Thursday, July 13th 2023
Intel Core i5-14600K an 8P+8E Processor, Core i3 6P+0E, Core-Counts of Other SKUs Surface
Intel is planning to aggressively step up CPU core counts of its 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" SKUs over the 13th Gen, to offer more value at given price-points, given that the IPC of these processors aren't seeing an increase, according to a report by RedGamingTech. We already reported that the 14th Gen Core i7 series, such as the i7-14700K, will come with a core-configuration of 8P+12E. It turns out that the Core i5-14600K will witness the first uplift in performance core-counts in over 4 years (since the i5-8600K). These chips will be 8P+8E, which entails 8 "Raptor Cove" Performance cores, and 8 "Gracemont" Efficiency cores. The i5-14600K is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the current Core i7-13700K, but with a touch lower maximum boost clocks, and more importantly, a lower price.
This doesn't mean that the entire 14th Gen Core i5 series has the same 8P+8E configuration. Intel has been sub-segmenting its Core i5 series for a few generations now, and the Core i5-14600K and i5-14600KF will be the only SKUs with 8P+8E. There will likely not be an "i5-14600" (non-K) SKU altogether, to avoid the kind of confusion that emerged between the 13th Gen i5-13600 and i5-13600K (lower L2 cache sizes for the non-K SKU). The Core i5-14500 and Core i5-14400 will be 6P+8E processors. It's likely that Intel will use the newer silicon that gives the P-cores of these two chips 2 MB of L2 cache per core instead of 1.25 MB, and their E-core clusters will each get 4 MB of L2 cache instead of 2 MB.
In a big move that's sure to shake up the entry-level, Intel is planning to give the 14th Gen Core i3 series a much needed core-count increase. These will be 6-core/12-thread processors—that's 6 P-cores, and zero E-cores. In essence, the 14th Gen Core i3 series will resemble the 12th Gen Core i5 non-K series processors that lacked E-cores, but which are still formidable for 1080p and 1440p gaming PC builds on a tight budget.
Lastly, in a piece of bad-ish news, the top-of-the-line 14th Gen Core i9 series will continue to be 8P+16E, just like the 13th Gen. Intel might try to dial up clock speeds of the Core i9-14900K a bit over that of the i9-13900K, but the company has already squeezed the most performance out of this die with the Limited Edition Core i9-13900KS, we doubt the i9-14900K will do any better.
Intel is expected to debut the 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" family in October 2023.
Sources:
RedGamingTech (YouTube), VideoCardz
This doesn't mean that the entire 14th Gen Core i5 series has the same 8P+8E configuration. Intel has been sub-segmenting its Core i5 series for a few generations now, and the Core i5-14600K and i5-14600KF will be the only SKUs with 8P+8E. There will likely not be an "i5-14600" (non-K) SKU altogether, to avoid the kind of confusion that emerged between the 13th Gen i5-13600 and i5-13600K (lower L2 cache sizes for the non-K SKU). The Core i5-14500 and Core i5-14400 will be 6P+8E processors. It's likely that Intel will use the newer silicon that gives the P-cores of these two chips 2 MB of L2 cache per core instead of 1.25 MB, and their E-core clusters will each get 4 MB of L2 cache instead of 2 MB.
Lastly, in a piece of bad-ish news, the top-of-the-line 14th Gen Core i9 series will continue to be 8P+16E, just like the 13th Gen. Intel might try to dial up clock speeds of the Core i9-14900K a bit over that of the i9-13900K, but the company has already squeezed the most performance out of this die with the Limited Edition Core i9-13900KS, we doubt the i9-14900K will do any better.
Intel is expected to debut the 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" family in October 2023.
79 Comments on Intel Core i5-14600K an 8P+8E Processor, Core i3 6P+0E, Core-Counts of Other SKUs Surface
Peak clock speed is not determined by TDP, it's determined by heat. You can even improve performance if you shave off 100-200MHz off peak speed, but can maintain that for longer. I mean, look at ThrottleStop.
This is a trick of smart gourmet chef serving, to stay in this jargon imagine the cache being the delicious sauce, spill it generous please.
(plus eager to see if the 14100 despite two extra p cores is still as the 13100 has low idle power consumption)
AMD: we have more cores and are future proofed!
Intel: LOL, it's all about the performance!
2023
Intel: we have more cores and are future proofed!
AMD: LOL, it's all about the performance!
32 threads is probably the maximum amount that the 128-bit memory bus can effectively feed, so I'm not expecting consumer CPUs to grow above that, unless and until something else radically changes, such as the number of RAM channels or the amount of L3.
Back with Zen 1 more cores made sense, there was an immediate benefit to most consumers as the 4 core parts Intel was offering were completely tapped out. The same does not apply now. Adding cores past 8 is going to bring zero benefit to the vast majority of people.
You could say Intel is trying to repeat AMD's strategy, only consumers simply don't care nearly as much when those additional cores aren't providing benefit. The same applies to the laptop space. Consumers there value energy efficiency and IPC most of all.
