Intel Core i9-13900K with and without power management settings
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9-13900K with and without power management settings on our message forum
Undying
"power constraints" 254w 🙄
cucaulay malkin
I bet those "efficiency" cores consume more power than normal zen 3 ones
still,I'd like to see 13400f in 6p/12t + 4e config, shouldn't be a problem to cool with anything half decent
spine
This whole e-core malarky, honestly, how long are they gunna keep this up?
Requires Windows shitty 11, can't believe they haven't received as much flak for it as they should. All because intel's process node is so harrowingly behind the times.
Undying
Cant wait for the 14900k with 24e cores and the same 8p cores. 😀
Horus-Anhur
Imagine paying 600€ for a13900K, and all you get is more of those E-cores. 😛
Intel is laughing their way to the bank, with this scheme.
But at least those Cinebench MT scores will be high, so that's something.
And that power consumption. Damn, this is worse than when we had the Pentium 4.
Biggest sources of global warming: coal, oil and the 13900K. 😀
southamptonfc
Only if people buy it. I can't see much reason to buy it over Zen 4.
Horus-Anhur
Plenty of Intel fanboys that will buy it.
H83
We can`t make that assumption without knowing the performance and prices from both camps.
But i agree that adding more E-cores is quite stupid.
Undying
How much more cache 13900k have? Its runs higher clocks and thats where all the improvents are coming from otherwise it would perform the same as 12900k in games.
I like the therm e-waste cores by @Dragam1337 😀
cucaulay malkin
a few of them are a nice addition i.e. I'd much rather have a 10c/16t config with e-cores for background tasks than just a 6/12 like 7600x you're getting more for your money that's not a waste
Truder
The tech giants have all been watching a little too much of the TV show Home Improvement... They're taking Tim Allen's famous quote of "MORE POWER" a little too seriously....
PPC
E cores are great in mobile segment, not here. A few could be good but i'd cap that to like 4 across the range.
Glottiz
2 e-cores is better than 1 p-core in productivity. I thought people knew this for almost a year now. And for gaming we won't need more than 8 p-cores for the next 5 years and beyond. People screaming "well give me 10 p-cores and less e-cores". Intel already did that with 10900K and it was meh. Now with 12th and 13th gen they are making massive gains in productivity thnx to e-cores.
tunejunky
depends on your use case scenario.
for gaming you very well may be right, but not for the applications i run on a regular basis.
i could argue that any e-core is pointless in comparison to a p-core (or AMD).
and like you were speculating, the e-cores use more energy than either Ryzen 3 or 4
and like others said, the e-cores are a great idea for mobile - but not for the price (and performance demands) of desktop as the low power Intel CPUs are very good (but power hungry).
AMD has been "killing it" on efficiency and isn't going to stop. Intel needs to stick to what it does well and follow the roadmap.
Horus-Anhur
Not really. Asides from renderers, most work related programs don't benefit much, if any, from those extra E-cores.
For example, the difference between the 12700K and 12900K, are negligible in most programs. Being mostly because of clock speed differences.
Techpowerup review has many productivity work benchmarks, and we can compare the 12700K to the 12900K.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-12700k-alder-lake-12th-gen/6.html
Even if we consider the best case scenario for those E-Cores, with rendering, we can also see that 2 e-cores are not better than one P-core.
Consider the 12700K OC to 5.0 Ghz, making it closer to the clock speed of the 12900K.
The 12700K gets 24258 points in cinebench MT. The 12900K, gets 27780 points. So those 4 extra e-cores are worth around 3500 points. So 1 E-core is worth around 880 points.
If we remove 3500 points from the 12700K, or 7000 points from the 12900K, we get around 20700 points. And if we divide that score by 8 P-Cores, we get 2600 points.
So at best, one P-Core is worth 3 E-Cores.
Embra
Once Intel gets on a new node, I would be surprise if these e-cores are continued.
schmidtbag
I'm not so sure the node is the problem, and I'm not quick to point fingers at the architecture either. The problem really comes down to them continuously trying to improve single-threaded performance, because that's the only way they can affordably defeat AMD. Clock speeds do not scale up proportionately with power consumption. Intel is already pushing these chips to their limits. Only within the past 3 or so years have operating systems and mainstream software start to optimize software for more threads and instructions more advanced than SSE2. Intel can't convince developers to develop intelligently and not everything makes sense to multi-thread. Intel needs to show investors that they're making something better than last-gen, so, they have to just keep pushing these chips to levels that are horribly inefficient. Since they also need to increase their core count to compete with AMD and don't use a more modular design like AMD, they can't sustain competitive performance or pricing using only P-cores, so, that's where the E-cores come in.
When you look at Intel's mid-range mobile chips, they're very competitive in terms of performance-per-watt. From what I recall, AMD is still better, but we're not talking huge margins anymore.
So long as Intel keeps pushing for more and unnecessary instructions like AVX512, the e-cores will need to stay. P-cores carry too much baggage to run efficiently or be produced affordably.
If AMD wants to keep up with all of Intel's instructions, they too are probably going to have to go to E-cores at some point.
H83
Intel didn`t continue to offer 10 cores because of thermal issues, the heat produced by 10 cores was just too much.
So they had to scale back to 8 cores again because if they could, they would continue to offer a 10 core version and even maybe a 12 core one to compete agains AMD.
But they prefer to run their CPUs at extremely high voltages and temps just to be the "best" in single threaded tasks...
cucaulay malkin
yeah, no
best case scenario adding 8 e-cores to 12900k cuts scene rendering time by 25% in software that scales really well (that's 3% for each e-core,while 7 more p-cores cuts it by 75%,so over 10% for each p-core 1p=more than 3e)
schmidtbag
While @Glottiz made too broad of a statement, you're not doing any better by naysaying with cherry-picked results. Blender is highly optimized. The vast majority of software out there does not require the full set of instructions of a P-core. So, the point @Glottiz was trying to make is that in most cases, a pair of E-cores will do you more good than a P-core, let alone many. Considering a single P-core takes up almost the same amount of die space as 4x E-cores, the E-cores start to sound a lot more enticing for most applications.
As I say over and over again: buy what you need. If you use Blender often, prioritizing E-cores is a stupid idea. If you're mostly just gaming or doing typical office work, trying to get only P-cores isn't doing you any favors.
