Intel Advancing 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake-S" Launch to Q3-2022?

[Deleted member 24505]

The E-cores are there to prop up the core/ thread numbers to match competition. It is rumored that AMD's Zen 4 is going to have a higher core count, so Intel is trying to dull the more core/ thread threat with more cores so that their multithreaded numbers won't fall behind. They are not there from an efficiency standpoint, at least not the primary reason.

Yeah that's exactly why they are using more E cores, do you work at Intel /s

 

[Cutechri]

Wasn't there a rumor about Zen 4 not having higher core counts and instead focusing on cache?

Yeah that's exactly why they are using more E cores

Not like they helped the 12900K surpass the 5950X, nope, just to prop up core count. We've got to the point where people are complaining about Intel increasing core counts, which is the exact thing those same people wanted them to do since AMD refueled competition again.

 

[Tomorrow]

We've got to the point where people are complaining about Intel increasing core counts, which is the exact thing those same people wanted them to do since AMD refueled competition again.

I doubt those people wanted weak E-Cores that dont even have that great of a power efficiency and lack HT & cache. Tho AMD may have fewer cores next gen they are all equal in terms of features and IPC. Tho i expect the preferred/gold/silver cores thing to continue where OS tries to use the best clocking core for ST workloads.

 

[Cutechri]

I doubt those people wanted weak E-Cores that dont even have that great of a power efficiency and lack HT & cache. Tho AMD may have fewer cores next gen they are all equal in terms of features and IPC. Tho i expect the preferred/gold/silver cores thing to continue where OS tries to use the best clocking core for ST workloads.

Sigh. I'm not even gonna bother arguing why E-cores aren't the antichrist for the third time in a row.

 

[Tomorrow]

Sigh. I'm not even gonna bother arguing why E-cores aren't the antichrist for the third time in a row.

Then dont assume people asked for bunch of e-cores to equal or surpass AMD. That is not what people wanted when they said Intel should have more cores.

 

[Cutechri]

Then dont assume people asked for bunch of e-cores to equal or surpass AMD. That is not what people wanted when they said Intel should have more cores.

I assume what I want, thank you.

Go ahead and cram 16 P-cores on the same monolithic die. Good luck fitting that let alone cooling that. Intel goes MCM? Cue the "glue" comments that definitely aren't overused. People still can't stop complaining and whining. My original point, alive as it always has been.

The E-cores managed to get the 12900K above and beyond the 5950X, so what is the problem exactly? They function really well, manage background tasks perfectly, are efficient, and also strong when paired together in a multithreaded task, so what is the problem exactly?

I wonder why AMD is having some cores imitate E-core behavior by being lower clocked on Zen 4 if E-cores are so bad. Hmm.

This is my final response on the matter, read my signature if you care to know why.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Sigh. I'm not even gonna bother arguing why E-cores aren't the antichrist for the third time in a row.

some people will never get the point of the E cores. Small low power no ht core, must be rubbish.

 

[Cutechri]

some people will never get the point of the E cores. Small low power no ht core, must be rubbish.

I wish they'd actually try a P-core + E-core ADL chip such as the 12700K just to see how well it really works. Despite the lower IPC E-cores and no HT, that chip surpassed my 12 core 5900X in all synthetic and most gaming benchmarks.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I wish they'd actually try a P-core + E-core ADL chip such as the 12700K just to see how well it really works. Despite the lower IPC E-cores and no HT, that chip surpassed my 12 core 5900X in all synthetic and most gaming benchmarks.

If it wasn't for a generous friend gifting me the 12700k and asus rog 690 board, i would still have a 2600x. I did try cinebench r23 once, impressive, but i'm not really into benches. it is faster than the 2600x though.

 

[Cutechri]

If it wasn't for a generous friend gifting me the 12700k and asus rog 690 board, i would still have a 2600x. I did try cinebench r23 once, impressive, but i'm not really into benches. it is faster than the 2600x though.

