Benchmarks for Intel's mysterious Core i9-11900KB "Tiger Lake" desktop CPU surfaced today. Testing of Team Blue's upcoming NUC 11 Extreme "Beast Canyon" show the CPU performing similarly to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake."
The i9-11900KB looks to compete against the best CPUs with an octa-core chip with Hyper-Threading, clock speeds of 3.3 / 4.9 / 5.3 GHz, 24MB of cache and a 65W TDP. The NUC tested also uses an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060. Someone with access to the system posted its results in the 3DMark TimeSpy and Fire Strike benchmarks. While 3DMark does not represent performance in real-world games and applications, it still demonstrates overall capabilities of a PC.
Considering specifications of the Core i9-11900KB, it makes sense to compare it to a similarly configured system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W).
i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'
|Header Cell - Column 0||Core i9-11900KB + GeForce RTX 3060||Core i9-11900 + GeForce RTX 3060|
|Time Spy | CPU||10,872||11,064|
|Time Spy | GPU||8,098||8,812|
|Fire Strike | GPU||20,523||22,002|
|Fire Strike | Physics||25,571||25,260|
|Fire Strike | Combined||9,837||9,777|
While the Core i9-11900KB has a higher base frequency, rather high burst clocks and a larger cache, it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark Time Spy CPU test. But that's likely because a better power supply and cooling allowed the latter to work at higher clocks for longer time.
Meanwhile, the Tiger Lake chip slightly outperformed the Rocket Lake in the 3DMark Fire Strike Physics test.
Intel's NUC 11 Extreme "Beast Canyon" doesn't have a price or release date yet but promises to be considerably smaller than standard desktop PCs, so still being able to offer CPU performance on par with bigger systems would be a big deal. Yet, graphics cards will unlikely hit their maximum boost clocks in a small form factor system, due to cooling constraints.
I'm much more interested in the thermals and power draw. It might give some insight as to what to expect with Alder Lake. Hopefully that information comes out soon.
This wasn't a comparison against AMD, it was a comparison against Intel's own product to highlight the differences between the two. Not everything is about competition. Leave your fanboyism at the door. Your comment sounds like it was written by a 12 year old.
Still, you should correct the article, because in the text and over the table you state a comparison against the 11900K ... I'll guess you compared against the 65 W desktop part 11900 w/o "K"?
"to Intel's socketed eight-core Core i9-11900K "Rocket Lake.""
"system powered by the i9-11900K (8C/16T, 2.5 / 5.0/ 5.2 GHz, 16MB, 65W)."
"i9-11900KB 'Tiger Lake' vs. i9-11900K 'Rocket Lake'"
"it still couldn't beat the Core i9-11900K in the 3DMark"If the "K" is correct, and it was the 125 W part, the technical details above are incorrect, so it is a little bit confusing (and the results would be even more impressive if you really compared against a 125 W desktop part ;)).
Thanks for pointing this out!
Ditto, mister 138.
If the 11900K was the compared target, it gets even more skewed, because this is a desktop CPU with already a regular 125 W TDP and it easily can use 150+ W w/o being overclocked, so this makes a huge difference.
And additionally turbo duration is a factor, because the Tiger Lake with its more limited cooling solution can keep up its highest frequency only for a few seconds, whereas the desktop chip might run at this frequency e. g. 10 times longer.
A full-blown test would have supported power consumption during a test run, because it would be interesting to compare 14nm+++ with 10nm++.
An even more in-depth test would lock both CPUs to e.g. 4,0 GHz and check power consumption with the same workload. How much better can 10nm++ perform compared to the old process node?