Undying:

For gaming fastest core wins. We know that and it will always be the case. Even If ryzen 5 8600x have 6/12 it will still beat any previous gen R7/R9's just like 7600x did unless ofc huge v-cache plays a role. Steve from GN did "what if" 7600x3d existed which is just 7900x3d with one ccd disabled and still just as fast. [spoiler][youtube=fCTPvUhYFv4][/spoiler]

I kind of agree for now but I disagree with "will always be the case" I think when both companies are putting e-cores in, when consoles inevitably have ecores, when CPU designs become even more heterogeneous, I don't think this statement will continue to ring true. I think at some point AMD has to make that transition and sooner is probably better than later when the competition is already doing so.

Reddoguk:

I call BS on this one. Why? because i'm 100% sure that Intel would of trade marked the hell out of it. I bet they have patents for everything they do.

Not everything because AMD and Intel have an extensive cross-license agreement for each other's stuff. They have fought several patent battles and finally decided to call a truce and make this agreement. It was several years ago now. If they didn't have it they would be in court forever fighting over patents. I wrote "not everything" because Intel uses a lot of stuff patented by AMD and vice versa. In fact, at one point in time both companies had competing 64-bit instruction sets and AMD's won out and today Intel uses it too.

Reddoguk:

I call BS on this one. Why? because i'm 100% sure that Intel would of trade marked the hell out of it. I bet they have patents for everything they do.

virtually impossible to do, and if anyone had done that, it'd have been ARM Intel could trademark/patent the exact way they set their CPU up, but not such a basic concept as "CPU with multiple cores, not all equal"

The only reason i see AMD ever copying something Intel has done first is if their smaller nodes need much higher power draw. Why have E cores if your chip is less than 100w makes no sense to me. Would you put E cores on say a 65w chip? Without AMD pushing the boundries Intel would be still pushing out 4c 8t chips. The reason i thought Intel used these E cores in the first place was because the power draw was getting up near GPU levels of power. btw what do E cores even do when you're mainly only using the PC for gaming?

Undying:

For gaming fastest core wins. We know that and it will always be the case. Even If ryzen 5 8600x have 6/12 it will still beat any previous gen R7/R9's just like 7600x did unless ofc huge v-cache plays a role. Steve from GN did "what if" 7600x3d existed which is just 7900x3d with one ccd disabled and still just as fast. [spoiler][youtube=fCTPvUhYFv4][/spoiler]

But amd competes with intel, not just themselves. And atm only their x3d line beats the mainstream p+e design by intel, and not even by that much despite the premium, oc vs oc they're the same. 13600K wins with 7600x by at least 10% according to every source except for HUB. More like 12-15% in many. Do you really want to keep buying 500eur cpus from amd to match 300eur intel i5's ? Is that the "upgrade path" amd sees for a pc gamer ? To overpay every step of the way - for boards, ram and cpus ? Would rather use p+e if performance is same but it's cheaper. E-cores don't have to be bad, if they were at zen3 level that would be good on its own, added to zen4+/zen5 even better. Fastest core wins only if the cpu core aren't hitting 90% utilization, which is sadly the case with 6/12 these days. That is why HUB's tests are designed in a way where even i3s or old i5s do +110fps min, to hide that problem on 6/12 cpu's. 7600x does NOT beat 5800x3d either, except on HUB, where, like I said, their testing is supposed to hide exactly that problem on 6/12.

cucaulay malkin:

But amd competes with intel, not just themselves. And atm only their x3d line beats the mainstream p+e design by intel, and not even by that much despite the premium, oc vs oc they're the same. 13600K wins with 7600x by at least 10% according to every source except for HUB. More like 12-15% in many. Do you really want to keep buying 500eur cpus from amd to match 300eur intel i5's ? Is that the "upgrade path" amd sees for a pc gamer ? To overpay every step of the way - for boards, ram and cpus ? Would rather use p+e if performance is same but it's cheaper. E-cores don't have to be bad, if they were at zen3 level that would be good on its own, added to zen4+/zen5 even better. Fastest core wins only if the cpu core aren't hitting 90% utilization, which is sadly the case with 6/12 these days. That is why HUB's tests are designed in a way where even i3s or old i5s do +110fps min, to hide that problem on 6/12 cpu's. 7600x does NOT beat 5800x3d either, except on HUB, where, like I said, their testing is supposed to hide exactly that problem on 6/12.

