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

[Valantar]

I honestly feel and do not believe that Intel could have done so without power consumption. I think you are saying they could have easily as a way to rub it in cause you think the e-cores are so good they had no need which is just wrong.

If they could have easily done it, the e-cores are hybrid arch are a nuisance and problem for many despite many thinking they are good that if Intel could have easily come up with a high clocked 10 P core Alder Lake without thermal/power budget blowing up and/or without manufacturing costs getting out of hand, they would have done so in addition to the hybrid e-core variants. Especially given once again how there are lots of people who hate the e-cores and would actually like a little more than 8 P cores and go AMD instead. I think Intel is unable to is why at least without a severe crippling of clock speed which would make it pointless even for those who hate e-cores and want more than 8 big boy cores which is quite a lot.

The thing is, both things can be true at once: that Intel is doing this because they have to and that it is they correct way forward. AMD is still rumored to be moving in a similar direction, but can do so in subtler ways (frequency locks on certain cores, for example) due to their much more compact core designs.

A hybrid approach allows for far more cores in a given area and power envelope for workloads that scale well at n threads, while maintaining 1t/<8t performance for tasks that scale less well. Is 8 P cores the perfect number? It seems close, at least - for most workloads it's even quite a lot more than what's needed. So, whether you like it or not, hybrid is the future for mixed use scenarios. And that's a good thing, as it let's us have better performance across the board. Will this include bugs and teething problems? Obviously. Everything does. All progress requires figuring things out as you go, nothing is perfect on the first try, and no level of preparation is sufficient to avoid all issues. And that's fine.

Heck, the era of computing you're harkening back to was far, far, far bugger and more unstable than PCs are today. Your romanticizing of how CPUs used to work shows signs of some heavily rose-tinted glasses.

 

[Wolverine2349]

The thing is, both things can be true at once: that Intel is doing this because they have to and that it is they correct way forward. AMD is still rumored to be moving in a similar direction, but can do so in subtler ways (frequency locks on certain cores, for example) due to their much more compact core designs.

A hybrid approach allows for far more cores in a given area and power envelope for workloads that scale well at n threads, while maintaining 1t/<8t performance for tasks that scale less well. Is 8 P cores the perfect number? It seems close, at least - for most workloads it's even quite a lot more than what's needed. So, whether you like it or not, hybrid is the future for mixed use scenarios. And that's a good thing, as it let's us have better performance across the board. Will this include bugs and teething problems? Obviously. Everything does. All progress requires figuring things out as you go, nothing is perfect on the first try, and no level of preparation is sufficient to avoid all issues. And that's fine.

Heck, the era of computing you're harkening back to was far, far, far bugger and more unstable than PCs are today. Your romanticizing of how CPUs used to work shows signs of some heavily rose-tinted glasses.

AMD is not locking us into 8 at most P cores while throwing only more and more e-waste cores at us as Intel is doing with Raptor Lake. They said they have no interest in hybrid approach on high end flagship parts, but only mobile and lower end SKUs

Intel is going to get smashed. 32 Zen 5 Core CPU. That is going to be insane and will beat 8 P cores and 40-60 e-waste cores to a pulp in heavily threaded workloads.

The era of computing I like was actually far better and less buggy than now. Well depending on how far you go back. If you go back to far you are absolutely correct. Cause at one time we had Windows 95/98/ME which were horrible. Once Microsoft dumped those operating systems and switched to Windows NT permanently for everything things got a lot better. Though it took time as there were Windows 98 diehards who refused to switch causing support to linger on to a completely different OS arch and drivers and software made for it until like 2007 or 2008 which dragged things down.

But once 9X was completely gone and unsupported by everyone around like 2008-2009, things were great. CPUs and chipsets from Intel were so stable and far less buggy than now. Parallelism was awesome and so fast. Static clock frequencies overclocked were king on enthusiast systems. Windows 7 was so strong and good. Intel's process node was great then die shrinking and producing better and better IPC and lower and lower power with quad cores and string 6-8 cores on HEDT parts which were more expensive but no where near the insane expense of server class motherboards even though Intel had no competition from AMD. And Intel process node kept being great from Core 2 all the way through Coffee Lake. Since then it has been a mess and far more buggy than that era.

