Skip to main content

Core i9-11900, Core i7-11700, Core i7-11700K Specs Reportedly Exposed In New Leak

Intel Core i9-11900
Intel Core i9-11900 (Image credit: Bilibili)

A Bilibili user (via harukaze5719) has posted a thread over at the Bilibili forums that expose the purported specifications of three Intel 11th Generation Rocket Lake-S processors. The chips are engineering samples that the user claims to have picked up on the black market, so final specifications will likely differ from those shown.

The first processor corresponds to the Core i9-11900, which comes equipped with an eight-core, 16-thread configuration and a 16MB L3 cache. The base clock is set at 1.8 GHz, while the single boost clock peaks at 4.5 GHz. The all-core boost on the Core i9-11900 appears to top out at 4 GHz. The Core i9-11900 is a 65W processor, but that's just the PL1 (power level 1) rating. The PL2 value is actually configured to 224W.

Both the Core i7-11700K and Core i7-11700 share the same core specifications as the Core i9-11900. In the case of the Core i7-11700K, the chip reportedly flaunts a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 4.8 GHz single base clock. The all-core boost clock is a bit lower at 4.3 GHz. Coming as no surprise, the Core i7-11700K features a 125W PL1 and a 250W PL2 rating.

Image 1 of 6

Intel Core i9-11900

Intel Core i9-11900 (Image credit: Bilibili)
Image 2 of 6

Intel Core i9-11900

Intel Core i9-11900 (Image credit: Bilibili)
Image 3 of 6

Intel Core i7-11700K

Intel Core i7-11700K (Image credit: Bilibili)
Image 4 of 6

Intel Core i7-11700K

Intel Core i7-11700K (Image credit: Bilibili)
Image 5 of 6

Intel Core i7-11700

Intel Core i7-11700 (Image credit: Bilibili)
Image 6 of 6

Intel Core i7-11700

Intel Core i7-11700 (Image credit: Bilibili)

Lastly, the Core i7-11700 allegedly checks in with a 1.8 GHz base clock but has a single boost clock that reaches 4.4 GHz. The all-core boost clock, however, is stuck at 3.8 GHz. Like the Core i9-11900, the Core i7-11700 also abides by the 65W PL1 and 224W PL2 restrictions.

According to the Bilibili user, the default XMP frequency for Rocket Lake-S is DDR4-3200. However, it was possible to pair the processors with DDR4-4133 memory on an unspecified B560 motherboard. This is a fascinating discovery as it appears that Intel might have enabled memory overclocking on the B560 chipset. If true, this would be a revolutionary change in the right direction since the chipmaker's lesser chipsets are historically limited to the officially supported memory frequency for that specific generation of processors. For example, existing B460, H470, and H410 motherboards are limited to DDR4-2933 memory modules, which are the Comet Lake-S processors' official specifications.

It's a known fact that Rocket Lake-S will wield Cypress Cove cores, which, according to Intel, will offer double-digit instruction per cycle (IPC) improvements. On the graphics side, a previous leak spoke of four potential setups for the 11th Generation chips. The Rocket Lake-S SKUs will feature Xe graphics with either 32 EUs or 24 EUs, while the Comet Lake-S Refresh models will land with UHD Graphics 630and 610 with 24 EUs and 12 EUs each, respectively.

Intel has established the launch date for Rocket Lake-S in the first quarter of next year. However, rumors claim that we might see an announcement as early as CES 2021. 

  • spongiemaster
    1.8Ghz base clock? I know the chips will never run that low, but that would be disappointing for a 28W mobile CPU, let alone a 65W desktop. Color me skeptical on this rumor. Won't be much longer until we know the real specs.
    Reply
  • shady28
    Wow, you people need to learn to use Google translate if you don't have a native Chinese speaker on staff. Your interpretation of what this says leaves a lot out.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains
    Reply
  • JOSHSKORN
    Why hasn't Intel released a chip comparable to AMD's AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X? No Intel 64 Core processor, I mean. Not even for bragging rights? Yeah, I get it, 64 Cores is for bragging rights at this stage of the game, so why not?
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    ingtar33 said:
    i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains

    From the article:

    "and we have also seen samples with 3.4 base and 5.0 turbo, which should be the i9-11900k test version, the official version of the i9-11900k is expected to be clocked at 3.50GHz, and the turbo boost can reach 5.30GHz, and the performance is basically the same as the current 10 core i9 10900k.
    Reply
  • shady28
    If you go to the original source version https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv8983160
    Use google translate, you'll get better information.

    For one, there are three ES samples and they don't actually know what SKU they represent. It's all assumption. One is QV1K and the other is QV1J. The 1J is assumed to be a 11700, and the 1K is assumed to be a 11700K.

    They are only able to run its memory at DDR4-2133 and has a bug that prevents PCIe 4.0 from working.

    The QV1J, which is the buggy one, is from June. The second one, the QV1K, is from August. So, this could also be the same chip with some revisions (J release, K release).

    The third is the QVYE. This one allowed them to run DDR4-3200 XMP but the frequency was locked. This one allowed single core 4.5Ghz all core 4Ghz and is a 65W part. They assume it is a 10900 non-K (IDK why since it is similar to the QQV1J).

    They state they have seen ES' with 5Ghz turbo, and that the 11900K is expected to turbo to 5.3Ghz.
    There is a more recent leak of a QS, which is going to be close to production as it is more of a 'did we get all the bugs out' last round before production sample.

    This one is a 11900K and has a 5.3Ghz single core turbo.

    1342762159583850498View: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342762159583850498
    Reply
  • Conahl
    JOSHSKORN said:
    Why hasn't Intel released a chip comparable to AMD's AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X? No Intel 64 Core processor, I mean. Not even for bragging rights? Yeah, I get it, 64 Cores is for bragging rights at this stage of the game, so why not?
    probably because they can't, or dont want to, so those what want more intel cores, have to go to the more expensive xeon platforms, this IS intel, after all, less for more as been their company motto for a few years now :)

    ingtar33 said:
    i know those base clocks are low, but dont expect 5ghz for rocket lake, word im hearing from my buddy at intel is it desnt clock nearly as well as existing chips, the lost clock speed will likely wash away the ipc gains

    until rocket lake actually comes out, and is reviewed by sites like Toms,AT, etc, its all speculation and rumors
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    shady28 said:
    Wow, you people need to learn to use Google translate if you don't have a native Chinese speaker on staff. Your interpretation of what this says leaves a lot out.
    The author's name is Zhiye Liu, so I would think they might have at least some understanding of Chinese.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    spongiemaster said:
    1.8Ghz base clock? I know the chips will never run that low, but that would be disappointing for a 28W mobile CPU, let alone a 65W desktop. Color me skeptical on this rumor. Won't be much longer until we know the real specs.
    No SuperFin, so base clock is expected to be low to keep to the 65W TDP limit.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    watzupken said:
    No SuperFin, so base clock is expected to be low to keep to the 65W TDP limit.
    If an 8 core CPU needed to drop to 1.8Ghz to guarantee staying below 65W, it would be a completely broken design and wouldn't get sold. As the article states, samples with a 3.4Ghz base have already been seen in the wild, and the final specs for the 11900k are expected to be 3.5Ghz base which is almost twice the 1.8Ghz of the engineering samples listed in the article.
    Reply