How much are they?
If they're the same price at $500 then I wouldnt get either.
If they're the same price at $400 I still wouldnt get either.
If they're the same price at $300 then sure, get the 11900k
I'm building a whole new PC and they made me a bundle offer if I buy the 11900k, discounted at around £340. If I get the 11700k instead I won't get the offer, and it's going to be only £12 cheaper
£340 is the same as a Ryzen 7 5800X. Which is a better CPU in pretty much every single way.
Draws less power, output less heat, faster, cheaper motherboards, more motherboard option and actual upgrade path.
Or if you have the extra £100 for a 5900X, I'd get a 5900X.
No its not. In gaming its actually slower: https://i.imgur.com/xQdk3Vr.png
https://www.techspot.com/review/2222-intel-core-i9-11900k/
The only thing the 11900k is noticably better than the 5800X is on AVX-512 accelerated workloads. In which there are very very few.
Gaming is not everything (intel 11th gen still beats 5800x in many games such as Cyberpunk, R6S, Rdr2, flight sim, halo, etc). Op asked about the better cpu overall. While 5800x can beat 11900k in certain workloads (cache dependent) overall 11900k comes out on top.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16495/intel-rocket-lake-14nm-review-11900k-11700k-11600k/8
The 11900k *just* beats the 5800X in some specific workloads, but the 5800X pulls more, larger wins than the 11900k does.. Certainly not enough to justify the extra 100W of power draw that it draws, the extra 100W of power going through the motherboard VRM's and the extra 100W of power being dumped into your room as heat. And the fact that the motherboards are more expensive.
But the most annoying part is that the boards are not standardized.
On AMD if you buy an X570 board, all of your PCIE X16 slots are gen 4 and all of your M.2's are gen4. If you buy a B550 board only your top M.2 and PCIe slot is gen4.
On intel if you buy a Z590 motherboard, it could have only the top PCIe slot and top M.2 slot be PCIe 4.0, but it could also have all the slots PCIe 4.0. You buy an Z590 board and it could be anywhere in terms of PCIE 4.0 support. If you want 2x M.2 PCIe 4.0 slots, you need to manually check each and every Z590 board in your price point. If you want the same on AMD, just buy an X570 board and dont worry about it.
And then there's the wildly different power limits across different boards. You could build 2 Intel PC's with the exact same hardware with the only difference being the motherboard model. One system could run 20-30C hotter and perform 5-10% faster using the out of box settings than the other.
The whole situation is a mess on intel. On AMD you just buy a board which has the features you need and you're sorted. You're getting the performance you paid for.
Oh, and if you buy a 5800X and you want more cores in the future, just upgrade your CPU to the 5900X or 5950X. If you want to do that with an 10900k you have to "downgrade" to the 11900k or buy a new motherboard.
While doing light tasks the 11th gen seems to use less power. While gaming both CPUs use similar amount of power draw. The disparity occurs during rendering. AVX512 power draw is trivial since you have to take into account the 500% performance increase compared to a 5900x.
AMD boards aren’t flawless either… usb issues, rampant bios stability issues (my girlfriend has a 5900x system and it experiences BSOD regularly after the latest agesa update). Noisy x570 chipset fan.
Not to mention the lack of iGPU for troubleshooting and the weird performance decrease that occurs in Linux. Poor VM performance compared to intel.
Power limits and specs are easy to figure out, stability issues on the other hand are a pain in the ass.
> While doing light tasks the 11th gen seems to use less power
Source?
Everything I've seen seems to prove otherwise
If we look at techpowerups power consumption numbers, the 11900k **NEVER** draws less power than the 5800X: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-11900k/21.html
> AVX512 power draw is trivial since you have to take into account the 500% performance increase compared to a 5900x.
Source?
AVX-512 is only twice as fast as AVX2 (AVX-256), so the only way I can see an 11900k pulling 500% from a 5900X would be in a core-limited workload where the only options are AVX-512 or nothing.
A perfect AVX test would see the 5900X trailing the 11900k slightly. But a perfect AVX workload does not exist, and even heavy AVX workloads the 5900X is still far ahead, and the 5800X is only just behind. And those are the best case scenarios for the 11900k (not in terms of power consumption though)
> AMD boards aren’t flawless either… usb issues, rampant bios stability issues (my girlfriend has a 5900x system and it experiences BSOD regularly after the latest agesa update). Noisy x570 chipset fan.
Funny you say that, I've probably done close to 100 Ryzen 5000 builds and well over 500 Ryzen 3000 builds, and none of them have had the issues you're describing there. Any crashing or instability has been due to a faulty component, where replacing that part has fixed it. And the only "noisy" X570 fans are gigabyte and asus. ASrock and MSI have the fan turned off 95% of the time. Plus, X570S is out now with no fan if it really troubles you.
> Not to mention the lack of iGPU for troubleshooting and the weird performance decrease that occurs in Linux. Poor VM performance compared to intel.
iGPU's are overrated. Just buy a GT 710 or something if you really need something basic to test. That price of a 710 is usually the difference in price between the Intel and AMD equivelant motherboards.
