"We give you e-cores because we want to save power!" - Intel "We give you a CPU that uses 1.5v and gets 100°C warm because we want to have the fastes CPU!" - also Intel

https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExd2pvaXVkejk4OW11bDB5OTNtamJ6cHF4Y3BiM2JyZ2pqZDY5OGNmNSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/l0IynvPneUpb7SnBe/giphy.gif

Intel went back to Pentium 4 era LOL.

Krizby:

Intel went back to Pentium 4 era LOL.

Netburst clocks and wattage inbound

fantaskarsef:

"We give you e-cores because we want to save power!" - Intel "We give you a CPU that uses 1.5v and gets 100°C warm because we want to have the fastes CPU!" - also Intel

Well, without the E-cores the CPU would use more than 400w at full load, with the E-cores the CPU is only going to use a little less than more than 400w at full load... Makes perfect sense... Anyway, isn`t 1.5V too much for an everyday usage, isn`t the CPU going to degrade much faster with such high voltage?

H83:

Well, without the E-cores the CPU would use more than 400w at full load, with the E-cores the CPU is only going to use a little less than more than 400w at full load... Makes perfect sense... Anyway, isn`t 1.5V too much for an everyday usage, isn`t the CPU going to degrade much faster with such high voltage?

Well they are trying to make a CPU that does it all, and that's always a stretch... I just find it absurd that the products they create are now seemingly "energy saving" (e-cores) and at the same time pushing power through that chip like crazy... in itself that's quite contradictory by principle. That said, I was always the guy who said "if I want performance I can't really put power saving as a main feature". Maybe I'm wrong, Intel's engineers seem to think otherwise. Just as with temperature, when they single handedly decided it's okay for people to have CPUs that are 20°C hotter than they used to be... no questions asked if people actually want to deal with that, it's just what they throw out for you to deal with it. As for those 1.5V, I'm fairly sure that Intel has no issue at all if your CPU dies or gets unstable two years down the road... they want you to buy a new CPU / MB combo every other year anyway.

Time for me to jump to team Red, this CPU is downright silly.

kapu:

Netburst clocks and wattage inbound

we're well past that point already:D were in pentium 5 engineering sample territory.

H83:

Anyway, isn`t 1.5V too much for an everyday usage, isn`t the CPU going to degrade much faster with such high voltage?

The chip is likely not staying at 1.5V for long periods of time, only during single core usage. Even games are also very bursty, so the voltages would not be at full voltage for long either. Multicore is probably going to overwhelm the cooling solution quickly enough to clock down the CPU, if delid to keep the multicore boost high enough to trigger those high voltages for longer times, there is no warranty anyway.

Krizby:

Intel went back to Pentium 4 era LOL.

Wasn't that practical: lower performance and higher consumption. Good for show tho. For example - Pentium 4 631, having a core frequency of 3.00 GHz managed to reach 8 GHz. Beaten by Intel Celeron D CPU 3.20GHz - who reached the higher overclock of 8543.71 MHz. And not so long ago i9-14900KF managed to reach 9.1 Ghz: [youtube=fb7pl7PZOYo] Tho, this CPUs are not just for show (also highly capable) - and this days factory OC (Turbo Boost) - is a common standard. Above CPU is already Overclocked from factory at 6.00 Ghz. While i9-14900KS having a higher voltage has its factory OC set to 6.20 Ghz.

fantaskarsef:

Well they are trying to make a CPU that does it all, and that's always a stretch... I just find it absurd that the products they create are now seemingly "energy saving" (e-cores) and at the same time pushing power through that chip like crazy... in itself that's quite contradictory by principle. That said, I was always the guy who said "if I want performance I can't really put power saving as a main feature". Maybe I'm wrong, Intel's engineers seem to think otherwise. Just as with temperature, when they single handedly decided it's okay for people to have CPUs that are 20°C hotter than they used to be... no questions asked if people actually want to deal with that, it's just what they throw out for you to deal with it. As for those 1.5V, I'm fairly sure that Intel has no issue at all if your CPU dies or gets unstable two years down the road... they want you to buy a new CPU / MB combo every other year anyway.

despite the moniker given to the E cores, I am generally of the belief that the main reason we are seeing ecores on high end intel chips , is primarily to fit more computational power in a smaller die area, 4 ecores occupy almost the the same die area as a single P-core, and provide more performance combined . If intel were to do a all P core design with the same performance , the die would be significantly bigger, so you might see it as a cost saving and performance improving move, rather than for efficiency. The ecores are clocked so far outside of their efficiency zone on something like a 14900k, that they probably don't save much if any power as compared to p cores . [SPOILER]https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=72529 [/SPOILER] this chart shows some hypothetical configurations, with the area of the die counted in "blocks" with estimated performance values , a 13900/14900k would be 12 blocks as compared to the 12900k used as the reference chip. the mostly e core configurations, blow away the rest in terms of total performance.

user1:

despite the moniker given to the E cores, I am generally of the belief that the main reason we are seeing ecores on high end intel chips , is primarily to fit more computational power in a smaller die area, 4 ecores occupy almost the the same die area as a single P-core, and provide more performance combined . If intel were to do a all P core design with the same performance , the die would be significantly bigger, so you might see it as a cost saving and performance improving move, rather than for efficiency. The ecores are clocked so far outside of their efficiency zone on something like a 14900k, that they probably don't save much if any power as compared to p cores . [SPOILER]https://www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=72529 [/SPOILER] this chart shows some hypothetical configurations, with the area of the die counted in "blocks" with estimated performance values , a 13900/14900k would be 12 blocks as compared to the 12900k used as the reference chip. the mostly e core configurations, blow away the rest in terms of total performance.

Yes, that makes sense. Also, runs along the lines of what I intended to say, that they could have done better with both, performance and efficiency for parallel workloads, but they needed to to it at the same time. But what temperatures and power drain seem to be okay with products recently is mainly what's irritating me, I have to admit. More so than e-cores on their worst day.

fantaskarsef:

Yes, that makes sense. Also, runs along the lines of what I intended to say, that they could have done better with both, performance and efficiency for parallel workloads, but they needed to to it at the same time. But what temperatures and power drain seem to be okay with products recently is mainly what's irritating me, I have to admit. More so than e-cores on their worst day.

yeah the power targets are pretty insane now, I think this has been coming for a long time, mainly because of the increased cost of fabrication and not being able to depend on die shrinks for efficiency gains. I will say though that both intel and amd have done a pretty good job with power scaling, you can pretty well half the power target without losing that much performance. I just wished that they made that more abundantly clear, I wonder how many people bought overly expensive cooling only to have the cpu be a room heater and still hit 100c, when they could have just used more sane power limits to begin with. I think its also worth mentioning that if the early implementations of avx512 hadn't been such a mess , and the software support robust by the time alderlake rolled around, that the full 512 width pcores would've made more sense. and maybe we wouldn't have seen the e-cores so much , but as it is now, while the products are not bad by any means they are definitely slap/dash, ended up wasting die space on avx512 that can't even be used , and having to compensate by adding ecores.

Does it come packaged with a mini thorium plant to power it?