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 i9-11900F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£430PassMark multi-core score:23814N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i9-11900F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-11900F
7.2/10

Overall score

Score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 62% of models
Score components

40%

7.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

7.1

User score

â–²Better than 62% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

â–²Better than 57%
7.1

Technical score

Technical score
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 69%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
No expert tests yet
7.1

User score

User score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models

7.1

Mark 8.7 is below the typical mark 8.8 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

9.0

Rating

20%

7.5

Popularity

â–¼Worse than 62%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 15% 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
  • intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
intel-core-i9-11900f
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-11900F

Technical score
Technical score
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

7.1
Reviews score
7.2
User score
7.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

7.5
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
Intel 500 Series
This processor supports Intel 500 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 62.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% 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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512
Show more
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
5.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.5 GHz which is higher than that of 64.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
23,814
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 23,814 in PassMark, which is higher than 77.6% of processors.
Show more
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
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
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
224 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 224 W which is higher than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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
?
Show more

Intel Core i9-11900F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.08x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,814 vs 11,469
  • 94.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,129 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,129 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 37.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,528 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,528 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rocket Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Rocket Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 42.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,188 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,188 vs 1,535
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 2.08x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,814 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,814 vs 11,469
  • 94.5% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,129 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,129 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 37.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,528 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,528 vs 2,558
  • 42.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,188 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,188 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x2.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 3.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (224 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    224 W vs 64 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS 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 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
  • 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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 72% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-11900F is more expensive than the average processor (£430 vs £250).
    £430 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS 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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 3.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (224 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    224 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 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

Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i9-11900F

  • Eight cores and 16 threads handle heavy multitasking.
  • A Geekbench 6 single-core score of 2188 keeps everyday tasks quick.
  • A cooler is in the box, so one less part needs buying.
  • PCIe 4.0 with 20 lanes suits newer graphics cards and fast storage.
  • A base power of 65 W is modest for a chip of this speed.
  • A PassMark multi-core score of 23814 shows strong results on big jobs.

What we don't like about Intel Core i9-11900F

  • Boost power reaches 224 W, which asks a lot of the cooler.
  • The chip is not unlocked, so the clock cannot be raised by hand.
  • No integrated graphics, so a separate graphics card is required.
  • Full boost power lasts only 56 seconds before it drops.

Verdict

For a builder who wants strong multi-core speed, the Intel Core i9-11900F is a practical pick with eight cores and a 65 W base power. Its multi-core results are strong, with 10129 in Geekbench 6 and 23814 in PassMark. The chip is a Rocket Lake design on 14 nm with PCIe 4.0 and 20 lanes for newer graphics cards and fast drives. A cooler is included, so the box is ready to build with. Boost power peaks at 224 W, and the chip is not unlocked, so the clock cannot be raised by hand. There is no integrated graphics either, so a separate card is needed to get a picture on screen. It suits someone building a work or gaming PC with a graphics card already chosen.

Compare Intel Core i9-11900F 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 i9-11900F and other processors

No results found