Skip to content
Home » Intel Core i5 11600KF Review: Intel strikes back

Intel Core i5 11600KF Review: Intel strikes back

Intel Core i5 11600KF

It is impossible to remain relevant in the high-tech world for a long time without breakthrough solutions and constant innovations. Intel’s once undisputed primacy in the segment of central processors melted away in just a few years, and even loyal fans of the company were forced to update with solutions from a competitor. The most unpleasant thing for Intel is not so much the fact of losing market share as losing the minds of potential consumers. For a many people, the equality sign between “processor” and Intel was a familiar state, and many had no doubt that this would continue forever.

Table of contents:

It has been exactly 10 years since Intel introduced the Sandy Bridge architecture and took over the dominance of the home PC CPU market. Such leadership in such a technological and knowledge-intensive sphere could become an example of a well-deserved monopoly, if not for the many small and not very small nuances that happened on the way to beauty today. To begin with, Intel itself and without outside help “stalled” on the Skylake architecture, which for several years has received many insignificant, if not meaningless, in general, updates. However, in the absence of significant competition, such a development of events looked quite natural: indeed, why spend resources on the development and research of fundamentally new solutions when practically the entire processor market belongs to one company. The consumer will not leave, he is simply deprived of a choice: there was nothing on the horizon that could shake Intel’s position.

The main competitor, AMD, seemed to be stuck in development and its rework so deeply that at some point it was much closer to bankruptcy or takeover than to breakthrough solutions. As is often the case with overconfidence, in the end they did not notice the elephant. At first, AMD presented a completely new microarchitecture ZEN, but did not stop there, but began to develop and deeply rework it at some absolutely incredible speed. Intel’s advantage was melting before our eyes, but gaming performance as the main pillar of positioning in the minds of consumers, and at the same time the locomotive of sales, remained behind the “blue camp”. A symmetrical and logical answer was given to the race for the number of cores that started at AMD’s initiative – in the Comet Lake generation, Intel brought the maximum number of physical cores in the top processor of the line to 10. But in 2020 everything changed completely. AMD has brought the Ryzen 5000 processors to the market in the ZEN 3 microarchitecture and has achieved complete dominance in every discipline imaginable.

For the first time in many years, Intel found itself in the role of a catch-up. This problem can no longer be solved by simply increasing the number of cores, and the company understood this. However, it is virtually impossible to quickly bring to the market a new breakthrough microarchitecture, although such a solution is present in Intel’s pocket in the form of the Alder Lake family, but it will not be possible to launch it earlier than 2022. The need to react quickly led to a fallback – adapting the mobile architecture of the Sunny Cove Ice Lake family to the desktop platform. The whole difficulty was only in the fact that Ice Lake is manufactured on a 10nm process technology, and Intel has certain difficulties with the release of suitable large desktop “stones” at 10nm standards. The 14 nm technical process, on the contrary, has been mastered for a long time and is well developed, it is on its basis that, in a short time, for desktop solutions, the conditionally new Cypress Cove architecture, obtained by reverse transfer, is presented.

11th Gen Intel core Desktop Processors
11th Gen Intel core Desktop Processors

11th Gen Intel Cores were codenamed Rocket Lake and retained the LGA1200 socket. A total of 19 processor models are presented. Of particular interest, along with traditional models, is the quick launch of instances with the letter T – these are processors with a compressed thermal package up to 35 W, and they can be extremely interesting for those who want to build powerful, but fairly compact systems. The start of sales began on March 30, 2021. However, enough time has passed since the announcement, and many key features were revealed during the presentation. So, the most noticeable difference from the previous 10th generation is an increase in IPC up to 19% and a more powerful (up to 50%, according to Intel) graphics core Intel Iris XE, which also came to desktops from a mobile platform.

Among other things, it is said about an increase in operating frequencies, full support for PCIE 4.0 lines, increased caches and faster external connection interfaces. The RAM has finally received native support for the DDR4-3200 standard. Reverse adaptation from mobile 10 nm to desktop 14 nm was not free – relative to the mobile Ice Lake family, the area of ​​the cores has almost doubled due to the less perfect technical process, and taking into account the more powerful and, as a result, more overall relative to the previous generations of integrated graphics, the physical dimensions crystal topped the 10-core Comet Lake.

