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 i9-11900K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark multi-core score:24952N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core i9-11900K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 38 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-11900K
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 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 67% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.1

Reviews score

25%

7.2

List score

10%

7.2

Sentiment score

▲Better than 67% of processors
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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 65% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

▲Better than 65%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 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 72% of models
Score components

60%

7.9

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 72%
7.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.1/ 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
▼ Worse than 61% of models

80%

6.5

Average grade

20%

9.6

Popularity

Grades by review (38)
18 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 20 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.
▼Worse than 61%
7.2

List score

List score
7.2/ 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 (2)
List score: in 2 of 87 lists (2%)
★Better than 94%
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
  • intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
intel-core-i9-11900k
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 i9-11900K

Based on 10 · 20

Strong gaming and single-core speed, but it runs hot, draws heavy power and offers too few cores for the money.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i9-11900K

Based on 75 owners sharing their experience in online comments

59%positive10%mixed31%negative

Owners praise its fast gaming and strong sale value, while high heat and power draw remain the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • High heat and power draw8
  • Some owners report boot failures and no display with certain Z490 or Z590 boards, and BIOS updates have caused problems. One owner also saw the PC start on its own.7
  • Some owners see low frame rates in demanding games such as Rust and RDR2, and report FPS drops when CPU usage climbs to 100% after long sessions.6
  • Owners say it was overpriced at launch and that the Core i7 offered better value for gaming.4
  • Some owners report poor silicon quality, with one core running too hot and overclocking gains limited, so results vary between chips.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-11900K

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

7.9

Performance

18%

5.6

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
7.1
List score
7.2
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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 65% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

7.6
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, Q470, Q570, W480, W580
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, Q470, Q570, W480, W580 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 64.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 52.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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
5.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.3 GHz which is higher than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
24,952
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 24,952 in PassMark, which is higher than 79.5% 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
?
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
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)
?
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 i9-11900K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.17x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,301 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,301 vs 5,209
  • 2.18x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,952 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,952 vs 11,469
  • 20.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 56.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,400 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,400 vs 1,535
  • 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% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,504 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,504 vs 2,558
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 6.0% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.1/ 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
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models

    80%

    6.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (38)
    18 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 7 estimated from the review. 20 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.
    7.1 vs 6.7
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA vs AES, SHA
  • 2.18x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (24,952 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    24,952 vs 11,469
  • 2.17x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,301 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,301 vs 5,209
  • 20.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 56.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,400 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,400 vs 1,535
  • 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% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,504 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,504 vs 2,558
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.5 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
  • 22% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (598 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    598 vs 490
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 7.7% lower list score
    List score
    7.2/ 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 (2)
    List score: in 2 of 87 lists (2%)
    7.2 vs 7.8
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 7.7% lower list score
    List score
    7.2/ 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 (2)
    List score: in 2 of 87 lists (2%)
    7.2 vs 7.8
  • 60% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-11900K is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, TME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, TME 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, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 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)
  • 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

