Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake Engineering Sample Spotted?
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake Engineering Sample Spotted? on our message forum
Dragam1337
Great, so more of the cores that ought to renamed E-waste. Great for laptops, sh1te for gaming cpu's, which ought to have exactly 0 E-cores, and have them replaced with an additional 4 P-cores, which would take up the same amount of die space...
Undying
This wont be any faster for gaming than 12900k if thats the case.
PrMinisterGR
Every0ne will end up with a design like that, Intel was just the first one to be forced to do it due to how their processes went to shit the last decade.
Dragam1337
Maybe for mainstream mobile designs, but everyone with even a semi functioning brain can see that they contribute with exactly nothing for gaming, whilst more performance cores would. They will simply have to segment it going forward, instead of trying to shove the same mobile design down desktop users throats...
PrMinisterGR
I would rather have a few e-cores do all the background tasks quietly without raising the TDP, instead of P-cores constantly moving in and out of processes.
Dragam1337
...
The E-waste cores provides NO performance gains for gaming - their only purpose is to reduce TDP in laptops, which is a non-concern for gaming systems...
PrMinisterGR
When you "game", the OS doesn't stop doing things in the background. Neither do your cores only do game work. It's much better to have 8 performance cores and 4 e-cores than having only 8 performance cores, or 10 performance cores. Them being in separate CPU complexes also means that nothing will disrupt your performance cores. I honestly don't understand the passion. Whatever you see on "mobile" makes sense everywhere, it's just that the desktop is a seriously low priority for most companies.
Also, they're not e-waste, Intel claims the have 10th gen core performance, which is great if true.
bemaniac
Or why not just get the best of both worlds with a Ryzen?
Dragam1337
No, it isn't...
[youtube=wqB96Bdsb4M]
You would DEFFO be better off for gaming with an additional 4 P cores vs 16 E-waste cores...
And while desktop is obviously a low priority for intel, it honestly shouldn't be - there are many many millions of pc gamers worldwide...
asturur
PrMinister explanation was good.
They do your background task, they don't consume as much energy as a performance core while doing that, meaning that your game can sit on performance cores that can boost longer because of this.
You claim are useless, while you should accept that:
- performance cores switching threads will impact your performance negatively
- they don't make money with the pc you buy for gaming once in a while
- windows does not revolve around gaming so the actual innefficency of those cores is because process management software still sucks
- 16 performance cores will just kill your ability to boost high,
- having 2 separate core complex with their own cache will ensure your game data won't be thrown out of the l2/l3 cache
Overall they are a great improvement
Dragam1337
Yeah, except for the fact that they arent... watch the vid.
asturur
In all this video there is no benchmark with 8 performance cores.
Of course 4p cores are low today, and 6 are better, even without any additional eCore.
asturur
And again, window is at fault, you can't blame technology because software is still tied to the old way of all the cores are the same.
Like taking a dos game and complaining that the rtx does not work as advertised.
Dragam1337
Is it windows fault? Maybe, though i doubt it... but windows is what we use, so intel should adjust to that reality. And reality is that E-cores are garbage for anything else than saving TDP. For gaming you absolutely are better off swapping 4 E-cores for a P core...
But it is sadly as @PrMinisterGR said - desktop is simply not the priority, so we get sh!tty scaled up mobile chips...
PrMinisterGR
Literally the video is about how the scheduler in Windows 11 is killing performance because it refuses to delegate anything to the E-Cores, even when it has to. I don't think it makes the point you think it does.
Dragam1337
That is part of the conclusion, that win11 is garbage (literally the reason you never wanna be an early windows adopter), but the result remains the same... E-waste cores are a non-benefit for gaming vs just having the same amount of die space used for additional P-cores instead.
kapu
It might be if they improve cache same way AMD is doing .
But i don't think "gaming performance" is that Important for Intel , just looking at their presentation at CES , you can clearly see they want architecture/cpus to be flexible and well suited for different devices
I could bet it will have hard time beating 3D version of Zen3. Cache is just too good for gaming.
schmidtbag
It's an early technology in the x86 world and MS is largely to blame for scheduler issues; AMD faced the same sort of problems. The E-cores are very powerful for how small they are. That being said, they're not all that efficient, but so long as you aren't using any of the more complex instruction sets (which most software doesn't) then these cores are a good way to cram in more performance at a lower cost.
Games are likely going to be programmed to take advantage of these cores some day, just as they were programmed to take advantage of HT. The experience might not be great now but they're just growing pains.
cucaulay malkin
the other way round actually
Dragam1337
It doesn't matter how powerful they are for their size - in gaming it's more or less entirely about singlethread performance, in which these effeciency cores suck compared to performance cores... and this will never change. Meaning they are completely wasted on cpu's for gaming. So i will repeat what i have already said several times... intel needs to start making a seperate cpu lineup specifically for gaming, where we get as many performance cores as possible, and zero E-waste cores...
