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

True nature of E-cores and how effective are they?

Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
17,484 (2.64/day)
System Name AlderLake / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 12700K P-Cores @ 5Ghz / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 32GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 6000MHz CL36 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Evo 500GB + 850 Pro 512GB + 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) Panasonic SA-PMX94 / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system / Harman Kardon Go + Play / Logitech G533
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 11 / Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 (Single Core) 1936 @ stock Cinebench R23 (Multi Core) 23006 @ stock
It's the future and I'm supporting it. :D
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
202 (0.36/day)
Why such vitriol and hatred of E cores or even whatever Intel is doing by the AMD users? you aren't even using Intel, so what does it matter to you. It seems like just hatred of Intel to me. You chose to buy AMD so why spout so much hate for ADL/E cores.

However much power Intel with E cores uses, you don't have to use it, or cool it. So what if it is inefficient compared to what AMD is producing, you are not going to buy it or use it. I am so sick of hearing the same anti E core crap from near every AMD user on TPU.

My 12700k runs cool, and is as good as near any AMD CPU out right now (AM5 is not yet) The only reason i kinda regret it is i am sick of hearing the same shite every day on TPU.
 
D

Deleted member 185158

Guest
I have a 12400F.

No E cores.

I can't tell they are not there. Excellent performance.

Intel wanted to try some innovations and so we have it.

Don't see them useful for my personal use case, but I'm sure someone likes the extra cores.
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.25/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
That approach is the future and AMD will have to adapt.
We only need 6-8 extremely fast cores at ridiculously high frequency and a truckload of small ones to work when is needed (MT).

The concept all p cores is a dead end.
I agree - this is why I like the theory that AMD will mix generations of cores to make E and P cores less costly to implement, and use older stock.
Zen 4 (P cores) + Zen 3 (E cores) for example

If they lock them in the area that Zen 3 has it's best power efficiency (lets say 4.4GHz) they'd make some fantastic E cores for no real investment from AMD - they already a plentiful supply of them, and they're already modular thanks to the CCX designs.

I also agree with ERazer - it all comes down to OS support.
Right now AMD use their chipset driver to set preferred cores, so they have a method of doing this (set all P cores to preferred cores, and most of the problem is solved)
 

hat

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
21,729 (3.45/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Starlifter :: Dragonfly
Processor i7 2600k 4.4GHz :: i5 10400
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 Pro :: ASUS Prime H570-Plus
Cooling Cryorig M9 :: Stock
Memory 4x4GB DDR3 2133 :: 2x8GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) PNY GTX1070 :: Integrated UHD 630
Storage Crucial MX500 1TB, 2x1TB Seagate RAID 0 :: Mushkin Enhanced 60GB SSD, 3x4TB Seagate HDD RAID5
Display(s) Onn 165hz 1080p :: Acer 1080p
Case Antec SOHO 1030B :: Old White Full Tower
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro - Bose Companion 2 Series III :: None
Power Supply FSP Hydro GE 550w :: EVGA Supernova 550
Software Windows 10 Pro - Plex Server on Dragonfly
Benchmark Scores >9000
I don't see why it matters. From where I sit, with my 2600k, the e-cores look pretty good if they are indeed as strong as a Skylake core. I know we've had many iterations of Skylake already, but if we can now get those down into low power "efficiency" cores, that seems pretty good... and they're stronger than my 2600k, anyway. Without knowing much about the design, I suspect they're just bare CPU cores without much of the fancy stuff like AVX support added on...
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.25/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
Why such vitriol and hatred of E cores or even whatever Intel is doing by the AMD users? you aren't even using Intel, so what does it matter to you. It seems like just hatred of Intel to me. You chose to buy AMD so why spout so much hate for ADL/E cores.

However much power Intel with E cores uses, you don't have to use it, or cool it. So what if it is inefficient compared to what AMD is producing, you are not going to buy it or use it. I am so sick of hearing the same anti E core crap from near every AMD user on TPU.

My 12700k runs cool, and is as good as near any AMD CPU out right now (AM5 is not yet) The only reason i kinda regret it is i am sick of hearing the same shite every day on TPU.
Nah the problem is your warped views on what efficiency means
Your 12700k runs cool because you barely use it

If I capped my FPS to 60 my "hot" 5800x would barely hit 40C, but it'd be stupid of me to tell everyone that all 5800x run that cold or that those barely above idle figures were 'efficient' as if that's how the CPU always runs in every task.