Things started to get worse with WIN10 and post Coffee Lake Intel process node and the spy crap and CPU chipsets and Microsoft store and forcing more TPMs and crap down our throat. Now they want to shove this buggy hybrid crap down our throats. AMD has stepped in and brought competition and that is all well and good. Though AMD even has more issues with buggy chipsets and drivers than back then Intel's were more stable.

Now they both stink and power consumption through roof and far more bugs than before

The golden era was 2010-2018

 

[freeagent]

No way, both of my AMD setups are smooth as silk, no bugs. Best computers I ever built..

I liked the old days too, but those days are long gone. Today is better.

 

[Wolverine2349]

No way, both of my AMD setups are smooth as silk, no bugs. Best computers I ever built..

I liked the old days too, but those days are long gone. Today is better.

Do you find your current AMD build more stable and less buggy than Intel builds of the early to mid 2010s?? Not just performance but better stability and reliability. I cannot wait for Zen 4 which will equal or better Golden Cove IPC with most likely faster all clocks even manual overclock than Zen 3 while using less power and heat than Intel Golden Cove P cores and or course we will have options of more than 8 big boy cores.

 

[freeagent]

Do you find your current AMD build more stable and less buggy than Intel builds of the early to mid 2010s?? Not just performance but better stability and reliability

Yes, by far.. it has been something I have said since I built it, that it is just as, if not more stable than my previous Intel builds. That says a lot imo.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Yes, by far.. it has been something I have said since I built it, that it is just as, if not more stable than my previous Intel builds. That says a lot imo.

Yes AMD has really stepped up their game. What were your prior Intel builds. Any experience with 12th Gen and stability compared to current Ryzen gen for a chip without e cores or one with the e cores completely disabled.

 

[aQi]

Yeah that makes some sense. Though is 8 strong cores still going to easily be more than enough for gaming like dgianstefani and some others insist it is easily. Cause then I could get 12700K or 12900K and shut down e-cores and then up to Raptor Cove chip and shut down e-cores in BIOS and have a super 8 core 16 thread chip that would be as good and trade blows with 5800X3D in gaming and be far superior in other things as well. Though still stuck at 8 strong cores. But it may be more than enough for even most intensive games for a long time yet??

But the Cyberpunk example in this thread where someone said it is true it uses more than 8 cores has me worried.

And you say if priority is gaming especially not high budget AAA games. Well priority is both including high budget AAA games?? Are those optimized for high core counts above 8?? Like Watch Dogs 2 and Cyber Punk?? Or is it only Battlefield heavy multi player that can scale meaningfully above 8 cores?

And you say if you were going Intel a product reviewed here that has no e-cores would be of interest. Is there such a thing. Or referring to future product? Well the 12400 has no e-cores, but no overclock either as it is locked and only 6 P cores.



Raptor Lake?? From what I have seen it only has 8 strong cores and they are just adding more e-cores. Have you read or heard any breaking news that will change or they have a separate SKU with 10-12 P cores on Raptor Lake?

I have a strong feeling that Intel might just increase the number of P cores.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I have a strong feeling that Intel might just increase the number of P cores.

That would be awesome if true. What is that strong feeling based on??

And do you see it happening with Alder Lake and them dropping a release quickly or with Raptor Lake?

Or future generations.

Intel if they wanted to could they produce a more P core variant like now and release it within a week by just modifying the node. I imagine if they could keep heat and thermals at least under control they could as the die would do it and does not take long to modify the die.

Cause all Intel's roadmaps for Alder Lake and Raptor Lake show only 8 p cores with more and more e-cores. Meteor Lake an beyond look more of the same, but some road maps have questions in them for those.

 

[freeagent]

What were your prior Intel builds.

X48, x58, and Z77.

 

[JustBenching]

I honestly feel and do not believe that Intel could have done so without power consumption. I think you are saying they could have easily as a way to rub it in cause you think the e-cores are so good they had no need which is just wrong.

