TurmaniaThe real question here is why AMD never released ryzen 3 with their 5xxxx generation. Is it because they wanted to maximise profits with targeting limited number of chips to higher price processors? But a budget oriented company that survived with selling 200 usd processors would not abondon their core base surely ? Or would they ?

TomorrowSimple economics. The 7nm yields are so good that it made little sense to disable half of a working 5800X silicon to make 5300X for example. Essentially AMD became victim of it's own success in the low end. Im sure given the option they would love to flood the OEM market with cheap Ryzen 3's that are Zen3 based. But it has to make financtial sense.

spnidelnew architecture product beats old architecture product
THIS IS INSANE! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

CrackongBy the time this 12100 actually coming out and, with budget MB actually available, The 3300x would be a 2 year-old processor.
Great victory intel, Comfortably ?

CrackongFrom a recent findings from hardware unboxed, it is the other way around.
There are something seriously lacking / cut from the E-cores.
Depending on workloads,
Sometimes it matches skylake, but sometimes it performs as worse as the bulldozer
E-cores performance just isn't stable.

QuietBobAs much as I support AMD, at the moment I couldn't honestly recommend any of their CPUs to someone on a tight budget. The i3-10100 and the i5-11400 at EUR 150 / USD 170 (inc. tax) make a lot more sense if you can't afford Zen 3.

Minus InfinityNot sure why AMD abandoned this space with Zen 3

Chrispy_You do realise that video is testing 4C/8T on the P-cores vs 4C/4T of the E-cores? The games it really fails at are the same games the old 4C/4T i5 CPUs also fail at today because many games now require more than 4 threads.

Intel aren't making any zero P-Core products anyway, so what matters is the "hybrid" mode HWU tested with 2P and 2C - those results are respectable, if not earth-shatteringly fast, but this is a budget i3 we're talking about, not $1200 of i9/Z690/DDR5.

The other point I want to make is that for IGP gaming, even the E-core only configuration would have been fine. Yes, in worst-case scenarios the minimum framerates were less than half of the P-core results but the 7-game average still had over 60fps 1% lows. The IGP will never require that sort of performance, it'll be unlikely to do much better than 1080p30 average in AAA games.

Minus InfinityNot sure why AMD abandoned this space with Zen 3, but smart move from Intel to muscle in on this turf. A Ryzen R3 5400 4c/8t should have been a priority IMO. More people buy at the lower end than top end despite what forums would have you belive.

CrackongSomeone might do 4C8T P-core vs 8C8T E-core comparisons in the future, but is it "fair" ?

Chrispy_If you want to consider "fair" in terms of die area, the fair comparison is 1C/2T of P-core vs 4C/4T of E-core. Realistically neither will do well as there are plenty of apps that fail to even run on only 2 threads and performance hurts if you don't have at least 8 threads in enough titles for 8 threads to be a relevant number these days. Scale it up a bit though and you can have a competent 8 E-cores for the same die area as just 2C/4T of P-core.

CrackongPlease check the Intel official die shot for actual die size.
A 4 E-core cluster is much "wider" than a P-core

Chrispy_Well, duh, if you include bits of the uncore interconnects, sure - it's 36% wider (146 pixels vs 107 pixels), but you're also conveniently ignoring that it's 10% shorter to suit your argument.

Ignoring the uncore the die area is more like 5:1 E-cores to P-cores but that's just as pointless as measuring the width of the core logic block because there's tons of support logic that isn't counted for both P and E cores so the 4:1 figure is an approximation that has been thrown around a lot because Intel have been saying it themselves since before Alder Lake even launched, including the word "approximately".

I'm not sure why you're getting so hung up on the exact size ratio anyway. Whether it's 3.3x smaller or 5.1x smaller than a P-core is irrelevant when it averages about 70% the performance for somewhere between 20-35% the die area.

Not every application requires maximum performance on all threads. This is Microsoft's first 'big.LITTLE' scheduler and Intel's first draft of the Thread Director, of course there are some teething troubles, just like there were with actual big.LITTLE for ARM-based smartphone SOCs half a decade ago. But once the performance-critical processes are running on the P-cores without fail we'll hopefully see more of the background OS and application bloat running on E-cores with vastly-reduced power consumption and using far less silicon real estate. That power budget can be used for higher-clocks on P-cores where it matters, or better battery life/quieter fans in laptops. As for the real-estate, that will translate to lower production costs and thanks to healthy competition between Intel and AMD that will translate to cheaper CPUs for us. It's a win-win situation if Alder Lake's hybrid architecture becomes the new normal - the only downsides are these teething troubles and they were expected and, quite honestly, not as bad as I thought they were going to be.

Why_MeUlike AMD, Intel shows it cares about people on a budget.

TheinsanegamerNI dont calculate CPU upgrades, because frankly CPUs are not something you should be switching out every year or two. A good CPU will last damn near a decade while still providing enough performance. If you play at 60 FPS, like most gamers do, then the i5s of the sandy/ivy era are just now getting to the point where they can no longer maintain 60 FPS for 1% lows even with an OC on them. If you're a more casual gamer or building a PC for mroe then just gaming, then the CPU tends to last even longer. By the time you want to upgrade, the platform has also evolved significantly.

Fans of AMD will point out upgradeability, I'll point out that the 8700k made available shortly after the ryzen 1000 launch is still competitive in games with the 5600x, 4 years later. If you bought into intel, there is no need to upgrade to more cores, you could if you wanted to, but frankly there's no need. By the time you have the money and want to upgrade, there will be a new generation of budget hardware with new features you might want, such as better RAM compatibility, faster PCIe, integrated wifi 6, whatever.

TheinsanegamerNLow demand isnt how I would describe it, seeing as the ryzen 3300x sold out immediately and even the 3100 was hard to come by. People can blame the shortages, but intel during their "chip shortage" a few years back still launched and maintained a library of lower end models. They might not have had as much stock as would have been nice, but they didnt just ignore the market like AMD has been doing lately.

Shortage or no, you always address the higher margin stuff first, then move to lower offerings. What you dont do is completely ignore the market, as that allows your competitor to scoop up all those sales unopposed.

CrackongAll the major reviews are showing E-cores are hindering the overall CPU performance in some ways.
And Intel themselves have to present "Parking the E-cores away" as a solution to evade these problems.
Big.Little on x86 just isn't ready.
Don't beta test for free.

N3M3515hahahahah, this is so funny, Intel I3 12100 beats, AMD NON EXISTENT cpu. It was available like for 5 minutes...

Caring1I thought the R3 3300X was meant to be OEM only but they released a few to the public too?

MusselsMore or less, but here in Au i can get almost every other OEM model
These are great chips, great prices. But there is literally only the 1600AF cheaper ($200 Au)