News AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 Specs, Release Date Window, Benchmarks, and More

[RodroX]

Where I live we are worried about the absent of gasoil (diesel), trucks can't work, buses can't work, farming machinery can't work, (winter is strating), but hey I finally know that the new AM5 cpu from AMD will launch at the end of the year!!!!!, I hope we ge that far down the line to see the reviews. Many people like me in the world eat , read and watch reviews, and only buy something new every 3 or 4 years (with luck).

 

[bolweval]

Wouldnt be nice if they standardized cooler mounting hole configurations?

 

[KyaraM]

Ok, so what is the objection to the original quote you answered to? Yes it improved, but still hasn't caught up. Your quote didn't address anything.

Saying it has improved over Rocket Lake is damning with faint praise. Rocket Lake is a ridiculously low bar to set when it comes to power consumption.

Literally everything below a 12900K is marginally, if at all, worse than equivalent AMD chips. Especially when also considering that they are more powerful at the same time. And even the 12900k is better than what people claim:

Intel Core i9-12900K(F), Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Review - Gaming in really fast and really frugal | Part 1 | Page 9 | igor´sLAB

Intel in fast AND economical? Yes, since the 12th. Generation, i.e. Alder Lake S, this also fits together again. And so today’s text effectively becomes the narrative for a kind of turnaround…

www.igorslab.de

https://www.pcworld.com/article/556...ls-alder-lake-is-a-power-hog-its-not.html/amp

 

[escksu]

Thank you for this summary article.

My hope as a 3960X user: INTEL will eventually be able to put more than 8 performance cores in one package and be competitive again in HEDT so that AMD feels the need to release a non-PRO version of a Threadripper 7000 series. I need the cores, the PCIe lanes and the memory channels

Not going to happen. I can say with 99.99% certainty it won't happen. There is no reason for hedt to ever exist again for the foreseeable future.

If you need the cores, pcie and memory, both Intel and AMD will tell you to get their workstation CPUs instead.

Both camps are only losing potential profits from hedt. These CPUs are the same as workstation variants with a few features disabled. They cost the same to manufacture and hedt prices are lower. So, they would rather sell them as workstation/server variants for much higher profit margins.

We are also facing chip shortages so even less reason to have hedt.

 

[escksu]

I won't be surprise to see Ryzen "F" chips later. I am sure there will be some that failed validated so AMD would sell them off as "F" versions.

 

[domih]

Not going to happen. I can say with 99.99% certainty it won't happen. There is no reason for hedt to ever exist again for the foreseeable future.

If you need the cores, pcie and memory, both Intel and AMD will tell you to get their workstation CPUs instead.

Both camps are only losing potential profits from hedt. These CPUs are the same as workstation variants with a few features disabled. They cost the same to manufacture and hedt prices are lower. So, they would rather sell them as workstation/server variants for much higher profit margins.

We are also facing chip shortages so even less reason to have hedt.

Yes I 100% agree. I posted the same conclusion in another thread. AMD is not hungry anymore and both INTEL and AMD are NOT going to risk "HEDT" SKUs that could "phagocyte" their Enterprise SKUs.

I'm just happy to have snatched a 2950X and 3960X back in 18 and 19.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Thank you for this summary article.

My hope as a 3960X user: INTEL will eventually be able to put more than 8 performance cores in one package and be competitive again in HEDT so that AMD feels the need to release a non-PRO version of a Threadripper 7000 series. I need the cores, the PCIe lanes and the memory channels

Well AMD on mainstream platform already has more than 8 performance cores that were good and strong cores since Zen 2. Intel still staying at 8 P cores and only adding more e-waste cores to Raptor Lake and even more e-waste cores to future gens while staying at 8 p cores is quite depressing and embarrassing. Intel needs to get their act together and design P cores with lower power and thermals and drop the e-waste cores that have no business on the desktop and instead belong only in mobile devices.

Intel Alder Lake was Big.Little.

Raptor Lake and above per Intel's road map is not Big.Little anymore. Instead it is Big.LittleXXXXXX with more XXX added to the little each gen which is a disgrace.