If they could have easily done it, the e-cores are hybrid arch are a nuisance and problem for many despite many thinking they are good that if Intel could have easily come up with a high clocked 10 P core Alder Lake without thermal/power budget blowing up and/or without manufacturing costs getting out of hand, they would have done so in addition to the hybrid e-core variants. Especially given once again how there are lots of people who hate the e-cores and would actually like a little more than 8 P cores and go AMD instead. I think Intel is unable to is why at least without a severe crippling of clock speed which would make it pointless even for those who hate e-cores and want more than 8 big boy cores which is quite a lot.

Therefore I think if Intel could have easily made a 10 P core Alder Lake part they would of in addition to the hybrid 8 P core + 8 e core to cater to both markets if they could have done so for being cost effective enough and/or thermal/power/heat consumption was reasonable without crippling clock speeds for 10 P core part.

An intel cpu without Ecores is just worse than one with them. Its just a fact. There is nothing that a full P core cpu can do it that the Ecore can't at LEAST as fast, but possibly faster. The 8+8P core configuration has the same single thread performance and better multicore performance than a 10+0 configuration. Again, that's a fact. So what you are basically asking is, why didnt intel make a slower CPU than they one they have. Well, WHY would they create a slower CPU???

How can power consumption be ever a problem is beyond me. You realize sapphire rapids are doing 16P cores, and possibly more right? Power consumption is never ever ever an issue, simply because thats what power limits are there for.

 

[Wolverine2349]

An intel cpu without Ecores is just worse than one with them. Its just a fact. There is nothing that a full P core cpu can do it that the Ecore can't at LEAST as fast, but possibly faster. The 8+8P core configuration has the same single thread performance and better multicore performance than a 10+0 configuration. Again, that's a fact. So what you are basically asking is, why didnt intel make a slower CPU than they one they have. Well, WHY would they create a slower CPU???

How can power consumption be ever a problem is beyond me. You realize sapphire rapids are doing 16P cores, and possibly more right? Power consumption is never ever ever an issue, simply because thats what power limits are there for.

It would have been a better CPU for certain use cases like gaming and for uses where those e-cores suck. More p cores gives more resources without dragging the ring clock down 1GHz which hurts latency big time than those e-waste cores. Both options would have been good for the market especially if Intel wants to hurt AMD and not lose enthusiasts who like more than 8 cores but hate e-waste cores.

10+0 is not a slower CPU than 8+8. It can be in some cases but it is better in others. Instead they force one down our throats probably because they cannot do 10+0 once again without blowing the thermal/heat/power budget on LGA 1700 at decent/good clock speeds.

Give me 10+0 config anytime over 8+8 e-waste cores on Saturday and twice on Sunday.

Oh and if those e-cores were better than 10 P cores, why are they making Saphire Rapids with only P cores and no e-waste cores. And that is a different socket and proves nothing about power consumption. A larger die can handle more power and the socket CPU size is LGA 4677 which of course they can make more P cores.

On the actual much smaller LGA 1700, they probably would not have been able to make a 10+0 config without crippling the clock speeds due to power/heat budget. Of course on a bigger socket they could, but we are talking about LGA 1700 which does not have the die space size for anymore than 2 P cores which again would blow the thermal budget without crippling clocks. They would have done it on LGA 1700 as a 10+0 is not slower than 8+8 in all work loads.

And Saphire Rapids was supposed to have been out by now but keeps getting delayed and delayed yet again and again and may never see light of day so maybe they cannot come up with more than 8 P cores even on a much larger die space yet???

 

[freeagent]

Are we going in circles here? I feel like I’m watching a dog chase it’s tail.

 

[maxfly]

7 pages...

 

[tabascosauz]

Are we going in circles here? I feel like I’m watching a dog chase it’s tail.

I thought it fair to give a little room for discussion since the thread title did pose a question.

7 pages later and OP hasn't budged from sounding like a broken record despite all the discussion that has transpired.

Sounds like OP can continue his poorly disguised P-core rant in the lounge or something if he desires.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Are we going in circles here? I feel like I’m watching a dog chase it’s tail.

