Are all software/scheduling issues with e-cores fixed on Intel 12th to 14th Gen - Willing to give hybrid ach a chance now

[JustBenching]

I'd say gaming wise you probably get more results out of disabling the P-cores' HT functionality than any of the E-core clusters, but that's my view on it

Yeap, on cpus with 12+ ecores that's the way to go. On 8+8 I wouldn't disable HT

 

[Dragam1337]

I'm running stripped butt naked windows and ecores still help substantially. Most exhaustive testing I've done is in warzone. Disabling ecores drops 1% lows from 190-200 to 120. Cyberpunk Spiderman and TLOU take a substantial hit with ecores off even in averages.


If one out of hundreds of games stutters due to ecores, isn't more likely that the game is the issue? Just saying....

You yourself admitted 2 days ago that ecores are the reason a 3 gen old 12900k is as fast or faster than your 7800x 3d in cyberpunk. So clearly ecores help in gaming.

Oh now the 12900k is faster than a 7800x3d is it - you're too funny.

But yes, in the few games that aint just limited by the main renderthread (which most games are) and can take advantage of more than 8 cores (which most games can't), the e-cores help boost performance - or at least max and average fps. I'd wager 99,9 percentile lows is still lower with e-cores enabled.

 

[JustBenching]

Oh now the 12900k is faster than a 7800x3d is it - you're too funny.

But yes, in the few games that aint just limited by the main renderthread (which most games are) and can take advantage of more than 8 cores (which most games can't), the e-cores help boost performance - or at least max and average fps. I'd wager 99,9 percentile lows is still lower with e-cores enabled.

I'm sorry but that's just silly. Yes, of course ecores help only in games that can use more than 8 cores. That's not a criticism against ecores since that applies to p cores too. It's preposterous to even suggest that, since it applies to everything. The 3d cache only helps when the game needs more cache etc.

How is that an argument is beyond me....

 

[Dragam1337]

I'm sorry but that's just silly. Yes, of course ecores help only in games that can use more than 8 cores. That's not a criticism against ecores since that applies to p cores too. It's preposterous to even suggest that, since it applies to everything. The 3d cache only helps when the game needs more cache etc.

How is that an argument is beyond me....

It's an argument because most games benefit from more cache (only ancient engine games like csgo doesn't), while most games don't benefit from more than 8 cores. In other words, in most games the intel cpus would more than likely have benefitted from having more L3 cache, rather than e-cores.

 

[JustBenching]

It's an argument because most games benefit from more cache (only ancient engine games like csgo doesn't), while most games don't benefit from more than 8 cores. In other words, in most games the intel cpus would more than likely have benefitted from having more L3 cache, rather than e-cores.

But then your argument shouldn't be against ecores but cores in general. Are you calling the 2nd ccd on the 7950x ewaste as well? No, you only do that for ecores.

If you remove ecores then the cpus will be as slow as the 7800x 3d in anything but games, you realize that right?

 

[Dragam1337]

But then your argument shouldn't be against ecores but cores in general. Are you calling the 2nd ccd on the 7950x ewaste as well? No, you only do that for ecores.

If you remove ecores then the cpus will be as slow as the 7800x 3d in anything but games, you realize that right?

Cute that you are trying to pull a strawman on me. The purpose of the 7950x isn't gaming - it makes perfect sense for its purpose.

My argument is for 8 really fast cores and a big fat L3 cache on cpu's specifically aimed at gaming, which is exactly what the 7800x3d is. Intel on the other hand does not have a cpu made specifically for gaming - only these generic scaled up mobile chip designs, which is the entire reason i decided to go from intel to amd.

One could argue that intel could have made an even faster gaming specific cpu than the 7800x3d with their faster cores, but they didn't, so here we are...

 

[JustBenching]

Cute that you are trying to pull a strawman on me. The purpose of the 7950x isn't gaming - it makes perfect sense for its purpose.

My argument is for 8 really fast cores and a big fat L3 cache on cpu's specifically aimed at gaming, which is exactly what the 7800x3d is. Intel on the other hand does not have a cpu made specifically for gaming - only these generic scaled up mobile chip designs, which is the entire reason i decided to go from intel to amd.

One could argue that intel could have made an even faster gaming specific cpu than the 7800x3d with their faster cores, but they didn't, so here we are...

You are calling ecores ewaste because they, according to you, don't help in games. Even though ecore cpus aren't made for gaming specifically. On the same note the 2nd ccd doesn't help in games either so it's ewaste.

