Let us start this section with our usual caveat. We personally are not the intended target for ‘consumer’ orientated CPUs. Our typical usage patterns / scenarios not only can, but typically do, max out workstation / HEDT / etc. processors. Yes, the majority of our applications we use can make full use as many cores as a manufacture can carve into a piece of silicon. Needless to say, we like more cores. We like lots of cores that are as fast as we can get. We look at 16 core models like Ryzen 9 and go ‘meh’. We look at 8 and 10 core Intel’s and go ‘not my cup of tea’. This internal bias is shared by a lot of enthusiasts, and it is our opinion that is the root cause of a lot of misunderstandings and false information being shared by many. We however recognize we are not typical consumers… while some others are either not as self-aware or are purposefully misleading others for monetary gains.
So, while we like more cores a lot… the average home user should not care too much about it. They are not “power users” routinely running super CPU intensive programs. They do not need “HEDT-lite” style processors. The fact of the matter is, even in 2021, the number of ‘home consumer’ orientated applications that are optimally multi-threaded enabled is limited. In the coming years this equation will drift further and further into AMD’s “core count over core frequency” centric territory (assuming Intel is unable to keep up with core counts) but right now the state of the home application industry is terrible from a thread optimization standpoint.
Furthermore, those buyers who do use optimized applications actually enough to justify picking their processor based on time saved… is only moderate in size. Of that niche most have already moved on to ‘workstation’ or ‘prosumer’ CPU based systems like AMD’s ThreadRipper – as using even more cores means more time saved / more money earned… if they can afford them. Those that have not moved past ‘consumer’ CPUs understand they are compromising performance for price by opting for any of the existing models from either Intel or AMD.
At this time, AMD’s existing architecture lends itself better to these ‘prosumer’ buyers with their high(ish) thread count scenarios better than Intel. Whereas Intel’s latest and greatest lends itself better to more typical, lower thread count, scenarios where individual thread performance matters most. In a perfect world we could easily buy a processor which offers 5+GHz frequencies and 16,24…32 cores in one under $1K package. We do not live in a perfect world. Thus, both camps have optimized their CPUs for their targeted demographic. With AMD topping out in the low 4GHz range but more cores, and Intel’s in the low to mid 5Ghz range but with noticeably fewer cores.
Neither approach is right, nor is it wrong. They just are optimized for different buyers. Furthermore, and marketing hype aside, both manufacture’s CPUs offer more than enough processing power for the average buyer. Outside of edge cases, most homer buyers will not notice a huge difference between either camp’s latest and greatest. This is because the typical home buyer is not limited by their older systems CPU. To use an analogy. If you only drive at 55MPH and rarely have more than two or even four people in the car at a time… would you choose one car over the other based on the fact it can do 200 instead of ‘only’ 160MPH? Conversely would you choose one car over another based on that it can comfortably seat 16 people instead of only 8? No. One would be picking nits to justify their actual preference for one brand over another.
That is the state of the industry as it stands for the average buyer. Both camps are incredible performers with tangible generation-to-generation improvements in processing power… yet few of these buyers will ever utilize the extra power often enough to justify one over the other.
Since we are in the business of picking nits and showing ‘best’ and not ‘good enough’ solutions let’s compare the latest ‘team red’ and ‘team blue’ consumer options. Specifically, the 16core/32 thread AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and 6c/12t Ryzen 5 5600X both with their X570 chipset, versus Intel’s 8/16 Core i9-11900K and 6/12 Core i5-11600K both with their Z590 chipset.
AMD’s Ryzen 5000-series easily brought Instructions Per Clock cycle parity with Intel’s 10th generation of CPUs (and arguably exceeded Intel). That was quite the accomplishment for AMD… as IPC was one of AMD’s largest weaknesses. Needless to say, 6 to 16 Zen 3 cores running in the 4GHz range is very potent. Mix in PCIe 4.0 abilities of the X570 chipset and everyone from PC gaming enthusiasts to NVMe SSD users flocked to Team Red. Yes, the Ryzen 5000-series literally was an instant cult classic.