Rocket Lake SOC Features
Rocket Lake SOC Features

Among the key features of Cypress Cove, which replaces multiple Skylake iterations, undoubtedly stands out support for the new type of vector instructions AVX-512, with special emphasis on Deep Learning algorithms and accelerating neural networks thanks to AVX-512 VNNI. Although this can be singled out as a huge advantage only with a very strong desire. Yes, Intel server processors already have AVX-512 support, but in the server segment this development is more than justified. The addition of new vector instructions to mobile and desktop processors looks more like a simplification of production and at the same time an empty marketing advantage. Some real and even more widespread user programs that can work much better with AVX-512 support can be found with great difficulty, and each of them has “ordinary” and long-familiar counterparts that perfectly cope with their tasks on old types of instructions. On the other hand, Intel uses the situation to its advantage as much as possible, and hardware support, of course, should precede the widespread development of software.

Intel Core i5 11600K and Intel Core i5 10600K comparison

The next feature is the increase in cache memory relative to the 10th generation. The cache of the first level has grown by 50% and is now 48 KB against 32 KB for Comet Lake. The increase in specific efficiency is also based on the 12-thread cache associativity (also 50% more than in the previous line). At the same time, the L2 cache also received twice the size, which has now grown to 512 KB and received an 8-thread associativity implementation. But here, too, one should not be fooled: after the four-thread implementation, the increase in efficiency per thread grows weakly, and the twofold increase in associativity is simply due to the increased volume.

Sunny Cove Microarchitecture

The key requirement for such an increase in caches of different levels and internal buffers is the task of reducing internal downtime. The pipeline has received a redesign of the branch predictor and prefetching algorithms, which should have a key impact on the declared IPC growth. However, the final implementation looks somewhat strange and incomprehensible. If you look at the values of the inter-core latency, they have grown relative to all previous generations of Intel and, moreover, are significantly inferior to the Ryzen 5000.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Intel Core i5 11600KF comparison

The reason for such indicators is not only an increase in cache memory, which inevitably increased latency at each of the levels, but also a new memory controller that was transplanted from mobile chips. Just like the ZEN 3, Intel now has two controller modes – synchronous and asynchronous. This was done primarily in order to increase the memory speed, and there are now two such modes: GEAR 1 and GEAR 2. GEAR 1 synchronous mode is familiar and familiar: the memory controller operates at the memory frequency. But this controller operation, according to Intel, shifted the burden of purchasing selected RAM and choosing more expensive motherboards to achieve high frequencies on the user. And for overclockers – also the search for selected processors with a successful memory controller, which is ultimately supplied with excess voltage.

So, already in Comet Lake, exceeding the VCCIO and VCCSA voltages above 1.35 V became the norm, when at the dawn of DDR4 such voltages led to the rapid failure of the memory controller and the complete inoperability of the processor. With the aim of more gentle support of high-speed memory, the GEAR 2 mode was added. When this mode is activated, the speed of the memory controller drops by half in relation to the memory frequency and allows you to reach a higher RAM frequency with less “expense”. According to the official specifications, the GEAR 1 mode is supported up to 3200 MHz for the older processors in the line and up to 2933 MHz for all others. Above these official frequencies, you will have to be content with half the speed of the controller. And it looks like some kind of bad joke.

For those who are not interested in the topic of memory overclocking, we note that even on Coffee Lake it was possible to reach frequencies of 4400-4600 MHz without any change in the operating mode of the controller and, most importantly, without leaving the limits of safe voltages. Moreover, for testing we used a set of memory from relatively successful dual-rank modules based on Samsung B-die chips, and, despite this, we failed to start the system at a frequency higher than 2666 MHz with the GEAR 1 operating mode. The system just didn’t start. Using the Auto mode, when the board itself selects the controller operating mode, led to a long workout and start in GEAR 2 mode.

The significantly lower memory frequency of 2666 MHz in GEAR 1 mode, as you can see, allows you to get about the same delays as at 3800 MHz in the GEAR 2 controller mode. It is hoped that this is a feature of only low-end processors in the line in combination with motherboards based on the base of the stripped-down system logic B560. This is another feature of the 11th generation processor market launch. Apparently, realizing its position, Intel finally decided to add support for overclocking RAM not only on the Z-chipset. Yes, the increase in the frequency of the processor cores itself remains a unique feature of the Z590, but now the H570 and B560 system logic kits receive support for overclocking the RAM. We will dwell on the latter in more detail.