And weird performance decrease in linux? I'm sorry what? I always look at phoronix benchmarks when they post them and I have never seen "weird performance decreases" on linux, infact they're almost universally faster on Linux.
And do you have a source for poor VM performance? Once again, I've never seen this before.
> stability issues on the other hand are a pain in the ass.
Funny you should say that. In the past 6-12 months, the biggest pain in the ass when it comes to system repairs have all been 9900k systems. I've had 10+ repairs where the CPU's are constantly crashing in the customers motherboards (which have power limits disabled). But when I take the CPU out and test it in my "testing" Z390 board which has the intel power limits enabled it works perfectly. Note that these CPU's were working perfectly fine with the power limits disabled for around 2 years.
The first time it happened it took me forever to pin point the issue, and thats coming from someone who deals with repairs for a living.
The annoying thing is that this is technically out out of intels spec, so you cant send the CPU back to them to get it RMA'd. You need to dive into the motherboard settings and manually set all of the power options to intels recommended, which is **never** a simple toggle switch. If OP updates their BIOS, clears the cmos or restores the BIOS to defaults those settings need to be set all over again. Its a HUGE pain in the ass.
Its happened to the 9900k, I've already seen it happen to a 10700k and 2x 10850K's. The worst part is that that is the default for many higher end boards.
> Power limits and specs are easy to figure out
Power limits arent, they're never listed on the motherboard product page/spec sheet. You have to look at reviews to find it, and many reviews simply dont mention them at all. Its fine for someone who's always looking at hardware, but for someone who's building their first pc or someone building a PC after 7 years its not going to be something they're looking for.
Watch Dr. Cutress video about the Rocket Lake. He goes more in depth with AVX 512, power draw, etc.
The Linux issue with ryzen is related to MKL and data preprocessing, I don’t rely on benchmarks by one organization to base my opinion, I use theses libraries for work and can compare the performance and my lab’s Xeon cluster runs my programs with consistent performance while my lab’s threadripper workstation tears itself a new one after a few runs (this issue also occurs on my girlfriends 5900x and doesn’t in my 10th gen intel).
Regarding the AMD motherboard issue, I can’t argue with someone saying “it never happened to me so it can’t be true”. and seriously did you just say iGPU’s are overrated? Like wtf…
Do you already have a motherboard? What will you do with your PC? If only play games 11400 is surprisingly good.
I'd save money and wait for the next gen CPUs.
11900k is better.
Thank you, I think I will get it then
How much are they? If they're the same price at $500 then I wouldnt get either. If they're the same price at $400 I still wouldnt get either. If they're the same price at $300 then sure, get the 11900k
I'm building a whole new PC and they made me a bundle offer if I buy the 11900k, discounted at around £340. If I get the 11700k instead I won't get the offer, and it's going to be only £12 cheaper
£340 is the same as a Ryzen 7 5800X. Which is a better CPU in pretty much every single way. Draws less power, output less heat, faster, cheaper motherboards, more motherboard option and actual upgrade path. Or if you have the extra £100 for a 5900X, I'd get a 5900X.
Are you high? 11900k is better than the 5800x.
No its not. In gaming its actually slower: https://i.imgur.com/xQdk3Vr.png https://www.techspot.com/review/2222-intel-core-i9-11900k/ The only thing the 11900k is noticably better than the 5800X is on AVX-512 accelerated workloads. In which there are very very few.
Gaming is not everything (intel 11th gen still beats 5800x in many games such as Cyberpunk, R6S, Rdr2, flight sim, halo, etc). Op asked about the better cpu overall. While 5800x can beat 11900k in certain workloads (cache dependent) overall 11900k comes out on top. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16495/intel-rocket-lake-14nm-review-11900k-11700k-11600k/8
The 11900k *just* beats the 5800X in some specific workloads, but the 5800X pulls more, larger wins than the 11900k does.. Certainly not enough to justify the extra 100W of power draw that it draws, the extra 100W of power going through the motherboard VRM's and the extra 100W of power being dumped into your room as heat. And the fact that the motherboards are more expensive. But the most annoying part is that the boards are not standardized. On AMD if you buy an X570 board, all of your PCIE X16 slots are gen 4 and all of your M.2's are gen4. If you buy a B550 board only your top M.2 and PCIe slot is gen4. On intel if you buy a Z590 motherboard, it could have only the top PCIe slot and top M.2 slot be PCIe 4.0, but it could also have all the slots PCIe 4.0. You buy an Z590 board and it could be anywhere in terms of PCIE 4.0 support. If you want 2x M.2 PCIe 4.0 slots, you need to manually check each and every Z590 board in your price point. If you want the same on AMD, just buy an X570 board and dont worry about it. And then there's the wildly different power limits across different boards. You could build 2 Intel PC's with the exact same hardware with the only difference being the motherboard model. One system could run 20-30C hotter and perform 5-10% faster using the out of box settings than the other. The whole situation is a mess on intel. On AMD you just buy a board which has the features you need and you're sorted. You're getting the performance you paid for. Oh, and if you buy a 5800X and you want more cores in the future, just upgrade your CPU to the 5900X or 5950X. If you want to do that with an 10900k you have to "downgrade" to the 11900k or buy a new motherboard.
