Cougar Terminator gaming chair review
G.Skill TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 7200 CL34 2x16 GB review
ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
Raptor Lake would outperform Alder Lake by up to 15% in single-core and 40% in multi-core.
AMD will release its first Zen 4 processors in the second part of the year, while Intel, according to recent speculations, will not stand idle: Raptor Lake would outperform Alder Lake by up to 15% in single-core performance and up to 40% in multi-core performance, making it a formidable competitor for the next AMD.
Raptor Lake would improve between 8% and 15% in single-core due to architectural improvements, and between 30% and 40% in multi-core due to the combination of these architectural improvements and the addition of extra cores, which is a significant generational increase. It is also expected to come in the third quarter of the year, so it will not take as long as the Zen 4 to hit the market.
Remember that Intel confirmed a few days ago that Raptor Lake will have up to 24 cores and 32 threads compared to 16 cores and 24 threads in Alder Lake, so these figures make a lot of sense when you consider the improvements per core that you mentioned in the previous Intel, as well as the addition of up to 8 additional high-efficiency cores. The Zen 4 will have the same number of cores as the Zen 3, but it will have a much-improved architecture and a larger TDP to allow speeds beyond 5GHz, so the battle between the two firms in the second part of the year will be more than exciting.
Rumor: Massive Cache Size Increase for Intel Raptor Lake Processors - 01/17/2022 09:56 AM
Intel's Raptor Lake-S desktop processor would contain up to 68 MB of "total cache" (L2 and L3 cache). In consonance with what AMD is doing with the pending Ryzen 7 5800X3D and 3D Ver...
Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake Engineering Sample Spotted? - 01/10/2022 10:46 AM
The first details concerning an engineering sample from Intel's next Raptor Lake generation were leaked. According to this, the processor has 32 threads and runs at a low clock speed of only 1.8 GHz,...
Spotted: 24 cores and 32 threads, Intel plans Raptor Lake designs with more E-cores this time. - 12/06/2021 10:30 AM
The BAPCo database has revealed an early version of Intel's Raptor Lake CPU. According to the test results, the processor has 24 cores and 32 threads...
Alleged lineup of Intel Raptor Lake CPUs appears - upto 24 cores / turbo boost 5.5 GHz - 08/19/2021 07:34 AM
According to reports, Intel's future Raptor Lake chips will have a diverse range of features. The processors can have up to 24 cores and 32 threads. The announcement of Raptor Lake is planned to take...
13th generation Intel Core (Raptor Lake-S) would get up to 24 cores - 06/11/2021 07:37 AM
The 13th generation Intel Core processors (Raptor Lake-S ), successors to the Alder Lake-S series, could be offered in configurations of up to 24 cores and 32 threads. That's in a BIG.little configur...
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11621
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11621
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5995691 Posted on: 02/23/2022 09:34 PM
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.
Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly never used in games, because the Power cores are faster and there are mostly enough of them for games.
Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly not used if a workload is not able to fill up more then the P cores.
That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.Background tasks are mostly not enough to fill up more then a couple of E cores, so the extra ones may not get any work anyway.
E cores aren't only relegated to background tasks...
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be, just worse because of the limitations on work send to E-cores.
5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games..
Moot point.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.If the 13900k still has the less overclocking headroom on the ringbus when E cores are active, some would just disable them first thing anyway = 0% improvement.
Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement?
Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements..
There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.
How many more FPS does your 12900K and 3090 get you compared to a 12600K and a 3080, and how many of those FPS can you honestly differentiate in a blind test? Not only is the performance-per-watt horribly disproportionate, but the performance-per- is too.
I'm not sure why you think P per Watt is horribly disproportionate, check any TPU review of 12900K or 3090 and the P per Watt is very close.
If you OC any of these, sure there is worse scaling but at stock speeds and stock TDP limits in place, the hardware with more cores is just as energy efficient when taking total performance into account.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.
Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly never used in games, because the Power cores are faster and there are mostly enough of them for games.
Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly not used if a workload is not able to fill up more then the P cores.
That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.Background tasks are mostly not enough to fill up more then a couple of E cores, so the extra ones may not get any work anyway.