I would have gotten an ADL chip if I was still on an i7-8700 and Z390, but since I had already ditched it and re-built on an AM4 platform in 2020, I upgraded to a 5900X that I found at around 380 euros. Can't complain. Not into benches either, but interested specifically in ADL benches and how well those E-cores actually work. People who still think they're Atom cores haven't done their research.

 

[Tomorrow]

I assume what I want, thank you.

Go ahead and cram 16 P-cores on the same monolithic die. Good luck fitting that let alone cooling that. Intel goes MCM? Cue the "glue" comments that definitely aren't overused. People still can't stop complaining and whining. My original point, alive as it always has been.

The E-cores managed to get the 12900K above and beyond the 5950X, so what is the problem exactly? They function really well, manage background tasks perfectly, are efficient, and also strong when paired together in a multithreaded task, so what is the problem exactly?

I wonder why AMD is having some cores imitate E-core behavior by being lower clocked on Zen 4 if E-cores are so bad. Hmm.

This is my final response on the matter, read my signature if you care to know why.

I understand why they did this. Their P core design is too power hungry to fit 16 of them inside and not crossing into HEDT/Server power consumption numbers on a mainstream socket. I get that. Personally i dont care if they have them or not. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment regarding what people wanted Intel to do before and what they did. That Zen4 rumor was BS. There are no "e-cores" in Zen4.

Currently im on 3800X. I skipped regular 5000 series and will jump to 5800X3D. Then wait out both Raptor Lake and and Zen 4 launches. Maybe when Meteor Lake and Zen 5 will arrive in 2023 i might consider upgrading. By then we should hopefully have unquestionably faster DDR5 at normal prices and AM5 teething issues would have been solved.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I think raptor lake is going to be pretty good. Will fit in my board too I'll buy a cheap bord for the 12700k and get the equivalent raptor.

 

[ThrashZone]

If it wasn't for a generous friend gifting me the 12700k and asus rog 690 board, i would still have a 2600x. I did try cinebench r23 once, impressive, but i'm not really into benches. it is faster than the 2600x though.

Hi,
Yeah I'm sure it's light years faster than that one

 

[Cutechri]

I think raptor lake is going to be pretty good. Will fit in my board too I'll buy a cheap bord for the 12700k and get the equivalent raptor.

I'm looking forward to the 14 core i5s Not personally going to upgrade as there's no point (plus planning to upgrade in about 2026 when Nova Lake is out) but very interested to see them on the market.

 

[Renald]

It's me or Intel is creating new chips every month ?

Seriously, each generation seem to last less than 6 months, with few upgrades, far for AMD (except for ST).
They should take a moment, and leap in with a fierce new upgrade, a solid one.

Not an asthmatic new Gen Core every 6 month that nobody will buy.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yeah guessing Intel hasn't noticed a mineral/ parts shortage as everyone else has ?

 

[trsttte]

I assume what I want, thank you.

Go ahead and cram 16 P-cores on the same monolithic die. Good luck fitting that let alone cooling that. Intel goes MCM? Cue the "glue" comments that definitely aren't overused. People still can't stop complaining and whining. My original point, alive as it always has been.

The E-cores managed to get the 12900K above and beyond the 5950X, so what is the problem exactly? They function really well, manage background tasks perfectly, are efficient, and also strong when paired together in a multithreaded task, so what is the problem exactly?

I wonder why AMD is having some cores imitate E-core behavior by being lower clocked on Zen 4 if E-cores are so bad. Hmm.

This is my final response on the matter, read my signature if you care to know why.

some people will never get the point of the E cores. Small low power no ht core, must be rubbish.

The reason people criticize E core is because they see the trick for what it is. Heterogeneous computing is great but the PC space is not yet set up for it. You can take advantage of the E cores for lower priority tasks (like spotify running on E cores while you game on P cores) but you could also just as easily run everything on P cores and avoid any scheduller errors.

