700k, not much performance difference between 11700k and 11900k when overclocked.. But then again I'm biased since I have11700k and is very happy with it, bought it for 358 USD including 25% sales tax.

 

If you're doing 1080p gaming, stick to Ryzen. If you're doing 4K, 11900K is the winner. 1440p is a coin flip depending on the game, and I'd argue the additional multicore performance of the 5950x would be a good reason to get it over the 11900k. Also 11700k is a better value proposition. But personally, while I put a 5950x in my work computer, I put an 11900k in my much more expensive 4K gaming PC and saw a large uplift compared to my 10900k. Also while hot, it's still much better temperatures than the 10900k in my case. I have no regrets. Waiting for my friend who built a nearly identical computer except going with a 5950x, to fix his PSU so we can compare game performance between our chips. But I'm pretty sure that I'm going to trounce him in 4K gaming.

Just as a frame of reference, this is 1440p gaming CPU benchmarks. The gap grows even more in 4K in favor of the 11900k vs Ryzen and the 10900k.

 

I had to make this same decision in May, was more than aware of all the clickbaity reviews on how bad 11th gen was. I went 11900K over 10900K/10850K and Ryzen for a few reasons.

1. I came from a 5900X. A CPU that once I dropped it in, made my previous setup go berzerk in the memory controller and USB. Same system with my 2700X, 1800X, and 1700 had no issues other than lockups unless I disabled C-States or DRAM Power Down. I had to do that on all of those chips or they would lock up, I did not have to do this change for the 5900X to not lock. But the 5900X config was only usable if you have low standards for quality, I do not. I don't accept random USB disconnects.
2. I'm likely to use this system for years, I'm not buying older hardware with less bugfixes (the Skylake arch fixes in Rocket Lake: L0 Cache errors and parity errors are resolved).
3. In properly configured reviews, where the reviewer is competent and not a charlatan, 11th gen won in AAA gaming, which is what I'm focused on if I'm dropping a lot of money (future games). See: Core i9 11900K and Core i5 11600K: performance analysis (disable your adblocker to see the charts).
4. Better IO. Z590 brings USB 4.0 / TB4, Bluetooth 5.2, wifi 6E, 2.5Gbit ethernet, PCIE 4.0. Not all are exclusive to Z590 I realize. But I didn't want to run a 10th gen CPU with a Z590 and lose one of my M.2 slots.
5. Anyone who buys one of these and actually disables MCE (a default set BIOS option) is... yeah no one would ever in their lives do that. Why these bozos did in a review, policing the power consumption on a top end $550+ CPU. It just makes zero sense. Especially considering MCE is enabled on nearly every board by default that anyone would pair an i9 with, and it's on record that most people don't touch the BIOS anyway. So they'd have it on. Those reviews are just horrendously flawed.
6. Given the option, I wanted AVX512. Intel engineering stated in a recent AMA that they are not going to stop pushing this. So it's not going away. I've been wondering if it may even be used in Windows 11's Android emulation, since Intel wrote the software for Microsoft that will be handling that.

In sum, a PC is more than just a CPU. If you're laser focused on CPU to CPU, well, 10th gen or Zen3 still only wins if you're budget oriented. If you need more and more cores, Intel has that available too. Rocket Lake has the best IPC on the market. But I take a holistic view, because this is about my 25th personal computer since 1985. I know what I want and what I'm looking for: stability and quality. I love mine, and I think it's extremely underrated.

I won't argue with anyone, I will just preemptively say- buy what you want. 👍 I'm informed and I have what I want. I'm looking forward to ~CL20 DDR5 at which point I'll be upgrading again to whatever Intel has out.

 

I stopped watching FPS counters as they are distracting.
I used to do this with my X58/X99 platforms. I found that I enjoy games more if I don't see what frames I play at.

I have two Adobe RGB MSI Quantum Dot Optix screens at 1440p with a 165 Hz refresh rate.
I let my 11900k @4800 MHz and 3080ti @ stock FE boost frequencies do as they please on High / Ultra.
This system has opened my eyes how computer gaming can be.

 

I let my 11900k @4800 MHz

This is why I recommended the Optimus CPU block. 5.2GHz all core and under 60C temps under load. I like knowing that whatever FPS I'm getting is the most I can get regardless of anything else. So then I don't have to worry about it because there's nothing else I could do to change it. But if I get little dips and stutters and drops and frame inconsistencies, I start wondering if it's a problem due to the CPU, memory, disk read speeds, and I get OCD about it. So get the best gaming CPU, clock it out at max, get some fast ram, get some PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives (or Optane for the rich kids) and take comfort in the fact that there would be no way to get higher FPS. Hence waiting for the Optimus GPU block. Because 2100MHz on a 3090 Hybrid wasn't enough when I know I could push higher on the core and vram if I had better cooling. Haha. It's a vicious game.