Upgrayedd32 e-cores?? Give me like 8e, delete the iGPU entirely from the design and use the rest of the space for more P-cores or cache. Why are they even playing around with the market segments AMD has taken from them?

Who at Intel is going. "yeah normies need 64 threads and half of them need to be weaker than the other half". Anyone who actually needs that is just going TR or Xeon. I understand this is a cheaper alternative for some people than TR or Xeon, but the mass majority that will get something like this will NEVER need 32e cores.

Upgrayedd32 e-cores?? Give me like 8e, delete the iGPU entirely from the design and use the rest of the space for more P-cores or cache. Why are they even playing around with the market segments AMD has taken from them?

Who at Intel is going. "yeah normies need 64 threads and half of them need to be weaker than the other half". Anyone who actually needs that is just going TR or Xeon. I understand this is a cheaper alternative for some people than TR or Xeon, but the mass majority that will get something like this will NEVER need 32e cores.

rattlehead99Also their new E-Cores are on par with the last gen P-Cores in terms of IPC

dgianstefani16+32 = 48, not 64.

SL2You're right, they're not Economy Cores™ anymore AFAIK.

I just think TPU members prefer big cores, for various reasons based on past experiences from Raptor or older, and not the latest E-cores.


Also, four low power cores on top of that.

ThomasK


Intel is essentially Amd from the past. The only difference is Amd didn't get a bailout from government.

But bigger numbers do look better on PR material.

dgianstefaniYeah I was wondering if the 32 included those or not. Wouldn't have been surprised to hear the 32 die was binned down to 28.

SL2You're right, they're not Economy Cores™ anymore AFAIK.

I just think TPU members prefer big cores, for various reasons based on past experiences from Raptor or older, and not the latest E-cores.


Also, four low power cores on top of that.

dgianstefani16+32 = 48, not 64.

rattlehead99What benefit do you get from having more than 8P cores that is not a productive/professional workload?

ThomasK


Intel is essentially Amd from the past. The only difference is Amd didn't get a bailout from government.

But bigger numbers do look better on PR material.

dgianstefaniFWIW AMD is also supposedly increasing core counts by 50% this time around. 8-12 CCD.

melkor_unlimitedIts not 64
And its not 16+32
Its (8+16) + (8+16) + 4


With (8+16) + (8+16) + 4 you will not see big benefit where latency kicks in.
If 12 Zen cores in one chiplet will give any benefit over 8 ... we have to wait for it to come.
I wont bet on Intel.

xSneakisn't this thing going to be kneecapped by dual channel ddr5 bandwidth?

rattlehead99Yes, Skymont(the E-Cores in Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake) have the same IPC as the P-Cores in RaptorLake, but lacked AVX, Darkmont(300 series E-Cores) now has complete feature parity with Lion Cove(300 Series P-Cores), while also having higher clock speeds than its predecessor, much closer to the P-Cores and the IPC will likely be on par or higher than Arrow-Lake P-Cores as intel have stated that the goal of modern E-Cores is to have IPC/PPC parity with the last gen P-Cores or higher.

Also the modern E-Cores are also OoOE like the P-Cores, while the old ones iirc weren't.

The LPE Cores are the old-school E-Cores.

ThunderslatLol what? All E cores have been OoO. You would have to back to the original Atom to find something in order. I also don't see the new E cores matching an Arrow Lake P core but we shall see.

ThomasKIntel is essentially Amd from the past. The only difference is Amd didn't get a bailout from government.

But bigger numbers do look better on PR material.

FeelinFroggyI'm sure if AMD had fabs, they would have gotten paid too.

dgianstefaniI hope they revert the course of adding HT back tbh. At these core counts it doesn't seem necessary, and I'd take a more secure P core with 5% more throughput and 5% lower power draw than a second thread only adding 30% of the MT best case scenario.

xSneakisn't this thing going to be kneecapped by dual channel ddr5 bandwidth?

rattlehead99Outside of cache even a Zen4/5 6 core is as good as Zen4/5 8 core in games, both on a single module. For productivity, you have no downside of having the hybrid cores.

melkor_unlimitedI did not divide apps to games and non-games. Mentioned Latency.
Games are not only thing suffering more with bigger latency.

6 cores as good as 8 cores?
You may be right with old games made to use 1~4 cores.
But there are games utilising more than 6 cores.
And not of them are simulators like Factorio.
www.techspot.com/articles-info/3075/bench/HZD.png
www.techspot.com/articles-info/3075/bench/SM2.png
www.techspot.com/articles-info/3075/bench/ACC.png

Slow RAMs, 16GB RAM or less, 8GB VRAM or less, slow GPU ... and every other bottleneck makes L3 cache and number of cores less and less relevant.

rattlehead99Yes, Skymont(the E-Cores in Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake) have the same IPC as the P-Cores in RaptorLake, but lacked AVX

rattlehead99Also the modern E-Cores are also OoOE like the P-Cores, while the old ones iirc weren't.

rattlehead99The LPE Cores are the old-school E-Cores.

ThomasKNot as if you cared enough to know or read about it, but Amd did have fabs, up until 2009, when it was spun off, to what now is GlobalFoundries. And back then, it was already bleeding cash and way behind Intel.

What saved it was getting rid of its fabs and a 1bn dollar settlement from Intel, for the x86 licences and anticompetitive practices lawsuit, not government/taxpayer money.

By the way, the consumer/taxpayer just got the middle finger from Intel:

www.techpowerup.com/345535/intel-reallocates-pc-production-capacity-to-server-cpus-amid-tight-wafer-supply