Intel Raptor Lake with 24 Cores and 32 Threads Demoed

[Vayra86]

I believe I was answering to you while you where posting.

That's where Intel's strategy is based. "How many cores do consumers need? 8 max. Why? Because most software can't/doesn't need to use more and modern consoles come with 8c/16t CPUs. What do we do to keep up with AMD? We throw little cores in the mixture. We write on the box 8+8 cores to avoid negative press and lawsuits, but we know that they will be sold to the average consumer as 16 core CPUs."

The question is. "We are being played." as you say. Are we going to not just accept that fact, but also support that? Like it? Even argue in favor of the company that tries to play as the most?

I am really curious about the 6500 XT. If I spent time in here to read comments about this card, am I going to read, from the same people who say that this hybrid design is good, positive comments about the 6500 XT? I could think a few.
4GB RAM, bad for miners, positive for gamers.
4GB RAM. Who needs more in a low end card? It keeps price down. Better than having 8GB and being more expensive.
A mobile chip. Good job AMD offering us this solution. Better than offering nothing.
Who cares about PCIe 3.0 performance because of that PCIe x4 limitation? People should move to PCIe 4.0 anyway. It probably cuts the cost of the card also. So it's good!
64 bit data bus? Bad for miners, so it is good. Who needs an 128bit data bus? We gamers have that huge amount of 16MB Infinity cache anyway.
There are probably more stuff I could think of, but better stop here. I don't like writing stuff I do not believe.

This is something of all ages and I really fail to see any difference between Intel, AMD, Nvidia or Facebook in that sense... These are corporations and they thrive on influence and on money. Cognitive dissonance, its not unique to this market either. The core principle at work here is 'I must buy, I must upgrade, because that's what I used to do, its what we're supposed to do'. Companies play on this. From birth, we are fed a narrative that consuming is good. It keeps the economy going and keeps people working which means we can live more comfortably. That narrative is pushed every day from every possible angle. Even in the face of a global pandemic where the risk of long term physical damage and even death (!) is major, we/some propose to keep working to keep the economy going. Even the non-essential parts of it. Bread and Games, we're still those idiot plebs sitting in the Colosseum watching gore and blood, except now its digital, sometimes. Such civilization.

Its not even about acceptance of the fact, is it? Its about us just not knowing any better. We must buy. We shall buy. So what if the card has 4GB. So what if the CPU has cores that hardly do a thing in practice. Money must roll, we worked hard for it, we want our dopamine shot.

Reflect. That is what I'm saying. When you start going into the detail of P/E cores and whether or not those are good or not, we've already gone way too deep down the rabbit hole. The real question is, do you need them? The marketing is of a similar nature: when we're down to that level of detail, are we not skipping past far more important indicators of performance? You said it right when you pointed it out its impossible to know everything about everything.

As for these 4GB cards and hardly progressing CPUs, they exist for exactly that reason: buy buy buy. You can upgrade your card again to a newer generation. Wooptiedoo! Finally we can buy a GPU. Only idiots, and those who have (or see) no other options, downgrade to upgrade, let's be honest here. The specs are irrelevant for that group. Anyone else with a lick of sense will skip past something that will never hold value past this dank pit of scarce product, which will eventually end as all things do.

Markets usually self-correct. Its a mistake to use a limited scope on the market to determine what's what which is my main (and only) concern with your stance on ADL right now. You could be right in the end, but you're likely not. That applies to both ADL and this 6500XT example. Isn't this all a big pile of 'who the hell cares, and why would we even care'? You just skip the product, and in doing so, you voice the fact you're not interested in it. That's how the market works. Similarly wrt to those Intel quads we've had for ten years... apparently none of these consumers felt any need to buy into Extreme CPUs that offered 6 cores or more. That literally spells that there is no market for it in regular consumer space. Fast forward to 2022 and I dare say Intel had a very good view of the demand on the market at the time, and made sound business decisions up to and including Skylake. The kicker here is, that people (gamers! consumer segment!) ARE in fact spending over 1K on board and CPU right now. That's the price point Extreme was at...