11th Gen Intel Core Processors and Intel B560 Chipset

A feature of the Z590 chipset is a new communication bus between the processor and the chipset – this is DMI 3.0 with a total of eight lines. The younger B560 chipset does not need such a wide channel and has the usual four lanes. The total number of PCIE 3.0 lines is also significantly different from the Z590 – it is 12 lines versus 24 for the older chipset. However, the possibility of allocating 16 full-fledged PCIE 4.0 lanes for the graphics adapter and 4 PCIE 4.0 lanes for an NVME drive at the same time is present, and this is enough for the vast majority of current home systems. The number of HSIO channels has also been cut from 38 to 28, so it will not be possible to fully realize all the expansion options: you will have to sacrifice either USB or SATA. The junior chipset is also deprived of support for Wi-Fi 6E (work at 6 Hz) and is content with regular Wi-Fi 6, which, however, is unlikely to become a problem and limitation, especially for users in the CIS, where the 6-Hz band is simply not approved for state level. There is no RAID support (for this you will have to pay attention to at least the H570). But the number of SATA as in the senior chipset is a full six.

Still, the key feature and the most long-awaited “gift” was the introduction of support for overclocking RAM. Such a move will allow many users to dramatically reduce the cost of the total cost of an Intel-based assembly due to savings on the motherboard.

AsRock B560 Pro4
AsRock B560 Pro4 motherboard

For testing, we deliberately chose perhaps the simplest and cheapest motherboard ASRock B560 Pro4. This is traditionally the youngest line of motherboards, and you should not expect miracles from it, but the board has the minimum necessary qualities. According to the manufacturer, the board has an 8-phase power subsystem equipped with 50A chokes. However, in fact, VRM has honest and minimum 4 phases allowed for the 11th generation, which, together with the limits hardwired into UEFI, will become a limitation even for a mid-range processor without the possibility of overclocking the cores.

There is a reinforced first PCIE x 16 slot and a heatsink on the top M.2 slot for the drive. Total number of M.2 slots. reaches three, which is very impressive for a budget board and hints at the era of SATA storage rejection. At the same time, the upper M.2_1 connector provides support for the Gen4 × 4 bus and functions only with the 11th generation of processors. The M.2_2 slot is content with the Gen3 × 4 bus, while the M.2_2 is cut to Gen3 × 2. The total number of DIMM slots is four, the maximum amount of RAM is 128 GB. On the back, there is one HDMI and one DisplayPort 1.4, six USB (of which two are USB 2.0) and one RJ-45 LAN, which is controlled by the Intel I219V. The board is backward compatible with previous generation LGA1200 processors. Let’s take a look at UEFI.

The interface has been kept as usual; on the whole, the board does not globally differ from the Z-chipset of the previous chipsets. There is an OC-mode, but its capabilities are noticeably curtailed. So, fixing the frequency of all cores is possible only at 4600 MHz, and then with some peculiarities, which we will talk about a little later. The maximum allowable frequency of the ring bus is available for setting at 4100 MHz, however, no manipulations have succeeded in making the ring actually operate at a frequency above 4000 MHz.

The long-term limit is strictly limited at 125 W, which is not caused by the chipset, but by the power supply subsystem of the board itself and current load limitations. Removing short-term limits leads to the ability to keep the frequency of all processor cores in any load for a long time at 4600 MHz, except for super-heavy tasks using AVX instructions. The Tau Boost setting is present, which allows you to play more flexibly with the limits and their duration, but it will be useful only for non-K processors. For K processors, it is still a reasonably simple shutdown. The voltage control is somewhat truncated, but sufficient for most users. There is a regulation of LLC modes, the board persistently itself turns on level 1 with a minimum Vdroop, but level 2 with a small Vdroop remains the recommended and optimal level: follow this item carefully.

Already traditional for low-end ASrock boards on all platforms, VCCSA adjustment exclusively through offset. The baseline indicator is at just over 800 mV, plus offset allows you to easily throw up to 500 mV before the indicator turns red, symbolizing the limit of reasonable voltage. For this board, the mark comes at a level of 1.3 V. The Dram supply voltage setting works with a minus shift of 20 mV in the load, which is confirmed by the multimeter readings. Thus, in order to obtain the actual 1.4 V under high load during testing, we had to set 1.42 V. With the memory setting is a separate and very fascinating story. Firstly, no program is able to fully monitor the actually applied timings from under the operating system. ASRock Timing Configurator Utility v.4.0.4 refuses to work in principle, and version 4.0.3 displays many timings incorrectly or does not display at all. Most likely, the reason lies in the use of a mobile controller.