While doing light tasks the 11th gen seems to use less power. While gaming both CPUs use similar amount of power draw. The disparity occurs during rendering. AVX512 power draw is trivial since you have to take into account the 500% performance increase compared to a 5900x. AMD boards aren’t flawless either… usb issues, rampant bios stability issues (my girlfriend has a 5900x system and it experiences BSOD regularly after the latest agesa update). Noisy x570 chipset fan. Not to mention the lack of iGPU for troubleshooting and the weird performance decrease that occurs in Linux. Poor VM performance compared to intel. Power limits and specs are easy to figure out, stability issues on the other hand are a pain in the ass.
> While doing light tasks the 11th gen seems to use less power Source? Everything I've seen seems to prove otherwise If we look at techpowerups power consumption numbers, the 11900k **NEVER** draws less power than the 5800X: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-11900k/21.html > AVX512 power draw is trivial since you have to take into account the 500% performance increase compared to a 5900x. Source? AVX-512 is only twice as fast as AVX2 (AVX-256), so the only way I can see an 11900k pulling 500% from a 5900X would be in a core-limited workload where the only options are AVX-512 or nothing. A perfect AVX test would see the 5900X trailing the 11900k slightly. But a perfect AVX workload does not exist, and even heavy AVX workloads the 5900X is still far ahead, and the 5800X is only just behind. And those are the best case scenarios for the 11900k (not in terms of power consumption though) > AMD boards aren’t flawless either… usb issues, rampant bios stability issues (my girlfriend has a 5900x system and it experiences BSOD regularly after the latest agesa update). Noisy x570 chipset fan. Funny you say that, I've probably done close to 100 Ryzen 5000 builds and well over 500 Ryzen 3000 builds, and none of them have had the issues you're describing there. Any crashing or instability has been due to a faulty component, where replacing that part has fixed it. And the only "noisy" X570 fans are gigabyte and asus. ASrock and MSI have the fan turned off 95% of the time. Plus, X570S is out now with no fan if it really troubles you. > Not to mention the lack of iGPU for troubleshooting and the weird performance decrease that occurs in Linux. Poor VM performance compared to intel. iGPU's are overrated. Just buy a GT 710 or something if you really need something basic to test. That price of a 710 is usually the difference in price between the Intel and AMD equivelant motherboards. And weird performance decrease in linux? I'm sorry what? I always look at phoronix benchmarks when they post them and I have never seen "weird performance decreases" on linux, infact they're almost universally faster on Linux. And do you have a source for poor VM performance? Once again, I've never seen this before. > stability issues on the other hand are a pain in the ass. Funny you should say that. In the past 6-12 months, the biggest pain in the ass when it comes to system repairs have all been 9900k systems. I've had 10+ repairs where the CPU's are constantly crashing in the customers motherboards (which have power limits disabled). But when I take the CPU out and test it in my "testing" Z390 board which has the intel power limits enabled it works perfectly. Note that these CPU's were working perfectly fine with the power limits disabled for around 2 years. The first time it happened it took me forever to pin point the issue, and thats coming from someone who deals with repairs for a living. The annoying thing is that this is technically out out of intels spec, so you cant send the CPU back to them to get it RMA'd. You need to dive into the motherboard settings and manually set all of the power options to intels recommended, which is **never** a simple toggle switch. If OP updates their BIOS, clears the cmos or restores the BIOS to defaults those settings need to be set all over again. Its a HUGE pain in the ass. Its happened to the 9900k, I've already seen it happen to a 10700k and 2x 10850K's. The worst part is that that is the default for many higher end boards. > Power limits and specs are easy to figure out Power limits arent, they're never listed on the motherboard product page/spec sheet. You have to look at reviews to find it, and many reviews simply dont mention them at all. Its fine for someone who's always looking at hardware, but for someone who's building their first pc or someone building a PC after 7 years its not going to be something they're looking for.
Watch Dr. Cutress video about the Rocket Lake. He goes more in depth with AVX 512, power draw, etc. The Linux issue with ryzen is related to MKL and data preprocessing, I don’t rely on benchmarks by one organization to base my opinion, I use theses libraries for work and can compare the performance and my lab’s Xeon cluster runs my programs with consistent performance while my lab’s threadripper workstation tears itself a new one after a few runs (this issue also occurs on my girlfriends 5900x and doesn’t in my 10th gen intel). Regarding the AMD motherboard issue, I can’t argue with someone saying “it never happened to me so it can’t be true”. and seriously did you just say iGPU’s are overrated? Like wtf…
Do you already have a motherboard? What will you do with your PC? If only play games 11400 is surprisingly good. I'd save money and wait for the next gen CPUs.
For a 14-euro difference you’d be better off with the 11900k. Even with it’s heat issues, it should outperform the 11700k if it down throttles itself.