No more than 8 P cores is an embarrassment and I will not be buying Intel again for a high end PC until they release a SKU with more than 8 P cores.

And before anyone says well what are you going to do if Intel's 8 P cores make AMD's big cores look like Bulldozer again. Well we are not anywhere close to that and with a strong AMD now will not be anytime soon if ever again. Those Bulldozer cores were so embarrassing and pathetic it was not even funny that a quad core Intel smashed an 8 core AMD in multi threading even with half the core count that is how bad Bulldozer cores were. Even though now Intel latest P cores are better than AMD's best and appears to stay that way per leaks at least until Zen 5, the gap is no where near how it was during Bulldozer days and AMD's strong cores are only mild worse IPC, so I will not buy Intel again if things stay that way until they release something with more than 8 P cores.

 

[-Fran-]

Well AMD on mainstream platform already has more than 8 performance cores that were good and strong cores since Zen 2. Intel still staying at 8 P cores and only adding more e-waste cores to Raptor Lake and even more e-waste cores to future gens while staying at 8 p cores is quite depressing and embarrassing. Intel needs to get their act together and design P cores with lower power and thermals and drop the e-waste cores that have no business on the desktop and instead belong only in mobile devices.

Intel Alder Lake was Big.Little.

Raptor Lake and above per Intel's road map is not Big.Little anymore. Instead it is Big.LittleXXXXXX with more XXX added to the little each gen which is a disgrace.

No more than 8 P cores is an embarrassment and I will not be buying Intel again for a high end PC until they release a SKU with more than 8 P cores.

And before anyone says well what are you going to do if Intel's 8 P cores make AMD's big cores look like Bulldozer again. Well we are not anywhere close to that and with a strong AMD now will not be anytime soon if ever again. Those Bulldozer cores were so embarrassing and pathetic it was not even funny that a quad core Intel smashed an 8 core AMD in multi threading even with half the core count that is how bad Bulldozer cores were. Even though now Intel latest P cores are better than AMD's best and appears to stay that way per leaks at least until Zen 5, the gap is no where near how it was during Bulldozer days and AMD's strong cores are only mild worse IPC, so I will not buy Intel again if things stay that way until they release something with more than 8 P cores.

Not to contradict what you're saying, but I don't think the "bigLITTLE" philosophy is bad. It is a very valid approach to not having a better way to have "proper" (bear with me XD) cores that can handle lower power operations better. Intel's biggest connondrum is AVX512 and different/mixed ISA support on each core, since AMD is now fully embracing it with Zen4. That is going to be a problem for them now. Yes, I know there's not many programs out there that use/implement AVX512 and for most intended purposes it is a waste of silicon, but Intel is pushing for it and all the little gains they've gotten with previous uArchs is effectively lost with Alder Lake and (as I understand it) Raptor Lake. Hell, they even have actually already wasted the silicon space in the P-cores for it, but still disable it since they can't make the mixed ISA work in their scheduler and wont allow their partners to support it. It's a bit stupid, but Intel does what Intel does.

Regards.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Not to contradict what you're saying, but I don't think the "bigLITTLE" philosophy is bad. It is a very valid approach to not having a better way to have "proper" (bear with me XD) cores that can handle lower power operations better. Intel's biggest connondrum is AVX512 and different/mixed ISA support on each core, since AMD is now fully embracing it with Zen4. That is going to be a problem for them now. Yes, I know there's not many programs out there that use/implement AVX512 and for most intended purposes it is a waste of silicon, but Intel is pushing for it and all the little gains they've gotten with previous uArchs is effectively lost with Alder Lake and (as I understand it) Raptor Lake. Hell, they even have actually already wasted the silicon space in the P-cores for it, but still disable it since they can't make the mixed ISA work in their scheduler and wont allow their partners to support it. It's a bit stupid, but Intel does what Intel does.

Regards.

Yeah Intel is stupid and thinks the can shove things down our throat.

