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
But nonetheless it's probably a very good product for NAS boxes and such.Agreed, and to Intel's credit, they and their OEMs don't just simply advertise the total number of cores. I've just checked Dell, HP and Lenovo notebook product pages (United States), they all say X cores, Y threads. Lenovo also lists maximum clocks for P and E cores separately. Asus is the bad guy here, they just tell the total core count.
Now re read my post because there's no point repeating it.
Intel definitely leading the performance per dollar race, even though they're behind in efficiency.
Personally speaking, I'd rather them increase performance in terms of clock speed and IPC than to get into the core count race.
Maybe this isn’t a generous reading but yeesh
This isn't Apple where they have complete control over the whole platform from the hardware to the software, this is Windows where any number of things can go wrong due to the mish-mash that is the PC platform.
As for my argument, it is based on how AMD managed to get market share thanks to having, slower but at the same time more cores, how Intel is now getting back market share for having more cores, even with most of them be E cores. We have two REAL examples there it's not just a personal opinion.
Bulldozer is a totally different case, but at the same time another proof of my point, not yours. You just look it the wrong way. Let me explain.
It was a different case because OEMs where glued on Intel's chariot back then. Bulldozer was also crap compared to Intel offerings, both in performance and efficiency. Atom was king in laptops, because netbooks where still a thing, Intel was king in laptops having a more efficient architecture, a more performing architecture, on a better node. Everything was favoring Intel back then. Finding an AMD laptop was difficult.
You also look it the wrong way because, Bulldozed WAS selling on desktops, but even there while AMD was advertising more cores, Intel had HyperThreading, so in a thread vs thread comparison AMD had no advantage. AMD was selling the "more cores" marketing against i3's and i5s, that's why Bulldozer was cheap, with AMD's prices being mostly under $150, with only the top models going close to $200(I am ignoring the 220W parts). It was going against i3's and i5s. So, you see, even in the Bulldozer era the more cores approach was used. But because of Bulldozer's bad architecture, that "more cores" marketing was mostly helped AMD to keep some market share instead of losing it all. Of course AMD kept some market share also thanks to FM2/+ and AM1 platforms. AM1 was offering a low power option, FM2/+ was the first APU platform. People where buying FM2/+ CPUs for their integrated graphics, not for the Bulldozer architecture. But even there on FM2/+ AMD could still offer "quad core" APUs for cheap against Celeron and Pentium CPUs that where coming with 1 or 2 cores and 1 or 2 threads maximum.
So, Bulldozer is a third example of the "more cores" marketing helping with market share. The difference is that the "more cores" argument helped AMD not win market share, just not lose it all.They do. It's not oversimplification, it's reality, because the consumer goes in a shop and expects oversimplification and quick answers from the sales person or the little spec sheet next to the model, answers that somehow can understand, without needing to have extensive knowledge on specs.
Ryzen didn't exploded because AMD's name was in ruins because of Bulldozer and OEMs where still promoting Intel options. Don't you know/remember all those years with AMD laptops using only one memory channel or having second grade screens or storage next to Intel based options?
This link is about Carrizo,
Who Controls the User Experience? AMD’s Carrizo Thoroughly Tested
so not Ryzen. But for years after that article things didn't changed much, with the buyer of the AMD based laptop model for example, having to do with a 60Hz FullHD screen option, when the buyer of the Intel based laptop had more options, with more Hz, more nits, higher resolution or even an OLED screen. You know these, don't you?
Sales person aren't as much influential as it was, because people buy online, but they still are. Also people asking friends and relatives not always means they get the best replies because that cousin that knows stuff, probably knows very little. Also see on forums and message boards. Intel fans are extremely happy with their "more cores" hybrid CPUs, so it is much easier for them today to advice others to go the Intel way. Today they have a very strong argument compared to the past. "It offers more cores, it's more future proof". AMD's argument 2 years ago, is Intel's argument today(that and the platform cost).Do they explain what is the difference between a P core and an E core?
Do they state how those cores distribute? X P cores, Y E cores.
Inspiron 16-inch Laptop with 13th Gen Intel® Core™ Processor | Dell USA $1100
"18MB cache, 12 cores, 16 threads, up to 5.00GHz"
So, I am not technical, I don't understand threads and cache, I do somehow understand 12 cores what it means because I know that an 8 core smartphone is faster than a 4 core. And 5.00 GHz Turbo. I guess all cores can go up there right? 12 cores at 5.00 GHz. WOW!, right? That probably looks powerful, right?
Maybe I should buy the AMD model instead?
Inspiron 16-inch Laptop with AMD Ryzen™ 7000 series Processor | Dell USA $1000
It doesn't say anything about cache and Turbo. Strange isn't it? But it does say "8 cores, 16 threads". Hmmm.... same number of threads. What is threads? Don't know. Only 8 cores. I do know cores, I think. As I said, smartphones. It's also $100 cheaper. I save $100. That's nice. But only 8 cores, against 12 cores. Probably that's why Intel is more expensive. 50% more cores. And what is the speed of the AMD? It doesn't say. I guess it's lower for the AMD model. If it was as high as Intel, they should be saying it. Right?
.........................I better pay those $100 and go with the Intel model. It also has higher score (4.4 vs 4.1) and more opinions (664 vs 28). Everyone is buying the Intel option, so that's what I will also do.
I feel so great now. I did the right choice.
;)
But you can always set core affinity or use Process Lasso for those games and applications that don't behave well.
As for affinity, that doesn't help much on Windows 10, where having E-cores enabled completely breaks frequency scaling, and there are some weird core parking issues.
I use two power plans with my 13600KF - Balanced with the CPU set to 99% (fixed 3.3 GHz) and Bitsum Highest Performance with the CPU set to 100% (fixed 5.1 GHz). If I enable E-cores, the P-cores constantly run at 5.1 GHz and high voltage, no matter which power plan I use.
Use power settings explorer to access the hidden settings.
This setting is how I trained my Win10 install to work properly with my 13700k.
My observation is by default unused cores get parked on raptor lake. So this will park(disable) most p-cores if you tell it to, except probably the preffered p-core.
Again... I cite the fact that Intel needs to go back to the damn drawing board and design a whole new microarchitecture from the ground up. If AMD can do it and they did it three years ago, then why can Intel?
But you can't disable all P cores. The least you can go is 1 P core active.
This is on Z790 motherboard
Clearly this system is confused about how to operate these CPUs.Yeah, I did read more about that. Even though technically you can turn them all off in the BIOS, 1 always remains active.