Benchmarks:
ACC Benchmark from a polish site:
I love this one as it has all CPUs OC'ed to their maximum.
So there is a difference between 10600k and 10700k. But the price difference when I bought my 10600k was 170€!
Then comes the 11600k a tiny bit higher, then the 5600x.
Looks normal until there..
Then the 10900k chimes in with just 100 MHz above the 10700k.
I find this very weird as more cores beyond 5 cores won't give you any fps in ACC. I tested this by shutting of HT and one core after another on my i5.
So I had a look at the other specs: The i9 has 20MB of cache, the i7 16MB.
Might explain the difference, since ACC scales quite nicely with higher ram clocks (not timings, raw clocks!).
Now for ACC, they're all close together but I thought the 11600k was still quite good. 54.6 to 61.2 fps means the 11600k keeping 90 fps (important for VR as we know), when the 10600k would drop to 80.3 fps.
But then you check other benchmarks, with other games and then the pages turn...
Now only benchmarks are "valid" for such a comparison if the difference between the 10700k and the 10900k are very very small. Their single thread performance is almost identical, and simracing titles don't scale with more cores.
So we need to find games that don't show more fps on the more clock CPUs but rather show the single speed performance differences.
Borderlands 3 seems to be a good benchmark for us:
You can see that all CPUs with the same single thread performance have identical fps.
And while the 11600k beats the 10600k, the question is: by how much?
And why buy the 11600k if you could buy a 10700k or 10850k with more cores and no strange latency issues?
Hitman 2, it's a bit weird. But you can see the 5600x and 5800x being almost identical, so the 2 more cores didn't gain much on average fps.
However the 5900x boosts a lot higher, therefore more fps.
The 10900k has more cache and clocks a bit higher, so more fps than the 10700k.
But: the 10700k is identical to the 11600k so why bother buying a z590 mobo instead of z490 + 10850k?
And a last one: F1 2020
Now all these are without overclocking, so the 10600k looks worse than it is, the 11600k clocks a bit higher but still can gain a bit from OCing.
The Polish site is the only one I can find with all CPUs overclocked. Sadly they didn't test the same games.. But let's compare their non-oc benches to the all oc benches:
I'll compare them here in between to be able to look at both:
You can see that there's barely a change of order. The gains look too minimal from my experience but what you can still see:
The 10900k is above the 11600k. Taking these polish site benchmarks with a little grain of salt, as from what I gathered, they are not completely adding up with all the other benchmarks I looked up, the 10900k or 10850k are the better deal overall!
So that what quite a lot...
Here's the Anandtech article about the 11th gen:
www.anandtech.com
Final words:
I'm still confused about all the benchmarks.. They all show different results, some show gains for 11600k that would justify me getting one.
Then you see benchmarks where the 10700k and 10900k destroy the 11600k..
It's weird...
You are in the lucky position that you need to buy everything from scratch anyway and both the 11th Inel gen and the Ryzen 5xxx are the last gens on that socket, so the upgrade path ends for you after this purchase.
Overall I'd say you should get a B550+5600x combo. But the AMD boards seems to have some issues sometimes with many USBs plugged in and some games and applications are simply Intel optimized.
If I'd buy from scratch I would probably buy the Ryzen 5600x.
But if you don't want to upgrade your AEGESA and what not, go with the Intels...
From my current overall picture, I would get the 10850k. It's a 10900k that couldn't reach the 5300 MHz from the 10900k specs but they still have the 10 cores and many of them.
Some benchmarks will show the 11600k performing better but.. I don't know.. the latency issues really turn be off.
To be completely honest: I wouldn't buy anything right now
PC parts in the next post...