I don't see why it matters. From where I sit, with my 2600k, the e-cores look pretty good if they are indeed as strong as a Skylake core. I know we've had many iterations of Skylake already, but if we can now get those down into low power "efficiency" cores, that seems pretty good... and they're stronger than my 2600k, anyway. Without knowing much about the design, I suspect they're just bare CPU cores without much of the fancy stuff like AVX support added on...

The concept is great, i'm all for mixed E and P cores - the problem is that intel are still going balls to the wall with their clock speeds past the efficiency settings entirely.
Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review - Power Consumption & Efficiency | TechPowerUp



Single threaded, the E-cores are great - chart topping.
The problem is they're used for multi threaded... and they fall behind.
These cores designed purely for efficiency are less efficient than Zen3, Zen 2, and even intels 9th and 10th gen CPUs.
1661920229155.png



They've been pushed too high on clocks and voltage to beat AMD in benchmarks, negating their entire purpose for existing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
2,192 (1.31/day)
System Name Not a thread ripper but pretty good.
Processor Ryzen 9 5950x
Motherboard ASRock X570 Taichi (revision 1.06, BIOS/UEFI version P5.50)
Cooling EK-Quantum Velocity, EK-Quantum Reflection PC-O11, EK-CoolStream PE 360, Alphacool NexXxoS ST25 360
Memory Micron DDR4-3200 ECC Unbuffered Memory (4 sticks, 128GB, 18ASF4G72AZ-3G2F1)
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX 5700 & EK-Quantum Vector Radeon RX 5700 +XT & Backplate
Storage Samsung 2TB 980 PRO 2TB Gen4x4 NVMe, Samsung 2TB 970 EVO Plus Gen3x4 NVMe x 2
Display(s) 2 x 4K LG 27UL600-W (and HUANUO Dual Monitor Mount)
Case Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic Black (original model)
Power Supply Corsair RM750x
Mouse Logitech M575
Keyboard Corsair Strafe RGB MK.2
Software Windows 10 Professional (64bit)
Benchmark Scores Typical for non-overclocked CPU.
I agree - this is why I like the theory that AMD will mix generations of cores to make E and P cores less costly to implement, and use older stock.
Zen 4 (P cores) + Zen 3 (E cores) for example

If they lock them in the area that Zen 3 has it's best power efficiency (lets say 4.4GHz) they'd make some fantastic E cores for no real investment from AMD - they already a plentiful supply of them, and they're already modular thanks to the CCX designs.

I also agree with ERazer - it all comes down to OS support.
Right now AMD use their chipset driver to set preferred cores, so they have a method of doing this (set all P cores to preferred cores, and most of the problem is solved)
I'm hoping in terms of OS support they can add some parameter per thread to alter/configure threads to automatically prefer or land on Best, Medium, or Low performance cores. Keep in mind this is different than Critical, High, Medium, or Low priority threads. I'm talking about CPU affinity per thread not process. It would take some time for software to be updated but once done software can better tune itself to core types (looking at your Corsair you boost killer) and in terms of gaming perhaps offer the end user a way to optimize their game threads without having to use something like process lasso. And then also enable Virtualization guests to translate that to host cores for the win.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
2,990 (1.12/day)
System Name The de-ploughminator Mk-II
Processor i7 13700KF
Motherboard MSI Z790 Carbon
Cooling ID-Cooling SE-226-XT + Phanteks T30
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill DDR5 7200Cas34
Video Card(s) Asus RTX4090 TUF
Storage Kingston KC3000 2TB NVME
Display(s) LG OLED CX48"
Case Corsair 5000D Air
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Mouse Razor Viper Ultimate
Keyboard Corsair K75
Software win11
Nah the problem is your warped views on what efficiency means - and your rabid fanboyism.
Your 12700k runs cool because you barely use it

If I capped my FPS to 60 my "hot" 5800x would barely hit 40C, but it'd be stupid of me to tell everyone that all 5800x run that cold or that those barely above idle figures were 'efficient' as if that's how the CPU always runs in every task.


The concept is great, i'm all for mixed E and P cores - the problem is that intel are still going balls to the wall with their clock speeds past the efficiency settings entirely.
Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review - Power Consumption & Efficiency | TechPowerUp


Single threaded, the E-cores are great - chart topping.
The problem is they're used for multi threaded... and they fall behind.
These cores designed purely for efficiency are less efficient than Zen3, Zen 2, and even intels 9th and 10th gen CPUs.