Why would there suddenly be a market now for infinitely scaling core counts? That's literally the salesman's pitch: creating a demand where there is none. Like I pointed out earlier: we are fooling ourselves with supposed demand that is not 'necessity'. And depending on the glasses you wear, you could quite simply say the same of AMD, who was first in pushing the core count 'war' that is remarkably similar to a Megapixel race, and all the other 'look at my numbers' races between companies. A neutral pair of glasses IMHO should value all of these activities the exact same: companies that want to move product, and silly customers buying the fantasy.

 

[Max(IT)]

Intel not requiring a new motherboard? Thank you AMD!!!

That’s not unusual even for Intel. If they will support 3 generations in a row, that would be strange.

 

[Kapone33]

One of my systems is a 6 core Thuban (a quad core Athlon GR unlocked fully to Thuban) with a good SATA SSD. For typical desktop usage a casual user wouldn't really see any difference compared to my Ryzen 2600X with the OS on a fast PCIE 3.0 NVMe SSD. Obviously the old AM3 CPU and platform on a SATA SSD will be slower compared to the AM4 + NVMe setup, but not that much slower to annoy the user.

That is a bold statement.

 

[Max(IT)]

I think meteor is going to be LGA1700 too

https://wccftech.com/intel-13th-gen...ile-tsmc-3nm-gpu-tile-tsmc-n5-n4-soc-lp-tile/

Same socket doesn’t mean the same chipset will be fine.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Same socket doesn’t mean the same chipset will be fine.

So doesn't mean ADL will still work?

 

[Max(IT)]

As a committed AMDumb for over two decades and counting I find the reaction to this news from the AMD fans a bit strange. Yes, it is an incremental update, and we would all prefer to have more P cores. But look at what you're saying, complaining about Intel adding "moar coars".

Yes, the E-cores are slower, and yes, it was a great thing that AMD ""democratized"" higher core counts. But the E-core focus isn't hampering your ST performance. One user said something along the lines of, "why can't we have 32 P cores". You could have bought a 3970X with 32 cores two years ago, but you didn't, why? Unless you do 3D modeling for a living or some other high-power workstation task, the MSDT CPUs were the same if not better for you in terms of real performance. To a much greater degree these P cores are infernos and you're not stitching a ton of them together without paying a price.

Intel's big.LITTLE, for all its flaws and issues, solves one problem really well, in that it allows Intel to have leadership in ST and MT at the same time. The 8 P cores are faster than AMD's fast cores and none of us "enthusiasts" really care to have more, as far as the workloads that are highly sensitive to ST perf go. Some do need more MT performance, but when you're talking a program using 16-32+ cores effectively, what difference does it make to you how fast the cores are, so long as summed up they're faster than the competition's CPU? You get something better all around from games to Blender and then you complain because the cores aren't the same. Granted, I am looking forward to Zen 4 and hoping AMD can regain ST leadership, in which case Intel banking on its 16 extra weak cores making up for an ST deficit wouldn't be a winning proposition when AMD already gives you 16 big cores to play with and no weird issues with compatibility etc.

Now, I still think big.LITTLE is far from perfect, and it's more beneficial to Intel than to AMD at the moment, since Intel is still using monolithic designs where area is a more major concern, and the E-cores do really well there; whereas conversely on power consumption their benefit is very much debatable, and AMD is mitigating the cost of increased silicon area through the tiny CCDs. Just my two cents, probably obvious to many but people will always argue.

4 PCs in my house, 3 of them with a Zen3 CPU (5900X, 5800X and 5800H), but I have to admit AMD supporters are really the worst…. In constant denial mode.