From an IPC point of view, Intel’s 11th generation is an improvement over both previous 10th generation and AMD’s Ryzen 5000-series. It is faster clock per clock. Unfortunately, due to backporting an architecture intended for 10nm to the 14nm node process, the latest Core i9 is poorer for the comparison to either AMD’s ‘9’ processor options or Intel 10th gen ‘9’ processor options. Bluntly put, it lacks two full cores compared to the last gen Core i9, cannot push the frequencies any higher than the 10th generation Core i9, and the IPC improvements over AMD are high single digit to low double-digit differences. Mix in an increased MSRP of $539 USD for this 8-core Core-i9 11900K versus the launch day MSRP of $488 USD for the ten core Core-i9 10900K and we do have to wonder why Intel felt justified in increasing the MSRP.
Yes, 540’ish is much more palatable than the 800’ish the Ryzen 9 demands, but it still is puzzling… as AMD’s 8c/16t Ryzen 5000-series variant (the Ryzen 7 5800X) is a full $100 less than the Core i9-11900K. At this new price point and lower core count the Core i9-11900K is overpriced. It really needs to be the same price as the (8 core) Ryzen 7 5800X. Then it could make an excellent argument in its favor. Alternatively, and more optimally, it should be ten cores. Intel management should have told Cypress Cove’s team to carve some more features off Sunny Cove and find room for two more cores. Then it would have been competing against the 12c/24t Ryzen 7 5900X on price and making a valid argument for why opting for a CPU with fewer cores, but all ten being faster (in both IPC and frequencies), makes a lot of sense over buying even a 16c Ryzen 9. As it stands, we feel this specific processor is best described as a ‘halo’ model not intended for most buyers at its existing price point. In other words, a return to the pre-10th generation Core i9 days. This is a step backwards.
Thankfully, for Intel, the Core i5-11600K is a veritable bargain at $262. This is the exact same price its predecessor the Core i5-10600K was launched at. At this price point it easily justifies being the better deal. It is not only faster per thread and overall… it is also less expensive than the three hundred dollar AMD Ryzen 5 5600x. Same core count. Same thread count. Just faster… just better. It is a veritable no-brainer.
Further improving the overall luster of this next generation Intel release is the chipset they have paired with it. Even those firmly in the ‘team AMD’ camp will have to admit that Intel’s holistic approach to this launch is impressive. Specifically, Rocket Lake with that nice Z590 chipset combination is a winning one. The 500 chipset is not just a slight rehash. It is the first truly exciting Intel chipset release in many years now. So much so that a… non-charitably inclined person will say that this is what the Z390 should have been. We think it should have been introduced last generation, but better late than never. Doubling the DMI to PCIe 3.0 x8 from x4, 2.5GbE networking, USB 3.2 gen2x2, Thunderbolt 4. The list goes on to what Intel has now baked right in to their silicon. Enough baked into it that it once again easily achieves superiority over the competition. Arguably the RL+Z590 combination will even bring superiority in some cases (as Intel will have more PCIe lanes overall, and offer a lot more ‘extras’ like WiFi 6, 2.5GbE, and TB4) … but inferiority in others (as Intel’s latest combo is 20 4.0 lanes +24 3.0 lanes vs. AMD’s 20+16 all PCIe 4.0 combination).
Either way, with the Z590 chipset backing the 11th gen CPUs up, everyone from average home users to NVMe SSD users to PC Gaming enthusiasts no longer have to think about CPU vs. GPU vs. Storage compromises. Instead, they have to think about what they plan on using their system for, what they plan on attaching to it, and what their budget is. At worst Intel is back in the game for winning the hearts and minds of these large group of buyers. At best… improved frame rates with good to excellent application performance makes Intel’s latest generation look very appealing to say the least. Just understand that value will be highly variable amongst the 11th generation processor stack… just as it is with AMD’s 5000-series. So do your homework and think about what is actually most important you. Then the choice will become clear.