Yes in a way because some like fevgatos are trying to rub it in and shove it down our throats that Intel could have easily created a highly clocked 10 P core LGA 1700 Alder Lake CPU but throwing in our faces that it would be slower and delusional for all use cases than an 8+8 config and no one would buy it when that is simply not true.

It depends on workload and what you like. A lot of people hate the hybrid arch and would like a little more than 8 P cores as it is much better with their software and use cases and more stable/reliable and performant in today's SMP X86 world.

I honestly believe that Intel could not create a 10 P core Alder Lake CPU on LGA 1700 sized node without the power/heat/thermal budget being insanely bad or blowing up without crippling clock speeds big time. fevgatos trying to claim otherwise than saying it is stupid and an 8+8 config is always faster in all use cases is rubbing it in to those who do not like the e-cores and hybrid arch. Intel knows this and if they could produce one, I think they would as 10+0 is more desired by some and an 8+8 is more desired by some. There is not one size fits all in this case unlike fevgatos and dgianstefani also want to push down our faces. The reality is Intel either cannot do it without thermal/power/heat issues blowing up at decent clocks and/or they financially cannot produce them to what they think people would pay that they sold them for. If they could produce them and sell them for $500 to $600 or less they would as it would take shine away form AMD before Zen 4 is released and even possibly steal some sales from them in a couple months.

Of course Intel is trying with Sapphire Rapids, but that is a much larger node and that still keeps getting delayed. If Saphire rapids was here now, I would have built a system with a 10-12 core HEDT Alder Lake-X CPU and it would have been my main system unless mesh arch in that made it Skylake-X like for gaming compared to Broadwell-E again, though I imagine Intel would have tried to ensure that does not happen as HEDT is supposed to be as good for gaming and also lots better for other things as well. But it keeps getting delayed so they are having a hard time with it.

 

[Toothless]

Why isn't this thread locked? Nothing is coming from it besides circles and OP purposely not listening. Over 150 posts and nothing.

 

[AusWolf]

Yes in a way because some like fevgatos are trying to rub it in and shove it down our throats that Intel could have easily created a highly clocked 10 P core LGA 1700 Alder Lake CPU but throwing in our faces that it would be slower and delusional for all use cases than an 8+8 config and no one would buy it when that is simply not true.

It depends on workload and what you like. A lot of people hate the hybrid arch and would like a little more than 8 P cores as it is much better with their software and use cases and more stable/reliable and performant in today's SMP X86 world.

I honestly believe that Intel could not create a 10 P core Alder Lake CPU on LGA 1700 sized node without the power/heat/thermal budget being insanely bad or blowing up without crippling clock speeds big time. fevgatos trying to claim otherwise than saying it is stupid and an 8+8 config is always faster in all use cases is rubbing it in to those who do not like the e-cores and hybrid arch. Intel knows this and if they could produce one, I think they would as 10+0 is more desired by some and an 8+8 is more desired by some. There is not one size fits all in this case unlike fevgatos and dgianstefani also want to push down our faces. The reality is Intel either cannot do it without thermal/power/heat issues blowing up at decent clocks and/or they financially cannot produce them to what they think people would pay that they sold them for. If they could produce them and sell them for $500 to $600 or less they would as it would take shine away form AMD before Zen 4 is released and even possibly steal some sales from them in a couple months.

Of course Intel is trying with Sapphire Rapids, but that is a much larger node and that still keeps getting delayed. If Saphire rapids was here now, I would have built a system with a 10-12 core HEDT Alder Lake-X CPU and it would have been my main system unless mesh arch in that made it Skylake-X like for gaming compared to Broadwell-E again, though I imagine Intel would have tried to ensure that does not happen as HEDT is supposed to be as good for gaming and also lots better for other things as well. But it keeps getting delayed so they are having a hard time with it.

Read some reviews and see for yourself what the e-cores can actually do. I think there's one here on TPU that only uses e-cores. They're not as weak as you think.

If you're still not convinced, and you want 16 cores, 10 of which you'll never see utilised in any game, then buy a 5950X. Modern AMD platforms are just as stable as Intel ones are, believe it or not.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Why isn't this thread locked? Nothing is coming from it besides circles and OP purposely not listening. Over 150 posts and nothing.