Maybe Big.Little itself is not so bad, but Big.LittleXXXXX is horrible. I mean where is the balanced approach from Intel for Big.Little. Where are 12+8 configs or 10+6 or 10+4. Instead Alder Lake was 8+ an equal or smaller amount of little cores. Future gens, it is no more than 8 P cores and only more and more little cores. That is sad and pathetic.

We have been in an SMP world for so long that this approach makes no sense and not the right kind of change certainly to keep a max of 8 P cores.

AMD actually knows what they are doing.

Intel is so arrogant and wants to force this hybrid arch down our throats in what I believe is a more sinister agenda to break compatibility with existing stuff and force draconian future specialized DRM versions of Windows with the proper scheduler only in them with backing of course by Microsoft being in bed with them.

Where as with AMD and lower SKU Intel parts you can use more freedom choices of OS with traditional scheduler without the hybrid arch crap. Intel is so arrogant on their approach it will be there undoing. Like you said they also shun AVX512 as well.

And I knw I know Alder Lake had patches to get around the bugs, but even they do ot work that great. But you know what. It always had as many Big cores as small cores and usually much more on the SKUs. Wait until we have always more small cores than big cores.

And yeah Alder Lake has taken lots of sales from AMD. Well it has the 12400F which only has 6 P cores and they are so fast and for 6 core and less CPUs it is the ideal choice as no need to deal with hybrid arch crap and can still run WIN10 and have no issues. And it performs as well or better than 5600X and AMD CPUs at least lower end on this gen do not manually overclock well anyways, so 12400F having locked multiplier is not a big deal.

But for me anyways, it is all AMD on CPU side and all NVIDIA on GPU side for a while as NVIDIA still makes best GPUs and not forcing SLI glued together ones down our throat that break compatibility. Someone wake me up when Intel has a CPU with more than 8 super good P cores and could care less of e-waste cores will just disable them. But nope still only 8 P cores when I want 10-12 of them.

Intel Big.Little will be like NVIDIA SLI but much short lived IHO and I certainly hope at least on the desktop.

 

[TerryLaze]

It's not like AMD's cores do much better above 8, they have serious issues providing enough power resulting in ridiculously slow clocks.
There is nothing free in life, especially when physics are involved, zen has very low power consumption because they can't achieve high clocks on many cores,
If you are going to lose more than 30% of performance when using all cores then why not use 30% weaker cores from the get go?! *( for the above 8)
Where is the difference?

" and is indicative of how the processor has increased current density as it loads up the cores, and as a result there’s a balance between the frequency it can give, delivering the power, and applying the voltage in a consistent way. "
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1621...e-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8

Also AMD will be using two different types of cores and might release a CPU with both of them in one.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...fferent-types-of-cores-now-supported-in-linux
Also also you are not forced to use a special OS with big.little it just makes some things automatically that you can do manually if you want to.

 

[KyaraM]

Yeah Intel is stupid and thinks the can shove things down our throat.

Maybe Big.Little itself is not so bad, but Big.LittleXXXXX is horrible. I mean where is the balanced approach from Intel for Big.Little. Where are 12+8 configs or 10+6 or 10+4. Instead Alder Lake was 8+ an equal or smaller amount of little cores. Future gens, it is no more than 8 P cores and only more and more little cores. That is sad and pathetic.

We have been in an SMP world for so long that this approach makes no sense and not the right kind of change certainly to keep a max of 8 P cores.

AMD actually knows what they are doing.

Intel is so arrogant and wants to force this hybrid arch down our throats in what I believe is a more sinister agenda to break compatibility with existing stuff and force draconian future specialized DRM versions of Windows with the proper scheduler only in them.

Where as with AMD and lower SKU Intel parts you can use more freedom choices of OS with traditional scheduler without the hybrid arch crap. Intel is so arrogant on their approach it will be there undoing. Like you said they also shun AVX512 as well.

And I knw I know Alder Lake had patches to get around the bugs, but even they do ot work that great. But you know what. It always had as many Big cores as small cores and usually much more on the SKUs. Wait until we have always more small cores than big cores.

And yeah Alder Lake has taken lots of sales from AMD. Well it has the 12400F which only has 6 P cores and they are so fast and for 6 core and less CPUs it is the ideal choice as no need to deal with hybrid arch crap and can still run WIN10 and have no issues. And it performs as well or better than 5600X and AMD CPUs at least lower end on this gen do not manually overclock well anyways, so 12400F having locked multiplier is not a big deal.

But for me anyways, it is all AMD on CPU side and all NVIDIA on GPU side for a while as NVIDIA still makes best GPUs and not forcing SLI glued together ones down our throat that break compatibility. Someone wake me up when Intel has a CPU with more than 8 super good P cores and could care less of e-waste cores will just disable them. But nope still only 8 P cores when I want 10-12 of them.

Intel Big.Little will be like NVIDIA SLI but much short lived IHO and I certainly hope at least on the desktop.

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about and just want to bash Intel without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about and just want to badh Intel.

JFC, is it physically painful for AMD stans to not stan and trash on Intel for just one freaking minute or something?

 

[RodroX]

Yeah Intel is stupid and thinks the can shove things down our throat.

Maybe Big.Little itself is not so bad, but Big.LittleXXXXX is horrible. I mean where is the balanced approach from Intel for Big.Little. Where are 12+8 configs or 10+6 or 10+4. Instead Alder Lake was 8+ an equal or smaller amount of little cores. Future gens, it is no more than 8 P cores and only more and more little cores. That is sad and pathetic.

We have been in an SMP world for so long that this approach makes no sense and not the right kind of change certainly to keep a max of 8 P cores.

AMD actually knows what they are doing.

Intel is so arrogant and wants to force this hybrid arch down our throats in what I believe is a more sinister agenda to break compatibility with existing stuff and force draconian future specialized DRM versions of Windows with the proper scheduler only in them.

Where as with AMD and lower SKU Intel parts you can use more freedom choices of OS with traditional scheduler without the hybrid arch crap. Intel is so arrogant on their approach it will be there undoing. Like you said they also shun AVX512 as well.

And I knw I know Alder Lake had patches to get around the bugs, but even they do ot work that great. But you know what. It always had as many Big cores as small cores and usually much more on the SKUs. Wait until we have always more small cores than big cores.

And yeah Alder Lake has taken lots of sales from AMD. Well it has the 12400F which only has 6 P cores and they are so fast and for 6 core and less CPUs it is the ideal choice as no need to deal with hybrid arch crap and can still run WIN10 and have no issues. And it performs as well or better than 5600X and AMD CPUs at least lower end on this gen do not manually overclock well anyways, so 12400F having locked multiplier is not a big deal.

But for me anyways, it is all AMD on CPU side and all NVIDIA on GPU side for a while as NVIDIA still makes best GPUs and not forcing SLI glued together ones down our throat that break compatibility. Someone wake me up when Intel has a CPU with more than 8 super good P cores and could care less of e-waste cores will just disable them. But nope still only 8 P cores when I want 10-12 of them.

Intel Big.Little will be like NVIDIA SLI but much short lived IHO and I certainly hope at least on the desktop.

I don't think intel is forcing you anything, in fact you seem very be able to make your own choice and pick AMD or Intel.

I do think I get where your complain is coming from, but keep in mind that for the +80% of people buying PC/Notebooks they really don't care, and probably don't know if their new device even have a CPU inside, let alone if its Intel, AMD or even ARM_like.

Intel have admited somehow that they can not, for the time been, add more P-Cores to mainstream CPU, and I personally don't think they are too worry about that either. Mainstream CPU have come a long way since the days of the all mighty i7 7700K.

Today mainstream CPUs (mid to highend) can do almost anything, from browsing the web while playing AAA titles to editing video, rendering, or compiling extensive code. Both intel and AMD have solutions to tackle almost any task a high-end home user can or need to do.

About nvidia, sure they do really good GPUs but lately, for me at least, they sorta lost the track, at least price/power wise. The RX 6xxx series, have been a very, very good alternative to nvida, at a lower price point, consuming usually less power while delivering more performance. Unless of course you need nvidia encoder or the, for me again, useless ray tracing cores.

Thats my humble opinion. No one have to agree with it.

 

[-Fran-]

I don't think intel is forcing you anything, in fact you seem very be able to make your own choice and pick AMD or Intel.

I do think I get where your complain is coming from, but keep in mind that for the +80% of people buying PC/Notebooks they really don't care, and probably don't know if their new device even have a CPU inside, let alone if its Intel, AMD or even ARM_like.

Intel have admited somehow that they can not, for the time been, add more P-Cores to mainstream CPU, and I personally don't think they are too worry about that either. Mainstream CPU have come a long way since the days of the all mighty i7 7700K.

Today mainstream CPUs (mid to highend) can do almost anything, from browsing the web while playing AAA titles to editing video, rendering, or compiling extensive code. Both intel and AMD have solutions to tackle almost any task a high-end home user can or need to do.

About nvidia, sure they do really good GPUs but lately, for me at least, they sorta lost the track, at least price/power wise. The RX 6xxx series, have been a very, very good alternative to nvida, at a lower price point, consuming usually less power while delivering more performance. Unless of course you need nvidia encoder or the, for me again, useless ray tracing cores.

Thats my humble opinion. No one have to agree with it.

Just to add a bit more: 8 cores are going to be sufficient for a while just like 1, 2 and 4 were all those years back. New generations of developers will learn how to exploit parallelism better and, more importanly, the memory subsystems and development tools will evolve as well. More cache is proving to be really good for games and specially ones that rely on a lot of small memory operations and AI. As I've always said, the most theoretical paralellism games could exploit is not even close to the real paralellism they're extracting right now; i.e: there's plenty room for growth. Physics, AI and software-based rendering (still used) are things that can improve a lot.

Can a normal person make good use of even MOAR cores? Yes, absolutely, but not all the time. Like Terry said, you can't cheat* physics, so more cores are going to be limiting, so the current sweet spot is around 8.

On a personal note, I would have liked to see Raptor Lake in a 10P+8E (28T) config instead of 8P+16E (32T), but looks like they want to add even more paralellism although it may not really be needed. At least they downsized the iGPU finally like I always said they should 😆

Regards.

 

[RodroX]

Just to add a bit more: 8 cores are going to be sufficient for a while just like 1, 2 and 4 were all those years back. New generations of developers will learn how to exploit parallelism better and, more importanly, the memory subsystems and development tools will evolve as well. More cache is proving to be really good for games and specially ones that rely on a lot of small memory operations and AI. As I've always said, the most theoretical paralellism games could exploit is not even close to the real paralellism they're extracting right now; i.e: there's plenty room for growth. Physics, AI and software-based rendering (still used) are things that can improve a lot.

Can a normal person make good use of even MOAR cores? Yes, absolutely, but not all the time. Like Terry said, you can't cheat* physics, so more cores are going to be limiting, so the current sweet spot is around 8.

On a personal note, I would have liked to see Raptor Lake in a 10P+8E (28T) config instead of 8P+16E (32T), but looks like they want to add even more paralellism although it may not really be needed. At least they downsized the iGPU finally like I always said they should 😆

Regards.

Exactly, not to mention we still don't see SSD been really exploited by coders either. SSD may not have the same impact as more performance cores, but it will add to the total experience.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about and just want to bash Intel without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about and just want to badh Intel.

JFC, is it physically painful for AMD stans to not stan and trash on Intel for just one freaking minute or something?

That is completely false. I am not a fanboy of either company. In fact I generally like Intel more during normal times.

I would be bashing AMD just as harshly if they were churning out CPUs with a maximum of 8 P cores and a bunch of e-waste cores, but they are not. Even if they start a heterogenous arch, I seriously doubt they will limit consumer desktop CPUs to only 8 P cores.

If Intel would just make a CPU with at least 10-12 P cores, They can add as many e cores as they want and I will just disable them as I hate the hybrid arch and scheduling and stuttering issues without having to resort to compatibility mode and crap. The e-waste cores absolutely reduce gaming performance just being there. Add a couple more p-cores instead and multi tasking will be smoother while gaming without the ring clock being dragged to heck and the horrific latency those e-waste cores have.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Exactly, not to mention we still don't see SSD been really exploited by coders either. SSD may not have the same impact as more performance cores, but it will add to the total experience.

Coders really do not have to code for SSDs. They by themselves make a system so much faster and more responsive that HDDs are obsolete and have been for me for 10 years for the OS drive. I remember switching to a pure SSD and OMG programs loaded instantly instead of taking like 5-10 seconds of HDD thrashing just to get a program to load. And this was regardless of CPU or RAM in system.

Coders do not need to develop for SSDs. SSDs are so much faster and ore responsive for random access especially and even sustained data transfer not even funny.

HDDs are by no means going away and still have a place. They just do not belong for OS nor app drives. They belong purely for lots of space for data storage of large video files and game installers on a NAS for much cheaper price. Of course games not to be run from HDD rather just stored for an install of them to the much faster SSD.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Just to add a bit more: 8 cores are going to be sufficient for a while just like 1, 2 and 4 were all those years back. New generations of developers will learn how to exploit parallelism better and, more importanly, the memory subsystems and development tools will evolve as well. More cache is proving to be really good for games and specially ones that rely on a lot of small memory operations and AI. As I've always said, the most theoretical paralellism games could exploit is not even close to the real paralellism they're extracting right now; i.e: there's plenty room for growth. Physics, AI and software-based rendering (still used) are things that can improve a lot.

Can a normal person make good use of even MOAR cores? Yes, absolutely, but not all the time. Like Terry said, you can't cheat* physics, so more cores are going to be limiting, so the current sweet spot is around 8.

On a personal note, I would have liked to see Raptor Lake in a 10P+8E (28T) config instead of 8P+16E (32T), but looks like they want to add even more paralellism although it may not really be needed. At least they downsized the iGPU finally like I always said they should 😆

Regards.

Yeah 8 cores may be sufficient for a while, but I like to be a but more than sufficient without having to resort to hybrid e-waste core crap which is why I am not buying Intel.

Even Intel was better when AMD was providing no competition. Oh sure they were maxed out at 4 cores on the desktop platform when AMD was in the Bulldozer days, but they had HEDT where you could get 6-8 cores and even 10 cores. Sure it cost more, but it was not like Server class hardware prices where it was so bad out of realm beyond an arm and a leg where an 8 core for $999 and 6 core for $400 to $600. and neverminded the compatibility and form factor issues that come with pure server class hardware above HEDT especially these days in the last 10 years unlike the server class hardware prior to 2010.

Now Intel does not even have good HEDT options on current gen as a fallback. And even Server class hardware besides costing beyond an arm and a leg is scarce and compatibility with off the shelf stuff would be spotty. I think at best they have server class Xeons on Ice Lake or Rocket Lake. And Sapphire Rapids and Alder Lake X with more than 8 P cores is delayed and delayed yet again if it ever sees the light of day. And even if it does looks to be a mesh which sucks for gaming if Skylake X is any indication. Unless they can make their HEDT have equal gaming perf with a little overkill with the mesh this time assuming it even sees the light of day.

Thank god for a competent AMD trading blows with them that gives us a choice now.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I don't think intel is forcing you anything, in fact you seem very be able to make your own choice and pick AMD or Intel.

I do think I get where your complain is coming from, but keep in mind that for the +80% of people buying PC/Notebooks they really don't care, and probably don't know if their new device even have a CPU inside, let alone if its Intel, AMD or even ARM_like.

Intel have admited somehow that they can not, for the time been, add more P-Cores to mainstream CPU, and I personally don't think they are too worry about that either. Mainstream CPU have come a long way since the days of the all mighty i7 7700K.

Today mainstream CPUs (mid to highend) can do almost anything, from browsing the web while playing AAA titles to editing video, rendering, or compiling extensive code. Both intel and AMD have solutions to tackle almost any task a high-end home user can or need to do.

About nvidia, sure they do really good GPUs but lately, for me at least, they sorta lost the track, at least price/power wise. The RX 6xxx series, have been a very, very good alternative to nvida, at a lower price point, consuming usually less power while delivering more performance. Unless of course you need nvidia encoder or the, for me again, useless ray tracing cores.

Thats my humble opinion. No one have to agree with it.

Do you think Intel has admitted it really cannot make more than 8 P cores on Alder Lake and Raptor Lake, or they just refuse to?? I mean a 4 e-core cluster takes the same space as 1 P core. And 12900K has 2 e core clusters so they could technically add 2 P cores? Is the heat they would generate so outlandish that it would not work??

I mean I here the e-cores are just more die pace efficient and not ll that power efficient. I mean is a 4 e-core cluster fully loaded still a lot less heat produced than 1 P core fully loaded??

And how is Raptor Lake. Are the e-core clusters changing to 8 e-core clusters in same die space as Alder Lake or is there more die space they now have 4 clusters of 4 e-cores each for 16 e-cores on the 13900K and thus in theory could add 4 more P cores to Raptor Lake??

 

[-Fran-]

Do you think Intel has admitted it really cannot make more than 8 P cores on Alder Lake and Raptor Lake, or they just refuse to?? I mean a 4 e-core cluster takes the same space as 1 P core. And 12900K has 2 e core clusters so they could technically add 2 P cores? Is the heat they would generate so outlandish that it would not work??

I mean I here the e-cores are just more die pace efficient and not ll that power efficient. I mean is a 4 e-core cluster fully loaded still a lot less heat produced than 1 P core fully loaded??

And how is Raptor Lake. Are the e-core clusters changing to 8 e-core clusters in same die space as Alder Lake or is there more die space they now have 4 clusters of 4 e-cores each for 16 e-cores on the 13900K and thus in theory could add 4 more P cores to Raptor Lake??

Yep, Intel could have chosen to make a 12P-0E (24T) CPU instead in the theoretical space the E cores would use.

Regards.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Yep, Intel could have chosen to make a 12P-0E (24T) CPU instead in the theoretical space the E cores would use.

Regards.

Would it have worked without power and heat consumption getting out of hand to make it almost impossible to cool even with good air coolers and AIOs and custom loops or no? At say 4.9GHz to 5.2GHz all core all workloads or at least non-AVX2 workloads?? I am sure they absolutely could have done it, but would they have had to downclock the cores significantly compared to only 8 of them.

Like do 8 e cores take as much power as 2 P cores or would 16 e cores take as much power as 4 more P cores? Or do the single "4 e core" clusters still produce significantly or modestly less power/heat than 1 P core compared to the hypothetical P core??

 

[-Fran-]

Would it have worked without power and heat consumption getting out of hand to make it almost impossible to cool even with good air coolers and AIOs and custom loops or no?

Like do 8 e cores take as much power as 2 P cores or would 16 e cores take as much power as 4 more P cores? Or do the single "4 e core" clusters still produce significantly or modestly less power/heat than 1 P core?

Hm... Given the power consumption of the 11900K and 10900K, I'd say they should be comparable. In fact, I'm very much willing to say they should have around the same top power consumption at full load, as the power consumption is first dictated by the socket spec, so they need to adapt to it (one of the reasons AMD went bonkers with AM5 now; so they have room to "grow"... Ugh). In short, a theoretical 12P-0E CPU with Raptor Lake should be under 270W at full bore.

Regards.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Hm... Given the power consumption of the 11900K and 10900K, I'd say they should be comparable. In fact, I'm very much willing to say they should have around the same top power consumption at full load, as the power consumption is first dictated by the socket spec, so they need to adapt to it (one of the reasons AMD went bonkers with AM5 now; so they have room to "grow"... Ugh). In short, a theoretical 12P-0E CPU with Raptor Lake should be under 270W at full bore.

Regards.

If true, Intel has lost a lot of money and customers by not making a 10-12P 0E chip in addition to their e core ones.

Though how come on Rocket Lake which was 11900K, they stopped at 8 P cores and those did not even have e cores. They had only P cores and 8 at most. Where as 10900K had 10 cores. Was the power consumption really that bad on Rocket Lake cause the 11900K was just a better binned and slightly higher clocked 11700K with same core and cache count, but cost like almost double the money.

It seems Intel for some reason stopped at 8 P cores even before they had e-waste cores in the mix. 10850K and 10900K both had 10 good cores. where 10900K was just better binned. Then Rocket Lake onwards 8 strong cores at most.

 

[RodroX]

Do you think Intel has admitted it really cannot make more than 8 P cores on Alder Lake and Raptor Lake, or they just refuse to?? I mean a 4 e-core cluster takes the same space as 1 P core. And 12900K has 2 e core clusters so they could technically add 2 P cores? Is the heat they would generate so outlandish that it would not work??

I mean I here the e-cores are just more die pace efficient and not ll that power efficient. I mean is a 4 e-core cluster fully loaded still a lot less heat produced than 1 P core fully loaded??

And how is Raptor Lake. Are the e-core clusters changing to 8 e-core clusters in same die space as Alder Lake or is there more die space they now have 4 clusters of 4 e-cores each for 16 e-cores on the 13900K and thus in theory could add 4 more P cores to Raptor Lake??

I never said they can't, I said they have "somehow" admited they can't, for the time been, in the way (or, only way they found) of competing with AMD right now in the application side of things, and they need it to compete now, not in 3 years.

Intel need it to regain part of the application performance they had lost over the last 3 years. AMD have been crashing it even on Adobe Suite. And this is not even taking in consideration the Threadripper parts.

And thats where adding more e-cores for me makes more sense for intel, than adding 2 extra P-Cores. E-Cores are cheaper, smaller, and use a lot less energy than p-cores. For many applications/benchmarks (other than games) is way more important than 1 or 2 extra p-cores and higher MHz.

Thats how I see it.

 

[-Fran-]

If true, Intel has lost a lot of money and customers by not making a 10-12P 0E chip in addition to their e core ones.

Though how come on Rocket Lake which was 11900K, they stopped at 8 P cores and those did not even have e cores. They had only P cores and 8 at most. Where as 10900K had 10 cores. Was the power consumption really that bad on Rocket Lake cause the 11900K was just a better binned and slightly higher clocked 11700K with same core and cache count, but cost like almost double the money.

It seems Intel for some reason stopped at 8 P cores even before they had e-waste cores in the mix. 10850K and 10900K both had 10 good cores. where 10900K was just better binned. Then Rocket Lake onwards 8 strong cores at most.

From memory: the two main reasons they had to keep the 11900K with 8 cores was the iGPU size, the new accelerators (that also exist in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake) and the core size themselves due to more cache.

Regards.

 

[Wolverine2349]

From memory: the two main reasons they had to keep the 11900K with 8 cores was the iGPU size, the new accelerators (that also exist in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake) and the core size themselves due to more cache.

Regards.

iGPU getting in the way again. Way to go Intel. Not smart at all an iGPU getting in the way of more good cores when enthusiasts do not care about the iGPU.

Yeah I know enthusiasts not the majority of Intel's market. But these iGPUs are coming on retail boxed i9 CPUs which are designed for enthusiasts. The ones that are not are sold to OEMs and not in retail boxes at Micro Center, NewEgg, Amazon, and etc and marketed towards enthusiasts. If Intel really did care about enthusiasts, they need to dump e cores and iGPU and focus on P cores or otherwise quit selling retail boxed Core i9s which are marketed towards PC building enthusiasts most of whom do not care about the iGPU nor the e-waste cores. And keep iGPU and e-waste cores for the stuff sold to OEMs where it makes more sense.