TheoneandonlyMrKThese PR piece's are getting stupid, if Intel are aiming they're next generation at against a part that's about to get a +25%(zen3+cache) performance boost near EOL and not even the competition they will face,(Zen4), I can't see the win they can.

For me it's got too damn many little cores, I mean who needs 16 small better than Skylake core's to run the backend and wants just 8 big cores for in focus gaming?!.

Surely 4/8 small OS cores and 16 Big cores is what I might have bought into not the vice versa version they're peddling.

DeathtoGnomesTake this with a grain of salt, wait for reviews.

InVasManiThe data actually suggests Intel should've actually probably have contrary to most people's belief gone with more of the little cores and less of the larger cores. They are much better on efficiency and occupy less space. Games don't heavily load much more than 2-4 cores anyway.

watzupkenYup, that is correct. The thing is, Intel is pitting Alder Lake against last year's Zen 3. Matching performance in multi threading is a good feat, but may not be enough to fend off competition in my opinion. Not to mention the supposed improve comes at a great cost to power consumption as compared to the Zen 3 if rumours of the PL2 and PL4 is true.

TheoneandonlyMrKYou mentioned games, did I, I do not usually game on my main rig at all anymore in fact yet it's always on and loaded up with work, time will tell too, not all work loads or game's are fine with 4 core's, civ6 for example.

Do I agree, no.

TheinsanegamerNIf the gracemont cores are so amazingly efficient and perform this well why on earth does intel even bother with the "big" cores anyway? Just make the gracemont cores the main cores and give them more cache so they can keep up with AMD.

InVasManiYou literally did mention gaming regardless I feel even upwards of 4 fewer big cores in exchange for more of the little clusters has the potential to more than offset the drawbacks enough that it could've possibly added more upside. These to me look like they could offer bang for buck value over a graveyard of big cores that didn't make the cut on yields per wafer.

mtcn77Jim Keller is a corporate now - what else were we expecting? The guy is the systems engineer. He will definitely trim Intel's architecture until he can have what he wants: more power!
PS: I have full confidence in him turning the power grab away from the marketing team(Product Assurance HR). Where in the world does stupid HR people know better than the engineers?

Dr. DroMy concern with all of these changes is that Windows is too much of a dinosaur to be able to make use of all this tech.

Punkenjoythe thing that i am not sure is if they can have a high frequency.

Chrispy_Tremont/Gracemont architecture really ain't bad at all but the 40% power or performance comparison is BS because HT provides 30-40% improved numbers for Skylake and yet these comparisons are horribly handicapping Skylake to 1C1T

Gracemont doesn't need marketing lies and deception, it's a frickin' amazing bit of ultra-dense computing power that will never beat Skylake in a fair fight and isn't supposed to. It's supposed to run all the background crap at low power consumption and free up the Raptor Cove cores to focus on the threads that need maximum performance. In my experience of Denverton servers, those Tremont cores feel very much like Core2 era processing power - except today they're running 16 cores at 1.5W per core, rather than the Core2 at 65W for just a couple of cores.

Seeing a rack stacked with half-U Supermicro Atom 16C/128GB mini servers each with dual 10GbE connectivity is bonkers. A single 42U rack holds enough compute, RAM, and network bandwidth to host VDI workstations for ~1000 people and yet the whole rack is short-depth and uses barely 2KW. If that doesn't impress you then I guess you're just not that into servers.

mechtechLol I’m not in IT or enterprise IT but sounds cool.

I did assist with hardware for our new conditioning monitoring servers. Ten 960GB ssds in a Raid5 or something. They were not cheap lol

Chrispy_So much of the cost of enterprise stuff goes into validation, testing, and support contracts. It's kind of scary how expensive some enterprise stuff is and there's always the temptation to gamble on extra-redundant consumer grade stuff; If it breaks you can afford to replace it x times before it's even hit the cost of one enterprise variant - but that only works as long as there's no downtime....

P4-630Is a TPM in these CPU's enough for windows 11 hardware requirements or do you need to look for specific TPM motherboards as well?

Chrispy_If that doesn't impress you then I guess you're just not that into servers.

zlobbyIt will be top kek if those CPU don't meet Win 11's security requirements...

MakaveliJim Keller still works for intel?

mtcn77Jim Keller is a corporate now - what else were we expecting? The guy is the systems engineer. He will definitely trim Intel's architecture until he can have what he wants: more power!
PS: I have full confidence in him turning the power grab away from the marketing team(Product Assurance HR). Where in the world does stupid HR people know better than the engineers?

Chrispy_Tremont/Gracemont architecture really ain't bad at all but the 40% power or performance comparison is BS because HT provides 30-40% improved numbers for Skylake and yet these comparisons are horribly handicapping Skylake to 1C1T

Gracemont doesn't need marketing lies and deception, it's a frickin' amazing bit of ultra-dense computing power that will never beat Skylake in a fair fight and isn't supposed to. It's supposed to run all the background crap at low power consumption and free up the Raptor Cove cores to focus on the threads that need maximum performance. In my experience of Denverton servers, those Tremont cores feel very much like Core2 era processing power - except today they're running 16 cores at 1.5W per core, rather than the Core2 at 65W for just a couple of cores.

Seeing a rack stacked with half-U Supermicro Atom 16C/128GB mini servers each with dual 10GbE connectivity is bonkers. A single 42U rack holds enough compute, RAM, and network bandwidth to host VDI workstations for ~1000 people and yet the whole rack is short-depth and uses barely 2KW. If that doesn't impress you then I guess you're just not that into servers.