birdieI've no idea what this screenshot is, where it comes from and what it represents. The word "official" doesn't mean some random twitter by God knows whom.

AMD fans continue to prove they have a very particular view of world. I'm not against it, it would be great if you were aware of it.

Your second post with "updated numbers" is absolutely the same.

I trust GB5 more than that.

TomorrowBut supposedly no one is upgrading on the same socket and everyone is keeping their for the entire lifetime of the socket (the Intel narrative).

TomorrowThe numbers are from Germany. Mindfactory.de and last week (week 43).

pjl321With only 6 P-Cores rather than 8, this means Redwood cores need to be at least 33.3% faster than Raptor cores just to keep up in multi-threaded workloads, I really can't see this happening. Meteor Lake is starting to look like another Rocket Lake car-crash from Intel!

TomorrowUpdated numbers. AM4 sales are dominating even LGA1700 and other combined with 5800X3D leading the pack with even higher numbers: nitter.net/TechEpiphany/status/1586640088850747392

But supposedly no one is upgrading on the same socket and everyone is keeping their for the entire lifetime of the socket (the Intel narrative).

john_Well, congrats to everyone out there cheering for Intel. Congrats to all Tech sites out there, swallowing Intel's Hybrid design and never really being negatively criticizing it. You wanted it, you have it. Just wait AMD getting in the Hybrid design and we all will be cheering for the next 4 P cores i7 and R7 CPUs.

fevgatosWhy would you negatively criticise something that is entirely positive? I think whoever doesnt like ecores is losing the plot - you must have a fundamental misunderstanding on why they even exist

Dr. DroEspecially when such myth is not honored - and hastily reconsidered at the very last minute because the competition just butchered their value proposition entirely. I will never forgive or forget AMD's treatment of X370 buyers.

TigerfoxI will go for AM5 at the beginning of next year (waiting for a PSU and perhaps Ryzen 7000X3D), even though I am very disappointed with the mainboards because they all offer 4xM.2 or more, but only 2-3 PCIe-Slots (PEG included) and mostly only 4xSATA. I use 6xSATA HDDs of various capacities plus one ODD atm and will have to buy bigger HDDs. Plus I want to be able to use 10GbE AND TB4 AND a soundcard, while having a PCIe5.0x16, which is not possible with any X650E/X670E-Board. Beast I can do is USB-Sound an 10GbE@Gen3x2 plus TB4@Gen3x4.

aQiDropping core count might be the reason of injecting / introducing all new IGP architecture. Not so needful as most of us will use extra P cores and do not rely on IGP after all.

TigerfoxAnd because of that you will buy Intel, who pulled such stunts like

uftfaVery much looking forward to Arrow lake. I'm mostly skipping this generation of CPUs and GPUs because of so many first-gen teething, power and price issues with the current gen. But I'll be in the market for an upgrade again around end-2024 when the next generation of GPUs drops.

DavenThis is why I don’t get the whole Alder Lake / Rocket Lake DDR4 and DDR5 argument. If you buy a DDR4 version today, you will still have to upgrade motherboard, RAM and CPU if you want to upgrade to Meteor Lake in 2024.

N/AAnd they sell locally in this country only. and they are all predominantly leaning towards AMD for whatever reason just like a religion no explanation how it took control.


Because it's 8 core, the hi-res image is available 6 months ago. The 6core rumour is probably based on the image above and looks like meteor lake -p.

birdieThis is why you don't get the whole PC industry in general. The vast majority of people do not upgrade their CPUs every generation, in fact the vast majority doesn't even do it every 2/3 generations.

The platform/socket longevity as an advantage is a myth AMD fans have created. Let's keep it this way.



If E-cores are just 15% faster for MTL it's enough to make MTL faster than RPL even if MTL P-Cores are exactly the same as RPL P-Cores.

john_Yeah, I am sure you only see positives in replacing P cores with E cores on desktop systems. I am pretty sure that everyone here like you wish for a future in desktop CPUs like the current situation in Android phones, like on an 8 core CPU to only have 2 P cores, to win single core benchmarks and reach high frequencies to stare at CPUz, while the rest of the cores being older, simpler just to full the average consumer that they are buying a typical 8 core CPU. I will be sincere. I usually don't really care about the types of cores in my Andoid phone. Just read the Antutu score in Kimovil and use it as an indication. Most consumers probably do the same for PCs. See a Cinebench and a 3DMark and that's all they care and understand. But it happens in PCs that I do care and supporting a future where Intel or AMD will be selling me an i5 or an R5 with only 4 P cores and the rest Marketing cores, no thank you.

You know, I saw your reply while in Private mode in firefox, then gone to reply, then couldn't find your post. I remembered that I had blocked you because you just promote Intel, so, post whatever you want. I wouldn't reply. You are going back to my block list (I know you don't care, just explaining why I don't stay to have a chat with someone who just promotes one perspective).

E cores positive for desktop use....funny.....

john_Yeah, I am sure you only see positives in replacing P cores with E cores on desktop systems. I am pretty sure that everyone here like you wish for a future in desktop CPUs like the current situation in Android phones, like on an 8 core CPU to only have 2 P cores, to win single core benchmarks and reach high frequencies to stare at CPUz, while the rest of the cores being older, simpler just to full the average consumer that they are buying a typical 8 core CPU. I will be sincere. I usually don't really care about the types of cores in my Andoid phone. Just read the Antutu score in Kimovil and use it as an indication. Most consumers probably do the same for PCs. See a Cinebench and a 3DMark and that's all they care and understand. But it happens in PCs that I do care and supporting a future where Intel or AMD will be selling me an i5 or an R5 with only 4 P cores and the rest Marketing cores, no thank you.