They've been pushed too high on clocks and voltage to beat AMD in benchmarks, negating their entire purpose for existing.

cinebench-multi.png

So with E-cores disabled, 8P cores get 20K scores, that 2500points per P-core
8E cores take up the same die space as 2P cores, let say Intel make 10P cores, that would get them 25000 points, meanwhile 8P+8E get them 27700 points.

There are non-K version for people who prefer better effieciency at stock (much cheaper too), and have no clue how to tune their PC. Only idiots pay more for K version and not tune their PC to how they like it.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,625 (0.56/day)
So...most of the hype is pretty stupid. You'll see interesting perspectives that e-cores are the future, that p-cores are the only thing that matters...and then in the same breathe people might tell you that RISC-V will trounce any x86-64 processor on the planet.

The simplest bit of this is that Intel and AMD both experiment...with some experiments being better than others. Starting off...Itanium. If anyone fanboys for Intel ask how that turned out.
Now, the AMD fanboys are equally as stupid. Ask them how Bulldozer worked, when each processor had to share a part of the pipeline. Read: terrible.


To the things at hand. You have got multiple core CPUs. Each of these cores is scheduled to perform different tasks...based upon software. E cores, or efficiency cores, are stripped down to do less intensive or otherwise lower demand processes. Think background processes with low priority. The catch is that in most cases there's very little reason for home users to have so many processes open and running that they'd see need for E cores.
Is this a tactic for Intel to claim that their processors have the most cores? I can't attest to their board meetings...but Intel used to sell itself on having the highest frequencies and greatest single thread performance. AMD has made huge leaps there...and Intel has made relatively little progress. By cost, throwing twice the cores onto a chip and claiming they are the best bang for the buck is...pretty easy to call a win. Given their history...I think Intel is trying for any win.


Now...the final bit. Is it worth having E cores? There are arguments for it...in the same way that ray tracing was the thing that sold Nvidia cards. In a very limited usage case, you could see relatively large performance gains. So...why do I think it's not ready for prime time? Well, right now if you're a common user a 5600x is a silly value for the money. It has the same core and thread count as a $600 CPU from 2011...with better connectivity, it's up-to-date, and at about 33% of that price (unadjusted for inflation). In more than a decade we've only managed to start using 6 cores fully on the consumer market...up from the 2 that was the style at the time.
If it isn't clear, my opinion is that the E cores lack integral scheduling to take advantage of them in anything but Windows 11, Windows 11 is currently suffering the every other version of Windows sucks, and even if it did you'd not expect things to be so clear.

Personally, I haven't done Intel products for a few years. They are treading water, and I think that the reliance on a software scheduler is going to make it very hard to justify E cores for anyone but power users who may be better off considering their workloads on different hardware. AMD fans should really be getting flashbacks...because this is basically the argument put forward for Bulldozer.
Most of my games and software library runs on 1-3 cores...based upon the windows scheduler. I run one program at high priority, maybe a second at equal, and a bunch of stuff that can be stacked on a nearly hibernative core and still be updated. I have no reason to believe that what Intel is putting out with an inflated core count will serve me better than AMD...and the fact that Intel doesn't seem to be basing their marketing material on that (I see about 5:1 them going after gamers above core count) is a tacit agreement. While my experience is anecdote, you can find your own by simply doing what you do and recording data inside the windows scheduler... If you're genuinely pinging all cores then it's probably worth adding more...assuming that you've got way more processes running than your core count.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
20,595 (3.41/day)
System Name Pioneer
Processor Ryzen R9 7950X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Aorus Elite X670 AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 + A whole lotta Sunon and Corsair Maglev blower fans...
Memory 64GB (4x 16GB) G.Skill Flare X5 @ DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) XFX RX 7900 XTX Speedster Merc 310
Storage 2x Crucial P5 Plus 2TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs
Display(s) 55" LG 55" B9 OLED 4K Display
Case Thermaltake Core X31
Audio Device(s) TOSLINK->Schiit Modi MB->Asgard 2 DAC Amp->AKG Pro K712 Headphones or HDMI->B9 OLED
Power Supply FSP Hydro Ti Pro 850W
Mouse Logitech G305 Lightspeed Wireless
Keyboard WASD Code v3 with Cherry Green keyswitches
Software Windows 11 Enterprise (legit), Gentoo Linux x64
I don't see why it matters. From where I sit, with my 2600k, the e-cores look pretty good if they are indeed as strong as a Skylake core. I know we've had many iterations of Skylake already, but if we can now get those down into low power "efficiency" cores, that seems pretty good... and they're stronger than my 2600k, anyway. Without knowing much about the design, I suspect they're just bare CPU cores without much of the fancy stuff like AVX support added on...
ecores support avx, avx2, etc. The only thing they lack is hyperthreading and avx512
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,625 (0.56/day)
View attachment 260079
So with E-cores disabled, 8P cores get 20K scores, that 2500points per P-core
8E cores take up the same die space as 2P cores, let say Intel make 10P cores, that would get them 25000 points, meanwhile 8P+8E get them 27700 points.