In the future this kind of architecture can be great - like imagine having the main game rendering on P cores and the static UI elements using E cores - but that's not today. Today it's only the way Intel found to be able to match the core count AMD was offering since MCM and EMIB aren't ready for prime time yet.

We can mock EMIB glue just as we mock Ryzen infinity latency until the tech proves it self, just like E cores. When things stop being just marketing ploys there will be all the reasons to be happy, until then E cores are a marketing trick, they aren't necessarily useless or crap but they aren't any marvel of engineering either.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

if your gaming on your PC and running discord, and everything else your pc is doing in the background purely on your P cores, that's a lot for them to be doing. Surely better to have your game on only the P cores, and all the other stuff on the E cores.

People don't want this though, they want 32 cores on their desktop so they can have 20 idle doing nothing, the same as people having 32 or 64gb of ram on a gaming rig, so they can have 20 or 50gb doing nothing. Except it sure looks good having tons of boxes when you show your mates your task manager CPU display.

I don't personally think Intel did it to match AMD. Why Amd made a desktop chip with 16/32ht cores is a mystery, as they certainly are not needed for a normal user. See how Intels 8P cores matched the 16/32 of AMD, can't count the E core can we as they are useless just to make up the numbers. Shows how good them 16 cores of AMD must be though. Imagine 16 Intel P cores, Power might be high but it would be hard for AMD to match it with any current desktop CPU.

I am happy with the 8P cores, i don't feel my PC needs any more, others seem to crave them though. R23 scores re not the be all.

 

[AusWolf]

It's funny how people split themselves (and others) into groups of "extreme for" and "extreme against" under every article.

Anyway... I'm not crying for more P-cores. 8 are perfectly fine for me. All I'm saying is that I can't see the point of 16 E-cores (or 16 any cores) on a mainstream desktop platform. All that AMD's 3950X and 5950X did imo, is make their HEDT platform pointless for a lot of people. If the counter-argument is that Intel's HEDT segment hasn't seen an update lately and Core i9 is the new HEDT in a mainstream socket, just like the 5950X with AMD, I can accept that.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Yup there sure seems to be a lot of xover between HEDT and desktop.

I'm not crying for more P cores either the 8 P is as good as AMD's 12 core 5900x. I just accept the fact my 12700k has E cores, they do something. It just bugs me people saying they are slow, error cores, useless etc as they certainly are not. They are also not atom cores by any means.

 

[ThrashZone]

It's funny how people split themselves (and others) into groups of "extreme for" and "extreme against" under every article.

Anyway... I'm not crying for more P-cores. 8 are perfectly fine for me. All I'm saying is that I can't see the point of 16 E-cores (or 16 any cores) on a mainstream desktop platform. All that AMD's 3950X and 5950X did imo, is make their HEDT platform pointless for a lot of people. If the counter-argument is that Intel's HEDT segment hasn't seen an update lately and Core i9 is the new HEDT in a mainstream socket, just like the 5950X with AMD, I can accept that.

Hi,
Chip is not nearly as big as hedt though guess it's early though they'll be as big as 2066 chips soon enough but oops another new freaking socket

 

[AusWolf]

Yup there sure seems to be a lot of xover between HEDT and desktop.

I'm not crying for more P cores either the 8 P is as good as AMD's 12 core 5900x. I just accept the fact my 12700k has E cores, they do something. It just bugs me people saying they are slow, error cores, useless etc as they certainly are not. They are also not atom cores by any means.

I agree - the concept of having dedicated cores for low-load / background tasks seems cool. I just don't see how having 16 of them could be useful. Maybe when reviews come out.

 

[trsttte]

if your gaming on your PC and running discord, and everything else your pc is doing in the background purely on your P cores, that's a lot for them to be doing. Surely better to have your game on only the P cores, and all the other stuff on the E cores.