The only one that can make 3d chips right now is TSMC, intel AFAIK struggles to make the ring bus any larger without adding cores. Completely theoretically yes, if Intel had access to tsmc they would have cpus 25+% faster than the x3d in gaming.

 

[Dragam1337]

You are calling ecores ewaste because they, according to you, don't help in games. Even though ecore cpus aren't made for gaming specifically. On the same note the 2nd ccd doesn't help in games either so it's ewaste.

The only one that can make 3d chips right now is TSMC, intel AFAIK struggles to make the ring bus any larger without adding cores. Completely theoretically yes, if Intel had access to tsmc they would have cpus 25+% faster than the x3d in gaming.

14900k is being sold as a gaming cpu - the 7950x isn't. That's the difference. You could argue that a product like the 7900x3d is e-waste, and i would agree... it's not like all amd products are amazing.

 

[JustBenching]

14900k is being sold as a gaming cpu - the 7950x isn't. That's the difference. You could argue that a product like the 7900x3d is e-waste, and i would agree... it's not like all amd products are amazing.

How is it sold as a gaming cpu?

From amds webpage the 7950x is marketed as the best for gaming. I'm quoting btw... Just Google 7950x amd and you'll find it.

 

[Dragam1337]

How is it sold as a gaming cpu?

From amds webpage the 7950x is marketed as the best for gaming. I'm quoting btw... Just Google 7950x amd and you'll find it.

You have to be trolling at this point.

Cba replying more to you.

 

[Vya Domus]

Oh now the 12900k is faster than a 7800x3d is it - you're too funny.

The guy is a troll stop feeding him.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I'm running stripped butt naked windows and ecores still help substantially. Most exhaustive testing I've done is in warzone. Disabling ecores drops 1% lows from 190-200 to 120. Cyberpunk Spiderman and TLOU take a substantial hit with ecores off even in averages.

Are you running stripped barebones WIN10 or WIN11 and which version meaning 21H2, 22H2, 23H2 or whatever?

And what video card and what resolution you play at?

I had mentioned Cyberpunk in my original post, but should omit it as there was one thing from someone on Youtube who complained about it but no other mentions so probably more than fine.

Though Star Citizen is well knowns for problems and beta, and it is bad software and a joke so will give e-cores a pass for that issue.

Now Elden Ring only a 2 year old game have heard many complaints about that one with e-cores and that one concerns me legitimately as that is an AAA game and relatively new at that.

And how are your thermals with 13900K and clock speeds you get on both P and e cores and cooler you use and CPU power consumption? And do you have HT on or off? I need to keep that in mind as well to amount of heat dumped into the case especialy contending with also a hot RTX 4090 if I decide to make the move.

 

[JustBenching]

Are you running stripped barebones WIN10 or WIN11 and which version meaning 21H2, 22H2, 23H2 or whatever?

And what video card and what resolution you play at?

I had mentioned Cyberpunk in my original post, but should omit it as there was one thing from someone on Youtube who complained about it but no other mentions so probably more than fine.

Though Star Citizen is well knowns for problems and beta, and it is bad software and a joke so will give e-cores a pass for that issue.

Now Elden Ring only a 2 year old game have heard many complaints about that one with e-cores and that one concerns me legitimately as that is an AAA game and relatively new at that.

And how are your thermals with 13900K and clock speeds you get on both P and e cores and cooler you use and CPU power consumption? And do you have HT on or off? I need to keep that in mind as well to amount of heat dumped into the case especialy contending with also a hot RTX 4090 if I decide to make the move.

I'm the guy that posted you a video on a 12900k in cyberpunk at a different forum. Remember when I told you to fix your ram cause you couldn't get my numbers?

You have to be trolling at this point.

Cba replying more to you.

So it isnt sold as a gaming cpu anymore than the 7950x. I'm just repeating what amd has in their website, if I'm trolling then amd is trolling.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I'm the guy that posted you a video on a 12900k in cyberpunk at a different forum. Remember when I told you to fix your ram cause you couldn't get my numbers?


So it isnt sold as a gaming cpu anymore than the 7950x. I'm just repeating what amd has in their website, if I'm trolling then amd is trolling.

No there was some Youtube post that stated Cyberpunk issues with e-cores and only one I read about Cyberpunk and just worried me.

But that was only post I saw about it and cannot reember where it was from.

Do you run WIN10 or WIN11 and which version and how are your thermals and what clock speeds do you get?

You are calling ecores ewaste because they, according to you, don't help in games. Even though ecore cpus aren't made for gaming specifically. On the same note the 2nd ccd doesn't help in games either so it's ewaste.

