Intel 13th Gen Core Raptor Lake-S range leaks 4 to 24 cores on three separate dies (updated)
Click here to post a comment for Intel 13th Gen Core Raptor Lake-S range leaks 4 to 24 cores on three separate dies (updated) on our message forum
Kool64
Wow 16 e cores. What could anyone possibly want with that many? Certainly they won’t be useful for much.
winning.exe
tsunami231
e-core could be great for running OS and background task, while p-cores run games and programs that need the power, in perfectly setup world... last check scheduling and all that is still mess, mutli core support is still some what iffy past 6 core? then again these e-core/p-core cpu seem to use MORE power at idle then traditional cores? atlest last i looked
i7 13700/f look interesting 65w tdp, as i rather go down in TDP then up from 6700k tdp stand point
Falkentyne
Kool64
but wouldn't it be more useful to have say 4-8 E and 10 to 12P?
user1
winning.exe
H83
Rattlehead99
Horus-Anhur
cucaulay malkin
I like 4 e-cores on 13400 actually. pair that with more cache and a better imc (4133 ddr4 in 1:1 mode at least ) and sub 200eur price and that's going to be a clear price/perfomance winner.
just lol,I have no other words for comparing zen3 cores to intel's e-cores
user1
shady28
schmidtbag
People who dismiss the usefulness of E-cores remind me a lot of people who blindly follow political parties. There's such overwhelming evidence of how an all P-core mainstream CPU (from Intel, but eventually from AMD too) is a bad idea, yet people want an all P-core desktop CPU as if they actually need the extra instructions and clock speed on every single core for everyday use. The naysayers just see how the E-cores run worse in highly parallel benchmarks, but how often are you ever running those? If your CPU makes you money, you're going to want to get a legit workstation CPU or even a server CPU. Sure, initial benchmarks weren't looking so good because the Windows scheduler didn't know how to properly organize threads, but as far as I understand, that has mostly been resolved.
However... I do think it's a little odd for them to include 16 E-cores - that's excessive and a point of diminishing returns. E-cores are best for background processes, light foreground tasks, and child threads that aren't used for parallelization (for example, the thread transmitting instructions to the GPU). E-cores are ideal for anything that doesn't need to run as fast as possible, which is the vast majority of processes. Unless there's some major paradigm shift in how computers work, I suspect 8 E-cores (in a desktop CPU) is all we will ever need. You want enough cores where there's no chance that any thread will be waiting for availability, but who is ever going to need 16?
So yeah, I don't really see this particular CPU selling well because it seems to have an identity crisis. The 13700F seems to be the most sensible of the high end chips - it will be significantly cheaper, there won't be much overclocking headroom without splurging on a hefty PSU and cooler, you probably will never use the iGPU, and the extra 8 E-cores are will either be underwhelming with highly-parallel workloads or otherwise sitting idly the whole time.
Though for me personally if I end up going with Intel (not super likely), I'd rather get a 13500F or 13600F.
MegaFalloutFan
winning.exe
Horus-Anhur
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2374/bench/BFV.png
Or with Hitman, where it goes from 116 fps, down to 38.
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2374/bench/Hitman.png
If you only look at averages, and in games that don't push the CPU a lot.
But in games that hit the CPU a bit harder, the difference in averages can be double Like in BFV.
But look at 1% low. That is when those CPUs are stressed and pushed to do their best.
Again, look at BFV. With only 4 P-Cores we have from 130 fps. But with the E-cores, we go down to only 48 fps.
shady28
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-e-cores-only-performance/images/cinebench-multi.png
That is 100% wrong. Didn't need to read anything else there you posted as it is all founded on that fallacy.
Overall a P-core is 52% faster. But within specific sub-tests, the e-cores can be very potent. One of those use cases as I mentioned is rendering.
Notice that clock for clock, the e-cores are only about 17% slower than a p-core, and in fact 8 E-cores is faster than a 12 thread 3600X.
winning.exe
if you read more than a single cherry-picked benchmark, you'd see that E-cores are about half the speed of P-cores, and that's a good thing!
You say that "an E-core is half the speed of a P-core by any metric" is a fallacy then say "overall a P-core is 52% faster" EXCEPT for in benchmarks that intentionally cripple the P-cores 😀.
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17047/126869.png
Of course, in the real world where people don't run their processor intentionally crippled, the performance discrepancy in that exact same benchmark nears 50% 😱.
Aside from your literal fallacy I am still all for E-cores, so you don't have to try to convince me.
I see you didn't read my comment, or the benchmark you cited, I'm pro-E-core 😉. You've cherry-picked a single benchmark that intentionally crippled the P-cores to make the same point I was making. Of course,MegaFalloutFan