You know, I saw your reply while in Private mode in firefox, then gone to reply, then couldn't find your post. I remembered that I had blocked you because you just promote Intel, so, post whatever you want. I wouldn't reply. You are going back to my block list (I know you don't care, just explaining why I don't stay to have a chat with someone who just promotes one perspective).

E cores positive for desktop use....funny.....

fevgatosWhy would you negatively criticise something that is entirely positive? I think whoever doesnt like ecores is losing the plot - you must have a fundamental misunderstanding on why they even exist

dyonoctisI mean those e-core managed to put AMD in a dicey situation where the 7600x and 7700x are losing in their price bracket: the 13600k can compete (even beat) with the 7700x while being cheaper, and the 13700k is far better in MT than the 7700x just for 50$ more.

And you are already talking about a doom situation where we will have 2P-core, while conveniently forgetting that arrow lake will use 8 P-core, Wich doesn't match your narrative. You want more P-core while forgetting that manufacturing get more expensive, larger die are more expensive, and the e-core are space efficient. If you watched laptops reviews you've seen already that the e-core are not groundbreaking when it comes to battery life, on that aspect AMD still rules over intel...but Intel rules in absolute performance since the e-cores allow them to have more threads.

That's the main benefits of the e-cores: more threads on smaller die, and since the die is smaller, it's cheaper. That's why AMD used chiplets on the first place, but now it doesn't look like they can fit more chiplet on AM5...But you know what can fit more cores per die area? zen 4c. The same thing that allowed them to make 128 cores epyc when the regular epyc tops at 96 cores.

pressing onI think it's been reasonably established that only the mobile Meteor Lake parts will have 6 P cores. It is being suggested by some sources that the main reason for the 6 P core limit in this arena is to get the maximum performance per watt. This would fit in with the new LPE (Low Power Efficient) cores that also give Intel three types of cores like ARM. Mobile Meteor Lake should also see the use of Intel's patented DLVR technology. Intel has always had a more powerful IGP on its notebook and laptop CPUs than the desktop. With Meteor Lake mobile the plan is to have an Arc-based Graphics Tile fabricated on TSMC's N5 process. TSMC will also be manufacturing the SOC Tile (N6) and the IO Tile (also N6). Intel will only make the silicon interposer on which the Tiles are fixed and the Compute Tile.

Some of the Desktop Tiles will also be manufactured by TSMC. I would not expect to see the LPE cores on the desktop, and it will be interesting to see if the Graphics Tile is limited to some form of IGP or whether there might also be a more capable unit similar to the mobile sector for some chips. I would expect Intel to carry on with its F and KF series of CPUs which have no graphics functionality with the Desktop range of Meteor Lake.

john_AMD's problem is pricing. And AMD will fix that problem by copying Intel's idea of using two different type of cores, like what Intel is doing. And AMD can do this easily. They can build a CCD with more and smaller, or just older cores and put those as a second chiplet in their CPUs. Mendocino is an example of combining old tech (Zen 2), made at a newer node (6nm) with a newer architecture (RDNA2). Intel and AMD win, we lose. Why? Because until recently 16 cores meant 16 equal P cores. We where paying 16 P cores and we where getting 16 P cores. In the future 16 cores will mean "X number of P cores needed to win most benchmarks, plus 16-X number of slower/older cores to advertise a high core count on the box and the marketing material". The final price of course will be that of 16 P cores.

The 2 P cores example is already happening today. The mobile Intel i7 1260U is a 10 CORE and 12 Threads CPU. It's an i7 with 2 P cores. 10 years ago a mobile i7 with only 2 cores/4 threads was considered a scam. It shouldn't be called an i7. Today it is not a scam, because it also integrates 8 Efficiency cores. So it is OK, because it is somewhat fast at multicore benchmarks, fast in situations where only 2 cores are used and comes with 10 cores. Let's focus on the number of cores. 10 cores, many cores, so let's call it i7.

The thing is that, what we see today in laptops, we might see it tomorrow in desktops. Well, we definitely will see in desktops. And in a way we already see it, but at high end, that's why no one is complaining. The 24 Cores 13700K comes with 16 Efficiency cores, more E cores than P cores. But should we applause because it beats 7950X, or just worry about what will come next? And what comes next is here already. We see Intel cutting 2 P cores in it's next design. So instead of offering all the performance to the consumer with Meteor Lake, it chooses to cut 2 cores so it can make Arrow Lake look more of a valid upgrade when that series becomes available. Meteor Lake will obviously be faster in everything, but still this is the wrong direction in my opinion.

• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 125W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 65W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 35W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 14 (6P + 8E) / 4 Xe Cores / 65WTDP
• Meteor Lake-S 14 (6P + 8E) / 4 Xe Cores / 35WTDP

wolfInteresting to drop two P cores, so with IPC and clock speed they need to make up that deficit and then some if they believe this approach to be successful, it wouldn't be enough just to match 13th gen.