Key Slides from Intel 13th Gen "Raptor Lake" Launch Presentation Leak

[Leshy]

Why would I bother with a troll who doesn't back up shit, your on Ignore, welcome to Tpu.

calm down old member .. ask a question and i ll answer again for u no need to be toxic big boy

 

[PapaTaipei]

Video games are not going to scale beyond 8 highly-performant cores. This is also why buying anything beyond an 8-core Ryzen is pointless for gaming (with any performance increase on higher-end models being marginal and attributable to the cache and clock speeds)

Wrong, there are plenty of games that use more than 8 cores.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Arrow Lake (future Intel 15th gen CPU) is rumored to feature up to 32 E-cores and 8 P-cores, by the way.

I'll reply to at least direct fact based response.
It will compete well.
For me though the ideal world be 12/24P Core's all fully power gated and 8 really quite low 15Watt total E core's.
And with decent scheduling that could be pretty unbeatable in All use cases and more useful yet efficient than anything even arm could manage in General use even cropped to I3 levels, IMHO.

As is, , it's going to be an interesting battle, likely better for me, the consumer, because it's going to be a closer fought marketing battle the present way it's panning out.

 

[bug]

But I'm not going to suger coat my opinions.

As I have previously stated, I think they have gone with too many E core's and too few P, it's a opinion.

Of course it's an opinion, we were just saying, it doesn't appear to be rooted in reality. For Intel to add more P-cores the their consumer CPUs, there would need to be consumer use cases that actually put those cores to good use. We can't think of any and you won't share yours...

I'm with you Intel went overboard with E-cores for desktop Alder Lake, doubling that for Raptor Lake doesn't bring much to the table. But when you look at the block diagram of Alder Lake and see how little space the E-cores take, you can understand why they did it. At least for heavy multithreading, instead of having 16 P-cores that can't maintain max turbo for the duration of the job, you get 8 that can and a bunch of E-cores helping on the side. Still, very few things are in need of that many threads.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Of course it's an opinion, we were just saying, it doesn't appear to be rooted in reality. For Intel to add more P-cores the their consumer CPUs, there would need to be consumer use cases that actually put those cores to good use. We can't think of any and you won't share yours...

I'm with you Intel went overboard with E-cores for desktop Alder Lake, doubling that for Raptor Lake doesn't bring much to the table. But when you look at the block diagram of Alder Lake and see how little space the E-cores take, you can understand why they did it. At least for heavy multithreading, instead of having 16 P-cores that can't maintain max turbo for the duration of the job, you get 8 that can and a bunch of E-cores helping on the side. Still, very few things are in need of that many threads.

Makes me wonder if AMD was out of the picture what intel would have went with it seems to me the only reason intel went with so many E cores is to compete with Zen 3/4 in MT specifically the 12/16 core varients they competed with the 8 core varients just fine.

Raptor Lakes design had to have been completed around 2-3 years ago so around Zen2/3 given how much intel has improved in MT over the last 3 years mostly with AL they must have had a feeling Zen would continue to progress quite a bit

 

[bug]

Makes me wonder if AMD was out of the picture what intel would have went with it seems to me the only reason intel went with so many E cores is to compete with Zen 3/4 in MT specifically the 12/16 core varients they competed with the 8 core varients just fine.

Raptor Lakes design had to have been completed around 2-3 years ago so around Zen2/3 given how much intel has improved in MT over the last 3 years mostly with AL they must have had a feeling Zen would continue to progress quite a bit

Again, a simple look at the die shot provides the answer: https://i.redd.it/lyhmdzo6c3w71.jpg
4 E-cores take only a little more space than one P-core. And on average, each E-core is only slightly slower than a Skylake core. It's hard to pass on that amazing perf/sq mm.

 

[cmatt099]

It seems to me that all you guys that want more than 8 P cores only want it for one reason and that is Bragging Rights. To feel like you have the best money can offer and that you are Top Dog! lol

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Again, a simple look at the die shot provides the answer: https://i.redd.it/lyhmdzo6c3w71.jpg
4 E-cores take only a little more space than one P-core. And on average, each E-core is only slightly slower than a Skylake core. It's hard to pass on that amazing perf/sq mm.

I still doubt they'd have gone 16 E cores if it wasn't for amd the amount of work it takes to get the scheduler working properly and needing Windows 11 to assist with that has to be a major headache for them I'm actually pretty impressed 8+8 works as well as it does.... It'll be interesting what route they take with Meteorlake and it's tile based configuration hopefully that doesn't see a major delay and an even larger E core to P core ratio.

As with some others I would personally still prefer they went with a 12P core varient with no E cores but as you've pointed out they needed to compete in MT task intel is full of smart people I'm sure they know better than me.

Sapphire rapids might have also been interesting if it wasn't already a year late with no sign of when it will actually release.

 

[samum]

lol. why i have to read this stupid comment all the time ? for what kind of workload do you need more P cores?

