• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

E-cores still evolve. But is there a reason for it?

Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,523 (0.72/day)
Location
London, UK
System Name ❶ Oooh (2024) ❷ Aaaah (2021) ❸ Ahemm (2017)
Processor ❶ 5800X3D ❷ i7-9700K ❸ i7-7700K
Motherboard ❶ X570-F ❷ Z390-E ❸ Z270-E
Cooling ❶ ALFIII 360 ❷ X62 + X72 (GPU mod) ❸ X62
Memory ❶ 32-3600/16 ❷ 32-3200/16 ❸ 16-3200/16
Video Card(s) ❶ 3080 X Trio ❷ 2080TI (AIOmod) ❸ 1080TI
Storage ❶ NVME/SSD/HDD ❷ <SAME ❸ SSD/HDD
Display(s) ❶ 1440/165/IPS ❷ 1440/144/IPS ❸ 1080/144/IPS
Case ❶ BQ Silent 601 ❷ Cors 465X ❸ Frac Mesh C
Audio Device(s) ❶ HyperX C2 ❷ HyperX C2 ❸ Logi G432
Power Supply ❶ HX1200 Plat ❷ RM750X ❸ EVGA 650W G2
Mouse ❶ Logi G Pro ❷ Razer Bas V3 ❸ Logi G502
Keyboard ❶ Logi G915 TKL ❷ Anne P2 ❸ Logi G610
Software ❶ Win 11 ❷ 10 ❸ 10
Benchmark Scores I have wrestled bandwidths, Tussled with voltages, Handcuffed Overclocks, Thrown Gigahertz in Jail
EH cores? E for Effort Cores? Effortless cores?
Maybe nicer names instead!
16 Elegant cores!!
Enchanting Cores!!
Euphoric Cores!! (My personal Favorite)
:lovetpu:

Sounds like someone's asking for a HUG lol

here u go :fear: (... but terrified at the same time)
 
Joined
May 25, 2022
Messages
115 (0.13/day)
Why did Intel abandon HT (which I don't mind at all and it's not to be discussed in this thread) and not E-cores since they already implemented segmental layout? Is there anything real engineers can see going wrong that I don't? Once again, if it's all only limited to cash and marketing then I don't even know what to say.
You are thinking technicals is the issue, which is why it makes no sense. The problem(and the solution) is always the people. Bad management, disgruntled employees, infighting within the organization, etc.

The P core team is in shambles right now, so they could not have HT in Lion Cove, since HT is easy in terms of die resources but difficult in terms of validation, as everything needs to work across two threads without contention, without errors in execution, and now we have to worry about security too.

Since Intel is such a big company, they have parallel design teams, and they happen to have the E core team, which has been executing, far, far better. Thus in the recent years with Tremont, and Gracemont, they caught up significantly. Since the main product line were all P cores and falling behind competition, they decided to include E cores.

That's why we're here today.
That's definitely a statement.

Would've loved to read the thought process behind that, preferrably sans baseless speculations.
Tremont E core came out in 2020, and it performed way, way behind Sunny Cove core in Icelake. Tremont was Ivy Bridge level. Then Gracemont came out and was almost Skylake level in 2021, and Golden Cove was 19% better than Sunny Cove. Golden Cove was 40% faster than Gracemont per clock. Skymont is 2024, and Lion Cove is mere 10-15% ahead of Skymont per clock.

E cores:
Tremont 2020: Ivy Bridge(2014)
Gracemont 2021, 30% faster per clock than Tremont: Skylake(2016)
Skymont 2024, 30% faster per clock than Tremont, 70% faster in FP: Golden Cove(2021)

P cores:
Sunny Cove 2019, 18% faster than Skylake
Golden Cove 2021, 19% faster than Sunny Cove
Lion Cove 2024, 9% faster than Golden Cove

Let me repeat, Skymont is 1/3rd the size of Lion Cove P core, despite being just 10-15% difference in performance per clock. What do you think the next iteration of E cores will do against the next P cores? E cores to 30% every 2 years, versus under 20% for the P cores, sometimes way under during the same timeframe.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
106 (0.02/day)

Where is Skymont Enhanced PE-Cores (Performance-Efficiency cores for gaming) with L3 (L4) cache (X3D) 96MB+ ?


There are rumors of 12C Bartlett Lake built on the LGA 1700 platform only in large cores, but I'm surprised they didn't also introduce 8c Skymont (2x 4c cluster) or 12c Skymont (3x 4c cluster) or 16c Skymont (4x 4c cluster) with L3 (L4) cache (X3D) 96MB and more.


• We found the missing Intel Performance in Games... Big Performance Gains!
source:


Why are Intel processors starting to lag in gaming? Analysis of the reasons for the regression of the game Core Ultra (from 03:41 is there compare Intel Core Ultra 9 285K 8P + 16E vs 1P + 16E etc.).
source: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1tW14YGEmz/


• Intel's Arrow Lake chips aren't winning any awards for gaming performance but I think its new E-cores deserve a gold star
source:
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/pr...-i-think-its-new-e-cores-deserve-a-gold-star/


• 12c .LITTLE Atom Skymont E-cores beats 8C big Lion Cove P-cores !
source: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/share-your-cpuz-benchmarks.216765/post-5360549


• Skymont E-cores 3.2GHz up to 4.6GHz Max Turbo Frequency v Cinebench R20 podáva single-thread výkon procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 3.4GHz up to 4.9GHz Max. Boost Clock.
source:
https://forum.pctuning.cz/viewtopic.php?p=9907684#p9907684


• In Raytracing-Benchmarks V-Ray Version 6 - Skymont E-core loses 4% to P-core Golden Cove from Alder Lake (and loses 6% to P-Core Raptor Cove from Raptor Lake) but gains up to 62% to Gracemont E -core.
source: https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Core...elease-Specs-Preis-Benchmarks-Review-1458051/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2024
Messages
60 (2.00/day)
Location
United States of America
You are thinking technicals is the issue, which is why it makes no sense. The problem(and the solution) is always the people. Bad management, disgruntled employees, infighting within the organization, etc.