There are non-K version for people who prefer better effieciency at stock (much cheaper too), and have no clue how to tune their PC. Only idiots pay more for K version and not tune their PC to how they like it.

So...help me here.

You're responding to someone saying that you are not using your 12700k. Your response is that you disabled a large chunk of the silicon...thus literally disabling the components that this thread is meant to discuss.
You then link to a video that compare a 12900F and 12900k. One of the video's conclusions is that there's a 25% difference in power draw between the F and K SKUs...and the performance difference is 0-4%. So...the result is that you pay more for the k, you have a much higher power draw, and you have a boost that is functionally within the error for the testing methodology to be reasonably chalked-up to regular process variation. You then say you can get the performance of the k to that of the f by disabling the nice shiny new E cores...and experience an uplift by tuning...despite the literal cited video stating more frequency<>better performance???

You have to be trolling...right?


The alternative is that you are endorsing somebody spend extra money to get:
1) Slightly higher clocks at a much higher power draw.
2) No iGPU...so if you want quick sync that's gone. Of course,,,same die but binned so it's just dark silicon.
3) A much higher thermal envelope. 125/241 TDP versus a 65/202 watt TDP.
4) The ability to disable stuff...because there's nothing quite like paying extra for power windows then immediately ripping them out
All of this is "acceptable" because anybody who wants any ease in over/underclocking knows they have to spend more. If they do buy something...maybe for non-clocking reasons...in the k series they're idiots.



I'm really having a hard time swallowing this when the argument should be about the E-cores...which seem to be entirely unused in the one provided example. Of course, you could be a fanboy... You could be stating that somehow E cores aren't doing jack dandy based upon the numbers.

I mean; the 12600k has 6 P cores, is clocked 48% higher than the 12400f, which has 6 P cores, and in quad core calculations somehow only manages 20% faster speeds. If you instead compare octo-core... where the processors both either multi-thread or use E cores the gap becomes 33%...so a 48% clock increase against a chip with 4 more physical cores can still not manage to keep up with the huge increase in clock frequency.
CPU numbers


Consider me skeptical. I bought Sandy Bridge, I avoided Bulldozer. I did this because artificially swelling core counts was stupid. I'm buying Ryzen 3. I'm skipping big.little. It's the same stupidity. You're welcome to continue to feed the Intel machine. I'd prefer to vote with my wallet, and tell Intel to make steps forward rather than invest their money making a bad product that runs really fast. If they could integrate the scheduler as a hardware component this would be a different story...but it seems like Intel is relearning the AMD lesson from Bulldozer, software is king, and hardware without software is blowing money on nothing.





Let me TL;DR this.
My worst boss continues to tell me "It's about how fast we can make the car go." In this case, an analog for how many units of a thing we can make. That's...cool. The problem is that's 1950's thinking.
It's not about how fast the car can go, it should be about how far we can run on a tank of gas. The analog there is that the production of parts has to be metered by how tightly we control inputs, how efficiently we can run, and how we balance resources to be as profitable as possible.

Intel wants to sell more, and use that gas. They're running out 10 miles into a 50 mile race, 10 minutes in. AMD has given up on clocking to the moon, and is less about single thread performance. They make it 30 miles into the race, at 25 minutes. Arm is a diesel vehicle. They theoretically could go the 50 miles, but cannot enter the race because the world isn't yet ready for diesel. AMD is not the solution. It is not finishing the race. It is not the fastest. Thing is, we pick from what we have...and right now AMD is the best option for most. The only way we make Intel better is to vote with our wallets, and force them to either fundamentally redesign their engine (what AMD did with Ryzen), or compete by undercutting on price.

To extend the metaphor just slightly, E cores are making an electric hybrid vehicle. Theoretically they are powerful...but when you have to contain 2 drive trains and the brains to make them work there's precious little that actually makes them work better...even if you feel better.
 
