11500 or 11600K depends on the specific application and requirements.
11500 or 11600K depends on the specific application and requirements.
In my area the 11500 costs 19% less than the 11600K. UserBenchmark says the 11500 is about 3% slower ("Effective speed") compared to the 11600K. Both use UHD750 as their iGPU, which is better than UHD730. I’m not sure how trustworthy these scores are, since they change a lot over time. Right now there are 95 benchmarks for the 11500 and 303 for the 1600K, so few in each category—just as expected for new chips. What would you prefer to buy? Best, -a-
Most reviews from trusted sites like GamersNexus and Hardware Unboxed are reliable. I lean toward GamersNexus for its thorough testing and Hardware Unboxed for broader application insights. However, it seems these reviewers haven’t covered the 10500 yet. Since both CPUs share the same architecture, the main distinction lies in a 300MHz boost clock advantage and overclock potential. My estimate suggests they’re about 5% better for gaming performance—worth considering if that translates to roughly $200. EDIT: It turns out gaming isn’t the main focus here. I’d go with the 11500 right away.
In my area the cost gap between the 11500 and 11600k is about $50. Based on what you mentioned, the 11500 seems more reasonable for me. Thanks.
The options mostly revolve around passmark. While it doesn't clearly demonstrate the real boost a CPU provides in everyday situations, it offers a general sense. For instance, a Q6600 scores 1770 whereas a 3000g reaches 4400. The latter might not be exactly twice as fast, and we lack details on architectural variations that affect performance. What remains clear is the significant gap between the 3000g and the older core 2 quad. Userbenchmark faces criticism for fabricating its data, as its calculations don't accurately reflect actual usage scenarios.
Thanks to @Cheburek! I'm not very familiar with Passmark yet, but it seems promising. I'll take a closer look. Best, -a-