The fastest for gaming? Core i9 11900K and Core i5 11600K Processors in Comprehensive Review - Processors, Motherboards & Memory - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

The fastest for gaming? Core i9 11900K and Core i5 11600K processors in comprehensive review


Recommended Posts

  • תגובות 31
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

Popular responses

EDIT: I'm blind. 200W for a 6-core processor this is insane on any scale, only if the processor is significantly cheaper than the 5600 X there is some reason to look at it at all. At 1300 it is clearly not profitable and I would not recommend anyone to buy it

I will respond very briefly and to the matter on this subject. I usually leave users a judgment about results and text, but it may require some intervention. The audit production process is very simple. I get the hardware, perform a set of exam

What you see there is TDP. TDP refers to the minimum amount of heat that the cooling of the processor should remove. That is, in the examples you gave 2 processors with a TDP of 65W, this means that their cooling should be rated as one that knows how to remove 65W of heat (

Dear Lior.
I'm a big fan of your super professional articles for almost 20 years (from the time of the comprehensive articles on OC with the original FX series).

The article you present here today is an understatement of the intelligence of your readers.
The level of licking for Intel exceeds every limit here.

First, see that you are trying hard not to say the word In the article (maybe maybe as little as possible) ... it's forced and looks ridiculous.
Second, the comparisons you make here are not true at all. 11900 costs much more than 5900 but in performance shows a level quite equal to 5800 which is quite shameful ... but you still call it the most powerful processor in the field (in some tests it loses to its previous generation 10900).
The 11600 may show a nice level of performance but its price level is higher than its competitor 5600.

It is not clear what and why Flying here with these tin processors. The only advantage Intel has that someone should even consider As an option at the moment it is stock availability (and according to rumors it is also not that safe so we will wait and see).
It is very disappointing for me to see such an article from such a professional website and a super professional and esteemed letter like you. Should have gotten here in the head over Fucking with a price tag of market leaders. (Nobody told them that AMD overtook them half a year ago?)
All this knowing that they will soon be releasing a new generation ... so why extort more money from people who do not know the situation in the market? People who can get a lot more value for less money.

Edited By jackhammer
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

If there is already a discussion about the humiliation that is this launch can anyone explain to me why the 11900K exists? As if it's exactly the same processor as the 11700K but with an absurd addition of price and if that's not enough it's also less good than the previous generation that it's supposed to replace in the vast majority of uses. Even in gaming with a video card that is not 3080+ there will probably be no differences between them (maybe at 1080P).

 

So I really do not understand why they forcibly created "I9". As a company that really likes segmentation they could just cancel full features as they like to do and thus create at least some difference (which of course I would think is fucking and disgusting, but it hasn’t bothered them in the past and still doesn’t really bother them in the present).

 

In short this is a launch that the word fuck describes well and if I were to recommend to anyone about a gaming PC processor right now it would probably be the 10600 KF as long as it exists and for any higher budget I would recommend forgetting the word .

Edited By Moon-Mage
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

Intel has poured a lot of money into marketing in recent years to get to a situation that is close to Apple's

Apple is bombarded with prices and unfortunately people are buying

If it works out for them it probably won't but things have never been

 

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
Quote of jackhammer

The article you present here today is an understatement of the intelligence of your readers.
The level of licking for Intel exceeds every limit here.

First, see that you are trying hard not to say the word AMD In the article (maybe maybe as little as possible) ... it's forced and looks ridiculous.
Second, the comparisons you make here are not true at all. 11900 costs much more than 5900 but in performance shows a level quite equal to 5800 which is quite shameful ... but you still call it the most powerful processor in the field (in some tests it loses to its previous generation 10900).
The 11600 may show a nice level of performance but its price level is higher than its competitor 5600.

It is not clear what and why Intel Flying here with these tin processors. The only advantage Intel has that someone should even consider Intel As an option at the moment it is stock availability (and according to rumors it is also not that safe so we will wait and see).

I will respond very briefly and to interest in this matter. I usually leave users a judgment about results and text, but it may require some intervention.

 

The audit production process is very simple. I get the hardware, A set of exams, arranges the numbers, and sees what I get. I set conditions and test method first of all to reflect one result or another.

Next, I approach the writing of the review and production of the graphs, along with a summary and an objective point of view in accordance with the local and global market. Not involved here is an article of what to do and what not to do from any direction - I have complete freedom, as a reporter representing media on the scale of HWzone.

 

My opinions are under criticism, so repeating them will not be too helpful. No, I do not think my processor The new ones are a "waste of sand." I do think Intel could have done better in branding, In pricing And in their tuning. Admittedly, the fact in the field is that they are good gaming processors, and come with a refreshed platform that allows for more than the previous one has allowed so far.

 

Maybe the 11700K review that will go up in a few hours can tell more about the situation from my point of view. There is no side choice here, no forced avoidance here of the word "AMD". There is here mainly an objective view of New and the numbers it produces. I spare no criticism, not even directly towards the people behind the product engineering itself, in front of them.

 

As you probably noticed, no one here hands out medals and commendation marks when product performance or other parts of it are lacking. From the tests I took, the Core i5 11600K processor definitely got a positive score due to the healthy gaming performance it presents, and is a worthy choice for users who are interested in what Intel has to offer. One can argue whether it is worth basing a system on 5600X or 11600K - the user should deduce this according to the budget and requirements. There is no desire here to wave the outside.