Low quality post by nguyen
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
2,990 (1.12/day)
System Name The de-ploughminator Mk-II
Processor i7 13700KF
Motherboard MSI Z790 Carbon
Cooling ID-Cooling SE-226-XT + Phanteks T30
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill DDR5 7200Cas34
Video Card(s) Asus RTX4090 TUF
Storage Kingston KC3000 2TB NVME
Display(s) LG OLED CX48"
Case Corsair 5000D Air
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Mouse Razor Viper Ultimate
Keyboard Corsair K75
Software win11
So...help me here.

You're responding to someone saying that you are not using your 12700k. Your response is that you disabled a large chunk of the silicon...thus literally disabling the components that this thread is meant to discuss.
You then link to a video that compare a 12900F and 12900k. One of the video's conclusions is that there's a 25% difference in power draw between the F and K SKUs...and the performance difference is 0-4%. So...the result is that you pay more for the k, you have a much higher power draw, and you have a boost that is functionally within the error for the testing methodology to be reasonably chalked-up to regular process variation. You then say you can get the performance of the k to that of the f by disabling the nice shiny new E cores...and experience an uplift by tuning...despite the literal cited video stating more frequency<>better performance???

You have to be trolling...right?

The alternative is that you are endorsing somebody spend extra money to get:
1) Slightly higher clocks at a much higher power draw.
2) No iGPU...so if you want quick sync that's gone. Of course,,,same die but binned so it's just dark silicon.
3) A much higher thermal envelope. 125/241 TDP versus a 65/202 watt TDP.
4) The ability to disable stuff...because there's nothing quite like paying extra for power windows then immediately ripping them out
All of this is "acceptable" because anybody who wants any ease in over/underclocking knows they have to spend more. If they do buy something...maybe for non-clocking reasons...in the k series they're idiots.


I'm really having a hard time swallowing this when the argument should be about the E-cores...which seem to be entirely unused in the one provided example. Of course, you could be a fanboy... You could be stating that somehow E cores aren't doing jack dandy based upon the numbers.

I mean; the 12600k has 6 P cores, is clocked 48% higher than the 12400f, which has 6 P cores, and in quad core calculations somehow only manages 20% faster speeds. If you instead compare octo-core... where the processors both either multi-thread or use E cores the gap becomes 33%...so a 48% clock increase against a chip with 4 more physical cores can still not manage to keep up with the huge increase in clock frequency.
CPU numbers


Consider me skeptical. I bought Sandy Bridge, I avoided Bulldozer. I did this because artificially swelling core counts was stupid. I'm buying Ryzen 3. I'm skipping big.little. It's the same stupidity. You're welcome to continue to feed the Intel machine. I'd prefer to vote with my wallet, and tell Intel to make steps forward rather than invest their money making a bad product that runs really fast. If they could integrate the scheduler as a hardware component this would be a different story...but it seems like Intel is relearning the AMD lesson from Bulldozer, software is king, and hardware without software is blowing money on nothing.


Let me TL;DR this.
My worst boss continues to tell me "It's about how fast we can make the car go." In this case, an analog for how many units of a thing we can make. That's...cool. The problem is that's 1950's thinking.
It's not about how fast the car can go, it should be about how far we can run on a tank of gas. The analog there is that the production of parts has to be metered by how tightly we control inputs, how efficiently we can run, and how we balance resources to be as profitable as possible.

Intel wants to sell more, and use that gas. They're running out 10 miles into a 50 mile race, 10 minutes in. AMD has given up on clocking to the moon, and is less about single thread performance. They make it 30 miles into the race, at 25 minutes. Arm is a diesel vehicle. They theoretically could go the 50 miles, but cannot enter the race because the world isn't yet ready for diesel. AMD is not the solution. It is not finishing the race. It is not the fastest. Thing is, we pick from what we have...and right now AMD is the best option for most. The only way we make Intel better is to vote with our wallets, and force them to either fundamentally redesign their engine (what AMD did with Ryzen), or compete by undercutting on price.

To extend the metaphor just slightly, E cores are making an electric hybrid vehicle. Theoretically they are powerful...but when you have to contain 2 drive trains and the brains to make them work there's precious little that actually makes them work better...even if you feel better.