Given the lack of support for the utility from the manufacturer, most users find themselves in a very uncomfortable position, and the only hope is on third-party developers. Secondly, the changes affected the RTL / IOL block. How the board and controller currently work with RTL remains unclear. Attempting to start with any theoretically correct RTL Init resulted in the system freezing. There is simply no IOL block, so these settings were left in Auto mode. For a deeper study, you need to work with the setup based on the top-end motherboard Z590 chipset, and if this allows you to get answers to your questions, then there will be a reason to reveal the nuances of memory settings in a separate article.

Test configurations with Intel Core i5 11600KF

  • Processor: Intel Core i5-11600KF
  • Motherboard: ASRock B560 Pro4
  • Video card: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3080 OC 10GB GDDR6X
  • RAM: DDR4 G. Skill Trident Z 2x16GB 3800CL16
  • Cooling system: Alphacool Eisbaer 360
  • SSD: A-Data GAMMIX S11 Pro 512GB and Samsung 860 Evo 1TB MZ-76E1T0
  • PSU: Seasonic Focus Plus 650 Gold SSR-650FX
  • Operating System: Windows 10 Version 20H2 (Build 19042.870)
  • BIOS version: P1.50
  • Chipset driver version: ME
  • Graphics Driver Version: 461.92 WHQL
  • Power circuit: high performance

Test configurations

Test configurations with AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

  • Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
  • Motherboard: ASUS ROG STRIX B550-E Gaming
  • Video card: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3080 OC 10GB GDDR6X
  • RAM: DDR4 G. Skill Trident Z 2x16GB 3800CL16
  • Cooling system: Alphacool Eisbaer 360
  • SSD: A-Data GAMMIX S11 Pro 512GB and Samsung 860 Evo 1TB MZ-76E1T0
  • PSU: Seasonic Focus Plus 650 Gold SSR-650FX
  • Operating System: Windows 10 Version 20H2 (Build 19042.870)
  • BIOS version: 1202
  • Chipset driver version:
  • Graphics Driver Version: 461.92 WHQL
  • Power circuit: high performance

The most obvious option was chosen as the opponent – this is Ryzen 5 5600X, endowed with all the same 6 physical cores with multithreading support. The AMD processor-based system was configured in the mode of fixing all cores at a frequency of 4600 MHz at a voltage of 1.265 V, which is the maximum declared frequency for all 5600X cores. The IF bus frequency was fixed at 1900 MHz with a memory frequency of 3800 MHz and CL16 timings with manual optimal adjustment of all secondary and subsequent timings.

Largely due to the peculiarities of the B560 chipset, the Intel Core i5 11600KF setting also “froze” at 4600 MHz across all cores and the memory frequency at 3800 MHz (GEAR 2) with the maximum unification of secondary timings with the settings of the AMD platform. Thus, we will be able to compare processors “head-on” at the same core and memory frequencies, which in general is not an absolutely correct approach – after all, these are different architectures, and each of them has its own limits. However, such a setting is of some research interest, especially in the context of users who want to save on the total cost of the system and prefer a motherboard based on the B560 system logic.

Consumption. Limits. Stability – Intel Core i5 11600KF

In a light load of the AIDA64 CPU benchmark, the Intel Core i5 11600KF processor honestly holds its 4600 MHz, while the total consumption is 95 watts. If we increase the load and test it with the Cinebench R23 benchmark, then the consumption rises to 162 watts at its peak. In this case, the frequencies remain within the set value. The Blender benchmark heats up the processor to a maximum of 67 degrees under LSS with a maximum consumption of 172 watts. The frequency is also not reset.

But now LinX v0.9.10 with support for AVX instructions triggers the limiter and, as a result, drops the frequencies to 4300 MHz. But the temperature is only 76 degrees. Yes, despite the relatively high consumption of an overclocked processor, it is relatively easy to remove heat from such a large crystal. With the same performance in gigaflops, the Ryzen 5 5600X processor consumes only 130 watts, but heats up to almost 95 degrees under the same cooling. After all, the chiplet design and improved technical process bring more than just bonuses.