 

Perhaps this part of the review summary should remind me of my opinion on the subject:

 

I know after over a decade of reviews I also ask myself this question. I understand that Intel needs to launch products and align technological lines with competition and user expectations, but I can not help but wonder what would have happened if the "development efforts" of Rocket Lake S had not happened, and instead we would have received a refresh to the series S (Series 10) or not even anything new at all until the launch of a new bracket and a new platform later this year.

 

This paragraph was written with the intention behind it that it might have been better for Intel to skip the series altogether S until the arrival of Alder Lake S

 

PS - Yes, I am aware of a much less positive situation than my own in such and other reviews on the net. I respect other results, and understand slightly less rosy conclusions towards Series 11 of .

 

 

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
You took the words out of my mouth, I recognized Lior even before I saw that it was him. His style is not objective and very flattering to Intel. There is a good situation that he / the site gets something from it.
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
A low-level article, an attempt seems to be made to paint an optimistic and restrained picture for one of the most failed launches of In recent years. The professional sites / visitors kill the 11900 mercilessly, and here's dear Lior - you're trying to embellish an ugly act of . Intel has been and remains a bullying company, selling air to tourists in recent years. Unfortunately - you encourage this phenomenon by actually formulating and washing this words of yours. Criticism is an important thing, but unfortunately I do not see criticism here, just a fan of Who does not even try to be objective.
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
Quote of jackhammer

The 11600 may show a nice level of performance but its price level is higher than its competitor 5600.

This part is not true, the price of the 11600KF is significantly cheaper than the 5600X in the region of 250 NIS less

Anyway I personally would have opted for the 5600X

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

Thanks for treatment.

The numerical data and graphs you show unequivocally show that the 11900 only slightly surpasses the 5800 (if at all - because in some tests it falls far short of it). But still in the text you added you are talking about how this processor is back to dominate the market.

It really is not clear to me that there is clear evidence that he falls on certain tests even in front of the previous generation that he is supposed to replace ....

 

Regarding this paragraph: 

Quote of djelectric

I know after over a decade of reviews Processors I also ask myself this question. I understand that Intel needs to launch products and align technological lines with competition and user expectations, but I can not help but wonder what would have happened if the "development efforts" of Rocket Lake S had not happened, and instead we would have received a refresh to the series Comet Lake S (Series 10) or not even anything new at all until the launch of a new bracket and a new platform later this year.

 

Dude, that's laundering words for "this generation is stinking and showing nothing real." The real Lior of yesteryear would say that in the face of "Intel screwed up and released an inferior product here." But apparently with the maturity of the site, you have realized that you are more dependent on the sponsors than on your readers.

 

Also, keep in mind that many young readers who do not yet understand so much in the field "look" at you and what you say as a point of reference. You have a responsibility as a reviewer (and also as a journalist - because what to do this kind of journalism for everything) to present the truth.

And the truth is, you did not talk about the market situation. You did not explain which slot these processors go into, who their real competition is (somewhat suspiciously, the 5900 is absent from almost all tests ....), who their target audience is, who is recommended to buy them, who is not ... maybe in normal market mode all these things Were a little more or a little less relevant, but in the exceptional market situation we are in now, these points are super relevant.

Intel enters a slot in which it loses big but charges a premium price that is detached from reality.

The only reason someone should take these processors is if he owes a computer and there is no available inventory of amd

 

In conclusion, I hope you take my critique as a constructive critique of someone on the side. Keep in mind that if I did not really care about this site, I probably would not write anything here at all ....

 

Hope to read more of your professional reviews on products down the road.

 

 

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
Quote of Lavi 1

This part is not true, the price of the 11600KF is significantly cheaper than the 5600X in the region of 250 NIS less

Anyway I personally would have opted for the 5600X

What the hell are you talking about? The 5600 X was sold at 1250 at KSP right now.

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites
Quote of Moon-Mage

What the hell are you talking about? The 5600 X was sold at 1250 at KSP right now.

The 11600 KF is sold by the suppliers at 215 NIS less than the 5600 not including VAT so it should be significantly cheaper. Its price should be in the region of 1000-1050 NIS

Yahav Computers model 11600KF sold in 1149 and 5600 X BOX sold in 1500, the TRAY model is cheap at NIS 100, this is a difference of NIS 250. (I could not find prices for 11600KF in other stores)

Edited By Lavi 1
Add details
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

Instead of talking about Rick show me where the 11600 KF is sold at 1000 which is exactly 250 less than its market price which is 1250 at a supermarket chain available as KSP.
The fact that the 5600 X is sold at 1500 in some small store is not really relevant to a reasonable buyer.

Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

You do not understand that the comparison is irrelevant in the same store?
If I can go to KSP near home (which is pretty much the whole country) and buy 5600X at 1250, that's the market price of it, feel free to also check the tangle and see a similar price.
The difference in prices between the processors is super negligible only that the motherboards and the cooling (and even the power that the 11600 K takes about 100 W more) that need for 11600 KF are hundreds of shekels more expensive.

Edited By Moon-Mage
Post Reply Direct Link To This Post
Share on other sites

Join the discussion

You can then join the discussion and then join our community. If you already have an account with us, please Log in now To comment under your username.
Note that: The comment will appear to the surfers after approval by the board management team.

guest
Add a comment

×   The content pasted is with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically assimilated.   Show as regular link

×   Your previous content has been automatically restored.   Clear all

×   You can not paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site