Why would we need E cores at all? They're wasted silicon - I'd trade 4 E cores for 2 P cores any day. I bought a 12400F in part because it doesn't have that baggage and doesn't force me on to Windows 11. It's pretty disappointing that the 13400 is going to have that garbage.

 

[Leshy]

Why would we need E cores at all? They're wasted silicon - I'd trade 4 E cores for 2 P cores any day. I bought a 12400F in part because it doesn't have that baggage and doesn't force me on to Windows 11. It's pretty disappointing that the 13400 is going to have that garbage.

do u know that u can turn off like half of the silicon in so called BIOS/UEFI?

Its your opinion. Dont know why u want more p cores, but i dont think u ll share with me like other guys

in the future there wont be less e cores. if amd jumps on this train with different core architecture.There ll be just more and more of e cores for us to complain about


For me, there is no application that would benefit from more p cores. If i need more cores, e cores are ideal.

 

[bobsled]

do u know that u can turn off like half of the silicon in so called BIOS/UEFI?

Its your opinion. Dont know why u want more p cores, but i dont think u ll share with me like other guys

in the future there wont be less e cores. if amd jumps on this train with different core architecture.There ll be just more and more of e cores for us to complain about


For me, there is no application that would benefit from more p cores. If i need more cores, e cores are ideal.

Hahaha, you want less performance cores? Every single multitasking application in existence benefits from multiple performance cores. E cores are something brought up from ARM, and whilst that’s ok for Intel to copy someone else it’s not an equivalent core.

Intel apologists seem very vocal around here in the “leaks” (ie, Intel PR) threads.

 

[Leshy]

Hahaha, you want less performance cores? Every single multitasking application in existence benefits from multiple performance cores. E cores are something brought up from ARM, and whilst that’s ok for Intel to copy someone else it’s not an equivalent core.

Intel apologists seem very vocal around here in the “leaks” (ie, Intel PR) threads.

Same simple question again and again and again .. why do you need more P cores? ... for MT there is no difference if u use E or P cores. For ST there are more than enought P cores...

If they stole it or not ... everyone is using round wheels .. so whats you point ?

im not here to deffend intel. I just understnad why they did it. Sounds like u did not get it LOL

 

[JustBenching]

Hahaha, you want less performance cores?

No, it seems YOU want less performance. If you care about multithreaded performance, which apparently you do since you want more cores, well E cores offer MORE multithreaded performance per diesize. P cores are good for single threaded / lightly threaded workloads like games autocad photoshop etc. If you want more multithreaded performance E cores are the way to go. I don't understand how people argue against it.

I don't know what you think Intel stole, and it doesn't really matter either way, but atom cores have been around for more than 10 years now. Also the Intel implementation is completely different to ARM. ARM uses small cores for efficiency, Intel uses them for performance. Completely different things

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

do u know that u can turn off like half of the silicon in so called BIOS/UEFI?

Its your opinion. Dont know why u want more p cores, but i dont think u ll share with me like other guys

in the future there wont be less e cores. if amd jumps on this train with different core architecture.There ll be just more and more of e cores for us to complain about


For me, there is no application that would benefit from more p cores. If i need more cores, e cores are ideal.

Youre a passive aggressive jackass.

For me, there is no application that would benefit from more p cores. If i need more cores, e cores are ideal.

And thats YOU. Why are more e cores more beneficial? I dont see you explaining why more e cores are better than more p cores.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It seems to me that all you guys that want more than 8 P cores only want it for one reason and that is Bragging Rights. To feel like you have the best money can offer and that you are Top Dog! lol

Seems to me like some can't escape they're own perspective and assume way to much.


The simulations I run on CPU use every core I could throw at them and every Hz.
Given I also tend to run simulations of a different kind on the GPU simultaneously my load and temperatures are often maxed as would it be if I trebbled core's and GPU's.

Gaming is for p#£@y's I jest, but assuming we all just game and surf is arse.

This is a tech specialist forum, If I were just a gamer I would be here less.

 

[bug]

And thats YOU. Why are more e cores more beneficial? I dont see you explaining why more e cores are better than more p cores.

Because you can put 4 E cores in the space where only one P core would fit. And with better thermals.

 

[JustBenching]

And thats YOU. Why are more e cores more beneficial? I dont see you explaining why more e cores are better than more p cores.

Because they offer more multithreaded performance, you know - the reason you would want more cores in the first place?

 

[Leshy]

Seems to me like some can't escape they're own perspective and assume way to much.


The simulations I run on CPU use every core I could throw at them and every Hz.
Given I also tend to run simulations of a different kind on the GPU simultaneously my load and temperatures are often maxed as would it be if I trebbled core's and GPU's.

Gaming is for p#£@y's I jest, but assuming we all just game and surf is arse.

This is a tech specialist forum, If I were just a gamer I would be here less.

