The Quim Reaper..if 8 stripped down 'small cores' only use, as an example, 20-30% of the power of 8 'big' cores but have the equivalent processing power of 3 or 4 'big cores' then its the only way to do it.

The Quim ReaperSilicion Die shrinkage is going at a slower pace than the ability/need to put more cores on them, so new ways have to be found to keep increasing processing power whilst keeping thermal & power requirements at a sane level.

AusWolfIs it really a need, though? Or is it more like a pointless race between Intel and AMD like the gigahertz war used to be back in the single-core age?

TheLostSwedeE for Economy? P for Premium Economy?

TheLostSwedeI thought it had already been confirmed that unless you're on Windows 11, the Atom cores brings zero performance to the system, as Windows 10 doesn't seem to use them for anything.
Obviously other operating systems aren't supported as yet so...

lynx29or better yet, use the weak cores by accident in old old games, limiting max frame rate possibilities for 240hz monitors. :roll:

The Quim ReaperThe 8 big cores have Hyper Threading...so there will be 16 high performance threads plus an additional 8 low power threads, giving 24 threads in total.

A 10900K will not be faster.

Makaveliits 8 cores(GraceM) + 8 threads(HT) + 8 cores(low Power)

TheLostSwedeWouldn't that depend on the application? Not all things will be able to take advantage of the Atom cores.

watzupkenI wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.


I doubt that will happen. Even with the current Rocket Lake, the IPC gain is noticeable over Comet Lake. And if you take Tiger Lake H vs the older Comet Lake H, the gains is even more pronounced in games and in rendering software. While the Alder Lake is capped at 8 performance Golden Cove cores, the efficient cores from what I heard is almost as fast as Skylake (not sure if this is true until we hear more about it closer to launch). So if you have 8 efficient cores helping to make up for the 2 missing high performance cores in the 10900K, I think it is highly possible that Alder Lake will be quite a bit faster. The only hurdle for Intel is AMD's Ryzen 9 series.

5 o'clock CharlieHas it been explained what determines which core type is to be used? Is it the CPU, OS or is it the application? Thanks in advance.

TheLostSwedeNot that I'm aware of, no. But as someone pointed out here earlier it's a bit like when HyperThreading arrived, most programs couldn't make use of it. Now we're looking at two different types of cores and SMT for some of those cores, which is likely to cause some issues if the OS isn't aware of the difference and the same goes for most software. My guess is that the Atom cores world just be ignored in a case like that.

Prima.Veracannot wait to see how an old 10900K CPU will trash this i9 garbage of 8 Cores + 8 Useless Cores... Specially in games or render apps.

HenrySomeoneYou are clueless and obviously ignorant of the IPC improvements; this will likely blow everything out of the water, save for 5950x in purely multi-threaded tasks.

TheLostSwedeE for Economy? P for Premium Economy?


Wouldn't that depend on the application? Not all things will be able to take advantage of the Atom cores.