I have no idea what you are arguing about except that you want to argue, I don't have a 12700K

So you are ignored now
 

tabascosauz

Moderator
Supporter
Staff member
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
7,335 (2.31/day)
Location
Western Canada
System Name ab┃ob
Processor 7800X3D┃5800X3D
Motherboard B650E PG-ITX┃B550-I Strix
Cooling FC140┃AXP120x67
Memory 64GB 6400CL32┃32GB 3600CL14
Video Card(s) RTX 4070 Ti Eagle┃RTX A2000
Storage 8TB of SSDs┃1TB SN550
Display(s) 43" QN90B / M32Q / S2721DGF
Case Caselabs S3┃Lone Industries L5
Power Supply Corsair HX1000┃HDPlex
Sounds like some of y'all need to re-read the first line of the OP:

PLEASE, NO INTEL/AMD FANBOY ANTAGONISM!

What is your opinion on intels motivation for introducing e-cores.

It's about e-cores, not whether your ego is in bed with AMD or Intel. No reason to be playing the fanboy card at all. Lay off the insults or thread is closed.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
1,074 (0.83/day)
I have specifically went for i3-12100F to avoid E-cores, because I am still using Windows 10, AFAIK there are no planned improvements for scheduling to account for those in that system.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
202 (0.36/day)
Whatever the reason for Intel introducing the E cores, they greatly increase the MT performance which is surely a good thing. Imo there is no doubt, when the scheduler is working correctly, they will pay off. As i have said before, which some people ignore, is it is a waste running background tasks on a P core. When you are gaming surely you only want your game running exclusively on your P cores and not all the other background crap.

With a AMD CPU with P cores only, when you are gaming, all the other crap tasks you have running are using your P cores which will surely have a detrimental effect on your games performance.

Admittedly the E cores are probably not being managed perfectly at the moment, but at some point they will be, then when Intel users are gaming, their background crap tasks will run properly on the E cores, whereas AMD users will have all them same tasks eating game performance on the P core only CPU.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
8,858 (6.04/day)
Location
Louisianna
System Name Ghetto Rigs z490|x99|Acer 17 Nitro 7840hs/ 5600c40-2x16/ 4060/ 1tb acer stock m.2/ 4tb sn850x
Processor 10900k w/Optimus Foundation | 5930k w/Black Noctua D15
Motherboard z490 Maximus XII Apex | x99 Sabertooth
Cooling oCool D5 res-combo/280 GTX/ Optimus Foundation/ gpu water block | Blk D15
Memory Trident-Z Royal 4000c16 2x16gb | Trident-Z 3200c14 4x8gb
Video Card(s) Titan Xp-water | evga 980ti gaming-w/ air
Storage 970evo+500gb & sn850x 4tb | 860 pro 256gb | Acer m.2 1tb/ sn850x 4tb| Many2.5" sata's ssd 3.5hdd's
Display(s) 1-AOC G2460PG 24"G-Sync 144Hz/ 2nd 1-ASUS VG248QE 24"/ 3rd LG 43" series
Case D450 | Cherry Entertainment center on Test bench
Audio Device(s) Built in Realtek x2 with 2-Insignia 2.0 sound bars & 1-LG sound bar
Power Supply EVGA 1000P2 with APC AX1500 | 850P2 with CyberPower-GX1325U
Mouse Redragon Perdition x3
Keyboard G710+x3
Software Win-7 pro x3 and win-10 & 11pro x3
Benchmark Scores Are in the benchmark section
Hi,
Doubt anyone would run out of gaming resources using an 8 core and I'd probably call this a main stream core count now days.
 

Easy Rhino

Linux Advocate
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
15,428 (2.44/day)
Location
Mid-Atlantic
System Name Desktop
Processor i5 13600KF
Motherboard AsRock B760M Steel Legend Wifi
Cooling Noctua NH-U9S
Memory 4x 16 Gb Gskill S5 DDR5 @6000
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Gaming OC 6750 XT 12GB
Storage WD_BLACK 4TB SN850x
Display(s) Gigabye M32U
Case Corsair Carbide 400C
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 650 P2
Mouse MX Master 3s
Keyboard Logitech G915 Wireless Clicky
Software The Matrix
The global cabal is hell bent on getting off of oil and gas and therefore energy prices are expected to skyrocket. Consumers won't be purchasing that new phone every year or new PC every 3-4 years, and enterprise won't be replacing servers every 4-5 years if their power bills are all double and tripling.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
6,702 (1.69/day)
ecores support avx, avx2, etc. The only thing they lack is hyperthreading and avx512
And they won't have AVX512 anytime soon, unless they follow the AMD approach. Not to mention essentially neutering AVX512 that's actually present on the P cores! Then there's switching the tasks between various cores & of course priority, which is less of a problem if the OS can handle it properly. Right now Intel is just throwing (E)cores for namesakes & ironically to counter AMD with "more cores" o_O
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
17,484 (2.64/day)
System Name AlderLake / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 12700K P-Cores @ 5Ghz / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 32GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 6000MHz CL36 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Evo 500GB + 850 Pro 512GB + 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) Panasonic SA-PMX94 / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system / Harman Kardon Go + Play / Logitech G533
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 11 / Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 (Single Core) 1936 @ stock Cinebench R23 (Multi Core) 23006 @ stock

