Hello,
I know we've had 8 performance cores since the 9th generation Intel CPUs. I was wondering why Intel still chose to add to i9-13900K 16 efficient cores rather than 8 (or 4) performance cores. Would it be overheat issues?
This might be not correct but I think 10, 12, or even 16 performance cores would look great!
I think there are a few reasons:
1) Cost, larger CPU dies are generally more expensive because they reduce the yield per wafer and the larger size increases the chance of a defect. This could be a defective core or a core that simply doesn't hit the desired clock speed for the CPU in question. The issue is made worse because Intel's newer manufacturing process hasn't matched the yields of previous generations. AMD builds it's CPU's from modular blocks for this reason because it helps make the best use of what they produce and reduce wastage.
It's much easier for Intel to produce a die with 8 P cores that hit high clock speeds than 16 P cores that do so. The efficiency cores are a fraction of the size of the P cores so it's a cost effective way of scaling the core counts.
2) Heat and power consumption are already high given the high clock speeds Intel is targeting and their manufacturing process is less efficient than TSMC's. The efficiency cores are an easier path to scaling core counts and keeping them competitive with AMD in multi-threaded performance and keeping power and heat at a manageable level.
3) Hybrid CPU's make sense for maximising performance, battery life and cost in mobile devices like laptop's which is their main market for consumers.