I am totally aware now and it is unfortunate that what I desire does not yet exist at least until Zen 4. But ones like fevgatos trying to rub it in to me that I should love the e-cores and Intel could have easily created a 10+0 config but why would anyone in their right mind want that when 8+8 is so much better is just wrong when that is flat out untrue and depends on use cases.

Also not so sure Intel could have created a 10+0 Alder Lake certainly not with the clock speeds we want without thermal/power budget blowing up on LGA 1700.

 

[AusWolf]

I am totally aware now and it is unfortunate that what I desire does not yet exist at least until Zen 4. But ones like fevgatos trying to rub it in to me that I should love the e-cores and Intel could have easily created a 10+0 config but why would anyone in their right mind want that when 8+8 is so much better is just wrong when that is flat out untrue and depends on use cases.

Also not so sure Intel could have created a 10+0 Alder Lake certainly not with the clock speeds we want without thermal/power budget blowing up on LGA 1700.

Read reviews. Seriously.

 

[Toothless]

I am totally aware now and it is unfortunate that what I desire does not yet exist at least until Zen 4. But ones like fevgatos trying to rub it in to me that I should love the e-cores and Intel could have easily created a 10+0 config but why would anyone in their right mind want that when 8+8 is so much better is just wrong when that is flat out untrue and depends on use cases.

Also not so sure Intel could have created a 10+0 Alder Lake certainly not with the clock speeds we want without thermal/power budget blowing up on LGA 1700.

Literally just buy a 12700k and disable E-cores. I'm convinced you want to gimp your chip for "performance."

 

[Wolverine2349]

Read some reviews and see for yourself what the e-cores can actually do. I think there's one here on TPU that only uses e-cores. They're not as weak as you think.

If you're still not convinced, and you want 16 cores, 10 of which you'll never see utilised in any game, then buy a 5950X. Modern AMD platforms are just as stable as Intel ones are, believe it or not.

I have done research and reviews and they are actually pretty weak all around. Yes they have near Skylake IPC in best case scenarios, but they are like Sandy Bridge or even worse in many. 8 e-cores gets beat by 4 Coffee Lake cores or trades blows in many instances. And its the hybrid arch that causes lots of trouble for me and many others.

Do not like them nor hybrid arch period at this time and for foreseeable future.

 

[JustBenching]

It would have been a better CPU for certain use cases like gaming and for uses where those e-cores suck. More p cores gives more resources without dragging the ring clock down 1GHz which hurts latency big time than those e-waste cores. Both options would have been good for the market especially if Intel wants to hurt AMD and not lose enthusiasts who like more than 8 cores but hate e-waste cores.

10+0 is not a slower CPU than 8+8. It can be in some cases but it is better in others. Instead they force one down our throats probably because they cannot do 10+0 once again without blowing the thermal/heat/power budget on LGA 1700 at decent/good clock speeds.

Give me 10+0 config anytime over 8+8 e-waste cores on Saturday and twice on Sunday.

Oh and if those e-cores were better than 10 P cores, why are they making Saphire Rapids with only P cores and no e-waste cores. And that is a different socket and proves nothing about power consumption. A larger die can handle more power and the socket CPU size is LGA 4677 which of course they can make more P cores.

On the actual much smaller LGA 1700, they probably would not have been able to make a 10+0 config without crippling the clock speeds due to power/heat budget. Of course on a bigger socket they could, but we are talking about LGA 1700 which does not have the die space size for anymore than 2 P cores which again would blow the thermal budget without crippling clocks. They would have done it on LGA 1700 as a 10+0 is not slower than 8+8 in all work loads.

And Saphire Rapids was supposed to have been out by now but keeps getting delayed and delayed yet again and again and may never see light of day so maybe they cannot come up with more than 8 P cores even on a much larger die space yet???

Didnt we go through this already at least TWICE? YES, more Pcores at the same power consumption means lower clockspeeds at all core workloads, but that doesn't matter, cause in order for those clockspeeds to drop it means ALL 10 cores are in use, in which case you will get more performance than the 8p core alternative. Why do you keep going over this? The 5950x has lower clockspeeds than the 5800x at all core workloads, but regardless it is faster in every freaking task.