dgianstefani

TPU Proofreader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
3,519 (1.56/day)
Location
Swansea, Wales
System Name Silent
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D @ 5.15ghz bclk, TG AM5 High Performance Heatspreader
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X670E-I, chipset fans removed
Cooling Optimus AMD Raw Copper/Plexi, HWLABS Copper 240/40+240/30, D5, 4x Noctua A12x25, Mayhems Ultra Pure
Memory 32 GB Dominator Platinum 6150 MHz 26-36-36-48, 57ns AIDA, 2050 FLCK, 160 ns TRFC
Video Card(s) RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition, Conductonaut Extreme, 18 W/mK MinusPad Extreme, Corsair XG7 Waterblock
Storage Intel Optane DC P1600X 118 GB, Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB
Display(s) 32" 240 Hz 1440p Samsung G7, 31.5" 165 Hz 1440p LG NanoIPS Ultragear
Case Sliger SM570 CNC Aluminium 13-Litre, 3D printed feet, custom front panel with pump/res combo
Audio Device(s) Audeze Maxwell Ultraviolet, Razer Nommo Pro
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum, transparent custom cables, Sentinel Pro 1500 Online Double Conversion UPS
Mouse Razer Viper Pro V2 Mercury White w/Tiger Ice Skates & Pulsar Supergrip tape
Keyboard Wooting 60HE+ module, TOFU Redux Burgundy w/brass weight, Prismcaps White & Jellykey, lubed/modded
Software Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 19053.3803
Benchmark Scores Legendary
Nah the problem is your warped views on what efficiency means
Your 12700k runs cool because you barely use it

If I capped my FPS to 60 my "hot" 5800x would barely hit 40C, but it'd be stupid of me to tell everyone that all 5800x run that cold or that those barely above idle figures were 'efficient' as if that's how the CPU always runs in every task.



The concept is great, i'm all for mixed E and P cores - the problem is that intel are still going balls to the wall with their clock speeds past the efficiency settings entirely.
Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review - Power Consumption & Efficiency | TechPowerUp



Single threaded, the E-cores are great - chart topping.
The problem is they're used for multi threaded... and they fall behind.
These cores designed purely for efficiency are less efficient than Zen3, Zen 2, and even intels 9th and 10th gen CPUs.
View attachment 260076


They've been pushed too high on clocks and voltage to beat AMD in benchmarks, negating their entire purpose for existing.
They're only designed for area efficiency, power efficiency is a second priority.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
99 (0.07/day)
System Name Phoenix
Processor Ryzen 5 2600x 3,6ghz UV
Motherboard Asrock B350 Pro4
Cooling Wraith stealth
Memory Crucial Ballistix 4x2gb 3200mhz 13-18-16-32
Video Card(s) Rx 470 4gb Sapphire Blower
Case Fractal Design Model G
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser Momentum On-ear
Power Supply Enermax Maxpro 600w
Mouse Steelseries rival 300
Keyboard Some el-garbagio logitech office
I agree - this is why I like the theory that AMD will mix generations of cores to make E and P cores less costly to implement, and use older stock.
Zen 4 (P cores) + Zen 3 (E cores) for example

If they lock them in the area that Zen 3 has it's best power efficiency (lets say 4.4GHz) they'd make some fantastic E cores for no real investment from AMD - they already a plentiful supply of them, and they're already modular thanks to the CCX designs.

I also agree with ERazer - it all comes down to OS support.
Right now AMD use their chipset driver to set preferred cores, so they have a method of doing this (set all P cores to preferred cores, and most of the problem is solved)
The leaks suggest Zen5(P) + zen4c(E)
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.33/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
They're only designed for area efficiency, power efficiency is a second priority.
And that's why they're shit and implemented shit IMHO.

They're should be no more than 8 E core's.

