Why does it say 24T at those CPUs with 32 threads?

Not very surprised by this development of hybrid processors for desktops. If I'm not mistaken, mobile phone processors have been using hybrid designs (of sorts) for years now.

Vayra86Why does it say 24T at those CPUs with 32 threads?

iirc, the 8 gracemont atom cores (Skylake ipc, ~3 ghz) doesn't have hyperthreading.
24T should be the real number, the odd core configuration must've messed up SANDRA readings.

big.LITTLE is an abomination for desktops.

PooPipeBoyIf I'm not mistaken, mobile phone processors have been using hybrid designs (of sorts) for years now.

Yes, for a reason, to save power. You don't need that on a desktop.

Vya Domusbig.LITTLE is an abomination for desktops.



Yes, for a reason, to save power. You don't need that on a desktop.

Yes lets just make more 220W CPUs that drop out of turbo in 13ms and throttle to hell all the time.

Big.Little could work on a desktop. Big for gaming, little for watching youtube/music.

Could work

Use of DDR4 is interesting. Everything up til this point has pointed towards DDR5 for use with Alder Lake.

Vya Domusbig.LITTLE is an abomination for desktops.



Yes, for a reason, to save power. You don't need that on a desktop.

Intel big.little isn't to save power, its to compete with AMD on pricing. Hey look we have 16 cores cpus too for the same price!

Vya Domusbig.LITTLE is an abomination for desktops.



Yes, for a reason, to save power. You don't need that on a desktop.

Good for you, but 95% of everyday users would actually like to have a processor that idles at 10 watts rather than 40 watts and saves a few dollars on the power bills. The power-saving implications for large-scale computing like data centers is a big deal.

As far as customers go, power users like yourself are a small drip in a large pond.

GungarIntel big.little isn't to save power, its to compete with AMD on pricing. Hey look we have 16 cores cpus too for the same price!

The world is ending! Everyone grab your tin foil hats!

PooPipeBoyGood for you, but 95% of everyday users would actually like to have a processor that idles at 10 watts rather than 40 watts and saves a few dollars on the power bills.

They already idle in single digit W figures. I am absolutely convinced 95% of users wouldn't at all care about a processor that idles at 1 or 2 Watts less. They probably don't even have a clue what that power consumption is to begin with.

You got this 100% backwards, only someone really knowledgeable like a power user would even think of or measure these things.

PooPipeBoyThe power-saving implications for large-scale computing like data centers is a big deal.

Data centers run at full blast most of the time, in fact their goal is to maximize usage as much as possible. If your CPU nodes are idling, you're losing money. Again, this is a product for consumers, not for companies.

So as i understand it it's:

8x BIG cores
8x HT
8x little cores

TomorrowSo as i understand it it's:

8x BIG cores
8x HT
8x little cores

There is no such thing as an HT core. HT is part of a core.

This has 16 cores of which 8 are smaller and don't have HT. So 16 cores in total with 24 threads in total.

Vya DomusThey already idle in single digit W figures. I am absolutely convinced 95% of users wouldn't at all care about a processor that idles at 1 or 2 Watts less. They probably don't even have a clue what that power consumption is to begin with.

You got this 100% backwards, only someone really knowledgeable like a power user would even think of or measure these things.

Data centers run at full blast most of the time, in fact their goal is to maximize usage as much as possible. If your CPU nodes are idling, you're losing money. Again, this is a product for consumers, not for companies.

Where'd you get that "single digits" consumption from? My Ryzen 3100 idles at 25 to 30 watts and it's a budget processor, so that busts that myth. A laptop processor might consume 10-15 watts. There's no desktop processor on the planet that can even come close to single digits.

Lets not forget about the Core 2 Duo, either. One of the most successful processor lineups and it was based on the Pentium M architecture, which was....wait for it.....designed for efficiency rather than outright power. Power efficiency is what drives the whole computing industry. So yes, we should care about it rather than considering efficiency to be an "abomination". That's just straight up ignorance.

PooPipeBoyWhere'd you get that "single digits" consumption from? My Ryzen 3100 idles at 25 to 30 watts and it's a budget processor, so that busts that myth. A laptop processor might consume 10-15 watts. There's no desktop processor on the planet that can even come close to single digits.

Lets not forget about the Core 2 Duo, either. One of the most successful processor lineups and it was based on the Pentium M architecture, which was....wait for it.....designed for efficiency rather than outright power. Power efficiency is what drives the whole computing industry. So yes, we should care about it rather than considering efficiency to be an "abomination". That's just straight up ignorance.

CPU core power while idling : about 4 W in total, most cores consume well, well under a single watt. "SoC power" means the whole chip with memory controllers and all that, a big.LITTLE architecture wouldn't change that figure.

So, for instance, in an 8 core with 4 big and 4 small cores where let's say the small cores consume half as much power. That would mean 3W for the cores in total but the SoC figure which you can see eats most of the power would remain unchanged. The total SoC+Core figure would go down by what, less than 10%. That's nothing, literally no more than a watt. In a phone that matters a lot, in a desktop PC it's nothing. You could leave the PC on 24/7 and the difference in electricity cost would be indiscernible, within margin of error.

