OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i7-11700K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark multi-core score:24347N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core i7-11700K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 18 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i7-11700K
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 64% of models
Score components

40%

6.8

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

6.8

List score

10%

8.1

Sentiment score

▲Better than 64% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

▲Better than 71%
6.8

Technical score

Technical score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

6.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 65%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 50%
6.8

List score

List score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-i7-11700k
intel-core-i7-11700k
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i7-11700K

Based on 9 · 8

Good gaming performance and solid value, but reviewers widely criticise its high power draw and dated manufacturing process.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i7-11700K

Based on 117 owners sharing their experience in online comments

61%positive13%mixed26%negative

Owners praise its fast gaming and strong value, while high temperatures and power use are the clearest drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Weak coolers let it reach 90 to 100°C in games, so owners say a strong air or 240mm to 360mm liquid cooler is needed.21
  • Under heavy loads it can draw 180 to 300 watts, and owners often lower power limits or undervolt to cut heat.11
  • Many owners say overclocks are unstable or won't apply, causing blue screens, and some chips top out lower than reviewers' results.10
  • Some owners report blue screens, freezes and reboots during gaming, especially after tweaking BIOS voltage or overclock settings. Resetting BIOS to defaults helped some.8
  • In some CPU-heavy games such as Fortnite and Warzone, owners report micro-stutters or lower frame rates than they expected.8
  • Some owners called it poor value at full price, especially once newer Alder Lake chips arrived.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-11700K

Technical score
Technical score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

6.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

6.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
6.8
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

7.7
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570, W480, W580
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570, W480, W580 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 66% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 50.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 81.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
24,347
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 24,347 in PassMark, which is higher than 78.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
640 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 640 KB which is larger than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 750
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 750 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 56.6% of processors and equal to that in 1.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
251 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 251 W which is higher than that of 97.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
56 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 56 seconds which is shorter than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 95 W
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i7-11700K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.12x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,347 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,347 vs 11,469
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 89.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,863 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,863 vs 5,209
  • 2.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,709 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,709 vs 2,804.5
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 32.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,387 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,387 vs 2,558
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    10 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 2.12x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,347 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,347 vs 11,469
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 89.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,863 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,863 vs 5,209
  • 2.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,709 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,709 vs 2,804.5
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 32.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,387 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,387 vs 2,558
  • 46% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,241 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,241 vs 1,535
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 18.2% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (579 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    579 vs 490
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost Max 3
    3 vs 2
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rocket Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Rocket Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (640 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    640 KB vs 384 KB
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 3.92x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (251 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    251 W vs 64 W
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 55.9% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (276 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    276 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 12.8% lower list score
    List score
    6.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    6.8 vs 7.8
  • 48.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (206.7 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    206.72 vs 398.015
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 12.8% lower list score
    List score
    6.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    6.8 vs 7.8
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 48.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (206.7 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    206.72 vs 398.015
  • 39.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (206.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    206.72 vs 340.075
  • 55.9% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (276 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    276 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 3.92x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (251 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    251 W vs 64 W
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 28 seconds shorter turbo duration
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (56 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    56 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
John Charette
≈ estimated
23/10/2022
Hands-on review · integrated graphics gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-11700K is fine for browsing and office work, but its integrated graphics struggle with most shooters.
9.0
Proceu Tech
≈ estimated
10/11/2021
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and comparison with i9-9900K
Verdict
Intel Core i7-11700K is an excellent gaming chip and an easy recommendation, though its drawbacks are worth weighing before buying new.
7.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
04/05/2021
Hands-on review · gaming, power and overclocking tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-11700K offers very good gaming value next to the i9, but AMD is the better overall choice.
9.0
goldfries
≈ estimated
31/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power draw and temperatures
Verdict
Intel Core i7-11700K is good value for money, but it runs hot and needs a capable Z590 board.
8.0
Odd Tech Reviews
≈ estimated
22/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and power tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-11700K performs very well, but is worth buying only if you are upgrading from older Intel generations.
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
10/07/2021
Lab review · Eight-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K is a fast eight-core chip, but it runs hot and is best only if AMD chips are out of stock.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
25/05/2021
Benchmark review · Eight-core chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K trails AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X in almost every test and runs hot, but it's a good pick when AMD chips are hard to find.
9.5
tweaktown.com
✓ explicit
14/06/2021
Lab review · Gaming desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K is a strong eight-core chip for gaming, running close to the Ryzen 7 5800X and gaining 19 percent per clock over the previous generation.
7.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Benchmark test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K is an 8-core desktop chip that works on existing 400-series motherboards, but it misses the Core i9's extra boost features.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
21/07/2021
Benchmark test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K has eight cores like the Ryzen 7 5800X but falls behind it overall, with clocks dropping near base speed under sustained heavy load.
6.6
computerbild.de
✓ explicit
02/11/2021
Benchmark test · Gaming PC chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K is a fast 8-core chip for gaming PCs with a separate graphics card, but its built-in graphics are too weak for demanding games.
5.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Lab test · Clock speed and heat
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K is about 19 percent faster than Comet Lake at equal clocks, but at boost it draws up to 250 watts, more than AMD's Ryzen 5000.
6.0
tweakers.net
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Benchmark review · Desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-11700K has much faster built-in graphics than earlier Intel desktop chips, but it trails the Ryzen 7 5800X in Red Dead Redemption 2.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-11700K

  • Solid gaming performance with high FPS in modern titles
  • Competitive performance for productivity tasks when found at a discount
  • Includes integrated UHD 750 graphics (useful if a dedicated GPU fails)
  • Significant upgrade for users coming from 8th or 9th gen Intel processors
  • PCIe Gen 4.0 support for faster NVMe storage speeds
  • Reliable multitasking capabilities due to 8-core/16-thread configuration

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-11700K

  • High power consumption, often drawing over 200W under heavy load
  • Runs very hot and requires high-end air or liquid cooling (AIO)
  • Poor value-to-performance ratio compared to AMD Ryzen 5000 series (e.g., 5800X)
  • Small performance gain over the previous generation i7-10700K in many tasks
  • Lacks a stock cooler in the box, adding to the total build cost
  • Limited upgrade path as it uses the older LGA 1200 socket

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-11700K is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor from the 11th Gen 'Rocket Lake' series, built on a 14nm lithography with a 3.6 GHz base clock and a max turbo boost of 5.0 GHz. Key features include 16MB of L3 cache, support for PCIe 4.0 (20 lanes), DDR4-3200 memory, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 750. Its main advantages are competitive single-core performance for gaming, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and a value-oriented position relative to the i9-11900K. However, it is hindered by high power consumption reaching nearly 300W under heavy AVX-512 workloads, significant heat generation requiring robust cooling, and lower efficiency compared to competing 7nm alternatives.

Compare Intel Core i7-11700K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7-11700K and other processors

No results found