Nearly identical memory settings on both systems exhibit approximately identical memory latencies. But if for Ryzen in this generation such a result is a great achievement, then for Intel it is rather a step back. The first to blame is the GEAR 2 mode of the memory controller, but in general, the increased internal latencies are not for the better. In previous generations of Intel, on similar memory settings, it was possible to get a latency of less than 40 ns.

Cinebench R20

The already outdated version of the benchmark is interesting in that it will allow those thinking about an upgrade to evaluate the difference with their existing system. The benchmark demonstrates a slight advantage of the AMD processor in both single-thread and multi-thread testing.

Cinebench R23

The Cinebench R23 version, which replaced at the end of 2020, has a more honest testing algorithm and is less like a “parrot meter in a vacuum”. Nevertheless, the situation has not changed in any way, and the overall balance of power is still in favor of Ryzen.

Geekbench 5

A complex benchmark with a not-so-unambiguous reputation in terms of the results it produces. Suddenly 11600KF at one frequency is ahead in single-threaded performance, albeit by a tiny point. However, it loses in multithreading.

CPU-Z – Intel Core i5 11600KF

And in this benchmark, the situation does not change in any way: Ryzen is slightly faster in both situations. But in all fairness, it should be noted that, unlike the AMD processor, the Intel Core i5 11600KF has 300-500 MHz of potential overclocking in stock if it is transferred to the Z-chipset.

Blender Benchmark 2.92

Blender Benchmark 2.92 - Intel Core i5 11600KF

One of the best practice-oriented benchmarks. And here, only in the Victor scene, the Intel Core i5 11600KF processor noticeably lets the “red” forward.

Blender. The Junk Shop Scene

The scene is already from the program itself, not the benchmark. Ryzen’s five-second advantage on such a small stage will melt like ice in the spring if the 11600KF clock is slightly increased.

Blender. The Junk Shop Scene, seconds (Less is better)

V-ray Benchmark

Another render test – and here again the Intel Core i5 11600KF is catching up. For the 5600X, the score is close to the best, and activating PBO or adjusting the curve will not increase the score in any way, but for Intel, the headroom is very significant. Overclocking the cores will help not only catch up, but also bypass the opponent.

V-ray, Points (more is better)

Corona Benchmark

The Intel processor will easily win back a small advantage by increasing the frequency of cores and the ring bus, as well as in the case of activating the GEAR 1 mode, if there is such an opportunity. The test is extremely sensitive to RAM settings. In the meantime, Ryzen looks a little preferable, but this is a very vague superiority.

Corona Benchmark, seconds (Less is better)

7-Zip – Intel Core i5 11600KF

Archiving is still noticeably better with the Ryzen 5000. No overclocking will help Intel here.

7zip Total Rating, MIPS (more is better)

PCMark 10 Extended – Intel Core i5 11600KF

A comprehensive benchmark that simulates many day-to-day tasks. The Intel Core i5 11600KF scores a lower overall overall score on the Spreadsheet Editing Score and Physics Test Score alone.

PassMark PerformanceTest

Intel managed to seriously redesign the internal structure and thereby eliminate the very deep lag in encryption and integer computing, which put previous processor families in an uncomfortable position in front of the ZEN 3. Adjusted for the underclocking, we can talk about equal processor performance. The Memory Mark section also does not change the general conclusions in any way, except that, despite the GEAR 2 mode and similar indicators in AIDA64, the Intel Core i5 11600KF manages to show itself noticeably better here in the Memory Latency test.

Moving on to testing gaming performance, it is necessary to emphasize that the ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 3080 OC 10GB GDDR6X video card is manually tuned by changing the voltage curve. Thus, the fixed frequency of the graphics chip was 1980 MHz at a voltage of 925 mV, and the video memory frequency was fixed at 20 800 MHz. The capture of game benchmarks was carried out using the CapFrameX program associated with the RTSS Rivatuner Statistics Server.