U do all this complex simulations simultaneously on all cores ur PC have .. counting cuda.. so cool. ... Try to simulate what would a 800w CPU (your dream 24p core Intel chip) packed on like 4cm^2 do to a motherboard ...

Or I ll tell you, because you cannot pause that important NASA sim you actually now do. I ll burn hole to motherboard. Pin array would melt and GPU would warp... Ehm not rly. This glorious chip would thermal throttle to oblivion. And you ll use all 4Hz that would be left *48 ultra p cores LOL u are lost big boy old user

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Because they offer more multithreaded performance, you know - the reason you would want more cores in the first place?

How do background task cores offer better multithreaded performance?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

U do all this complex simulations simultaneously on all cores ur PC have .. counting cuda.. so cool. ... Try to simulate what would a 800w CPU (your dream 24p core Intel chip) packed on like 4cm^2 do to a motherboard ...

Or I ll tell you, because you cannot pause that important NASA sim you actually now do. I ll burn hole to motherboard. Pin array would melt and GPU would warp... Ehm not rly. This glorious chip would thermal throttle to oblivion. And you ll use all 4Hz that would be left *48 ultra p cores LOL u are lost big boy old user

Go back and re read that shite, then read my post on 12C/24T not 48 then re read the bit where I am ignoring you.

Then have a nice day talking to the wall kido.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

U do all this complex simulations simultaneously on all cores ur PC have .. counting cuda.. so cool. ... Try to simulate what would a 800w CPU (your dream 24p core Intel chip) packed on like 4cm^2 do to a motherboard ...

Or I ll tell you, because you cannot pause that important NASA sim you actually now do. I ll burn hole to motherboard. Pin array would melt and GPU would warp... Ehm not rly. This glorious chip would thermal throttle to oblivion. And you ll use all 4Hz that would be left *48 ultra p cores LOL u are lost big boy old user

800w CPU with 24p cores? Ryzen 3990X has a TDP of 280w and is a 64c/128t cpu. Stop trying so hard.

 

[Leshy]

Go back and re read that shite, then read my post on 12C/24T not 48 then re read the bit where I am ignoring you.

Then have a nice day talking to the wall kido.

hey master scientist ... you overlooked somethinkg.. that huge ammount of sarcasm in my last post LOL

but ist fine .. you just dont want to have a discussion

800w CPU with 24p cores? Ryzen 3990X has a TDP of 280w and is a 64c/128t cpu. Stop trying so hard.

oh now we are in the unicorn land that TDP is.... look up some AL tests and multiply it by 1,5 to get exactly what this other clown would like to have do you know how much bigger TR is my friend? its huge compared to desktop .. its a HEDT

How do background task cores offer better multithreaded performance?

can u read and understand words you are reading ? you can pack more E cores in the same size that P cores would occupy .. more E cores do more worky worky .. they eat less electrons = less energy wasted as heat => more energy used for switching other E cores .. they are more efficient than mighty P cores ... they are better for highly paralelized workloads ... got it ?

 

[JustBenching]

How do background task cores offer better multithreaded performance?

Cause you can fit 4 of them in the same space you could fit 1 pcore. So if it's MT performance you are after, e cores > P cores.

 

[Rob6502TPU]

Based on TPU's previous E-core only benchmark, power consumption of 8 e-core full loading is around 65W

Now

They added 8 more e cores to the 13900k (and runs at higher MAX frequency) , just 12W added to the MTP ?

How ?

By not reducing frequencies enough they've restorted to even more power use.
With Alder Lake they climbed far up the power wall, but Raptor Lake will have improved power efficiency over Alder Lake as they'll have to clock a little slower and reduce volts to power the +8 E cores.
Chips & Cheese has analysis on improving & comparing ADL efficiency with Zen2 to aid tuning for heavily loaded systems, the motherboards set tau so the CPU never drops to the nominal TDP.

How do background task cores offer better multithreaded performance?

Because they can use them for foreground tasks as well; W11 in balanced mode reserves P cores for foreground jobs, justifying a marketing narrative is the E cores are efficient background processors.

For the reality of the power inefficiency of Alder Lake and how to tune it into sweet spot suitable for heavily loaded systems, Chips & Cheese has an analysis article comparing the behaviour of the P & E cores.

And thats YOU. Why are more e cores more beneficial? I dont see you explaining why more e cores are better than more p cores.

They should be explaining how cache light E cores with poor AVX performance are a good fit with creator benchmarks. So a design feature intended for battery saving on mobile, has been turned into moooaaahhhhhrrrrrrr core are better, aimed at the common reviewers MT benchmarks. Cache & Memory intensive MT is just ignored, as is power efficiency.

 

[OkieDan]

A niche reason to favor p cores only processor is if you use VMware Workstation heavily and need mt performance. Having VMware utilize any e core will make it only utilize e cores.

You have to edit vmx file to tell VMware not to use e cores if you want to utilize p cores. That makes paying for e cores a waste of money if what you're doing in VMware is the reason you need mt performance.