The P core team is in shambles right now, so they could not have HT in Lion Cove, since HT is easy in terms of die resources but difficult in terms of validation, as everything needs to work across two threads without contention, without errors in execution, and now we have to worry about security too.

Since Intel is such a big company, they have parallel design teams, and they happen to have the E core team, which has been executing, far, far better. Thus in the recent years with Tremont, and Gracemont, they caught up significantly. Since the main product line were all P cores and falling behind competition, they decided to include E cores.
Great insights. Too many people believe that technical performance is the reason for why a company fails or succeeds but most of the factors are internal to the organization and not visible to non-employees.

I can point to any number of bone-headed, short-sighted, or myopic decisions by the senior management at EVERY company I have ever worked at that has lead to products never appearing on the market at all (most customers never realize this), products underperforming vs expectations (customers are aware but not sure why the underperformance is happening), or the company shrinking slowly over time.

Intel was planting the seeds of its decline since 2012 if you assume a minimum of 3 years for CPU development and Skywell being disappointing. The stock price was up 35% in Nov 2015 vs the middle of 2012. Customers were happy with Intel in 2012. Yet the massive success of Sandy Bridge had started the rot at Intel.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,389 (3.29/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
What do you think the next iteration of E cores will do against the next P cores? E cores to 30% every 2 years, versus under 20% for the P cores, sometimes way under during the same timeframe.
You understand if you keep increasing the performance of an E core you eventually end up with a very wide P core, right ? This isn't magic, E cores are just built upon regular underclocked cores from years ago which are now much smaller due to node shrinks.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
22,292 (6.02/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi
Cooling Thermalright Peerless Assassin
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Lian Li A3 mATX White
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Steelseries Aerox 5
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC
Benchmark Scores Over 9000
And I feel like weather on Mars reflects the value of USD a little bit too dishonestly.
I want facts, not feelings.
Feelings are generally the breeding ground for future facts.

I'm also quite convinced that the evolution of the E core is Intel betting on two horses. Either they get a good big little design that keeps the P cores in play without being surpassed left and right by competition (which they are, today, by quite a margin - they need more power, and they're larger, and they don't scale), which is what we've seen up till today, and its clearly NOT working - or Intel moves more and more into E cores and lands at a new, smaller core that can do as much or more as a P core.

Its simple logic. Any other route will leave Intel playing with way too much risk. If anything, I think the 285k release and its results have underlined and given more credibility to the continued development of E cores and slowly removing P cores.

You understand if you keep increasing the performance of an E core you eventually end up with a very wide P core, right ? This isn't magic, E cores are just built upon regular underclocked cores from years ago which are now much smaller due to node shrinks.
Of course not, the development process to get there is completely different, so it opens up new approaches. Its not magic, but it does offer a kind of clean slate.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,389 (3.29/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
the development process to get there is completely different
It just isn't, the way to obtain more performance is the same. Performance does not scale linearly with size, that's why the P cores seem so much more size inefficient but in reality there is nothing special going on.

It's the same story with how people were impressed by Apple's CPUs and wondered how they were so fast without been clocked very high but in reality the cores were giant, wider than even desktop x86 processors, they weren't doing anything unheard of, it's just a bog standard "trade area for speed or efficiency" approach.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
766 (0.23/day)
Location
Earth's Troposphere
System Name 3 "rigs"-gaming/spare pc/cruncher
Processor R7-5800X3D/i7-7700K/R9-7950X
Motherboard Asus ROG Crosshair VI Extreme/Asus Ranger Z170/Asus ROG Crosshair X670E-GENE
Cooling Bitspower monoblock ,custom open loop,both passive and active/air tower cooler/air tower cooler
Memory 32GB DDR4/32GB DDR4/64GB DDR5
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX6900XT Alphacooled/AMD RX5700XT 50th Aniv./SOC(onboard)
Storage mix of sata ssds/m.2 ssds/mix of sata ssds+an m.2 ssd
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp U2410 , HP 24x
Case mb box/Silverstone Raven RV-05/CoolerMaster Q300L
Audio Device(s) onboard/onboard/onboard
Power Supply 3 Seasonics, a DeltaElectronics, a FractalDesing
Mouse various/various/various
Keyboard various wired and wireless
VR HMD -
Software W10.someting or another,all 3
More or less the same Skylake cores that got DR. Frankensteined.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
22,292 (6.02/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi
Cooling Thermalright Peerless Assassin
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Lian Li A3 mATX White
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Steelseries Aerox 5
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC
Benchmark Scores Over 9000
It just isn't, the way to obtain more performance is the same. Performance does not scale linearly with size, that's why the P cores seem so much more size inefficient but in reality there is nothing special going on.

It's the same story with how people were impressed by Apple's CPUs and wondered how they were so fast without been clocked very high but in reality the cores were giant, wider than even desktop x86 processors, they weren't doing anything unheard of, it's just a bog standard "trade area for speed or efficiency" approach.
Sure. But in the end it is net performance at X power and Y surface area. The P core is doing a specific balance, the e core does some things differently. I do think it allows intel to create a new thing without throwing away the old. The P cores are based on old principles.
 
Top