You think becouse e-cores 13600k beats 7600x? No it doesn't in gaming especially. It has more headroom yes but even in Spiderman which is insanly cpu heavy usage is not even near maxed out. Btw didnt they tested them and it barely keep with skylake cores? I upgraded to am5 becouse of the platform longevity. I can easily popin 7800x3d or wait for 8000 series and not being stuck with 13gen Intel. What you dont understand about 7600x is that it runs 5.3ghz default and by simply enabling pbo and playing with a curve optimizer i can get much higher clocks, 5500-5600mhz easily. According to cpuz it has the same single core score as 7950x. No amount of cache on 5800x3d can compensate for that deficit when it only runs 4.4ghz. https://abload.de/img/untitled1ofty.png https://abload.de/img/untitled1ofty.png[img]

From further looking into this, it seems e-cores in gaming on windows 10 is a mixed bag. 53 games tested with it enabled/disabled on windows 10: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-core-i9-13900k-e-cores-enabled-vs-disabled/ Bear in mind this is with a 4090, so those on lesser cards may likely see less differences than show here. For majority of ppl I dont think there is any point to disable it. For windows 11 (and beyond) where scheduling properly takes into account the e-cores there should be no issues. Thats why AMD is jumping aboard. Thread Director: Windows 11 Does It Best https://www.anandtech.com/show/16959/intel-innovation-alder-lake-november-4th/3

When did @Undying become Intel in the 2010s ? "Faster core wins", "Playing cinebench". Wonder how much you must have enjoyed playing cinebench when you got a 2700X over a 8700K/9700K. Yes, you can easily pop in a 7800x3d, but that will launch at 500-550eur and beat oc'd 13600k by how much ? 2-3% ? By the time it's 300eur, both amd and intel will have faster p+e mainstream series. If you look at YT footage, a 12600k with e-cores off has worse frametime inconsistency due to higher overall usage. That is just a fact. So even if e-cores are skylake level, they do help. Now imagine if they were Zen3-like on Zen4. Or zen4-like on Zen5. Look at tty8k's thread, 8 e-cores on 13600K are actually better than HT. Can't see you whining about that or SMT everywhere. Also, you're forgetting there's a 10% difference between 7600x and 7700x. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d/20.html A difference directly atributed to lack of cores/threads in games that need more than 6/12. Even putting 4 Zen3 equivalent ones to help with overall cpu usage would see that difference at least cut in half. Like I said, x3d is great, but once you have 300eur p+e cpus matching 500e x3d ones, it becomes a dubious choice for the majority. It's cool they're doing it, but I think they know in the long run there needs to be a cheaper alternative - and I know once there is, you'll change your poisition by 180 degrees yet again.

@cucaulay malkin he asked me to test against his 13600k in forza 5 cpu render score but he is on ddr4 so hes loosing some performance. Im waiting for my 360 aio probably coming tommorow. Temperatures are the issue and sustaining that high clocks needs some good cooling. 🙂

Purely pragmatical perspective: You wouldn't need to push the clocks that high on a higher core count cpu. You're getting a 360mm aio to make up for the performance difference that 2 more cores would give you, and still you're only going to get some of it in MT games back, 33% more threads is too much to regain with a 5-6% oc. ST games will benefit though, but how many of modern games are ST bound, except for a few Counter-strike like exceptions, where you'll get 530 instead of 500. Also, it's much better for temps/power/noise to oc memory to the max and do just a slight oc on cores.

cucaulay malkin:

Purely pragmatical perspective: You wouldn't need to push the clocks that high on a higher core count cpu. You're getting a 360mm aio to make up for the performance difference that 2 more cores would give you, and still you're only going to get some of it in MT games back, 33% more threads is too much to regain with a 5-6% oc. ST games will benefit though, but how many of modern games are ST bound, except for a few Counter-strike like exceptions, where you'll get 530 instead of 500. Also, it's much better for temps/power/noise to oc memory to the max and do just a slight oc on cores.

7600x was 249Eur and 7700x 380Eur, big difference It didnt seem worth it to me becouse i will upgrade either of those cpus in short time and i need aio for both anyway.

Yeah, it does seem like they want people to pay a big premium on an 8/16 these days. Nearly 400eur or be stuck with a 6/12 that you'll wanna upgrade as soon as possible. 7700 isn't really any cheaper at retail too.

cucaulay malkin:

Yeah, it does seem like they want people to pay a big premium on an 8/16 these days. Nearly 400eur or be stuck with a 6/12 that you'll wanna upgrade as soon as possible. 7700 isn't really any cheaper at retail too.

True. In my mind i though 7600x then 7800x3d one day instead of overpaying for 7700x.

In Portugal the 770 can already be found around 350€ but the 7600 can be found 100€ cheaper. I prefer to make the extra effort and get a 7700 but the MBs prices are holding me back...