Hybrid architecture is a solution, far from perfect, but a good solution. E cores are not slow by any mean, and this is NOT a LITTLE.big architecture, in the ARM way (where E cores really suck in term of performance).
I suggest the AMD stronghold here to read carefully the article about E cores performance on this website.

So doesn't mean ADL will still work?

AL will still works, but don’t know for sure, yet, if the 14th Gen will run on Z690 motherboards.
And I wouldn’t bet on it, to be honest.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I suggest the AMD stronghold here to read carefully the article about E cores performance on this website.

Most won't. Too many saying E cores suck and are slow do not understand or do not want too.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

4 PCs in my house, 3 of them with a Zen3 CPU (5900X, 5800X and 5800H), but I have to admit AMD supporters are really the worst…. In constant denial mode.

Hybrid architecture is a solution, far from perfect, but a good solution. E cores are not slow by any mean, and this is NOT a LITTLE.big architecture, in the ARM way (where E cores really suck in term of performance).
I suggest the AMD stronghold here to read carefully the article about E cores performance on this website.


AL will still works, but don’t know for sure, yet, if the 14th Gen will run on Z690 motherboards.
And I wouldn’t bet on it, to be honest.

Well it's sounding like Intel will bring arm and RISC V cores into silicon with x86 core's, do you think people will jump on that change as easily, I'm fine with E core's on the whole as long as they bring the total power use down when fully loaded, next generation, they could do well but I see Intel competing on an uneven basis in the future core wars , it'll be fun to see where this all goes.
And at least the stagnant x86 decade is well and truly in the past.
There's a place for quads still it's just getting smaller daily.

 

[lexluthermiester]

10 years ago the question was "Who needs more than a 4 core / 8 threads i7? It can do about everything a normal consumer wants.".

I don't know anyone who was asking that in 2012. Utter nonsense.

 

[john_]

I don't know anyone who was asking that in 2012. Utter nonsense.

So you know no one who was old enough to have a PC in 2012.
OK.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So you know no one who was old enough to have a PC in 2012.
OK.

Did you think that was clever? It was not. It was pedantic and absent minded. But do carry on...

A LOT of people were asking where the 8c/16t CPUs were and when they were going to hit the market. See, in 2012 we already had 6c/12t CPUs and while they did the job, some people still needed more CPU power, thus the consumer and workstation level dual CPU systems.

So no, NO ONE who had a clue was asking the question "Who needs more than 4c/8t?" in 2012. It's a stupid question that only the ignorant would have asked. And they would have been laughed into silence for asking it.

Back on topic, I wonder if Intel is going to do a dual socket 1200 platform? That would be nice!

 

[ratirt]

I think @john_ has some good point's here. First you have to look at a company as a profit corporation. Business drives these companies but they need customers. You also know that when you sell a product, from a business perspective you focus and show the good stuff about it. People here know this. It has been brought up constantly but then, they neglect it because of the MARKETING of the companies and they buy what the companies say disregarding profit corporation approach.
There is something to what @john_ said that I been thinking about. Also, someone mentioned Single Core performance is still intact even though the E-cores showed up.
As far as I recall, the performance increase was supposedly be in MT performance with all the fuss around it and the developers mobilization to cater to that since the single core performance hit the wall, in order to advance, MT is the future. Now the argument for AL Ecores is, it does not lower the Single Core performance. So what the hell?
The arguments are flying everywhere now. I'm not saying the Ecores are bad but I am concerned about where it will end up, considering business approach perspective and companies profit attitude. I think they may use marketing scheme and get away with it.
One argument has been brought up pro Ecores that has struck me a bit when I thought about it. Power consumption is lower and the CPU is more efficient.
That's a very noble approach to be concerned about the average Joe not to spend too much on the power bill. So Ecores are to lower that consumption for a DESKTOP? I thought Laptops have to be efficient. Desktops too to some degree but come on just be realistic. My argument is, maybe the advancement of the CPUs has stopped or changing the direction for the companies to be easier for them? Why not making the Pcores more efficient? Did we hit a wall there? Maybe the Ecores for Intel are to mitigate the core difference with the AMD counterparts? Because it is easier than get thing Pcores more efficient and faster at the same time? Saying that AL is faster than 5000 series is not actually a good argument considering the age of AMD's 5000 series processor. Competition drives it as usual. AMD will release Zen4 and I'm sure it will be faster than 5000 series CPUs for sure and probably AL as well. After that it's Intel's turn and so on. Maybe Intel done this Ecore stuff just to catch up with AMD on the core count because they would not have pulled only Pcore CPU this time around. Plus they can check what the customers and tech industry think about it. They are excited. So more Ecores it is, which are cheaper, less demanding and they don't have HT.
I'm concerned about the Ecores actual release reason. I only hope it will go the right direction and we will not be stuck with overwhelmingly high count of Ecores and forget what Pcores are for. Get used to the Ecore idea and slowly but surely, Pcores will cease to exist. We will end up with tablet kind of chip in your desktop because it is good enough. If you are considering companies like AMD and Intel being a profit focused, and you know this looking at what history has showed us, you probably also realize some concerns people may have with the Ecore approach and what these are really for? Is justified.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking anyone or the companies, just sharing some thoughts.