Now for general purpose, my 13 years old 6 cores Phenom II is also perfectly fine. It has way weaker cores than those E cores, but it's OK, system is smooth for browsing and office apps thanks to also running an SSD.
But, no reason to be defensive, about E cores here anyway. Relax. I was just pointing at Intel's marketing advantage.I don't know how much room AMD has for more price reductions. Probably they can face Intel at better odds than when facing Nvidia. Intel's profit margin is somewhat low today compared to the past, at the same levels as AMD, so none has a significant advantage over the other. On the other part if AMD tries to start a price war with Nvidia, a company that enjoys 60%-70% profit margins, it will get destroyed.
Most consumers can't read reviews or understand reviews. The same way I wouldn't be able to understand reviews of stuff I haven't invested months in reading about.
Sales people will sell easier a 10 core CPU than a 6 cores CPU, even if that 10 core CPU is a 2P + 8E combination.
in laptops, yes a webcam could matter more because usually it's crap!!! :pI doubt AMD outsells Intel in the consumer market. Retail numbers are only a 5-10% of the whole market and Intel sells much more to OEMs than AMD. This Hybrid approach makes it easier for big OEMs to push systems with Intel CPUs, thanks to advertising high core count.
Consumers don't know if those extra E cores provide any significant advantage. But they do understand that 10 is bigger than 6, 12 is bigger than 8, 16 is bigger than 12, 24 is bigger than 16. Why do you think people are buying 4GB GT 730s for example? "Bigger memory must mean faster card". Laptops are more complicated but in many cases they just buy the OEM they know. And again the higher number of cores gives big OEMs a good marketing card to push Intel models. As for efficiency. I bet 1365U that comes with only 2P cores can manage acceptable efficiency in low load scenarios (for example).
They have been popping up in routers, id love to see them in a netbook with a not nerfed battery... would make a nice linux term. They nave a N95/n100 version (not i3) that are more thirsty for being 4c/4t.
The argument that Intel is gaining marketshare only makes sense in sectors that Intel has significant share to gain like custom built and server.The vast majority of people that walk into a Best Buy do not know about core count. Most are going to make a snap judgement based on the model number and brand. If there are customers who take enough time to learn about core counts and the amount of cores they need for their use case, chances are they already know about the difference between P and E cores. It's mentioned on nearly every article on the topic.
If AMD's bulldozer CPUs are anything to go by, Core Count is not enough to convince customers to buy a product. Ultimately Mindshare is far more important and that's something Intel is slowly loosing as it trails AMD.
And no, I still don't like E core's but I'm really starting to Hate intel's distribution of them.
Why not 4P 4E.
It makes the efficiency mentioned in the E core naming laughable.
And even a 2P 4 E could be useful for office use, but no.
i3 going from 4 to 6 P-Cores is pretty huge honestly. It's really ironic how intel is the one doing a lot for mid to low range(even high as i7 is getting big bumps when compared to Ryzen 7). The advantage that AMD has is really in the highest end.
Intel even somehow managed to deliver a pretty decent platform with LGA1700 for once, i.e. they didn't abandon it after a single generation.
It's not rocket science.
Going from 60% to 70% is not something unheard. Look at Nvidia. Gone at 80%+ from 50% - 60%. It does makes sense.That's where core count wins. Someone with no knowledge will hear the sales person saying "This is a 6 core CPU, but this is a 10 core CPU, meaning it is faster and it will remain fast enough in the future". Nothing else. Only that will be enough for the consumer to buy the Intel laptop over the AMD laptop. With the Intel laptop being definitely higher priced, that higher price will be the validation the consumer will need to believe that the Intel laptop is better.
And believe me sales persons can be tricky when trying to sell something. 20 years ago a salesman was telling me and a friend of mine that AMD laptops are extremely hot because they are 64bit (Athlon64), while Intel laptops are cooler because they are 32bit (Pentium 4). We where laughing all day. 20 years latter still using that bozo as an example.
1 million articles talking about core counts and types means nothing. people don't search for those articles, they don't have the time, they don't want to invest time in everything. There might be 100000 articles about why my new refrigerator, that I bought 2 months ago, was a bad or a good choice. Never read any of them.
Intel really needs to stop playing around and design a new microarchitecture already. Efficiency has been thrown out the window all to squeeze ever decreasing amounts of performance out of this turnip. If AMD can do it, why can't Intel? Laziness and stupidity is all I can think of.
Branding and design wins are vastly vastly more important. Higher core counts don't beget more design wins either, that's a vast oversimplification. If that were true Ryzen 1000 series would have exploded out of the gate. I'd also question just how important the role of a sales person is in today's digital world, for sure much less as more and more people tend to buy online. How that impacts the way people buy laptops or other goods remains to be seen. If one thing is for sure, it certainly isn't worse then the drivel that was spouted by poorly trained sales people.