8.0
Tech YES City
≈ estimated
29/09/2023
Latency tests · Windows 10 vs 11 and everyday editing use
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is good to use, but it runs hot and draws a lot of power, so it needs a strong water cooler.
5.0
ThinkComputers
≈ estimated
29/05/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and pricing
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is hard to recommend at this price, though it still handles gaming well.
4.0
TechniQualities
≈ estimated
05/04/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, motherboards and value
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is a big letdown: it is pricey, power-hungry and beaten by the Ryzen 9 5900X.
3.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
31/03/2021
Benchmark review · gaming and application tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is not worth buying: it offers poor value and trails rivals at its price.
4.0
optimum
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming tests and overclocking
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is not recommended: it loses badly to the Ryzen 5900X in production and barely beats it in gaming.
8.0
WePC
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Full review · gaming and workstation benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K delivers strong gaming performance, but the 10900K is better for multi-core work.
4.0
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Review · tests, instability, power draw and motherboard notes
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is not recommended: it is unstable, runs hot and is outperformed by AMD rival chips.
3.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power draw and comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is an uncompetitive flagship that is slower than the 10900K in most tests; buy the 10900K or 11600K instead.
8.0
TheOverclocker
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Launch review · part 1 with early benchmarks and tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is early but impressive, with a flexible memory controller and strong launch performance.
5.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Comparison review · games and application tests vs 10900K
Verdict
Intel Core i9-11900K is hard to recommend over the 10900K, which performs about the same in games.
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.7
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Benchmark review · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K narrowly wins in games, but its eight cores fall far behind AMD in multi-threaded work and draw more power.
7.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Expert review · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K adds PCIe 4.0 but has two fewer cores than its predecessor, and Adaptive Boost is the main complaint.
6.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
10/04/2021
Benchmark review · Gaming desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is a strong gaming chip with snappy single-core speed, but it falls well behind AMD's Ryzen 9 5900X in multi-core work.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Lab test · Gaming and multi-core
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K posts fast single-core speeds and some frame-rate records, but it runs hot and trails the Ryzen 9 5900X in multi-core work.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Lab test · Single-core speed
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is a fast single-core chip for gaming, but it runs hot, needs a 240mm liquid cooler and is outpaced by the Ryzen 9 5900X.
5.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
02/02/2022
Hands-on test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is a solid gaming chip, but AMD's Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X are faster for creative work.
8.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Benchmark test · Mixed workloads
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is among the fastest chips in single-core tests, but it trails the Core i9-10900K and Ryzen 7 5800X in multi-core work.
9.4
chip.de
✓ explicit
31/03/2021
Lab test · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is strong in single-core work and games, but draws a lot of power and drops clock speed in long multi-core runs.
4.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Lab test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is an excellent gaming chip that beats Ryzen 5000 in games, but its eight cores and high power draw hurt application work.
9.4
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Detailed review · Architecture walkthrough
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is an 8-core flagship that gains PCIe 4.0 and faster single-core speed, but drops two cores from the 10900K.
8.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Test review · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is the top gaming chip tested, but it draws much more power and its eight cores fall behind in multi-threaded tasks.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
30/03/2021
Full review · Connectivity and clocks
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K brings 20 PCIe 4.0 lanes and a 5.3GHz single-core boost, but it has 8 cores, two fewer than the i9-10900K.
8.0
madboxpc.com
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Full review · Gaming and graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is a top gaming chip with much stronger built-in graphics than before, but high heat and power draw hold it back.
9.0
gameit.es
≈ estimated
19/04/2021
Editorial review · Gaming CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is a strong gaming chip with fast PCIe 4.0 support, but it has fewer cores and trails the 10900K in multi-core work.
6.0
hwupgrade.it
≈ estimated
30/03/2021
Launch test · Power and clocks
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K delivers about 19% more work per clock than the previous generation, but its 14nm chip draws about 200 W when all cores are busy.
5.0
global.techradar.com
✓ explicit
06/04/2021
Expert review · Desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-11900K is good at gaming and everyday tasks, but its multi-core work and heat make it a weak pick against the Ryzen 9 5900X.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-11900K

  • Strong single-core performance and high IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) gains
  • Excellent for high-refresh-rate gaming in specific titles
  • Introduction of PCIe 4.0 support for faster storage and GPUs
  • Improved integrated Xe graphics (UHD 750) compared to previous generations
  • Support for AVX-512 instructions, beneficial for niche AI and machine learning tasks

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-11900K

  • Regression in core count (8 cores vs. 10 cores in the previous i9-10900K)
  • Extremely high power consumption, reaching up to 300W under heavy loads
  • Runs very hot and requires high-end liquid cooling for stable operation
  • Poor value proposition; often outperformed by cheaper or similarly priced AMD Ryzen chips
  • Frequent thermal throttling and stability issues on early BIOS versions
  • Limited multi-threaded performance gains due to the reduced core count

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-11900K is an 11th-generation 'Rocket Lake' flagship desktop processor built on a 14nm process with 8 cores and 16 threads, featuring a 3.5 GHz base clock and a maximum turbo boost of up to 5.3 GHz via Thermal Velocity Boost. Key technical specifications include 16MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 125W TDP, support for up to 128GB of DDR4-3200 memory, and 20 PCIe 4.0 lanes, alongside integrated Intel UHD Graphics 750. Its primary advantages include exceptional single-core performance and high frame rates in gaming, further enhanced by technologies like Adaptive Boost and Deep Learning Boost for AI acceleration. However, notable drawbacks include a core count reduction from the previous generation's 10 cores, leading to weaker multi-threaded productivity performance compared to rivals, as well as high power consumption and significant heat generation that typically necessitates high-end liquid cooling.

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

No results found