Any 10-12 core CPUs with Zen 3 or better yet Golden Cove IPC that can clock all core 5GHz or higher

[Toothless]

Those E-cores aren't used for gaming. Scheduler puts background tasks onto those while keeping the P-cores open for bigger tasks, like games.

There haven't been good 10 core chips since like, a 6950k. You're not missing out. Your expectations are insane and you'll never find what you're looking for.

Also, yes, a 16 core is a bit hard to cool.

 

[Wolverine2349]

What you want is the highest single core, which is 12th gen. More cores are irrelevant for gaming if they're slower, which Zen3 is. The E cores are excellent at what they do, which is everything except gaming, taking load off the P cores. If you think games will need or use more than 8, or realistically 6, cores dedicated to them, you're delusional.

The e-cores stink at multi tasking. I had a 12th Gen with WIN11 and not a single one was used for background tasks which in theory they should be good at. Instead light CPU spikes were on the P cores. I mean if background tasks like Antivirus and HWInfo64 could effectively run on e cores, why didn't WIN11 throw them there. Maybe because they cannot or the scheduling is still bad.

And worse yet a heavily threaded few games some threads got caught on e-cores and the game slowed down a lot as such.

With a Zen 3 system, nit such issues as all cores are the same even the 175MHz lower clocked CCD which is only 3.6% slower in clock speed.

It almost seems like e-cores are like ARM phone cores. Actually better for assisting in productivity tasks than at multi tasking. And Smart phones are powerful for doing some productivity, but they stink at multi tasking even compared to old computers. P cores can do it all and even better for like everything except energy usage. Energy efficiency belongs in mobile devices not desktop CPUs.

Those E-cores aren't used for gaming. Scheduler puts background tasks onto those while keeping the P-cores open for bigger tasks, like games.

There haven't been good 10 core chips since like, a 6950k. You're not missing out. Your expectations are insane and you'll never find what you're looking for.

Also, yes, a 16 core is a bit hard to cool.

Yes its supposed to, but even WIN11 never put any background tasks on e-cores. To be fair it did a good job in most games of avoiding the e-cores but a few game threads got stuck on them which sucks. But it never put any background tasks on the e-cores. If WIN11 knows how to do it and those background tasks are suited for e-cores, why could WIN11 not do it?? instead it acted as to avoid them at all costs which means they stink.

They only seem good for pushing a Cinebench score over the edge with P cores or some productivity. They are not well rounded cores. Kind of like Phone CPUs are great at limited things but stink at multi tasking. And PS3 Cell processor for 2006 was a gaming beast for specific instruction sets, but if it needed to be well rounded, it would have been bad even in 2006-2008.

 

[r9]

Its strange how come Intel cannot compete in that market given their size and resources. I mean when Athlon 64 K8 at 2GHz was whipping Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz and then the Athlon 64 X2 at 2 to 2.4GHz was whipping the Pentium D at 3.4GHz because IPC was like 70% better on K8 than Netburst, Intel with all their resources and money, evolved the Pentium M into Conroe and it completely changed the game and had 20-25% better IPC than K8 and could easily hit 3GHz and often more overclock on stock cooler while using less power than AMD Athlon 64 X2.

How come now they do not do something like that and rather just keep adding e-cores? Are things different now than in 2006 where they care far less about enthusiasts and gamers who like to overkill their CPU a but, but hate those e-cores, that they just want to focus more on them because of how popular ARM and Mobile is?? How was ARM and mobile market segment for Intel back then vs now in contrast to performance and gaming PC enthusiasts who want more P cores??

I always heard reason Intel had Conroe moment back then was because they were much bigger than AMD and had the resources to do so and needed to so they did. I mean does Intel still have resources with a lot more compared to AMD or have things changed??

Because money can't buy you everything and that seem to be especially true when talking about manufacturing node.

 

[dgianstefani]

Because money can't buy you everything and that seem to be especially true when talking about manufacturing node.

More like because each P cores are pointless over 4x the amount of E cores past 8 cores or so.

 

[Wolverine2349]

More like because each P cores are pointless over 4x the amount of E cores past 8 cores or so.

