Intel "Nova Lake" to Appear with up to 52 Cores: 16P+32E+4LPE Configuration

[dyonoctis]

Intel will sell cores the same way Nvidia sells frames.

Zen 6 will have 12 cores CCD apparently, so they need to fight back the incoming 24 cores 48HT mainstream Ryzen CPU coming up. Nobody is going to pay a premium over AMD for a 24P cores from Intel, with all the expensive TSMC die real estate their P cores are using

 

[john_]

Zen 6 will have 12 cores CCD apparently, so they need to fight back the incoming 24 cores 48HT mainstream Ryzen CPU coming up. Nobody is going to pay a premium over AMD for a 24P cores from Intel, with all the expensive TSMC die real estate their P cores are using

AMD's Zen was successful because it was offering more cores than Intel with a good enough IPC. Intel managed to turn the tables with it's Hybrid CPUs and started taking back market share because it was offering more cores than AMD(most people wouldn't care to differentiate E cores from P cores, I can see myself looking at my phone specs and convincing me that it has an 8 core SOC when in fact only 4 cores are P cores). In the near future AMD will have to either change it's marketing and start advertising threads, or find a way to match Intel's core counts, because it will be difficult to convince the uneducated consumer than a 24 core CPU is as good as a 48 core CPU. I remember my self having problems to convince people that a mid range GPU with 2GB VRAM is better than a low end GPU with 4 GB slow VRAM, because people where thinking that double VRAM equals double performance.
Of course people with some basic knowledge will be looking at IPC, number of P cores and the implementation of X3D cache on the CPUs they are buying. But big OEMs will be advertising "32/40/48/52 cores CPUs".

 

[kondamin]

Yes, but for Apple. For Intel no.

Apple is sticking to 3nm this(m5) generation
which is supposed to launch h2 2025
maybe m6 will be 2nm but that's not going to launch until 2026

I don't know who's going to be taking up the first generation of 2nm but it's not going to be Apple this time.
Probably still reeling from n3b like intel is.

 

[_roman_]

most people wouldn't care to differentiate E cores from P cores

If you stick to windows only - it will most likely not matter.
I could not find any specs for those E cores for those intel processors on intel homepage. I could not find any cpuinfo for that. I doubt my box will boot or can execute the code i compiled on that intel cpu. Maybe when i optimise the code, downgrade compability for i686, for a ~15 year old cpu generation, which I do not want for a new platform.

I remember my self having problems to convince people that a mid range GPU with 2GB VRAM is better than a low end GPU with 4 GB slow VRAM

The vram "fairy tale"
2GB VRAM is enough
8GB VRAM is enough

Of course people with some basic knowledge will be looking at IPC, number of P cores and the implementation of X3D cache on the CPUs they are buying.

I want a cpu with big cache. That never changed.

But big OEMs will be advertising "32/40/48/52 cores CPUs".

How is the operating system support? Does the customer have to pay for every single extra cpu core in software ?

 

[Arco]

I think what Intel is doing is actually right. In cases where single-core performance is really important nothing really scales beyond 8 cores. Inverse applies as well.
8+32 would make for an excellent productivity GPU with very competent gaming. Assuming the new gen at least beats Raptor Lake in games.

Yeah but for game server hosting I need every single full core I can get. I don't wanna pay TR prices. This was the main reason I got a 7950X instead of the 13900K when it launched.

 

[R0H1T]

Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink ~ Intel right now

 

[dyonoctis]

If you stick to windows only - it will most likely not matter.
I could not find any specs for those E cores for those intel processors on intel homepage. I could not find any cpuinfo for that. I doubt my box will boot or can execute the code i compiled on that intel cpu. Maybe when i optimise the code, downgrade compability for i686, for a ~15 year old cpu generation, which I do not want for a new platform.

Intel is selling E cores Xeon, (that have benchmarked on Linux ) so I doubt that it require such exotic requirements. Those Xeon support hundred of gigabytes of ram, so e cores are definitely not a 32bits arch.

Intel Xeon 6780E Specs

Sierra Forest, 144 Cores, 144 Threads, 2.2 GHz, 330 W

www.techpowerup.com

 

[N/A]

First of all, who are you quoting? Second of all, AMD put the memory controller on the IO die instead of on the CCDs and it seems to work pretty well for them. Assuming Intel is going with the tile-based approach like they did with Arrow Lake, it would make sense to put IO on its own tile.

On toms the source, Hopefully 144MB can provide enough buffered memory. But it could be done with just 96MB if the IMC was on the CPU die where it would only take up 0.5mm of space and make the CPU run at 50% free performance.

 

[Nhonho]

Another Intel CPU that will heat up like an electric shower, with high latencies between the core sets and also with the RAM memory and another sales failure...

Intel will sell cores the same way Nvidia sells frames.

The best comment I've ever seen here on TPU.

memory latency

If AMD put the memory controller on the same die as the x86 cores, there would be a direct performance gain of at least ~15% in the IPC of its CPUs. But AMD is an expert at hesitating, selling CPUs with 16MB of L3 to lose many sales opportunities...