News Dual-core CPUs aren't dead yet — Intel Processor 310 rocking two P-cores debuts on Geekbench

[Admin]

Intel is still making dual-core desktop processors, with a new Geekbench listing revealing the Intel Processor 310, which boasts two P-cores and four threads.

Dual-core CPUs aren't dead yet — Intel Processor 310 rocking two P-cores debuts on Geekbench : Read more

 

[btmedic04]

The ip310 and i3 13100 do not have the same core count.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-12m-cache-up-to-4-50-ghz/specifications.html

Please stop misleading consumers with posting incorrect information. A quick Google search prior to publishing this would have caught this error

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

Intel N50	Intel N97	Core i3-N305

In Geekbench, the chip's performance reflects this, boasting very good single-core performance compared to other Intel Processor variants, such as the N200 series. Multi-core performance is also quite decent, thanks to its use of HyperThreading technology. It enables the chip to approach the multi-threading power of a Core i3-N305, which comes with eight Gracemount efficiency cores.

I wouldn't be comparing these N parts with this new consumer entry though. Those are ALDER LAKE-N embedded chips. They target a different market by the way.

The closest Raptor Lake processor to the Intel Processor 310 is the Core i3-13100 series, which features the exact same core count but much higher frequencies.

Same core count ? That's a quad core Raptor Lake chip.

 

[JamesJones44]

The ip310 and i3 13100 do not have the same core count.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-12m-cache-up-to-4-50-ghz/specifications.html

Please stop misleading consumers with posting incorrect information. A quick Google search prior to publishing this would have caught this error

Came to make a similar commit, the Core i3-13100 is a 4 (P) core processor, but the chart says 2 P which is incorrect.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

The 310 is unique in that it is only one of two Intel Processor models (so far) sporting no efficiency cores and classified as a Raptor Lake CPU

Just to be clear, the previously released Intel Processor 300/300T and this new 310 part belong to the Raptor Lake "refresh" family instead.

These were released with the refresh 14th generation parts.

 

[Peksha]

Core i3-13100 is a renamed Alder lake uArch = 1.25MB L2. Not a Raptor lake

 

[thestryker]

Just to be clear, the previously released Intel Processor 300/300T and this new 310 part belong to the Raptor Lake "refresh" family instead.

These were released with the refresh 14th generation parts.

The Geekbench entry shows 1.25MB L2 which means it's most likely just another ADL H0 die CPU like the 300/300T are. It really annoys me that Intel moved stuff over to RPL/RPL-R codename while using the ADL H0 and C0 die.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Apologies guys, I am the writer of this article, and we're already underway fixing the Core i3 dual core mistake.

 

[TechyInAZ]

The Geekbench entry shows 1.25MB L2 which means it's most likely just another ADL H0 die CPU like the 300/300T are. It really annoys me that Intel moved stuff over to RPL/RPL-R codename while using the ADL H0 and C0 die.

Yeah, that's why Intel's nomenclature gets really confusing. There's a lot of "Raptor Lake" entry-level to mid-range dies that are actually rebranded Alder Lake dies with Golden Cove cores.

I was hoping the Intel Processor 310 would have Raptor Cove cores, but oh well. At least it won't suffer from Raptor Lake instability 😛

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

The Geekbench entry shows 1.25MB L2 which means it's most likely just another ADL H0 die CPU like the 300/300T are.

It shows 1.25x2 . Which means a total of 2.5 MB L2 cache.

Intel Processor 300 also sports 2.5MB L2 cache.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...0-6m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz/specifications.html

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

I was hoping the Intel Processor 310 would have Raptor Cove cores, but oh well.

Don't worry, it is indeed a Raptor Lake chip. Not alder lake. So we can all "swim" easily now, in the lake, that is ! 😆

 

[TechyInAZ]

Don't worry, it is indeed a Raptor Lake chip. Not alder lake. So we can all "swim" easily now, in the lake, that is ! 😆

Ok that's pretty cool actually. I might go ahead and make a quick edit to reflect that. The main reason I didn't go into more detail about if its a RPR or ADL die is because the 310 is not on the Intel Ark website yet.

But the cache thing is quite obvious.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Actually thestryker is correct about the L2 cache thing. Raptor Lake went from 1.25MB to 2MB per P-core for the L2 cache. If the 310 was actually Raptor Lake silicon, it would have 4MB of L2 cache, not 2.5MB.

 

[thestryker]

It shows 1.25x2 . Which means a total of 2.5 MB L2 cache.

But we all know this is not an ADL chip. Intel Processor 300 also sports 2.5MB L2 cache.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...0-6m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz/specifications.html

Yes ADL is 1.25MB/core and RPL is 2MB/core it's 100% Golden Cove not Raptor Cove.

If you click that link and go to "Ordering & Compliance" you'll see the stepping listed which is H0 which is the ADL die that doesn't have E-cores.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

Yes ADL is 1.25MB/core and RPL is 2MB/core it's 100% Golden Cove not Raptor Cove.