Not at all true. I would have been a buyer even at $1000 and tried it clocked all core to 5GHz last December with SMT/HT off to get it stable and temps under control except a 3 minute AVX Prime95 run just to ensure it would not crash if temps were no object so 100 briefly would have been fine for that with much lower temps everything else and real world workloads, would have called it my system for years without more money wasted on part swapping to get what I want which is not there until Zen 4 comes calling.

 

[dgianstefani]

Not at all true. I would have been a buyer even at $1000 and tried it clocked all core to 5GHz last December with SMT/HT off to get it stable and temps under control except a 3 minute AVX Prime95 run just to ensure it would not crash if temps were no object so 100 briefly would have been fine for that with much lower temps everything else and real world workloads, would have called it my system for years without more money wasted on part swapping to get what I want which is not there until Zen 4 comes calling.

Prove me wrong then lmao. Every benchmark says i'm right.

 

[Wolverine2349]

More like because each P cores are pointless over 4x the amount of E cores past 8 cores or so.

Also untrue. I am sure Intel would have done it if they could, but their manufacturer node and cost is not good right now and power envelope would probably be so bad it would catch fire or be impossible to cool. AMD is planning 32 Zen5 cores when Zen 5 comes out.

AMD is only going t use big.little on lower end parts with Zen 4C, they are not going to put it on flagship Ryzen CPUs like the 8900X nor 8950X!!

More than 8 good cores are far from pointless. AMD is doing it and doing it well. Zen 5 looks like a game changer. Even Zen 4 looks quite good and you get 16 real strong cores on consumer platform, but it will cost a lot, but hey at least they have it. Intel does not at all. And I say this as fact and not a fanboy of either company.

If AMD was maxing out at 8 P cores while shoving only extra e-cores down our throat I would be bashing them just as much. But they are not and per rumors have no plans to because TSMC their chip maker can actually make die efficient CPUs unlike Intel who is stuck right now.

AMD will use a heterogenous arch in some things with Zen 4C and 5, but ore mobile space and lower end SKUs, nit flagship high performance Ryzen 7 or 9 products nor EPYC nor Threadripper. And they certainly are not going to lock us to 8 maximum P cores with a bunch of garbage cores.

 

[dgianstefani]

Also untrue. I am sure Intel would have done it if they could, but their manufacturer node and cost is not good right now and power envelope would probably be so bad it would catch fire or be impossible to cool. AMD is planning 32 Zen5 cores when Zen 5 comes out.

AMD is only going t use big.little on lower end parts with Zen 4C, they are not going to put it on flagship Ryzen CPUs like the 8900X nor 8950X!!

More than 8 good cores are far from pointless. AMD is doing it and doing it well. Zen 5 looks like a game changer. Even Zen 4 looks quite good and you get 16 real strong cores on consumer platform, but it will cost a lot, but hey at least they have it. Intel does not at all. And I say this as fact and not a fanboy of either company.

If AMD was maxing out at 8 P cores while shoving only extra e-cores down our throat I would be bashing them just as much. But they are not and per rumors have no plans to because TSMC their chip maker can actually make die efficient CPUs unlike Intel who is stuck right now.

Have fun in lala land, still waiting for benchmarks backing up your insane statements.

 

[eidairaman1]

As I said before Go Threadripper and you wont have to worry about anything other than gpu updates...

 

[dgianstefani]

As I said before Go Threadripper and you wont have to worry about anything other than gpu updates...

Gonna show me where a threadripper comes close to a 12900k at 240hz gaming?

 

[Wolverine2349]

Prove me wrong then lmao. Every benchmark says i'm right.

Benchmarks do not tell the whole story.

 

[dgianstefani]

It's literally 25% slower per core.

 

[Wolverine2349]

As I said before Go Threadripper and you wont have to worry about anything other than gpu updates...

How will that work. I mean that just has lots more cores?? Yes I want more cores, but also having fast cores matters as much or more which I why I want more than 8, but not 24. I mean can you clock Zen 2 or Zen 3 Threadripper high on a core cluster to make up IPC and disable a bunch of cores??

