_story.jpg)
AMD's Ryzen chips used to lag behind Intel in gaming, although the same wasn't the case for productivity applications. Now, thanks to a significant architectural overhaul, the Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 series chips manage to best Intel even at gaming. However, if this leaked Ashes of the Singularity (AoTS) benchmark of an alleged Core i9-11900K Rocket Lake CPU is to be believed, it would be fair to say that AMD has stiff competition to face ahead.
Famous hardware leakster 'APISAK' managed to spot the alleged upcoming i9-11900K running the AoTS benchmark with the '1080p Crazy' preset. Upon further digging, another Twitter user 'Evan Stenger(@TheMalcore)' found comparable results of the 11900K with that of AMD's current mainstream CPU flagship the Ryzen 9 5950X.
It is rumored that the upcoming Core i9-11900K is an eight-core processor based on the 14nm Cypress Cove architecture.
The image above shows the Ryzen 9 5950X getting 57 fps on the 1080p Crazy preset using an RTX 2080 Ti. The image below shows the alleged upcoming Rocket Lake-S Core i9-11900K scoring 63 fps on the same preset, the same game build version, using the same GPU. The only difference between the two systems is that Ryzen one is equipped with 16GB of memory while the 11900K has 32GB. This shouldn't affect the scores too much as it is extremely unlikely for the AoTS benchmark to saturate the entire 16GB of memory.
Quick math shows that the Core i9-11900K with 63 fps is around 10.5% faster than the Ryzen 9 5950X that gets 57 fps.
With this leak alone, it is impossible to say for sure if Intel will best AMD when it comes to gaming. And while AoTS is certainly one of the most CPU-scalable gaming benchmarks out there, different games behave differently based on their optimizations and their builds, so results could widely vary across games. Lastly, we would advise you to take this information with a pinch of salt due to lack of supporting details from official and other credible sources.
Images via Evan Stenger (Twitter)
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article used incorrect phrasing to signify the slight performance difference between the CPUs in question. The article's title, excerpt, and content has now been updated to correctly reflect this. We apologize for the oversight.
21 Comments - Add comment