The only one that can make 3d chips right now is TSMC, intel AFAIK struggles to make the ring bus any larger without adding cores. Completely theoretically yes, if Intel had access to tsmc they would have cpus 25+% faster than the x3d in gaming.

To be honest none are e-waste/ I think e-waste is more of a term used to describe in frustration as a different setup of all same core type on a single die would be more ideal. But that option does n ot exist nor is it going to exist any time soon if ever.

I mean the 2nd CCD on Ryzen CPUs suck because the cross latency is very bad. Its like having dual socket 7600X CPUs or 7700X CPUs.

Intel at least has all cores on single ring. The e-cores are still pretty good just not near as good as P-cores and they are like Skylake IPC. I think the ones who call them e-waste just hate hybrid arch and want more p-cores and thus think of them that way cause they only want one type of core and the fastest at it. I will admit as you saw I was one, but am willing to change and give it a chance as Thread Director 2 works quite well and really 8 cores is thin for RTX 4090 setup and gaming especially if you want to upgrade video cards down the road without changing mobo and CPU. And games are getting more and more threaded.

 

[evernessince]

No there was some Youtube post that stated Cyberpunk issues with e-cores and only one I read about Cyberpunk and just worried me.

But that was only post I saw about it and cannot reember where it was from.

Do you run WIN10 or WIN11 and which version and how are your thermals and what clock speeds do you get?




To be honest none are e-waste/ I think e-waste is more of a term used to describe in frustration as a different setup of all same core type on a single die would be more ideal. But that option does n ot exist nor is it going to exist any time soon if ever.

I mean the 2nd CCD on Ryzen CPUs suck because the cross latency is very bad. Its like having dual socket 7600X CPUs or 7700X CPUs.

Intel at least has all cores on single ring. The e-cores are still pretty good just not near as good as P-cores and they are like Skylake IPC. I think the ones who call them e-waste just hate hybrid arch and want more p-cores and thus think of them that way cause they only want one type of core and the fastest at it. I will admit as you saw I was one, but am willing to change and give it a chance as Thread Director 2 works quite well and really 8 cores is thin for RTX 4090 setup and gaming especially if you want to upgrade video cards down the road without changing mobo and CPU. And games are getting more and more threaded.

No, e-cores are terrible for games. This is why Intel has it's thread director try and keep games off e-cores at all costs. I would certainly not call them better than an all P-core solution like Ryzen. Inter-CCD latency is a non-issue for any current game as none of them exceed the 8 cores in a single CCD. It was primarily an issue when AMD had 4 core CCDs but they bumped that up to the current 8.

It's a lot easier for the scheduler to keep games within 8 cores (that requires little to no work in pretty much every modern game) as compared to keeping them off e-cores, which is always going to require work and coordination between the processor and operating system.

 

[bug]

I have heard so many say e-cores are good and help in games yet I also read reports that they cause stuttering in some games like Star Citizen Elden Ring and even Cyberpunk??

Well I will give a pass for Star Citizen as it is a bad buggy beta game, but 2 year old Elden Ring and what Cyberpunk which is supposed to be good with them? That gives me pause as well?

Are the issues popping up just FUD and anti e-core propaganda ( I will admit my own fears and skepticism and preference for more P cores has had me biased against e-cores a lot but I am willing to give them a chance now) and easy work arounds or are they real?

And you you effectively use WIN10 with 12-14th Gen or is WIN11 actually required to not have those issues. Cause I hate WIN11 interface and hearing about the more embedded telemetry harder to turn off than on WIN10.

I would prefer more than 8 P cores on a single ring/CCD, but none exists, so have thought of getting a 14700K or 14900K/138900K and disabling HT and just using e-cores for extra threads and seeing how it goes. Will things work smoother in games than just a good 8 core 16 thread CPU with HT on from either intel or AMD Zen4 and Raptor Cove or newer for today's most threaded games and tomorrow's as well? Or not really?

Yes AMD has Zen 5 coming and supposedly better IPC, but still the dual CCD severe latency issues and Intel is much better in that regard even with e-cores it seems as thread director 2 likely works very well and all e-cores and P cores are on the same ring bus unlike AMD's extra P cores.

Win10 will never get the E-cores-aware scheduler, so it will never give you a good experience with those.
Being scared of telemetry is also nuts. I've installed a fresh copy of Win11 just last week, there was a big screen right in the installer asking me what I want to share and what I don't. (Full disclosure, I never turn those completely off, if I don't submit usage and crashed to MS, how would I expect them to improve?)