Or are you saying Threadripper is future proof just cause it has a bunch of cores and games will scale with a bunch in the future even if IPC on Zen 2 is lower??

Or can clock speeds make up difference with a smaller core cluster and disabling a bunch of cores.

 

[dgianstefani]

Benchmarks do not tell the whole story.

Tell me more about your future proof high core count CPU in 3 years time when a then current gen chip with half the cores outperforms it.

 

[eidairaman1]

How will that work. I mean that just has lots more cores?? Yes I want more cores, but also having fast cores matters as much or more which I why I want more than 8, but not 24. I mean can you clock Zen 2 or Zen 3 Threadripper high on a core cluster to make up IPC and disable a bunch of cores??

Or are you saying Threadripper is future proof just cause it has a bunch of cores and games will scale with a bunch in the future even if IPC on Zen 2 is lower??

Or can clock speeds make up difference with a smaller core cluster and disabling a bunch of cores.

Dude they have 12 Core, 16 Core, 32 Core, 64 Core which all have SMT (so double up to 24, 32, 64, 128)

Benchmarks do not tell the whole story.

Don't feed the trolls

 

[dgianstefani]

Dude they have 12 Core, 16 Core, 32 Core, 64 Core which all have SMT (so double up to 24, 32, 64, 128)


Don't feed the trolls

Well, listening to the advantages of "moar cores" from someone who bought into piledriver probably isn't the best option

 

[Wolverine2349]

Tell me more about your future proof high core count CPU in 3 years time when a then current gen chip with half the cores outperforms it.

Well getting higher core counts is great and Byte Sized Tech knows their stuff. True old CPUs like original Zen and stuff are outperformed by lower core counts, but they actually aged better than their 4 core counterparts like the Skylake 6600K and 7600K as games started to use more cores. I think Zen 3 and Golden Cove IPC is enough to future proof with high core count for a mid term upgrade in a 4-5 year system like Byte Sized Tech is saying for a Zen 3 system.

A 6 core 5600X outperformed a 3700X and 2700X cause those prior CPUs were too slow IPC and latency.

I feel Zen 3 5900X will age much better than 12400F or 12600K or even 12700K or 12900K when looking at only P cores as 12 is much better than 6 and still better than 8. I think the 2700 will be left in the dust.

 

[dgianstefani]

Well getting higher core counts is great and Byte Sized Tech knows their stuff. True old CPUs like original Zen and stuff are outperformed by lower core counts, but they actually aged better than their 4 core counterparts like the Skylake 6600K and 7600K as games started to use more cores. I think Zen 3 and Golden Cove IPC is enough to future proof with high core count for a mid term upgrade in a 4-5 year system like Byte Sized Tech is saying for a Zen 3 system.

A 6 core 5600X outperformed a 3700X and 2700X cause those prior CPUs were too slow IPC and latency.

I feel Zen 3 5900X will age much better than 12400F or 12600K or even 12700K or 12900K when looking at only P cores as 12 is much better than 6 and still better than 8. I think the 2700 will be left in the dust.

Zen 3 will literally never come close to Alder Lake in gaming.

There's a 25% difference in frames. An extra few cores won't ever offset that.

Additionally, all games for the forseeable future will be optimised for 8 cores with HT, as that's what XB/PS5 use.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Those E-cores aren't used for gaming. Scheduler puts background tasks onto those while keeping the P-cores open for bigger tasks, like games.

There haven't been good 10 core chips since like, a 6950k. You're not missing out. Your expectations are insane and you'll never find what you're looking for.

Also, yes, a 16 core is a bit hard to cool.

Why is the 6950K last good 10 core chip? How about the 10900K? They both have far worse IPC than Zen 3 where you can get 12 cores. Do you mean good chips in terms of being able to overclock easily 5GHz or faster frequency?? IPC in that case is more important especially when it is much higher.

 

[dgianstefani]

Why is the 6950K last good 10 core chip? How about the 10900K? They both have far worse IPC than Zen 3 where you can get 12 cores. Do you mean good chips in terms of being able to overclock easily 5GHz or faster frequency?? IPC in that case is more important especially when it is much higher.