 

[john_]

Did you think that was clever? It was not. It was pedantic and absent minded. But do carry on...

A LOT of people were asking where the 8c/16t CPUs were and when they were going to hit the market. See, in 2012 we already had 6c/12t CPUs and while they did the job, some people still needed more CPU power, thus the consumer and workstation level dual CPU systems.

So no, NO ONE who had a clue was asking the question "Who needs more than 4c/8t?" in 2012. It's a stupid question that only the ignorant would have asked. And they would have been laughed into silence for asking it.

Back on topic, I wonder if Intel is going to do a dual socket 1200 platform? That would be nice!

Oh, calm down, calm dawn. I was just throwing myself to the level of your previous reply. If you think that I didn't do it as good as you, well, I guess I lack your experience.

Define "A LOT". People in here? People going to the HEDT platform because they couldn't find anything more than 4C/8T in the mainstream platform? Oh please. OH! "people who had a clue". Oh, now you are more specific, yeah, right.

Sorry, there is NO way to take you serious. Especially when you are so full of yourself talking about nonsense, sputid questions and ignorant people. Get down from your little arrogant cloud on never quote me again. I have a problem with nobodies who think they have the right to be rude.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I totally don't believe they did the E cores for core count, they could have just made it more P cores for that. I see why they did it so you can have background stuff on a low power core rather than a high power one. As i said, why have discord running on a P core when it can be run on the background on a E core, it does make sense. I think the core count war is over, maybe Intel is trying to go for better power use with the E cores, hence why they will be increasing them with the forthcoming CPU's. And yes i know the P cores use tons of power max, but gaming are fine. For a desktop normal PC i don't think anyone needs more than 8/16ht cores. having 16/32ht cores is great for Epeen but what is a desktop PC owned by someone who games and does some browsing etc going to use them for apart for benches.

 

[john_]

As for these 4GB cards and hardly progressing CPUs, they exist for exactly that reason: buy buy buy. You can upgrade your card again to a newer generation.

I wasn't pointing at those 4GBs, but to performance. In the past from generation to generation at 199 dollars/euros, we where getting better performance. Now we have stagnation. "Get the same performance, with a few extra features and be glad".
The same is going to start happening in CPUs. Stagnation in P cores and get more E cores, because
"first I want to put "24 cores" on the box where the competitor can wright "16 cores" max and secondly, I want you customers again soon. If I give you too many P cores, you will hesitate to upgrade".