E cores aren't only relegated to background tasks...
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be, just worse because of the limitations on work send to E-cores.
5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games..
Moot point.
The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.If the 13900k still has the less overclocking headroom on the ringbus when E cores are active, some would just disable them first thing anyway = 0% improvement.
Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement?
Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements..
There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.
How many more FPS does your 12900K and 3090 get you compared to a 12600K and a 3080, and how many of those FPS can you honestly differentiate in a blind test? Not only is the performance-per-watt horribly disproportionate, but the performance-per-
I'm not sure why you think P per Watt is horribly disproportionate, check any TPU review of 12900K or 3090 and the P per Watt is very close.
If you OC any of these, sure there is worse scaling but at stock speeds and stock TDP limits in place, the hardware with more cores is just as energy efficient when taking total performance into account.
cucaulay malkin
Senior Member
Posts: 7440
Joined: 2020-08-03
Senior Member
Posts: 7440
Joined: 2020-08-03
#5995694 Posted on: 02/23/2022 09:45 PM
It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be
the difference between 5950 and 5800 is neither a good point for justifying e-cores nor more p-cores.
once you have an 8-core,the most important performance uplifts will then come from more advanced nodes and architectures,not more p-cores or e-cores.
then memory + memory controllers and cache sizes
then core count
It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be
the difference between 5950 and 5800 is neither a good point for justifying e-cores nor more p-cores.
once you have an 8-core,the most important performance uplifts will then come from more advanced nodes and architectures,not more p-cores or e-cores.
then memory + memory controllers and cache sizes
then core count
Airbud
Senior Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: 2020-12-04
Senior Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: 2020-12-04
#5995701 Posted on: 02/23/2022 10:15 PM
Why?
My electric bill has risen by close to 100% in the last two years.
Why?
TLD LARS
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2017-03-01
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2017-03-01
#5995706 Posted on: 02/23/2022 10:33 PM
Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.
Intel was to aggressive with moving things to the E cores, leading to slower performance, they adjusted the E core usage down and performance went up.
Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.
Almost no games scale well past 8 cores, a 12600k is more then plenty for 1440p or 4k, so beyond 8P cores is actually irrelevant and above 6P cores is close to being irrelevant too.
That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.
That is the reason I am trying to say that 50% more E-cores are not going to give you 50% more E core performance.
5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games..
Moot point.
No it does not, I was trying to explain with the sentence (it is kind of like a). Past 8 cores many many programs and games, find the CPU has "enough cores" and therefore scale very badly with the extra cores, no matter if they are P or E.
Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement?
Disabling the E cores means 0% improvement to E core performance, even though there are 50% more of them.
The 10% extra P core performance will bring 10% more performance if thermals and power and efficiency allows it yes, but the disabled E cores still does nothing.
Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements..
There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.
Is this targeted at me? I chose a slow Ryzen 8 core when Intel had the faster 7700k 4 core alternative, so I feel like I am exactly the targeted marked for slow but high core count CPUes.
Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.
Intel was to aggressive with moving things to the E cores, leading to slower performance, they adjusted the E core usage down and performance went up.
Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.
Almost no games scale well past 8 cores, a 12600k is more then plenty for 1440p or 4k, so beyond 8P cores is actually irrelevant and above 6P cores is close to being irrelevant too.
That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.
That is the reason I am trying to say that 50% more E-cores are not going to give you 50% more E core performance.
5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games..
Moot point.
No it does not, I was trying to explain with the sentence (it is kind of like a). Past 8 cores many many programs and games, find the CPU has "enough cores" and therefore scale very badly with the extra cores, no matter if they are P or E.
Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement?
Disabling the E cores means 0% improvement to E core performance, even though there are 50% more of them.
The 10% extra P core performance will bring 10% more performance if thermals and power and efficiency allows it yes, but the disabled E cores still does nothing.
Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements..
There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.
Is this targeted at me? I chose a slow Ryzen 8 core when Intel had the faster 7700k 4 core alternative, so I feel like I am exactly the targeted marked for slow but high core count CPUes.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7440
Joined: 2020-08-03
that would be really nice,but it's mlid so it's completely wrong
aint that true