Except the 10900k is better than most zen 3 chips in gaming, especially when tuned. 11900k even better despite -2 cores, 12900k better still. Your 10-12 core sweet spot doesn't exist.

 

[Wolverine2349]

An 8.7% difference in CPU speed (4.6 to 5GHz), which will translate to a smaller improvement in game performance, doesn't feel particulary more "future-proofed." Most if not all review sites have said time and again that future proofing is an expensive fool's errand as the following generations will likely supercede them at lower prices.

And most importantly: How much future? 6 months? 5 years?

3-5 years handling video card upgrades with still good gameplay. I mean if future proofing was not a thing, those that purchased the i7 HEDT series Haswell-E or Broadwell E 6800K or 6900K are much better off today for gaming than those that purchased 4690K or 6600K or 7600K as those above CPUs have 6-8 cores where as the later 4 have only 4.

 

[OneMoar]

thats.... thats not how it works .... thats not how it works at all ...

 

[Wolverine2349]

Except the 10900k is better than most zen 3 chips in gaming, especially when tuned. 11900k even better despite -2 cores, 12900k better still. Your 10-12 core sweet spot doesn't exist.

LMAO no way. Zen 3 demolishes all those chips. You can tune Zen 3 as well with good RAM and low timings. The 12900K is the only one that beats them in gaming.

 

[dgianstefani]

LMAO no way. Zen 3 demolishes all those chips. You can tune Zen 3 as well with good RAM and low timings. The 12900K is the only one that beats them in gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/15.html sure it does bud.

Once again, lots of (crap) opinions, with zero evidence backing them up.

LMAO no way. Zen 3 demolishes all those chips.

To put something in perspective, you're talking to someone with a zen 3 chip tuned to the edge.

You can tune Zen 3 as well with good RAM and low timings.

 

[Bones]

Well getting higher core counts is great and Byte Sized Tech knows their stuff. True old CPUs like original Zen and stuff are outperformed by lower core counts, but they actually aged better than their 4 core counterparts like the Skylake 6600K and 7600K as games started to use more cores. I think Zen 3 and Golden Cove IPC is enough to future proof with high core count for a mid term upgrade in a 4-5 year system like Byte Sized Tech is saying for a Zen 3 system.

A 6 core 5600X outperformed a 3700X and 2700X cause those prior CPUs were too slow IPC and latency.

I feel Zen 3 5900X will age much better than 12400F or 12600K or even 12700K or 12900K when looking at only P cores as 12 is much better than 6 and still better than 8. I think the 2700 will be left in the dust.

Well, then listen to an XOC guy that knows about cooling, core counts and all that - Namely me.
And here's proof of it.
Bones`s SuperPi - 1M score: 9sec 141ms with a FX-8320

You don't get results like this not knowing a thing or two about it.

First off going for 5Ghz on air alone with a Zen 3 ain't happening and don't think I haven't tested the limits of what aircooling can do for a Zen 3, had my IceGiant on a 3600X and a 3950X, BOTH failed to get 5.0 by a huge margin so you're already behind the game on that alone. Zen 4 itself will fall short too of 5Ghz on air like Zen 3 because the chips just can't crank that high without overheating if on air alone - To get the "Big" numbers you're looking for, that's what SS, DICE, Cascade and Ln2 are for.

And I will say most, if not all games today do not need a huge amount of cores.

The majority (If not all) will not see any benefit beyond a chip with 8 cores in use because it's simple fact games even today do not require or need that many cores in use to "Top Out" in what you'd get.
Efficiency is what the deal is these days and how these chips are spec'ed to deliver, not off of sheer GHz alone as others have told you already.

As for benchmarking, I DO know about such things and you'll never get a 12 core Zen 3 chip to bench something like Cinebench at or even beyond 5GHz on air - Ain't happening.
Too much heat to start with and Cinebench will make a chip get hot in a hurry - I should know from all the times I've ran it myself and seen things like cores dragging or falling out during a run at far less than 5Ghz on water, not air.

Don't want to believe me, that's something for you to deal with but it's not mine or anyone else's problem.
We've told you aircooling alone will not cut it and unless you're somewhere in Antarctica or have the system in a deep freeze it's not going to be.