P4-63016E cores...So this means this CPU is clearly designed for more background, server tasks?..... :p

PapaTaipeiDo they add anything at all for gaming? Wouldn't it be better to have just 10 to 12 P cores and no E cores?

Spoiler

PapaTaipeiI genuinely wonder what's the point of E cores for enthusiasts PC. Do they add anything at all for gaming? Wouldn't it be better to have just 10 to 12 P cores and no E cores?

ratirtecores are energy efficient cores and these do boost MT performance without getting the CPU to self ignite. Also it is good for marketing. instead of 10-12c (like you mentioned) you get 24cores.
Since 8 cores are kinda OK with the tasks you throw at it in a regular desktop home environment. More pcores would be reserved for server segment or HEDT where you pay extra for these.

PapaTaipeiSo for gaming the E cores add nothing?

P4-63016E cores...So this means this CPU is clearly designed for more background, server tasks?..... :p

PapaTaipeiSo for gaming the E cores add nothing?

Bomby569I think the biggest problem for Intel will be the power consumption/heat, i will happily pay a little (not much) more for even a bit less performance (not much) if i don't have to deal with a thermal nuclear cpu.

qubit"The processor is a monolithic silicon chip"

Exactly the way it should be, the most efficient. No weird latency issues between chiplets this way.

RL might finally be the generation that I upgrade my ancient 2700K to, assuming the tanking economy doesn't make me too poor to afford it that is.

qubit"The processor is a monolithic silicon chip"

Exactly the way it should be, the most efficient. No weird latency issues between chiplets this way.

RL might finally be the generation that I upgrade my ancient 2700K to, assuming the tanking economy doesn't make me too poor to afford it that is.

Chrispy_I wouldn't be surprised if this thing rendered faster than a 5950X.

Bomby569I think the biggest problem for Intel will be the power consumption/heat, i will happily pay a little (not much) more for even a bit less performance (not much) if i don't have to deal with a thermal nuclear cpu.

Intel adds another voltage clamp in addition to the regular voltage regulator. According to Intel's example, this clamp is active when a CPU requires a current of less than 40A, which should be the case in most mobile use cases. This consequently reduces the power drawn by the CPU.

ratirtSee for yourself. HWUB tested this scenario.

ravenholdRaptors will use 25% less power and more energy efficient.
www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-s-upcoming-Raptor-Lake-CPUs-could-use-25-less-power-and-become-more-efficient-thanks-to-D-LVR.579336.0.html

Bomby569I think the biggest problem for Intel will be the power consumption/heat, i will happily pay a little (not much) more for even a bit less performance (not much) if i don't have to deal with a thermal nuclear cpu.

bugHave you noticed the "65W" in the screenshot?

Chrispy_[ ... ]
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing rendered faster than a 5950X. It's 24 cores vs 16 cores and for rendering, AMD gets about 1.4 effective cores out of SMT. I think an E-Core is more than 40% the performance of a P-Core, especially in a PL2-limited full-load scenario, and Intel's P-cores render slightly faster than a Zen3 core.