They should be actually efficient.

They should be doing 95% of all the work.

With only time sensitive apps pushed to P core's.

But they are not , do not.

Why because they're only there to increase the core count number on the spec sheet.

I got only love for efficiency core's, bit this tat ain't that.

Opinion over.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
17,484 (2.64/day)
System Name AlderLake / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 12700K P-Cores @ 5Ghz / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 32GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 6000MHz CL36 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Evo 500GB + 850 Pro 512GB + 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) Panasonic SA-PMX94 / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system / Harman Kardon Go + Play / Logitech G533
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 11 / Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Cinebench R23 (Single Core) 1936 @ stock Cinebench R23 (Multi Core) 23006 @ stock
Mobile phones have it at least for a decade already.....
I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen game consoles will also come with "efficiency" and "performance" cores....
 

dgianstefani

TPU Proofreader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
3,519 (1.56/day)
Location
Swansea, Wales
System Name Silent
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D @ 5.15ghz bclk, TG AM5 High Performance Heatspreader
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X670E-I, chipset fans removed
Cooling Optimus AMD Raw Copper/Plexi, HWLABS Copper 240/40+240/30, D5, 4x Noctua A12x25, Mayhems Ultra Pure
Memory 32 GB Dominator Platinum 6150 MHz 26-36-36-48, 57ns AIDA, 2050 FLCK, 160 ns TRFC
Video Card(s) RTX 3080 Ti Founders Edition, Conductonaut Extreme, 18 W/mK MinusPad Extreme, Corsair XG7 Waterblock
Storage Intel Optane DC P1600X 118 GB, Samsung 990 Pro 2 TB
Display(s) 32" 240 Hz 1440p Samsung G7, 31.5" 165 Hz 1440p LG NanoIPS Ultragear
Case Sliger SM570 CNC Aluminium 13-Litre, 3D printed feet, custom front panel with pump/res combo
Audio Device(s) Audeze Maxwell Ultraviolet, Razer Nommo Pro
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum, transparent custom cables, Sentinel Pro 1500 Online Double Conversion UPS
Mouse Razer Viper Pro V2 Mercury White w/Tiger Ice Skates & Pulsar Supergrip tape
Keyboard Wooting 60HE+ module, TOFU Redux Burgundy w/brass weight, Prismcaps White & Jellykey, lubed/modded
Software Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 19053.3803
Benchmark Scores Legendary
And that's why they're shit and implemented shit IMHO.

They're should be no more than 8 E core's.

They should be actually efficient.

They should be doing 95% of all the work.

With only time sensitive apps pushed to P core's.

But they are not , do not.

Why because they're only there to increase the core count number on the spec sheet.

I got only love for efficiency core's, bit this tat ain't that.

Opinion over.
Everything on that list can be fixed with kernel scheduling, software optimisation and bios limits. The hardware is fine.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
8,858 (6.04/day)
Location
Louisianna
System Name Ghetto Rigs z490|x99|Acer 17 Nitro 7840hs/ 5600c40-2x16/ 4060/ 1tb acer stock m.2/ 4tb sn850x
Processor 10900k w/Optimus Foundation | 5930k w/Black Noctua D15
Motherboard z490 Maximus XII Apex | x99 Sabertooth
Cooling oCool D5 res-combo/280 GTX/ Optimus Foundation/ gpu water block | Blk D15
Memory Trident-Z Royal 4000c16 2x16gb | Trident-Z 3200c14 4x8gb
Video Card(s) Titan Xp-water | evga 980ti gaming-w/ air
Storage 970evo+500gb & sn850x 4tb | 860 pro 256gb | Acer m.2 1tb/ sn850x 4tb| Many2.5" sata's ssd 3.5hdd's
Display(s) 1-AOC G2460PG 24"G-Sync 144Hz/ 2nd 1-ASUS VG248QE 24"/ 3rd LG 43" series
Case D450 | Cherry Entertainment center on Test bench
Audio Device(s) Built in Realtek x2 with 2-Insignia 2.0 sound bars & 1-LG sound bar
Power Supply EVGA 1000P2 with APC AX1500 | 850P2 with CyberPower-GX1325U
Mouse Redragon Perdition x3
Keyboard G710+x3
Software Win-7 pro x3 and win-10 & 11pro x3
Benchmark Scores Are in the benchmark section
Hi,
Yeah the new hedt chip.

Issue is waiting for ms to optimize it
They can't even design a decent start menu :laugh:
 
Top