I have a 3090 and a 12900k. I've tried cyberpunk at 720p and DLSS ultra performance (with a freaking 3090 mind you). There is absolutely no freaking difference with ecores on or off. In what freaking scenario does the 3.7ghz ring will lower your fps? What game what settings? It just ain't happening, even with the ring clocked at 5 ghz youll gain 1 to 1.5ns of latency. So using a high tuned ddr5 youll go from around 50 latency to 48.5. What actual difference will that make to your games? NONE.

So can you come up with a scenario that 10+0 would be better than 8+8?

 

[Wolverine2349]

Read reviews. Seriously.

Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review

With Alder Lake, Intel is betting big on hybrid CPU core configurations. The Core i9-12900K has eight P(erformance) cores and eight E(fficient) cores. We were curious and tested the processor running the E-Cores only to see how well they perform against architectures like Zen 2, Zen 3, Skylake...

www.techpowerup.com

I did read that review a while ago. The e-cores are bad considering that 8 of them barely beat or trade blows or sometimes even lose to Intel Skylake/Coffee Lake derivative and AMD Zen 2 quad cores despite twice the core count.

 

[JustBenching]

Also not so sure Intel could have created a 10+0 Alder Lake certainly not with the clock speeds we want without thermal/power budget blowing up on LGA 1700.

AGAIN? Man are you even reading anything we are writing? WHO cares about the clockspeeds. A 10P core alderlake at 240w is going to be faster in EVERY freaking scenario compared to an 8P core alderlake at the same 240w. So what the heck are you talking about clockspeeds all the time????

Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review

With Alder Lake, Intel is betting big on hybrid CPU core configurations. The Core i9-12900K has eight P(erformance) cores and eight E(fficient) cores. We were curious and tested the processor running the E-Cores only to see how well they perform against architectures like Zen 2, Zen 3, Skylake...

www.techpowerup.com

I did read that review a while ago. The e-cores are bad considering that 8 of them barely beat or trade blows or sometimes even lose to Intel Skylake/Coffee Lake derivative and AMD Zen 2 quad cores despite twice the core count.

That statement would be true if your comparison was at all valid. Die size is what matters. If skylake cores offered more performance at the same die then intel would be using skylake. The proper comparison is 4e cores again 1p core, cause the actual die size difference. And its obvious that 4 mildly clocked ecores beat the crap out of 1p core clocked to the moon. And thats why e cores exist.

Btw, according to that review they are beating handily both a 3600x and a 10600k in CBR23. Yeah, terrible ecores

 

[Wolverine2349]

AGAIN? Man are you even reading anything we are writing? WHO cares about the clockspeeds. A 10P core alderlake at 240w is going to be faster in EVERY freaking scenario compared to an 8P core alderlake at the same 240w. So what the heck are you talking about clockspeeds all the time????


That statement would be true if your comparison was at all valid. Die size is what matters. If skylake cores offered more performance at the same die then intel would be using skylake. The proper comparison is 4e cores again 1p core, cause the actual die size difference. And its obvious that 4 mildly clocked ecores beat the crap out of 1p core clocked to the moon. And thats why e cores exist.

Only in tasks that are heavily threaded and barely. Tasks that are lighter threaded but still use 8-11 would be way better with more P cores.

Just adding more e-cores is a terrible idea. Yeah they are die space efficient, but Intel cannot really come up with something better. Their P core die space is huge and only 12% better IPC than Zen 3 die space which is much smaller and more power efficient.

While we are at it why not just have an e-core only chip with 64 e-cores as only infinite threaded apps could benefit a little more slowly from it. When 32-64 good cores would demolish it and even 16 good cores would be close and 10-16 good cores far better at software that does not scale to infinite threads/cores.

Most software has a finite number of threads, but lots of them are around 8 or a little more. A few more strong cores would be far more benefit for that software. That's why we have 12-16 good core parts from AMD. And we used to from Intel with Skylake-X and even Comet Lake had 10 cores.