Intel Core i5 11600KF slight advantage in the AVX-sensitive TimeSpy Extreme benchmark is balanced out by the slightly more noticeable superiority of the Ryzen 5600X in the FireStrike Ultra benchmark. Significantly, the card behaves exactly the same in both systems, which means that neither processor limits the performance of the graphics adapter.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Lara Croft still holds the title of the best gaming benchmark of all time. The game is extremely sensitive to all system settings. Moreover, it has a clear dependence on the number of logical cores. At least up to 24 streams, it is easy to find a linear increase in the frame rate. Specifically, in our case, Ryzen’s 9% advantage over the hero of the article is achieved, probably due to a larger cache size and a rarer memory access.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider test

Metro Exodus

The second game, which at the time of 2021 remains one of the most difficult benchmarks for both processors and graphics adapters. Despite the fact that the Intel Core i5 11600KF does not work at its full capacity and, obviously, has a potential frequency reserve in case of overclocking on the Z-chipset, we get equal frame rates between the processors.

Metro Exodus test

Far Cry New Dawn

A memory lag-sensitive game that has traditionally been favored by the blue camp. And even though the Intel Core i5 11600KF is not in our best shape, it knocks out a bit of an advantage for itself.

Far Cry New Dawn test

Horizon Zero Dawn

This benchmark is extremely sensitive to the total amount of RAM. In general, Horizon benchmarks with less than 32GB of memory should be very skeptical. On systems with 16 GB, you may experience problems if you disable the paging file or allocate insufficient memory. The benchmark itself behaves relatively inconsistently, which can be seen on the Ryzen screenshot, where the minimum fps is obviously too low. However, in the process of capturing RTSS indicators, it was possible to obtain equal results with a minimum error.

 Horizon Zero Dawn test

Red Dead Redemption 2

Here the benchmark consists of both static and dynamic scenes. Therefore, the capture of the benchmark is carried out exclusively in the last dynamic scene from the moment the hero robbed the cash register and started his escape. With conditional equality in average fps, both the benchmark itself and the scene captured via RTSS demonstrate Ryzen’s deep failure in very rare events. Neither a good setting nor a larger cache size can help.

Red Dead Redemption 2 test

Watch Dogs: Legion

You can differently treat the latest Watch Dogs as a game itself, but their benchmark came out amazing in terms of the load created and the reproducibility of the results. Absolute equality between both systems.

Watch Dogs: Legion test

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

Probably the best new game ever. Despite the fact that the series dragged on and went far from the original idea, and specifically “Valhalla” is rightly compared with “The Witcher” rather than with the original franchise, this part did not disappoint. The last edits have slightly corrected and diversified the gameplay. Perhaps, when testing with a video card of the level of Radeon RX6900XT and activating the Resizable BAR, it would be possible to intend some kind of advantage in favor of Ryzen. But with an NVIDIA card and without additional enhancements, the benchmark demonstrates the expected parity.

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla test


Don’t be fooled: no revolution happened. The need to respond quickly to the extremely successful ZEN 3 generation of AMD processors forced Intel to take a risky step by adapting mobile cores to the peculiarities of desktops. And we have to admit: such a decision fully justified itself. In a situation of forced helplessness from the impossibility of mastering a more recent technical process, Intel risked missing a whole year (and with it not just leadership, but a huge segment of the processor market) and losing its attractiveness in the eyes of consumers for a long time.

The microarchitecture Cypress Cove, which came to the rescue, has completely restored the parity of computing power among the “blue” and “red” camps. Yes, in some tasks AMD processors still seem to be the preferred choice. Yes, Intel has given up the palm in the top segment: there is simply nothing to oppose to processors of the 5950X and 5900X level. It is no longer possible to increase the number of cores within the framework of an affordable and well-debugged 14 nm process technology.

But for an ordinary consumer of mid-budget solutions, the offer on the market has doubled, and lower prices for Intel processors and a forced, but still largely unexpected move with memory overclocking on low-end chipsets makes Intel-based assemblies more attractive in some cases. In addition, the 10th generation of Intel processors will remain on sale in the near future. Now the “blue” processor is about budget and mid-range solutions, and not about the ultimate performance and unconditional top. Interesting metamorphoses in such a short period.

The directly tested Intel Core i5 11600KF is quite capable of taking on the role of Intel’s 11th generation flagship processor. Its price positioning makes it a highly desirable processor, and its gaming capabilities make it a good choice. A potential consumer of the system, even in combination with a relatively inexpensive motherboard based on the B560 chipset, will be able to manually configure the RAM and full support for PCIE 4.0 – 16 lines for the graphics adapter and 4 lines for the NVME drive, as well as the implementation of the Resizable BAR technology. And the gaming performance will definitely not disappoint anyone!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *