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

[KyaraM]

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.

Then better get ready because AMD already said e-cores are coming. Also, the fact that you call the e-waste already shows me I'm right. I had no, not a single, issue ever with my 12700k in almost six months. Especially not in games, no comparibility mode, nothing, neither for me nor anyone else I know with hybrid CPUs and I know a few people. In the contrary, it's so much smoother and better than any other system I had before. If you can't configure your computer correctly, maybe fix that first before bashing the manufacturer.

Btw, gaming runs on the P-cores exclusively. Just saying.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Then better get ready because AMD already said e-cores are coming. Also, the fact that you call the e-waste already shows me I'm right. I had no, not a single, issue ever with my 12700k in almost six months. Especially not in games, no comparibility mode, nothing, neither for me nor anyone else I know with hybrid CPUs and I know a few people. In the contrary, it's so much smoother and better than any other system I had before. If you can't configure your computer correctly, maybe fix that first before bashing the manufacturer.

Btw, gaming runs on the P-cores exclusively. Just saying.

AMD never said any such thing for sure. They said its only possible in future designs not for certain. And I doubt they make it exclusive and lock you into 8 at most strong cores.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...n-for-hybrid-big-little-cores-on-same-silicon

AMD is interested in it for the mobile space.. They have no need for it on the desktop space. They got threadripper which has a bunch of strong cores already even clocked lower will smash those e-waste cores into the ground.

I would not be bashing Intel if they actually had an option on current gen arch with more than 8 P cores regardless of the e core status.

Even if AMD chooses to start using some e-cores (big if on anything but the laptop or low end desktop), I am sure they will have SKUs available with more than 8 P cores on mainstream consumer platforms for DIY.

Intel does not even have an HEDT option with more than 8 P cores with the modern platform.

 

[user7007]

I'm concerned it won't be much faster than Alder Lake and the total platform costs will be higher - though it sounds like a pretty good chip. DDR5 prices are still pretty high and I'm assuming it'll launch with high end chipsets only. Compared to Alder Lake and Raptor lake that will also support DDR 4 and have older/cheaper motherboards I think the 7000 series will launch in a poor position from a price/performance point of view though it should be competitive for high end builds where costs will be similar.

 

[RodroX]

I'm concerned it won't be much faster than Alder Lake and the total platform costs will be higher - though it sounds like a pretty good chip. DDR5 prices are still pretty high and I'm assuming it'll launch with high end chipsets only. Compared to Alder Lake and Raptor lake that will also support DDR 4 and have older/cheaper motherboards I think the 7000 series will launch in a poor position from a price/performance point of view though it should be competitive for high end builds where costs will be similar.

Well, AM4 socket lasted for 6 years, with many different cpu technologies/iterations (Zen, Zen+, Zen2, Zen 3 and Zen3 + 3D Cache).

As long as 7xxx series are better than Alder Lake, and can compete on pair with Raptor Lake, they will sell enough chips to move on the next Zen iteration.

AMD new the AM4 socket would not last forever, it was meant to be replaced eventually.

But indeed Rocket Lake may be in a better position this time, but there aren't that many Alder Lake CPU in the wild that will move to Raptor Lake. Gamers may and probably will do in the future, but enterprises and business in general will remain with Alder Lake if they got a brand new PC. They never bother to change CPUs.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I'm concerned it won't be much faster than Alder Lake and the total platform costs will be higher - though it sounds like a pretty good chip. DDR5 prices are still pretty high and I'm assuming it'll launch with high end chipsets only. Compared to Alder Lake and Raptor lake that will also support DDR 4 and have older/cheaper motherboards I think the 7000 series will launch in a poor position from a price/performance point of view though it should be competitive for high end builds where costs will be similar.

Yeah AMD is like how Intel was when there was no competition just like them.

Though wen Alder Lake hit, many said it took performance crown back from AMD and CPUs were cheaper. Did it really have perf crown back, or was sit more price to performance crown??

Well there is a reason for that. Alder Lake were the best CPUs for 8 cores or less. Going beyond 8 cores was dicey though as AMD was better option which is why they still charged more even with their price cuts as they had a lot more strong cores beyond 8.

And with Ryzen 7000 maybe single performance it is not much faster than Alder Lake, but AMD will charge a lot for it anyways because they can as they know people myself included do not like the hybrid arch with e-waste cores and will pay more for up to 16 strong cores that equal IPC of Golden Cove cores where you are stuck at 8.

If Alder Lake had up to 16 or even 12 Golden Cove cores and the same pricing it does now, it could have put a serious hurt in AMD as they would have had better performance and lower CPU prices and equal or slightly lower platform costs across the board when going DDR4 route.

It could have been much closer to $300 Conroe in July 2006 besting the $999 Athlon 64 FX-60 X2 2.6GHz CPU. Though to be fair, Conroe was a bigger knockout punch to AMD K8 than Golden Cove is to Zen 3 even without factoring in Golden Cove tops out at 8 cores. In the hypothetical scenario where there was a 12 core Golden Cove chip from Intel, the IPC uplift is not quite as high as Conroe over AMD K8 and not as universally across the board. Also the power/heat output is much worse comapred to being much better with Conroe vs K8.

So while I think AMD would have had to lower prices even more if Intel had an Alder Lake chip with more than 8 P cores, it would not have been as bad as Conroe did to K8.

Though its moot as Intel does not have more than 8 P cores. So even though AD dropped CPU prices, except for the flagship Intel Core i9 12900K being more expensive than RYzen 5950X, the 12700K is less than 5900X, 12600K is less than 5800X but more than 5600X. Well both 5600X and 12600K have only 6 strong cores, but 5600X has no more and cores are cores and 12600 has 4 crappy cores, but they are still cores thus the additional expense. But 12600K cheaper than 5800X because 4800X has 2 more strong cores even though less overall as 4 of the 12600K are weak Atom cores.

So really AMD knows they have a market that's why they did not have to lower CPU prices below Alder Lake mostly even though the had to lower them because they know they have more than 8 strong cores and their motherboards are less expensive as well.

With Zen 4, they will have it all and no gimmick e-core crap.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Well, AM4 socket lasted for 6 years, with many different cpu technologies/iterations (Zen, Zen+, Zen2, Zen 3 and Zen3 + 3D Cache).

As long as 7xxx series are better than Alder Lake, and can compete on pair with Raptor Lake, they will sell enough chips to move on the next Zen iteration.

AMD new the AM4 socket would not last forever, it was meant to be replaced eventually.

But indeed Rocket Lake may be in a better position this time, but there aren't that many Alder Lake CPU in the wild that will move to Raptor Lake. Gamers may and probably will do in the future, but enterprises and business in general will remain with Alder Lake if they got a brand new PC. They never bother to change CPUs.

Did AM4 last for 6 years? The first Ryzen CPUs to come out were in February or March 2017 and that was only a little over 5 years ago?? And Zen 4 set for September so in reality AM4 lasted 5 years and 6-7 months which is still a plenty long enough time.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Then better get ready because AMD already said e-cores are coming. Also, the fact that you call the e-waste already shows me I'm right. I had no, not a single, issue ever with my 12700k in almost six months. Especially not in games, no comparibility mode, nothing, neither for me nor anyone else I know with hybrid CPUs and I know a few people. In the contrary, it's so much smoother and better than any other system I had before. If you can't configure your computer correctly, maybe fix that first before bashing the manufacturer.

Btw, gaming runs on the P-cores exclusively. Just saying.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkibZqCwcSU


More recent recent speculation that the little cores AMD is going to use will be for specific SKUs only like APUs and low power like mobile where those e-cores belong. High performance chips for Desktop, Epyc, and Threadripper will only feature Zen 5 cores.

And they are going to have highest SKU with 32 Zen 5 cores. That sounds outstanding and I am sure will be a monster super chip on consumer platform and will most likely cost over $1000 or even up to $2000. But such an awesome chip with high clock and such good IPC brings high end Threadripper to desktop as 32 cores is Threadripper only now.

Its hard to see how Intel is going to compete if they cannot up their P core count in the next couple of years.

 

[spentshells]

Whats the going rate for an article with no actual value beyond the previous swirl of rumors
Maybe I need to start my own tech website and hire a few of the more serious posters to write for it.

 

[TerryLaze]

Whats the going rate for an article with no actual value beyond the previous swirl of rumors
Maybe I need to start my own tech website and hire a few of the more serious posters to write for it.

Paying salaries with adds is hard. Especially since everybody uses add blockers...
So yeah every article has to produce a large amount of clicks and there have to be a lot of articles no matter if they are good or not as long as they generate traffic.
If you are rich and can support a website and salaries without any money incoming then yes, please do make your own site.

 

[spentshells]

Paying salaries with adds is hard. Especially since everybody uses add blockers...
So yeah every article has to produce a large amount of clicks and there have to be a lot of articles no matter if they are good or not as long as they generate traffic.
If you are rich and can support a website and salaries without any money incoming then yes, please do make your own site.

ive read all of them because that's who I am. This was only a joke, I think this is the same article with some added information as it has been for the month.

I read this stuff and love it

 

[kerberos_20]

Did AM4 last for 6 years? The first Ryzen CPUs to come out were in February or March 2017 and that was only a little over 5 years ago?? And Zen 4 set for September so in reality AM4 lasted 5 years and 6-7 months which is still a plenty long enough time.

it may not be the end of am4 yet, 5900x3d in the works and maybe 6000 serie (zen3+) if ddr5 prices doesnt come down, otherwise amd will be left with dead am4 or too pricey am5

 

[KyaraM]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkibZqCwcSU


More recent recent speculation that the little cores AMD is going to use will be for specific SKUs only like APUs and low power like mobile where those e-cores belong. High performance chips for Desktop, Epyc, and Threadripper will only feature Zen 5 cores.

And they are going to have highest SKU with 32 Zen 5 cores. That sounds outstanding and I am sure will be a monster super chip on consumer platform and will most likely cost over $1000 or even up to $2000. But such an awesome chip with high clock and such good IPC brings high end Threadripper to desktop as 32 cores is Threadripper only now.

Its hard to see how Intel is going to compete if they cannot up their P core count in the next couple of years.

Lmao

Those aren't consumer chips. Who needs that in a home computer, especially for gaming where 8 cores are already more than you need? And who in their right mind pays that much for a CPU? It's actually pretty sad people get blinded by that. Intel doesn't need to do jack. Thanks for the laugh, though.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Lmao

Those aren't consumer chips. Who needs that in a home computer, especially for gaming where 8 cores are already more than you need? And who in their right mind pays that much for a CPU? It's actually pretty sad people get blinded by that. Intel doesn't need to do jack. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Uhm yeah they are really consumer chips for the enthusiast very high end. Are the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X not consumer chips cause they are available on AM4 and X570 instead of only being available on Zen 3 Threadripper?? They have more than 8 strong cores unlike Intel's latest offerings now and in the near future with Raptor Lake unless Intel surprises us. In fact it would be a good idea for Intel to surprise as they would take many customers from AMD if they release a 10-12 core Golden Cove or Raptor Cove CPU that would get many buyers who hate those e-cores and want 10-12 P cores.

Will Zen 4 12 core 7900X and 16 core 7950X not be considered consumer chips either. They are going to be available on AM5 platform not just Zen 4 Threadripper.

And I doubt many will be paying for a 32 core chip. But they will have 12 and 16 core variants of strong cores with insane IPC and that will be what lots of enthusiasts will pay for. And it is worth paying for to have more than 8 good cores. Lots of enthusiasts who play very high end games will pay for it and it is with it to not have e-waste cores and instead more real cores of same type for an SMP world we live in!!

And who would pay over $500 for a 16 core Intel 12900K when in reality it is a super good 8 core chip with lots of cash as the other 8 cores are e-waste cores. You can instead pay a little over $500 for 5950X which has all 16 strong cores even if the first 8 are slightly weaker. The 2nd set of 8 obliterate

AMD is advancing its just facts. What make you think they will not have 32 cores on mainstream platform with Zen 5? Even if they do not, what makes you think they will lock us into 8 P cores with a bunch of e-waste cores as only choice?? I bet you any money they never do that in the next 5 years. Where Intel stays at 8 P core and keeps putting more and more e-waste cores on CPUs with Meteor Lake than Lunar Lake etc...

I bet Intel changes that strategy once their new process node is built and if it is a success. They know or will figure out offering only e cores above 8 P cores is a losing move that will piss off enthusiasts.

Intl only has 8 good cores on mainstream platform. Heck they do not even have an HEDT with ore than 8 good cores with current architecture. In fact they do not have HEDT at all. They need not get HEDT out for modern stuff or at lest up the core count above 8.

Stop with the whole 8 is more than enough for gaming. It is for now. In fact I got my first 8 core chip in late 2018 even though it was overkill. I want 10-12 strong cores with great IPC and clocks near 5GHz or higher with SMT/HT off. That's all I ask for. Zen 4 here I come unless Intel releases a 10-12 core SKU of Golden Cove or Raptor Cove. Even though IPC will be the close to the same as Zen 4, I kind of prefer Intel if they offer what I want. But nope they are not so all AMD for me and AMD has good products that are close unlike the disaster Bulldozer days or even the far less beatdown Phenom Athlon X2 days compared to Conroe and Wolfdale.

Its overkill in a good way to have extra headroom without those e-waste gimmick cores which do not do anything and make games worse taking the ring clock down with it

 

[KyaraM]

Uhm yeah they are really consumer chips for the enthusiast very high end. Are the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X not consumer chips cause they are available on AM4 and X570 instead of only being available on Zen 3 Threadripper?? They have more than 8 strong cores unlike Intel's latest offerings now and in the near future with Raptor Lake unless Intel surprises us. In fact it would be a good idea for Intel to surprise as they would take many customers from AMD if they release a 10-12 core Golden Cove or Raptor Cove CPU that would get many buyers who hate those e-cores and want 10-12 P cores.

Are the 5900X and 5950X CPUs with 32 threads and costs of over 1000-2000$? No? There is your answer, then. But I don't consider the 5950X a gaming chip or in any way necessary for normal home users, no. Not by a very long shot. And why should Intel care about what you, or some ignorant fool on the internet in general, thinks? They prove the concept works, and as always, AMD is going to jump in as soon as Intel dis the ground work. Then claiming they did something great and new, as always. No matter if you choose to ignore it or not.

Will Zen 4 12 core 7900X and 16 core 7950X not be considered consumer chips either. They are going to be available on AM5 platform not just Zen 4 Threadripper.

No, maybe not. Doesn't make the additional 4 or 8 cores any more necessary for gaming, as the 12700K and 12900K very clearly show you. Those chips are more for strong work computers that don't yet need the threads a Threadripper offers, but also want something else than a server CPU. Or in other words, they are workstation CPUs. Especially the 5950X/7950X, and the 12900K/12900KS.

And I doubt many will be paying for a 32 core chip. But they will have 12 and 16 core variants of strong cores with insane IPC and that will be what lots of enthusiasts will pay for. And it is worth paying for to have more than 8 good cores. Lots of enthusiasts who play very high end games will pay for it and it is with it to not have e-waste cores and instead more real cores of same type for an SMP world we live in!!

SMP = symmetric multiprocessing? Where do you even need that as a home user? Nonsense. No game needs more than 8 cores. That's a truth and I'm not even discussing this with you further because that's sumply how it is, even if you stand on your head and dance a Samba.

And who would pay over $500 for a 16 core Intel 12900K when in reality it is a super good 8 core chip with lots of cash as the other 8 cores are e-waste cores. You can instead pay a little over $500 for 5950X which has all 16 strong cores even if the first 8 are slightly weaker. The 2nd set of 8 obliterate

Last time I checked, more than enough people did because it simply is a good CPU that is actually as good or better than your beloved 5950X, as literally every single gaming and application review shows. And where are those cores slaying?

Intel Core i9-12900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: Which High-End CPU Is Tops in 2021?

Two chips enter, one chip leaves: It's the heavyweight desktop-CPU duel of the holiday season as Intel's and AMD's mega-core processing monsters go head-to-head. Which one prevails?

www.pcmag.com

.

https://www.tomshardware.com/review...-i5-12600k-review-retaking-the-gaming-crown/6

https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-list/cinebench-scores

https://www.pcworld.com/article/548999/12th-gen-core-i9-12900k-review-intel-is-back.html

And the list goes on. If anything, AMD needs to be ashamed of themselves considering they are the ones getting kicked around by some "measly e-waste cores".

AMD is advancing its just facts. What make you think they will not have 32 cores on mainstream platform with Zen 5? Even if they do not, what makes you think they will lock us into 8 P cores with a bunch of e-waste cores as only choice?? I bet you any money they never do that in the next 5 years. Where Intel stays at 8 P core and keeps putting more and more e-waste cores on CPUs with Meteor Lake than Lunar Lake etc...

In contrast to you, I'm not making wild guesses about what they will and will not do. I do go by what people actually need, though, and it's a simple bloody fact that they don't need 32 cores. Btw, no matter what you believe, Intel is advancing, too, AMD is literally not the only driving force on the CPU market, thank goodness for that. Also, stop acting as if you are forced into getting a hybrid CPU already, ffs. There are exactly 5 hybrid CPUs in the desktop market today. If you cannot see their merit, if you cannot even read any tests about them that all show them work great, don't get them. Simple as that. You got a choice, make and stop the heck complaining about being "forced" to choose. Be happy you even can.

I bet Intel changes that strategy once their new process node is built and if it is a success. They know or will figure out offering only e cores above 8 P cores is a losing move that will piss off enthusiasts.

Again, why the frick should they even care? You are nothing in their book. That's literally why HEDT is dead. They don't care about you because they don't have too. Your wining is pure entitlement.

Intl only has 8 good cores on mainstream platform. Heck they do not even have an HEDT with ore than 8 good cores with current architecture. In fact they do not have HEDT at all. They need not get HEDT out for modern stuff or at lest up the core count above 8.

You sound like a broken record at this point. Saying it over and over doesn't make your nonsense less nonsensical. But at least the thing about them not needing HEDT finally got through.

Stop with the whole 8 is more than enough for gaming. It is for now. In fact I got my first 8 core chip in late 2018 even though it was overkill. I want 10-12 strong cores with great IPC and clocks near 5GHz or higher with SMT/HT off. That's all I ask for. Zen 4 here I come unless Intel releases a 10-12 core SKU of Golden Cove or Raptor Cove. Even though IPC will be the close to the same as Zen 4, I kind of prefer Intel if they offer what I want. But nope they are not so all AMD for me and AMD has good products that are close unlike the disaster Bulldozer days or even the far less beatdown Phenom Athlon X2 days compared to Conroe and Wolfdale.

What you want is effing irrelevant. You aren't the measure of pretty much anything here. Get over yourself. And yeah, go to AMD, but for the love of everything good, stop talking nonsense.

Its overkill in a good way to have extra headroom without those e-waste gimmick cores which do not do anything and make games worse taking the ring clock down with it

Again, fix your bloody system if you have issues with hybrids in gaming. They literally got rid of them months again, if you missed all of that, that's your fail, nobody else's.

 

[kerberos_20]

No game needs more than 8 cores. That's a truth and I'm not even discussing this with you further because that's sumply how it is, even if you stand on your head and dance a Samba.

well actually many gamers doesnt only game with their PCs, streaming, watching something else on web, even running gaming servers...casual player will be happy with 8cores sure
and for example mmo players usualy have running multiple game clients

so the question isnt about if single game needs it, but if user needs it

 

[KyaraM]

well actually many gamers doesnt only game with their PCs, streaming, watching something else on web, even running gaming servers...casual player will be happy with 8cores sure
and for example mmo players usualy have running multiple game clients

so the question isnt about if single game needs it, but if user needs it

I'm an MMO player. I have exactly one client running and most people I know as well. Maybe I got two if I start a second game simultaneously. The 12700K has no issues with that. What game would even need several clients? I'm not a casual player, btw, I play literally every single day, and yes, I also stream, eun YouTube in the background, etc. I have yet to reach the limits of my CPU. Turns out 20 threads are more enough and the e-cores don't slow you down one bloody bit. And in case you missed it, I literally argued whit user needs the entire post.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm an MMO player. I have exactly one client running and most people I know as well. Maybe I got two if I start a second game simultaneously. The 12700K has no issues with that. What game would even need several clients? I'm not a casual player, btw, I play literally every single day, and yes, I also stream, eun YouTube in the background, etc. I have yet to reach the limits of my CPU. Turns out 20 threads are more enough and the e-cores don't slow you down one bloody bit. And in case you missed it, I literally argued whit user needs the entire post.

I know several people (about 15 to be more precise) that run about 7-10 instances of MMOs; some play GuildWars 2 and others play WoW, but they like having a lot of instances open to farm and do dailies, watch the trading post / auction house and just run around multi-boxing on multiple accounts.

The limiting factor there is not so much CPU, but RAM (and screen space xD), but after you go past 32GB the CPU becomes the main bottleneck. Some use VMs as well, which is really interesting (two use Quadro cards for the pass-trough; bonkers).

Thing is, I do agree 8 cores are just fine for the big majority of people, but most here are (or should be?) enthusiasts and may need more than 8c/16t systems. Me, for instance, I've been editing videos for a friend's wedding and the 5900X has come in handy. I was telling people in the Tom's Hardware Discord how well it works for encoding tasks and such. Not that an 8 core wouldn't, but it's a well balanced CPU for someone like me. So, I need more than 8 cores every now and then (like I said before), but I can still live with 8c or even 6c for 80% of the things I do. Watching YT videos and playing a game can be done just fine on 6c/12t CPUs. I mean, I play VR games with a 5600X and a 6900XT and I've never had issues with "multitasking", but never doing things I know will saturate the 6 cores. Even streaming has been working perfectly well. Anecdotal, but still relevant.

EDIT: On a funny side-note... When I got the 2700X, the 10900K was stupid expensive still and then the prices started to fall and the 10850K was at $350; that was a tough CPU to pass for me. I was salivating for it for a good while until the 5900X was pushed down to a similar price range thanks to the 5800X3D and I swapped into it. As I read somewhere: "victory comes for those who wait" xD

Regards.

 

[KyaraM]

I know several people (about 15 to be more precise) that run about 7-10 instances of MMOs; some play GuildWars 2 and others play WoW, but they like having a lot of instances open to farm and do dailies, watch the trading post / auction house and just run around multi-boxing on multiple accounts.

The limiting factor there is not so much CPU, but RAM (and screen space xD), but after you go past 32GB the CPU becomes the main bottleneck. Some use VMs as well, which is really interesting (two use Quadro cards for the pass-trough; bonkers).

Thing is, I do agree 8 cores are just fine for the big majority of people, but most here are (or should be?) enthusiasts and may need more than 8c/16t systems. Me, for instance, I've been editing videos for a friend's wedding and the 5900X has come in handy. I was telling people in the Tom's Hardware Discord how well it works for encoding tasks and such. Not that an 8 core wouldn't, but it's a well balanced CPU for someone like me. So, I need more than 8 cores every now and then (like I said before), but I can still live with 8c or even 6c for 80% of the things I do. Watching YT videos and playing a game can be done just fine on 6c/12t CPUs. I mean, I play VR games with a 5600X and a 6900XT and I've never had issues with "multitasking", but never doing things I know will saturate the 6 cores. Even streaming has been working perfectly well. Anecdotal, but still relevant.

EDIT: On a funny side-note... When I got the 2700X, the 10900K was stupid expensive still and then the prices started to fall and the 10850K was at $350; that was a tough CPU to pass for me. I was salivating for it for a good while until the 5900X was pushed down to a similar price range thanks to the 5800X3D and I swapped into it. As I read somewhere: "victory comes for those who wait" xD

Regards.

And you can do all that on a 12700k as well, and probably better, at least some of those tasks, with the rest being more or less equal between both... which, according to a certain someone, is only an 8-core CPU. Which, if it were true, would be kinda sad for AMD. Guess there is more to CPUs than just number of cores. Btw, GW2 mostly used 1 core for years. Only very recently did they implement DX11 and multi-core support, which helps a lot in places like Lion's Arch, but is not really the most important thing for the game. MMOs aren't generally the most demanding games anyways, and especially not GW2. None of the ones I play (GW2, FFXIV, SWTOR) fully loads even 3 threads, let alone 8.

 

[Wolverine2349]

And you can do all that on a 12700k as well, and probably better, at least some of those tasks, with the rest being more or less equal between both... which, according to a certain someone, is only an 8-core CPU. Which, if it were true, would be kinda sad for AMD. Guess there is more to CPUs than just number of cores. Btw, GW2 mostly used 1 core for years. Only very recently did they implement DX11 and multi-core support, which helps a lot in places like Lion's Arch, but is not really the most important thing for the game. MMOs aren't generally the most demanding games anyways, and especially not GW2. None of the ones I play (GW2, FFXIV, SWTOR) fully loads even 3 threads, let alone 8.

Those P cores are that good is why but you only get 8 and cannot have any option for anymore. The e-waste cores do nothing but cause trouble for anything but some select productivity work. They are so one sided and not well rounded. They do not even multi task well. Windows 11 would not even put low background loads on them. If they were for background tasks and so good for that and Windows 11 knew how to handle it properly, it would have put AV and HWInfo64 on them, yet it took resources for precious P cores instead. Where as with a Ryzen system, it used the extra cores keeping free cores for gaming.

Yeah games may not need more than 8 cores but there is a difference between need and want and experience. You technically do not need more than 16GB of RAM for gaming, but having 32GB is a smoother experience Likewise having more than 8 good cores is a smoother overall PC experience with gaming as well.

And oh yeah Intel has no care about enthusiasts and people like me. Well they miswell exit the enthusiast market and just make mobile chips. Like 80% of their revenue comes from mobile chips anyways.

But they actually do care. They came out with Core 2 Duo and even took it a step further with Core 2 Quad back in 2006 when AMD was spanking them with Athlon 64 X2. The Core 2 series just demolished AMD K8 far more than even 8 Golden Cove cores beat 8 core Zen 3 parts. And there were advertisement signs at computer shops everywhere about ore 2 Duo being best gaming processor before Quad was even released. It was a one of a kind and had 20-25% higher IP than K8 across the board in everything unlike Golden Cove. And it could clock to 3GHz easily while using less power than dual core K8 2.2 to 2.4GHz and even hit 3.4GHz using no more power. It was a marvel sample.

I wish Intel of today was the same and just offered a 10-12 core Golden Cove chip. Even then it would run very hot.

Instead they put those e-waste cores and shove them down our throat when they suck leaving us little.

Intel once did care about enthusiasts and gamers and giving good choices they released Core 2 Quad which was 4 excellent cores for the time in 2006-2007.

They do not see to care about us anymore unlike when they released the superior Conroe CPUs and gave us more good cores than even AMD did or could.

And oh yeah the patches and all is good with the gimmick hybrid arch. All those do is make games avoid the e-cores totally cause they are so bad for them. And they make many programs avoid them as well. Thats not good when you could have a couple more strong cores and work loads spread parallel across them to cores that are so much more well rounded.

Intel should be embarrassed and ashamed they cannot produce more than 8 good cores on a chip cause their heat and process node are so pathetic. With all the resources and capital they have, the fact that they could not come out with a Core 2 like answer to AMD when it has been 3 years since Zen 2 is pretty bad. It took less than 3 years for them to come up with Conroe when AMD was spanking them with K8 starting September 2003. AMD was even or a little ahead in IPC with Zen 2 and there core counts got higher and yet Intel could not come up with something better than heat producing 8 good core Alder Lake well over 2 years later. And still nothing better than adding more e-waste/tablet cores to future gens that still have insane power/heat consumption.

 

[PCWarrior]

Those P cores are that good is why but you only get 8 and cannot have any option for anymore. The e-waste cores do nothing but cause trouble for anything but some select productivity work. They are so one sided and not well rounded.

You surely talk and write a lot but apparently you listen and read very little. Single and light threaded workloads are handled entirely by the 8P-cores, which with hyperthreading offer 16 threads. 8P cores with all 16 threads loaded have about the same performance as 11 P-cores without hyperthreading – that is equivlant to 11C/11T cpu (think of the 9700K which was 8C/8T or the 9600K with was a 6C/6T).

Gaming belongs in the light-threaded category. Most games top out at 6 threads let alone 11 (which as said above is the number of equivalent physical threads a 8C/16T cpu offers). It is highly unlikely that games will ever use that many threads let alone significantly more than this. The first reason is that the things in a game that can be parallelised are already handled by the GPU with its inherently parallel architecture. The second is that the things that the CPU is tasked to handle cannot be further parallelised. Certainly not with the current computing paradigm and known algorithms. There are algorithmic constraints such as dependencies preventing further scaling. The increased performance you see for cpus with more cores (e.g. 10900K vs 10700K) doesn’t really come from the extra cores. It comes from the higher clockspeed and higher IPC. For different generations higher IPC comes from better microarchitecture and more cache but within the same generation it comes solely from the larger shared L3 cache. Even if a core is unutilised/underutilised its cache is useful. You may watch the following video to learn more about.
Gaming Benchmark: 4 Core vs. 6 Core vs. 8 Cores, Core/Cache Scaling - YouTube

As I said very few workloads need more than 11 threads. The workloads that do need more than 11 threads are pure (or nearly pure) multithreaded workloads (think of Cinebench and other tile-based rendering applications). For those types of workloads, it turns out that a cluster of 4 E-cores (which occupies the same area as 1 P-core) offers twice the multithreaded performance compared to 1 P-core for the same power envelope. In other words, Intel with Alderlake, with 8P+8E cores, is achieving the same multithreaded performance as a 12P+0E core cpu but only using the same die area as a 10P+0Ecore cpu. With the upcoming Raptorlake 8P+16E they will be achieving the same MT performance as a 14P+0E with the area of 12P+0E. This is what area efficiency means.

 

[Wolverine2349]

You surely talk and write a lot but apparently you listen and read very little. Single and light threaded workloads are handled entirely by the 8P-cores, which with hyperthreading offer 16 threads. 8P cores with all 16 threads loaded have about the same performance as 11 P-cores without hyperthreading – that is equivlant to 11C/11T cpu (think of the 9700K which was 8C/8T or the 9600K with was a 6C/6T).

Gaming belongs in the light-threaded category. Most games top out at 6 threads let alone 11 (which as said above is the number of equivalent physical threads a 8C/16T cpu offers). It is highly unlikely that games will ever use that many threads let alone significantly more than this. The first reason is that the things in a game that can be parallelised are already handled by the GPU with its inherently parallel architecture. The second is that the things that the CPU is tasked to handle cannot be further parallelised. Certainly not with the current computing paradigm and known algorithms. There are algorithmic constraints such as dependencies preventing further scaling. The increased performance you see for cpus with more cores (e.g. 10900K vs 10700K) doesn’t really come from the extra cores. It comes from the higher clockspeed and higher IPC. For different generations higher IPC comes from better microarchitecture and more cache but within the same generation it comes solely from the larger shared L3 cache. Even if a core is unutilised/underutilised its cache is useful. You may watch the following video to learn more about.
Gaming Benchmark: 4 Core vs. 6 Core vs. 8 Cores, Core/Cache Scaling - YouTube

As I said very few workloads need more than 11 threads. The workloads that do need more than 11 threads are pure (or nearly pure) multithreaded workloads (think of Cinebench and other tile-based rendering applications). For those types of workloads, it turns out that a cluster of 4 E-cores (which occupies the same area as 1 P-core) offers twice the multithreaded performance compared to 1 P-core for the same power envelope. In other words, Intel with Alderlake, with 8P+8E cores, is achieving the same multithreaded performance as a 12P+0E core cpu but only using the same die area as a 10P+0Ecore cpu. With the upcoming Raptorlake 8P+16E they will be achieving the same MT performance as a 14P+0E with the area of 12P+0E. This is what area efficiency means.

I do not like the hybrid arch period. Its not something for today. I like choice. I hate being locked to 8 at most cores. 16 is overkill, but I want more than 8. I like being a bit overkill but in a good way. 10-12 is perfect but Intel will not offer it not even HEDT with it. Well maybe coming, but was supposed to be out by now but delayed and delayed and delayed yet again.

And who cares about die space efficiency in a desktop. Its about raw performance, Having 10+0 is much better in a desktop. I have wasted money going back and forth and deciding if 8 cores is enough or not and it is not for me to have headroom on what I do and feel good between part swapping and selling and such. If Alder Lake had 10 P cores, would have gotten that clocked to 5GHz on air with ST/HT off and called it a day. But they do not sadly. And I hate that.

Maybe sometime long long in the future a bunch of e-cores and hybrid arch will be the way, but the time is not now, certainly not forcing us to be stuck t 8 P cores when intel had 10 P cores on Comet Lake. Even Rocket Lake had only 8 good cores and it actually had no e cores. I wonder if they just cannot get their power/heat consumption under control is the reason???

And 11 threads needs more than 8 cores especially if you want dedicated cores for each with SMT/HT off which will give great performance rather than HT which gives a thread at most 50% of a CPU core as it has to share it which can create problems.

And Buildzoid who is well respected and knows his stuff and is the go to for things calls the e-cores the error-cores and hates them and wishes Intel had a more P core Golden Cove CPU and loves those cores. So its not just me. Lots do not like the e-cores and being stuck at 8 P-cores.

 

[spentshells]

I do not like the hybrid arch period. Its not something for today. I like choice. I hate being locked to 8 at most cores. 16 is overkill, but I want more than 8. I like being a bit overkill but in a good way. 10-12 is perfect but Intel will not offer it not even HEDT with it. Well maybe coming, but was supposed to be out by now but delayed and delayed and delayed yet again.

And who cares about die space efficiency in a desktop. Its about raw performance, Having 10+0 is much better in a desktop. I have wasted money going back and forth and deciding if 8 cores is enough or not and it is not for me to have headroom on what I do and feel good between part swapping and selling and such. If Alder Lake had 10 P cores, would have gotten that clocked to 5GHz on air with ST/HT off and called it a day. But they do not sadly. And I hate that.

Maybe sometime long long in the future a bunch of e-cores and hybrid arch will be the way, but the time is not now, certainly not forcing us to be stuck t 8 P cores when intel had 10 P cores on Comet Lake. Even Rocket Lake had only 8 good cores and it actually had no e cores. I wonder if they just cannot get their power/heat consumption under control is the reason???

And 11 threads needs more than 8 cores especially if you want dedicated cores for each with SMT/HT off which will give great performance rather than HT which gives a thread at most 50% of a CPU core as it has to share it which can create problems.

And Buildzoid who is well respected and knows his stuff and is the go to for things calls the e-cores the error-cores and hates them and wishes Intel had a more P core Golden Cove CPU and loves those cores. So its not just me. Lots do not like the e-cores and being stuck at 8 P-cores.

I've enjoyed reading this discussion

 

[KyaraM]

Those P cores are that good is why but you only get 8 and cannot have any option for anymore. The e-waste cores do nothing but cause trouble for anything but some select productivity work. They are so one sided and not well rounded. They do not even multi task well. Windows 11 would not even put low background loads on them. If they were for background tasks and so good for that and Windows 11 knew how to handle it properly, it would have put AV and HWInfo64 on them, yet it took resources for precious P cores instead. Where as with a Ryzen system, it used the extra cores keeping free cores for gaming.

Yeah games may not need more than 8 cores but there is a difference between need and want and experience. You technically do not need more than 16GB of RAM for gaming, but having 32GB is a smoother experience Likewise having more than 8 good cores is a smoother overall PC experience with gaming as well.

And oh yeah Intel has no care about enthusiasts and people like me. Well they miswell exit the enthusiast market and just make mobile chips. Like 80% of their revenue comes from mobile chips anyways.

But they actually do care. They came out with Core 2 Duo and even took it a step further with Core 2 Quad back in 2006 when AMD was spanking them with Athlon 64 X2. The Core 2 series just demolished AMD K8 far more than even 8 Golden Cove cores beat 8 core Zen 3 parts. And there were advertisement signs at computer shops everywhere about ore 2 Duo being best gaming processor before Quad was even released. It was a one of a kind and had 20-25% higher IP than K8 across the board in everything unlike Golden Cove. And it could clock to 3GHz easily while using less power than dual core K8 2.2 to 2.4GHz and even hit 3.4GHz using no more power. It was a marvel sample.

I wish Intel of today was the same and just offered a 10-12 core Golden Cove chip. Even then it would run very hot.

Instead they put those e-waste cores and shove them down our throat when they suck leaving us little.

Intel once did care about enthusiasts and gamers and giving good choices they released Core 2 Quad which was 4 excellent cores for the time in 2006-2007.

They do not see to care about us anymore unlike when they released the superior Conroe CPUs and gave us more good cores than even AMD did or could.

And oh yeah the patches and all is good with the gimmick hybrid arch. All those do is make games avoid the e-cores totally cause they are so bad for them. And they make many programs avoid them as well. Thats not good when you could have a couple more strong cores and work loads spread parallel across them to cores that are so much more well rounded.

Intel should be embarrassed and ashamed they cannot produce more than 8 good cores on a chip cause their heat and process node are so pathetic. With all the resources and capital they have, the fact that they could not come out with a Core 2 like answer to AMD when it has been 3 years since Zen 2 is pretty bad. It took less than 3 years for them to come up with Conroe when AMD was spanking them with K8 starting September 2003. AMD was even or a little ahead in IPC with Zen 2 and there core counts got higher and yet Intel could not come up with something better than heat producing 8 good core Alder Lake well over 2 years later. And still nothing better than adding more e-waste/tablet cores to future gens that still have insane power/heat consumption.

If those p-cores are that good, then I guess that only proves that they are sufficient. Also, considering that my e-cores are running at 30-40% during gaming and only at around 5% when not gaming, that kinda disproves your claim that they aren't used. And before you jabber about the CPU misdirecting my games to them, the p-cores, mosty two and their threads, are used to around 70% on average. That makes 4 threads, about what most games use heavily; other cores sit in low percentages on average but get a spike from time to time. Btw, e-cores were never meant for gaming. Only thing that goes over the p-cores during gaming that is not gaming is a short spike when I open a new program; after it is opened, the e-core load slightly increases and the p-cores go back to taking care of the game alone. That is an actual observation of rl behavior, not your proofless claims. Why the hell should the thread director ever load the e-cores with games if there is no need anyways? That makes 0 sense. Also, at one hand you say the p-cores are great, but at the other hand Intel should be ashamed because... they don't cater to a fringe case like you? Aren't you overestimating your own importance a little bit here?

You surely talk and write a lot but apparently you listen and read very little. Single and light threaded workloads are handled entirely by the 8P-cores, which with hyperthreading offer 16 threads. 8P cores with all 16 threads loaded have about the same performance as 11 P-cores without hyperthreading – that is equivlant to 11C/11T cpu (think of the 9700K which was 8C/8T or the 9600K with was a 6C/6T).

Gaming belongs in the light-threaded category. Most games top out at 6 threads let alone 11 (which as said above is the number of equivalent physical threads a 8C/16T cpu offers). It is highly unlikely that games will ever use that many threads let alone significantly more than this. The first reason is that the things in a game that can be parallelised are already handled by the GPU with its inherently parallel architecture. The second is that the things that the CPU is tasked to handle cannot be further parallelised. Certainly not with the current computing paradigm and known algorithms. There are algorithmic constraints such as dependencies preventing further scaling. The increased performance you see for cpus with more cores (e.g. 10900K vs 10700K) doesn’t really come from the extra cores. It comes from the higher clockspeed and higher IPC. For different generations higher IPC comes from better microarchitecture and more cache but within the same generation it comes solely from the larger shared L3 cache. Even if a core is unutilised/underutilised its cache is useful. You may watch the following video to learn more about.
Gaming Benchmark: 4 Core vs. 6 Core vs. 8 Cores, Core/Cache Scaling - YouTube

As I said very few workloads need more than 11 threads. The workloads that do need more than 11 threads are pure (or nearly pure) multithreaded workloads (think of Cinebench and other tile-based rendering applications). For those types of workloads, it turns out that a cluster of 4 E-cores (which occupies the same area as 1 P-core) offers twice the multithreaded performance compared to 1 P-core for the same power envelope. In other words, Intel with Alderlake, with 8P+8E cores, is achieving the same multithreaded performance as a 12P+0E core cpu but only using the same die area as a 10P+0Ecore cpu. With the upcoming Raptorlake 8P+16E they will be achieving the same MT performance as a 14P+0E with the area of 12P+0E. This is what area efficiency means.

Thank you for the very good explanation and the video. Will watch it later in my break, though I think I already know what it says. Good to see others who actually read into the matter instead of just sputtering what they think how it works, though.

I do not like the hybrid arch period. Its not something for today. I like choice. I hate being locked to 8 at most cores. 16 is overkill, but I want more than 8. I like being a bit overkill but in a good way. 10-12 is perfect but Intel will not offer it not even HEDT with it. Well maybe coming, but was supposed to be out by now but delayed and delayed and delayed yet again.

And who cares about die space efficiency in a desktop. Its about raw performance, Having 10+0 is much better in a desktop. I have wasted money going back and forth and deciding if 8 cores is enough or not and it is not for me to have headroom on what I do and feel good between part swapping and selling and such. If Alder Lake had 10 P cores, would have gotten that clocked to 5GHz on air with ST/HT off and called it a day. But they do not sadly. And I hate that.

Maybe sometime long long in the future a bunch of e-cores and hybrid arch will be the way, but the time is not now, certainly not forcing us to be stuck t 8 P cores when intel had 10 P cores on Comet Lake. Even Rocket Lake had only 8 good cores and it actually had no e cores. I wonder if they just cannot get their power/heat consumption under control is the reason???

And 11 threads needs more than 8 cores especially if you want dedicated cores for each with SMT/HT off which will give great performance rather than HT which gives a thread at most 50% of a CPU core as it has to share it which can create problems.

And Buildzoid who is well respected and knows his stuff and is the go to for things calls the e-cores the error-cores and hates them and wishes Intel had a more P core Golden Cove CPU and loves those cores. So its not just me. Lots do not like the e-cores and being stuck at 8 P-cores.

Again, what you like or don't like is literally of exactly zero consequence and importance for anyone and anything except you, and you alone. About die space efficiency, looking at that abomination Apple produces, I think we should all be glad they are caring for it. I can imagine there being problems when chips get too big, too, for example, cooling and space limitations on the mainboard. But why do I even still tey...

Also, man, do you know how you sound? "I want, I want, but I want!" Like a spoilt brat...
Once again, nobody cares about what you want. Least of all Intel, and neither do they have to; they don't need you. Btw, just because a single random idiot on the web says the same thing as you still doesn't make your... opinion, I guess, any more correct. Especially not in the light of tons and tons of other people with good experiences and reviews. Maybe you should start going by different sources instead of one. Oh and fix your bloody syatem.

I've enjoyed reading this discussion

I feel discussion is giving it too much credit, honestly...

 

[Wolverine2349]

If those p-cores are that good, then I guess that only proves that they are sufficient. Also, considering that my e-cores are running at 30-40% during gaming and only at around 5% when not gaming, that kinda disproves your claim that they aren't used. And before you jabber about the CPU misdirecting my games to them, the p-cores, mosty two and their threads, are used to around 70% on average. That makes 4 threads, about what most games use heavily; other cores sit in low percentages on average but get a spike from time to time. Btw, e-cores were never meant for gaming. Only thing that goes over the p-cores during gaming that is not gaming is a short spike when I open a new program; after it is opened, the e-core load slightly increases and the p-cores go back to taking care of the game alone. That is an actual observation of rl behavior, not your proofless claims. Why the hell should the thread director ever load the e-cores with games if there is no need anyways? That makes 0 sense. Also, at one hand you say the p-cores are great, but at the other hand Intel should be ashamed because... they don't cater to a fringe case like you? Aren't you overestimating your own importance a little bit here?


Thank you for the very good explanation and the video. Will watch it later in my break, though I think I already know what it says. Good to see others who actually read into the matter instead of just sputtering what they think how it works, though.


Again, what you like or don't like is literally of exactly zero consequence and importance for anyone and anything except you, and you alone. About die space efficiency, looking at that abomination Apple produces, I think we should all be glad they are caring for it. I can imagine there being problems when chips get too big, too, for example, cooling and space limitations on the mainboard. But why do I even still tey...

Also, man, do you know how you sound? "I want, I want, but I want!" Like a spoilt brat...
Once again, nobody cares about what you want. Least of all Intel, and neither do they have to; they don't need you. Btw, just because a single random idiot on the web says the same thing as you still doesn't make your... opinion, I guess, any more correct. Especially not in the light of tons and tons of other people with good experiences and reviews. Maybe you should start going by different sources instead of one. Oh and fix your bloody syatem.


I feel discussion is giving it too much credit, honestly...

Buildzoid is some random idiot LMAO!! He knows what he is talking about and is one one of the most well respected geeks out there. He gives you everything you need about motherboards and video card PCBs and RAM timings. And he hates the e-cores which drag the ring clock to hell!! He knows his stuff.

 

[KyaraM]

Buildzoid is some random idiot LMAO!! He knows what he is talking about and is one one of the most well respected geeks out there. He gives you everything you need about motherboards and video card PCBs and RAM timings. And he hates the e-cores which drag the ring clock to hell!! He knows his stuff.

And other "respected geeks" have no issues with the e-cores. So yeah, a single guy doesn't amount it to much, sorry, not sorry. Again, I tested this CPU with everything on for 6 months now. That'songer than you, that's longer than your beloved Buildzoid. Sorry, I place more value into my own experience and the experience of those I know, plus essentially any other reviewer out there. Oh, also, I have yet to see a test showing that disabling the e-cores gives a tremenduous advantage. It's small at worst, nonexistent at best. So I call bulls on that, too.