You don't need a single core for a single task, things sleep and wait, "discord" or whatever low priority task can run together in the same core with other priority tasks. Just open up task manager and you'll see thousands of threads running, that's why multi threading (smt) even works - not everything is using the entire core or even using it all the time, somethings might be further along the chain, others in the middle, others just need a simple sum in the ALU, other are waiting for some other thing to happen first, etc.

Markting would have us believe "E cores are great for low priority things", well they aren't bad, but aren't great either, just a new marketing bulletpoint.

People don't want this though, they want 32 cores on their desktop so they can have 20 idle doing nothing, the same as people having 32 or 64gb of ram on a gaming rig, so they can have 20 or 50gb doing nothing. Except it sure looks good having tons of boxes when you show your mates your task manager CPU display.

People want the best, regardless if they need it or not. If I can have 16 or 12 full fat P cores why would I choose to have 8 P + 4 E or 8 P + 8 E cores? Sometimes I might, but the simple 16 or 12 P cores sound better (I know I know, the 8P + 8E can outperform the 12P).

I don't personally think Intel did it to match AMD. Why Amd made a desktop chip with 16/32ht cores is a mystery, as they certainly are not needed for a normal user. See how Intels 8P cores matched the 16/32 of AMD, can't count the E core can we as they are useless just to make up the numbers. Shows how good them 16 cores of AMD must be though. Imagine 16 Intel P cores, Power might be high but it would be hard for AMD to match it with any current desktop CPU.

Well then the markting worked. Why would they bother with E cores after years of the "you don't need more cores" argument!? Lots of normal users need 16 cores, just depends on what you consider normal. If that wasn't the case, Intel wouldn't also be increasing the number of cores.

I am happy with the 8P cores, i don't feel my PC needs any more, others seem to crave them though. R23 scores re not the be all.

R23 is meant to represent 1 type of workload, that happens to be regarded as a good-ish way to measure saturated performance. I'm a software developer, R23 results don't really translate but I look at a high score as my code will compile faster. They're not everything, but better is better.

 

[Cutechri]

I'm glad E-cores didn't end up being Atom IPC or people would've been even more asinine about them than they are now

 

[Deleted member 24505]

You don't need a single core for a single task, things sleep and wait, "discord" or whatever low priority task can run together in the same core with other priority tasks. Just open up task manager and you'll see thousands of threads running, that's why multi threading (smt) even works - not everything is using the entire core or even using it all the time, somethings might be further along the chain, others in the middle, others just need a simple sum in the ALU, other are waiting for some other thing to happen first, etc.

Markting would have us believe "E cores are great for low priority things", well they aren't bad, but aren't great either, just a new marketing bulletpoint.



People want the best, regardless if they need it or not. If I can have 16 or 12 full fat P cores why would I choose to have 8 P + 4 E or 8 P + 8 E cores? Sometimes I might, but the simple 16 or 12 P cores sound better (I know I know, the 8P + 8E can outperform the 12P).



Well then the markting worked. Why would they bother with E cores after years of the "you don't need more cores" argument!? Lots of normal users need 16 cores, just depends on what you consider normal. If that wasn't the case, Intel wouldn't also be increasing the number of cores.



R23 is meant to represent 1 type of workload, that happens to be regarded as a good-ish way to measure saturated performance. I'm a software developer, R23 results don't really translate but I look at a high score as my code will compile faster. They're not everything, but better is better.

More like the 8p out perform the 12p but that's nit picking.

The choice is not number of cores but performance surely. If 8 out perform 12 (or whatever) i would take the 8 every day.

Intel is increasing the number of cores, just not P ones, which seems to be why some people are pissed at Intel, they want P cores as more is better surely. If people need more cores does it really matter if less out perform more? surely not.

As for r23, even stock, my CPU easily beat a 5900x in ST and MT so if you need to compile stuff then the higher scores are better, even with less cores. Sometime more is not always better.