If you click that link and go to "Ordering & Compliance" you'll see the stepping listed which is H0 which is the ADL die that doesn't have E-cores.

Never mind. Some confusion from my side. I misread your previous quote in a hurry. Brain fart more like.

Yes, it uses the H0 ADL die. I thought you were mentioning that these are not Raptor Lake "branded" chips, which obviously they are.

Yes, an odd move by Intel to use an Alder Lake die and brand them as some other gen of processor. But they do this to reuse some of the leftover dies, or whatever other reason might be, but to the consumer it doesn't matter what's under the hood.

So we are looking at an ADL chip disguised as a Raptor Lake retail processor.

 

[Amdlova]

100mhz of power it's a new core

 

[bit_user]

I wouldn't be comparing these N parts with this new consumer entry though. Those are ALDER LAKE-N embedded chips. They target a different market by the way.

The Alder Lake-N SoCs are primarily aimed at chromebooks and entry-level mini PCs. They do target embedded as a secondary market, however.

That said, I fully agree that it was rather weird for the author to go there. However, I don't mind seeing the comparison, but I don't view them as playing in quite the same markets, with this model being socketed.

 

[bit_user]

Yeah, that's why Intel's nomenclature gets really confusing. There's a lot of "Raptor Lake" entry-level to mid-range dies that are actually rebranded Alder Lake dies with Golden Cove cores.

I'll show you a trick to figure out which die a given CPU model is using. @thestryker already mentioned this, but just to break it down for anyone who might not follow...

Visit the ark.intel.com and look up the entry for the model in question. In this case, the entry for the 310 has yet to go live, but here's the one for the 300:

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...el-processor-300-6m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz.html
​

Now, on the left side of screen, you'll see a link for Ordering and Compliance. Click it and it will show you the steppings available in each packaging option. In case you didn't know, here's how the steppings map to the physical dies:

Codename	Stepping	P-cores (incl. disabled)​	E-cores (incl. disabled)​
Alder Lake	C0	8​	8​
Alder Lake	H0	6​	0​
Raptor Lake	B0	8​	16​

So, when you see the stepping is H0, you know that it's really made from an Alder Lake die, with Golden Cove P-cores (as opposed to Raptor Cove).

 

[bit_user]

Yes, an odd move by Intel to use an Alder Lake die and brand them as some other gen of processor. But they do this to reuse some of the leftover dies, or whatever other reason might be, but to the consumer it doesn't matter what's under the hood.

What's weird is that the codenames are theoretically supposed to be internal names. They already have product model numbers, for the public, where they claim stuff is Gen 13 or Gen 14, regardless of the actual silicon. By rebranding their internal names, it's basically an admission that their codenames are now effectively product names. So, I guess they've got to come up with yet another set of names so they don't confuse themselves, internally!

So we are looking at an ADL chip disguised as a Raptor Lake retail processor.

What's really nuts is that some of their models, like the i5-13400, have versions using either Alder Lake C0 or Raptor Lake B0 dies! The only way to know which one you have is by the Spec Code.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...e-up-to-4-60-ghz/ordering.html?wapkw=i5-13400
​

 

[thestryker]

What's weird is that the codenames are theoretically supposed to be internal names. They already have product model numbers, for the public, where they claim stuff is Gen 13 or Gen 14, regardless of the actual silicon. By rebranding their internal names, it's basically an admission that their codenames are now effectively product names. So, I guess they've got to come up with yet another set of names so they don't confuse themselves, internally!

This is exactly what I find confusing, especially if you look back to 8th Gen when there was Amber Lake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and Whiskey Lake. It seems really silly to not use different naming given that it's not customer facing as far as marketing is concerned.

 

[DS426]

This is just excessive product segmentation; there's truly no reason that any new x86 CPU's in 2024 should only be dual-core. I know there are very low-demand edge and industrial use cases, but this demonstrates that Intel is the same old Intel in that they're not willing to raise the bar at the bottom.

 

[bit_user]

This is just excessive product segmentation; there's truly no reason that any new x86 CPU's in 2024 should only be dual-core. I know there are very low-demand edge and industrial use cases, but this demonstrates that Intel is the same old Intel in that they're not willing to raise the bar at the bottom.

Why shouldn't they segment at the bottom, just like they do in the middle and upper-end markets? If they refused to offer a 2x P-core, they'd face a dilemma of whether to turn their back on people who either need a socketed CPU or want better single-thread performance than the Alder Lake N, but aren't willing to pay the price of an i3, or else they'd have to destroy their margins on the i3-14100 by slashing its price.

If you don't like the value proposition, don't buy it. It does feel like a waste to leave 2/3rds of the cores dark, when their yields are almost certainly good enough to do better, but I'm not about to second-guess their decision to release such a product.

 

[thestryker]

It does feel like a waste to leave 2/3rds of the cores dark, when their yields are almost certainly good enough to do better, but I'm not about to second-guess their decision to release such a product.

It's coming so late in the cycle that this might just be them holding onto enough bad silicon. I view it similarly to AMD releasing the 5700X3D and the new 5900 XT.