 

[Wolverine2349]

No, e-cores are terrible for games. This is why Intel has it's thread director try and keep games off e-cores at all costs. I would certainly not call them better than an all P-core solution like Ryzen. Inter-CCD latency is a non-issue for any current game as none of them exceed the 8 cores in a single CCD. It was primarily an issue when AMD had 4 core CCDs but they bumped that up to the current 8.

It's a lot easier for the scheduler to keep games within 8 cores (that requires little to no work in pretty much every modern game) as compared to keeping them off e-cores, which is always going to require work and coordination between the processor and operating system.

But the scheduler will keep game so P cores and e-cores as suppletory if needed and them used for background Windows tasks right?

e-cores only bad if game primary threads get caught on one otherwise aren't e-cores better for the next threads beyond the P-cpres instead of logical hyper threading threads with HT off?

 

[bug]

But the scheduler will keep game so P cores and e-cores as suppletory if needed and them used for background Windows tasks right?

The Win11 scheduler, yes. The Win10 scheduler can't tell the difference.
Last I checked, the Win11 scheduler also has the problem that it sends background tasks (e.g. a window that loses foreground) to the E-cores automatically, regardless of how CPU-intensive a task they run. But this wouldn't affect gaming, because games don't go in a background window.

 

[evernessince]

But the scheduler will keep game so P cores and e-cores as suppletory if needed and them used for background Windows tasks right?

e-cores only bad if game primary threads get caught on one otherwise aren't e-cores better for the next threads beyond the P-cpres instead of logical hyper threading threads with HT off?

No, any of the game's thread on the e-cores is bad. Thread director will try and place all of them on the P-Cores. That is why many people recommend disabling e-cores for gaming, to avoid the possibility that something ends up on them. E-cores are only die space efficient, outside of that they are not superior than P-cores in any way.

 

[Bobaganoosh]

There's test data from TPU from 11/2022 showing on average it doesn't matter. Some games do better one way, some do better the other. It seems more games benefit from leaving them on, but if you play one of the few that specifically benefits turning them off your opinion will definitely be skewed that way.

There was a case for disabling them on 12th gen as the cache speed was more directly linked to e-core speeds, which was much lower. 13th gen fixed that, so now the cache is faster throughout and it's no longer a concern.

Cyberpunk put out a mode that "prioritizes P-cores", but initially it made performance much worse. They've since fixed that, but even though it doesn't make things worse, it doesn't really improve performance either.

Intel has also been testing out a new feature for 14th gen called APO (that may also go to 13th gen) that improves on the task scheduler by detecting specific games and loading optimized profiles for those games. What has been found is that they weren't just disabling e-cores, they were either disabling some e-core clusters or they were forcing background work to be limited to certain e-core clusters, which almost seems like there was some latency penalty to the whole CPU performance when different e-cores were working on various background tasks while gaming on the P-cores. So while it doesn't turn them all off, it does really focus the resources and tailor the performance per-application. Last time I checked there were only a couple games used in this application with claims of 14 that were planned to be supported in the future. I don't know the current state of it today.

 

[JustBenching]

Basically everyone in this thread that has / uses Intel CPUS recommends leaving Ecores on for games, everyone that DOESNT have Intel recommends turning them off. I wonder who knows what they are talking about and who is spewing the usual hatred towards a specific company. Hmm, hard question

 

[Wolverine2349]

Basically everyone in this thread that has / uses Intel CPUS recommends leaving Ecores on for games, everyone that DOESNT have Intel recommends turning them off. I wonder who knows what they are talking about and who is spewing the usual hatred towards a specific company. Hmm, hard question

Well I got a 14700K and a great deal on an Open box X790 Tomahawk from Micro Center. So I am going to give it a try after now selling my 7800X3D and mobo.

 

[bug]

Well I got a 14700K and a great deal on an Open box X790 Tomahawk from Micro Center. So I am going to give it a try after now selling my 7800X3D and mobo.

That doesn't make much sense. It's mostly a side-grade. Unless you're doing it just out of curiosity.

 

[ir_cow]

Basically everyone in this thread that has / uses Intel CPUS recommends leaving Ecores on for games, everyone that DOESNT have Intel recommends turning them off. I wonder who knows what they are talking about and who is spewing the usual hatred towards a specific company. Hmm, hard question

Apparently only reason to turn off E-cores and HT is if your going for DDR5-9000 stable. Haven't tried this yet, but that's what he XOC guys tells me to try.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Open box time to run away not buy lol