Look what is already happening in Android SOCs. Not just 2 types of cores, but 3, maybe tomorrow 4. When Thread Director gets more advance, we will be getting for example an i9 with 1 or 2 20th generation core(s), 6-8 14th generation cores and 32 E cores. That 1(or 2) 20th gen core will be winning Single Thread scores in Cinebench, those 32 E cores the Multiple Thread score and we will be enjoying low single digit REAL gains in everything else, like REAL EVERYDAY tasks.

Intel will go the chiplet direction also, so we might be getting a number of mixed cores in the future under the heatspreader.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Does it really bother you john that we might end up with P core stagnation? Do we really need more and more P cores?

 

[john_]

I totally don't believe they did the E cores for core count, they could have just made it more P cores for that. I see why they did it so you can have background stuff on a low power core rather than a high power one. As i said, why have discord running on a P core when it can be run on the background on a E core, it does make sense. I think the core count war is over, maybe Intel is trying to go for better power use with the E cores, hence why they will be increasing them with the forthcoming CPU's. And yes i know the P cores use tons of power max, but gaming are fine.

If Discord is not heavy enough to push a P core at max frequency, then probably the efficiency difference between running on an E core or a P core, is not so great. P core could be doing the job at 2GHz, while E core at 3GHz.

The marketing parameter is too great here to be ignored. With Alder Lake Intel is matching AMD on the desktop and beats them on laptops. Intel laptops can be advertised and sold as having a "14 core CPU". You can't beat that. I believe even some Intel fans would be having second thoughts when thinking of buying a 4C/8T Tiger Lake when next to it they had an 8C/16T Ryzen system. Now with Alder Lake this is changing rapidly and with Raptor Lake Intel will be turning the tables also on desktop. AMD will be advertising a 16Core CPU, while Intel will be selling 24 core CPUs at probably the same price.

Power usage is also important for Intel because it is behind in manufacturing. Even if they could shrink 16 P cores in the mainstream platform, the power consumption, especially when needing to go over 5GHz, would be matching ThreadRippers and Xeons.

Does it really bother you john that we might end up with P core stagnation? Do we really need more and more P cores?

We don't have to feel "excited" about it, do we? I am the one saying above that on the desktop my 10 years old 6 core/6 threads Thuban looks absolutely smooth and does the job nicely. Probably a little slower than my Ryzen, but smooth, no waiting for the user to get annoyed.
So, 8 cores are enough today and for the next few years. Intel knows it, so they build their SOCs based on that. "8 fast cores are more than enough".
But when, we as users, customers, enthusiasts, started feeling "excited" about a probable stagnation?

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
You'd have to ask AMD why they made a 24.. 64 core processor and for whom

Intel, well they've been playing reaction releasing because of amd releases for a long time now so the reason may differ from amd's reason

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I agree 8 core/16ht is enough for now. Why AMD are making 16/32ht for desktop idk, but to me it doesn't make sense. Interesting how Intels 8/16ht beats AMD's 16/32ht though even if it is older. Can't wait for the next round of AM5 vs raptor lake

 

[ratirt]

I totally don't believe they did the E cores for core count, they could have just made it more P cores for that. I see why they did it so you can have background stuff on a low power core rather than a high power one. As i said, why have discord running on a P core when it can be run on the background on a E core, it does make sense. I think the core count war is over, maybe Intel is trying to go for better power use with the E cores, hence why they will be increasing them with the forthcoming CPU's. And yes i know the P cores use tons of power max, but gaming are fine. For a desktop normal PC i don't think anyone needs more than 8/16ht cores. having 16/32ht cores is great for Epeen but what is a desktop PC owned by someone who games and does some browsing etc going to use them for apart for benches.