Also, a 16 core chip with 8 small cores would consume more power than an 8 core using just big cores by the way.

You clearly do not understand that you can either increase efficiency with the purpose of increasing performance or with the purpose of lowering power. Small cores on the same chip drive power down not performance up.

Before you call me ignorant, learn more in depth information about these things. big.LITTLE has no place in desktops, it provides nothing.

Vya DomusThere is no such thing as an HT core. HT is part of a core.

This has 16 cores of which 8 are smaller and don't have HT. So 16 cores in total with 24 threads in total.

You did notice i did not designate HT as cores?

Vya Domus

CPU core power while idling : about 4 W in total, most cores consume well, well under a single watt. "SoC power" means the whole chip with memory controllers and all that, a big.LITTLE architecture wouldn't change that figure.

So, for instance, in an 8 core with 4 big and 4 small cores where let's say the small cores consume half as much power. That would mean 3W for the cores in total but the SoC figure which you can see eats most of the power would remain unchanged. The total SoC+Core figure would go down by what, less than 10%. That's nothing, literally no more than a watt. In a phone that matters a lot, in a desktop PC it's nothing. You could leave the PC on 24/7 and the difference in electricity cost would be indiscernible, within margin of error.

Also, a 16 core chip with 8 small cores would consume more power than an 8 core using just big cores by the way.

Before you call me ignorant, learn more in depth information about these things. big.LITTLE has no place in desktops, it provides nothing.

When you're implying that a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of engineers are investing millions of dollars of R&D into an irrelevant product, there's definitely ignorance involved.....

TomorrowYou did notice i did not designate HT as cores?

It still doesn't make sense to me what you were trying to say. The big cores have 2 threads each, what was "8x HT" supposed to mean ?

PooPipeBoyWhen you're implying that a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of engineers are investing millions of dollars of R&D into an irrelevant product, there's definitely ignorance involved.....

As I expected, you couldn't counter anything I said and just threw some "mUlTi-BiLlIoN dOlLaR cOrPoRaTiOnS kNoW bEtTeR".

Fine dude, whatever, you just keep believing I'm the ignorant one here. I do wonder, if Intel came out and told you that you should hit yourself with a frying pan over your head would you do it ? After all, they're the ones with the billions of dollars and thousands of engineers, they must be onto something right ?

They are totally not just trying to sell sub-par products for more money. No way.

Vya DomusIt still doesn't make sense to me what you were trying to say. The big cores have 2 threads each, what was "8x HT" supposed to mean ?

It's literally in the name: 8 HyperThreads. Threads. Not cores. Jesus some people are total grammar nazis.

TomorrowIt's literally in the name: 8 HyperThreads. Threads. Not cores. Jesus some people are total grammar nazis.

Not a grammar nazi, I have literally never heard anyway say that a processor has 8x cores and 8x HT. It's a really convoluted way of saying 8 cores with HT.

Vya DomusAs I expected, you couldn't counter anything I said and just threw some "mUlTi-BiLlIoN dOlLaR cOrPoRaTiOnS kNoW bEtTeR".

Fine dude, whatever, you just keep believing I'm the ignorant one here. I do wonder, if Intel came out and told you that you should hit yourself with a frying pan over your head would you do it ? After all, they're the ones with the billions of dollars and thousands of engineers, they must be onto something right ?

They are totally not just trying to sell sub-par products for more money. No way.

No, I simply don't shut down ideas that haven't seen the light of day yet. It's perfectly okay and healthy to keep an open mind and realise that MAYBE the professionals know more than you do yourself. That makes me a cliff-jumping fool, does it? That's a very astute observation.

I'm with @Vya Domus on this one: the desktop idles well as it is. (Less then 50W for the whole platform: www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html)

The only way this would be useful is if the little cores could be used at the same time with the big ones. But I don't think that will be the case.

bugI'm with @Vya Domus on this one: the desktop idles well as it is. (Less then 50W for the whole platform: www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html)

The only way this would be useful is if the little cores could be used at the same time with the big ones. But I don't think that will be the case.

Well if they aren't using all cores, under any scenario, then it's really too much of a big fail, isn't it? After all DynamIQ already does this, no reason Intel shouldn't be able to!

R0H1TWell if they aren't using all cores, under any scenario, then it's really too much of a big fail, isn't it? After all DynamIQ already does this, no reason Intel shouldn't be able to!

The question is under what sort of scenarios would that be really useful. Again, in a phone it makes sense because the large cores often throttle heavily under most conditions so if you need multi-threaded performance the small cores offer a decent boost.

Multithreaded, how about CB20 or blender? Intel probably just wants the benchmark wins with this one, seeing how AMD is just demolishing them in the mindshare & tasks "other than gaming" space.

Not every Intel product made (logical) sense, this one doesn't have to either.

R0H1TMultithreaded, how about CB20 or blender? Intel probably just wants the benchmark wins with this one, seeing how AMD is just demolishing them in the mindshare & tasks "other than gaming" space.

But in a 16 cores vs 16 cores scenario, AMD would still beat them. It would bring them closer to the top of chart but still no where near AMD for stuff like CB20 or blender.