Skip to main content

Retailer Reveals Rocket Lake-S, Comet Lake Refresh Pricing

11th Generation Rocket Lake-S Processor
11th Generation Rocket Lake-S Processor (Image credit: Intel)

2Compute, a retailer over in Belgium, recently added Intel's approaching 11th Generation Rocket Lake-S processors to its product catalog. The store has reportedly revealed the basic specifications and pricing for the 14nm chips. As is customary, we recommend approaching listings about unreleased hardware with caution, even if the listings come from a trusted retailer. It's also important to highlight that computer hardware is typically more expensive outside the U.S.

As evidenced by the F-series, Intel will continue to offer iGPU-less models for this generation. In the case of Rocket Lake-S, the processors arrive without the 12th-generation Xe LP graphics engine. Logically, the F-series and KF-series SKUs will cost less than their counterparts due to the lack of an iGPU. If 2Compute's pricing is even close to Intel's official MSRP, we could be looking at a price difference up to $29.

Rocket Lake-S debuts with the Sunny Cove microarchitecture and maxes out at eight cores. Therefore, it's not really fair to compare it to Comet Lake-S, which is based on the aging Skylake microarchitecture and wields up to 10 cores. However, with every new generation, consumers logically want to know how much they're paying for new technology.

Intel 11th Generation Rocket Lake-S Pricing

ProcessorPricing (Excl. VAT)Cores / ThreadsBase Clock (GHz)L3 Cache (MB)Part Number
Core i9-11900K$6048 / 163.516BX8070811900K
Core i9-11900KF$5758 / 163.516BX8070811900KF
Core i9-11900$4938 / 162.516BX8070811900
Core i9-11900F$4648 / 162.516BX8070811900F
Core i7-11700K$4558 / 163.616BX8070811700K
Core i7-11700KF$4268 / 163.616BX8070811700KF
Core i7-11700$3708 / 162.516BX8070811700
Core i7-11700F$3418 / 162.516BX8070811700F
Core i5-11600K$2936 / 123.912BX8070811600K
Core i5-11600KF$2656 / 123.912BX8070811600KF
Core i5-11600$2506 / 122.812BX8070811600
Core i5-11500$2276 / 122.712BX8070811500
Core i5-11400$2056 / 122.612BX8070811400
Core i5-11400F$1766 / 122.612BX8070811400F

We'll use 2Compute's Comet Lake-S pricing as a reference for an apples-to-apples comparison to Rocket Lake-S. In the interest of keeping it simple, we only compared the three principal K-series models from both processor families.

2Compute sells the Core i9-10900K, Core i7-10700K and Core i5-10600K for $555, $398 and $282, respectively. Therefore, the Core i9-11900K and Core i7-11700K could cost up to 8.8% and 14.3% more, respectively, while the Core i5-11600K may arrive with a 3.9% higher price tag.

Intel 11th Generation Comet Lake Refresh Pricing

ProcessorPricing (Excl. VAT)Cores / ThreadsBase Clock (GHz)L3 Cache (MB)Part Number
Core i3-10305$1724 / 83.88BX8070110305
Core i3-10105$1404 / 83.76BX8070110105
Core i3-10105F$944 / 83.76BX8070110105F
Pentium G6605$1092 / 44.34BX80701G6605
Pentium G6405$792 / 44.14BX80701G6405

So far, rumors have pointed to Intel refreshing its Comet Lake processors for Core i3 and below SKUs. If you're after PCIe 4.0, you'll ultimately have to look at the Core i5 and above models. In terms of Comet Lake Refresh, the recipe will be the same except that the reheated chips will come flaunting improve clock speeds.

The Core i3-10300 and Core i3-10100 are available at 2Compute for $161 and $134, respectively. The rewarmed versions are seemingly 6.8% and 4.5% more expensive, respectively.

Although we can't speak for all models, Rocket Lake-S may cost up to 14% more expensive than Comet Lake-S. Of course, Intel has promised IPC gains up to 19%, and there's also the matter of PCIe 4.0 support. However, we have to be aware that Rocket Lake-S is most likely the last wave of processors to pass through the LGA1200 socket so an upgrade right now does require a bit of meditation.

  • digitalgriffin
    Is Intel counting on the fact AMD can't make enough chips? That pricing is just stupid from a competitive standpoint otherwise.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    o_O
    Take their crown back, they must.

    Guess they gave up trying to compete with AMD on the productivity front, huh?
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    digitalgriffin said:
    Is Intel counting on the fact AMD can't make enough chips? That pricing is just stupid from a competitive standpoint otherwise.
    Has there ever been a leak of this nature, international e-tailer accidently posts place holder pricing for unannounced product and someone tries to do currency conversion with tax/market adjustments, that has ever turned out accurate?
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    digitalgriffin said:
    Is Intel counting on the fact AMD can't make enough chips? That pricing is just stupid from a competitive standpoint otherwise.
    Retailers that are first to supply a product always charge way more for it.
    I'm pretty sure MSRP will be the same as 10th gen.
    Phaaze88 said:
    Guess they gave up trying to compete with AMD on the productivity front, huh?
    The productivity front heavily uses hardware acceleration, you will be hard pressed to find any productivity software that can't use the intel iGPU.
    Reply
  • javiindo
    If there is stock, they will have already win. And if they match AMD in gaming performance, the prices are better. 6 cores for 176$ (almost half price) and 8 cores for 350$.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    TerryLaze said:
    The productivity front heavily uses hardware acceleration, you will be hard pressed to find any productivity software that can't use the intel iGPU.
    Your point is..?
    Reply
  • loinad
    Phaaze88 said:
    Your point is..?

    His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

    Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    Hmm... :unsure:
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    loinad said:
    His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

    Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?

    Quick Sync is extremely powerful. I'm not going to argue that. But it's relevant for specific video decode/encode task only. However it wasn't that long ago that Intel was losing on most video encoding benchmarks up against Threadripper. Even Linus switched over.

    When you are doing hard productivity work, like scientific simulations, or compiling, async computer, web servers, more cores do win.
    Reply
  • Conahl
    loinad said:
    His point is, Intel will keep competing just fine regardless of the silly ‘moar cores’ narrative AMD has successfully implanted into the minds of a few layers from the community. Quick Sync — with its great performance, documentation, and ISV support — is more relevant than 8 extra cores for many productivity workloads, and the same goes for a good dGPU with a proper compute/general acceleration SW ecosystem (that is, NVIDIA and soon Intel with DG* + oneAPI). Meanwhile, AMD is “competing” with flaky and broken-in-every-other-release OpenCL 2.x (Blender was unusable in the last few months), poorly documented/performing/supported VCE/AMF, and dropped Polaris support in the latest ROCm — with Navi* support still being an incomplete mess.

    Guess AMD gave up on competing against Intel and NVIDIA in the productivity front (outside of Cinebench and those compilation benchmarks we devs don’t really run like that because build caches and partial compilation), huh?
    this sounds more like and anti amd rant, then anything. how many that buy intels top 2-3 cpu's, actually use the igp for anything ?

    um, wasnt it a few years ago ( pre zen ) that intel was pushing cinebench in its own performance comparisons ?
    Reply