Image: Intel

Complete technical specifications for Intel’s upcoming lineup of 11th Gen Core i7 and i9 “Rocket Lake-S” processors have made their way onto the web. The leaked information comes courtesy of Wccftech, whose sources shared a table confirming the base clocks, turbo frequencies, TDP, and other vital specs for the family’s high-performance SKUs, such as the 8C/16T Core i9-11900K, which will purportedly boast a single-core Turbo speed as high as 5.3 GHz. It also appears that all of the flagship Rocket Lake-S CPU’s cores can hit 4.8 GHz simultaneously.

“[…] the B-0 stepping is essentially the QS sample and while this revision is usually final, Intel may decide to polish these some more,” Wccftech noted in regard to the silicon revision. “In that case, the final variant could potentially be better than this – but not worse. The company’s flagship Rocket Lake CPU, the Core i9 11900K will be able to boost to an astounding 5.3GHz single-core and 4.8GHz all-core thanks to Intel’s incredibly mature 14nm process.”

“Combined with the IPC increase we are seeing, this should put an incredible amount of competitive pressure on AMD’s Zen 3 lineup. While we aren’t making any claims yet, I would not be surprised if Intel retakes the performance crown from AMD in 2021.”

The complete technical specifications for Intel’s upcoming lineup of 11th Gen Core i7 and i9 “Rocket Lake-S” processors may be found in the table below. Previous coverage suggested that these CPUs would not be available for purchase until March 30, but German retailer Mindfactory has reportedly been shipping the Core i7-11700K to at least a handful of lucky Intel fans (1, 2, 3) already.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. Lets read through this and see if they made mention of corrected vulnerabilities at the hardware level…

    Nope… not even something to feign consideration in then.

  2. Lets read through this and see if they made mention of corrected vulnerabilities at the hardware level…

    Nope… not even something to feign consideration in then.

    You’re expecting this from Wccftech…?

    And you’re expecting prime product release copy to be committed to vulnerabilities?

    How many bones do you have to pick?

  3. You’re expecting this from Wccftech…?

    And you’re expecting prime product release copy to be committed to vulnerabilities?

    How many bones do you have to pick?

    Just one. Security. If they can get performance parity again with proper security I’m all for it.

    To be clear my desktop is AMD, but my laptop’s, and unfortunately all of the server infrastructure I am responsible for is Intel.

    Professionally and personally I want Intel to come out and say. "WE HAVE CRUSHED THESE SIDE CHANNEL VULNERABILITIES and given back the performance that previous generations of our CPU’s suffer due to microcode mitigation on an adhoc basis." And I REALLY want that this year… because I want to go into ordering and building new servers next year 2022 for our big refresh KNOWING that the new hardware is there and rocking the house ready to go from a security standpoint.

    I was tied in KNOTS because of the vulnerabilities professionally. So yea it’s a big concern to me. I work for a company that is responsible for the safety and security of millions of people.

    I have every security patch goin on our servers and I hate that it is stealing performance. Sure we are pretty deeply over built on our compute front. So we can absorb this. But as more and more the money crunch says do more with less… it gets painful fast.

    It’s no big deal if some SQL servers take 5% longer to do a task. Our servers are screaming.

    But if you apply that same 5% to a overprovisioned ESXi host… it gets painful. Then you have to choose between security and performance or spending more $$$. For larger farms that $$$ gets VERY large VERY fast.

    So I’m sorry if you dislike my looking for words about security and vulnerability elimination in the CPU’s that Intel is coming out with and being verbal about it.

    Know that I take YOUR data very seriously, and protecting it while serving your security (for our customers) is priority 1.

    And yea… I like FPS in games too damnit! ;)

  4. Professionally and personally I want Intel to come out and say. "WE HAVE CRUSHED THESE SIDE CHANNEL VULNERABILITIES and given back the performance that previous generations of our CPU’s suffer due to microcode mitigation on an adhoc basis." And I REALLY want that this year… because I want to go into ordering and building new servers next year 2022 for our big refresh KNOWING that the new hardware is there and rocking the house ready to go from a security standpoint.

    I don’t know if the lawyers will ever let them say this :)

    So I’m sorry if you dislike my looking for words about security and vulnerability elimination in the CPU’s that Intel is coming out with and being verbal about it.

    It’s not the wording, is that you’re expecting it from Wccftech ;)

  5. Just one. Security. If they can get performance parity again with proper security I’m all for it.

    To be clear my desktop is AMD, but my laptop’s, and unfortunately all of the server infrastructure I am responsible for is Intel.

    Professionally and personally I want Intel to come out and say. "WE HAVE CRUSHED THESE SIDE CHANNEL VULNERABILITIES and given back the performance that previous generations of our CPU’s suffer due to microcode mitigation on an adhoc basis." And I REALLY want that this year… because I want to go into ordering and building new servers next year 2022 for our big refresh KNOWING that the new hardware is there and rocking the house ready to go from a security standpoint.

    I was tied in KNOTS because of the vulnerabilities professionally. So yea it’s a big concern to me. I work for a company that is responsible for the safety and security of millions of people.

    I have every security patch goin on our servers and I hate that it is stealing performance. Sure we are pretty deeply over built on our compute front. So we can absorb this. But as more and more the money crunch says do more with less… it gets painful fast.

    It’s no big deal if some SQL servers take 5% longer to do a task. Our servers are screaming.

    But if you apply that same 5% to a overprovisioned ESXi host… it gets painful. Then you have to choose between security and performance or spending more $$$. For larger farms that $$$ gets VERY large VERY fast.

    So I’m sorry if you dislike my looking for words about security and vulnerability elimination in the CPU’s that Intel is coming out with and being verbal about it.

    Know that I take YOUR data very seriously, and protecting it while serving your security (for our customers) is priority 1.

    And yea… I like FPS in games too damnit! ;)

    Rocket Lake is not based on the Skylake architecture, so they are not affected by those security vulnerabilities.

  6. Rocket Lake is not based on the Skylake architecture, so they are not affected by those security vulnerabilities.

    That’s a nice thought but where is the vendor saying that? Considering the multiple generations that the vulnerabilities have applied to, I am not going to just assume that these do not have the same problems.

  7. That’s a nice thought but where is the vendor saying that? Considering the multiple generations that the vulnerabilities have applied to, I am not going to just assume that these do not have the same problems.

    I don’t see any bulletins on vulnerabilities associated with Cypress Cove.

  8. I don’t see any bulletins on vulnerabilities associated with Cypress Cove.

    I forget does the body that tracks vulnerabilities test them against new generations of products when they release? Is there an update to the cve saying the manufacturer has stated x chips do not have the issue? If so then I’m done having to stress over it.

Leave a comment