I think that was one of the reasons. If you look at how much AMD gained just offering more cores then you will understand that. AMD's CPUs where not selling just now with 5000 series but they have gained traction throughout the all ZEN lineups. Of course, other aspect is power and heat. Which Intel had to compete with as well. You can just focus on one thing and say no they did not to this or they did this for that. In an industry, you need to take more things into consideration. But from the marketing point of view, Yes Intel did the Ecores also from an aspect of core count. The Multi Threaded applications are getting more common now. People start thinking 8cores now not 4 as they used to. How does it look when AMD presents a 12 and 16 core desktops and Intel is stuck with 8 max 10? Not good for marketing and as many here mentioned, people tend to think higher is better. It has been happening with the frequency of a CPU which may not necessarily be faster then a counterpart and now it is happening with cores. Intel managed to kill two birds with one stone with ecores (or more birds), doesn't mean it has to be one reason or the other it can be all of them. Also these are cheap in comparison to Pcores and have less features and mostly, no HT and we know how much Intel likes to cut on features
Everyone ask, how many Pcores you actually need. Let me ask how many ecores you actually need to run those BACKGROUND TASKS people here talk about saying, these Ecores are for. do you need 8 ecores or will 2 just do it fast enough? If 2 or 4 would be sufficient, why 8? And now we face predictions there will be even more in the future? why 8+12 or +16 or more?

Hi,
You'd have to ask AMD why they made a 24.. 64 core processor and for whom

Intel, well they've been playing reaction releasing because of amd releases for a long time now so the reason may differ from amd's reason

More performance? Cheaper than a server processor with obviously less features but threaded applications fly on it. I got 2 TR 3970x and these are crazily fast. I paid around $4k for each system. Do you realize how much I would have to pay for Xeon alternative at that time? People do small businesses here and there and they need something with more juice than an 8c chip you know or pay tens of thousands of dollars for one system.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I think that was one of the reasons. If you look at how much AMD gained just offering more cores then you will understand that. AMD's CPUs where not selling just now with 5000 series but they have gained traction throughout the all ZEN lineups. Of course, other aspect is power and heat. Which Intel had to compete with as well. You can just focus on one thing and say no they did not to this or they did this for that. In an industry, you need to take more things into consideration. But from the marketing point of view, Yes Intel did the Ecores also from an aspect of core count. The Multi Threaded applications are getting more common now. People start thinking 8cores now not 4 as they used to. How does it look when AMD presents a 12 and 16 core desktops and Intel is stuck with 8 max 10? Not good for marketing and as many here mentioned, people tend to think higher is better. It has been happening with the frequency of a CPU which may not necessarily be faster then a counterpart and now it is happening with cores. Intel managed to kill two birds with one stone with ecores (or more birds), doesn't mean it has to be one reason or the other it can be all of them.
Everyone ask, how many Pcores you actually need. Let me ask how many ecores you actually need to run those BACKGROUND TASKS people here talk about saying, these Ecores are for. do you need 8 ecores or will 2 just do it fast enough? If 2 or 4 would be sufficient, why 8? And now we face predictions there will be even more in the future? why 8+12 or +16 or more?


More performance? Cheaper than a server processor with obviously less features but threaded applications fly on it. I got 2 TR 3970x and these are crazily fast. I paid around $4k for each system. Do you realize how much I would have to pay for Xeon alternative at that time? People do small businesses here and there and they need something with more juice than a 8c chip you know or pay tens of thousands of dollars for one system.

What do you use your TR's for?

 

[ratirt]

What do you use your TR's for?

Many things but that's for me to know. I haven't played one game on either of them I got my 5800x for that.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Many things but that's for me to know. I haven't played one game on either of them I got my 5800x for that.

You must use them for pro use though i guess, otherwise why spend $8k on them, your money though i spose.

 

[ratirt]

You must use them for pro use though i guess, otherwise why spend $8k on them, your money though i spose.

Obviously these are not for playing Minecraft or browsing internet. I hope you get my point in the thread related topic of the conversation. Maybe questions related to the topic not what I use my TRs for.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
The saying is
Build it and they will come
Should be some will come
I was pondering 3960 or 70x but the price jump was silly from 3950x so blew it off.

5k series was the game changer and why Intel is doing what they are doing now so thank you amd