Intel Raptor Lake with 24 Cores and 32 Threads Demoed

[Deleted member 24505]

If AMD keep going higher on the core count are they expecting Intel to follow. Is AM5 going to be BIG.little based or just more power cores that people don't really need. Maybe they will just to thrash Intel again, which is just silly.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
No telling
AMD should be working on their poor memory latency which will improve performance there.

Otherwise Intel's successful reaction to 5k release has passed the ball back to amd.

 

[Vayra86]

If Discord is not heavy enough to push a P core at max frequency, then probably the efficiency difference between running on an E core or a P core, is not so great. P core could be doing the job at 2GHz, while E core at 3GHz.

The marketing parameter is too great here to be ignored. With Alder Lake Intel is matching AMD on the desktop and beats them on laptops. Intel laptops can be advertised and sold as having a "14 core CPU". You can't beat that. I believe even some Intel fans would be having second thoughts when thinking of buying a 4C/8T Tiger Lake when next to it they had an 8C/16T Ryzen system. Now with Alder Lake this is changing rapidly and with Raptor Lake Intel will be turning the tables also on desktop. AMD will be advertising a 16Core CPU, while Intel will be selling 24 core CPUs at probably the same price.

Power usage is also important for Intel because it is behind in manufacturing. Even if they could shrink 16 P cores in the mainstream platform, the power consumption, especially when needing to go over 5GHz, would be matching ThreadRippers and Xeons.


We don't have to feel "excited" about it, do we? I am the one saying above that on the desktop my 10 years old 6 core/6 threads Thuban looks absolutely smooth and does the job nicely. Probably a little slower than my Ryzen, but smooth, no waiting for the user to get annoyed.
So, 8 cores are enough today and for the next few years. Intel knows it, so they build their SOCs based on that. "8 fast cores are more than enough".
But when, we as users, customers, enthusiasts, started feeling "excited" about a probable stagnation?

Are we that excited then? Its just new stuff surrounded by question marks. Im not seeing massive hype around ADL or any of the new intel products.

I think you worry a bit too much that Intel found a magical antithesis to AMDs push in the CPU space and their supposed USP of pushing core counts up - 'real' cores at that in your view. Maybe they have, maybe they havent. This is competition, it goes back and forth and yes marketing plays a big role alongside a hundred other aspects. We talked about some of those before.

Marketing aside i think Intel is doing a better job at preserving their share on mobile chips for example. ADL clearly points that way, rather than desktop, while Zen is serving that segment with afterthought-products that trail new stuff in every possible way. Vega in APUs... late same gen release... etc.

 

[john_]

Are we that excited then? Its just new stuff surrounded by question marks. Im not seeing massive hype around ADL or any of the new intel products.

I think you worry a bit too much that Intel found a magical antithesis to AMDs push in the CPU space and their supposed USP of pushing core counts up - 'real' cores at that in your view. Maybe they have, maybe they havent. This is competition, it goes back and forth and yes marketing plays a big role alongside a hundred other aspects. We talked about some of those before.

Marketing aside i think Intel is doing a better job at preserving their share on mobile chips for example. ADL clearly points that way, rather than desktop, while Zen is serving that segment with afterthought-products that trail new stuff in every possible way. Vega in APUs... late same gen release... etc.

There is massive hype about Alder Lake because it is a very strong come back from Intel. People seems to ignore power consumption and efficiency in favor of Single and Multi threaded performance, Intel is taking advantage of it, plus Intel's over a decade expertise in improving IPC (for a period of time that was the way they had decided to offer performance gains) keeps them on top. It took AMD 3 generations of Zen to beat Intel in ST performance and Intel took that back easily.

But my problem is the fusion between Atom and Core lines. It's not "AMD vs Intel", it's not about Intel finding the magical spell to beat AMD. It's "today vs tomorrow products". Today we get P cores. Tomorrow we will be getting combinations of P and E cores. Today in every generation we get faster of more P cores. Tomorrow we could be getting from generation to generation a single digit performance gain in P cores and just more E cores or a little faster E cores. We might start seeing even more E cores in the place of P cores for cheaper models. The possibilities are endless for series of refreshes that will be offering nothing. We could go for example from 6+0 configurations to 4+2 and latter to 2+4. Next generation cores will always offer better performance, so we will be releaving a stagnation period by seeing faster than before E cores replacing P cores, landing us in about the same MT performance. Why? Because if I was a corporation, that's what I would be doing to increase my profits. Especially knowing that my competitor will be doing the same. In mobile SOCs it's already happening. From 4 P + 4 E configurations we have gone to 2 + 2 + 4, or even 1 + 3 + 4.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

From what i have seen of Intels roadmap, they are sticking to 8P cores and increasing the E cores.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Define "A LOT". People in here? People going to the HEDT platform because they couldn't find anything more than 4C/8T in the mainstream platform? Oh please. OH! "people who had a clue". Oh, now you are more specific, yeah, right.

People who remember history? How about the people who are always in need to more powerful CPUs?

I have a problem with nobodies who think they have the right to be rude.

This says much more about you than it does me. Good luck with that.

Now the argument for AL Ecores is, it does not lower the Single Core performance. So what the hell?
The arguments are flying everywhere now.

And as I was implying earlier, only those who do not understand the balance of the Pcores VS Ecores are asking the questions. Those who have read the reviews, witnessed the numbers they provide and understand the context of those numbers are not confused at all. Intel's version of big/little takes the concept and applies it to the X86/X64 market in a way that, if devs take advantage of it, makes computing for the architechure a very effective endeavor. Not everything needs a Pcore to run effectively. For example, a set of Ecores(quad group) are about the same performance as a Core2Quad running with modern instruction sets. If you consider that Windows 11 runs perfectly fine on a Core2Duo(tested this personally), a C2Q is equally at home running the same OS. So when we bring things back to AlderLake and the upcoming RaptorLake, the entirety of the Windows OS can run on the Ecores very effectively, leaving the Pcores for heavy lifting in tasks that need the raw power and speed.

Does it really bother you john that we might end up with P core stagnation?

Stagnation?

Do we really need more and more P cores?

For those who need them, yes. Personally, I want to see a 16P+16E die configuration with quad channel memory for the HEDT market.

People seems to ignore power consumption and efficiency in favor of Single and Multi threaded performance

People aren't ignoring it so much as not taking out of proportion the fact that those massive power numbers are in unlocked power profile overclocking situations. If you read the reviews, you see that for the non-unlocked models and the unlocked models not running OC'd, the electrical usage is very reasonable. That would of course require reading AND understanding the context of numbers on display...

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Stagnation

lack of activity, growth, or development.

Intel do need a HEDT CPU I guess, and 16P+16E cores would indeed do it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Intel do need a HEDT CPU I guess, and 16P+16E cores would indeed do it.

12P+12E would be nice too!

 

[thestryker6]

I highly doubt that we'll see HEDT with E-cores at all unless Intel decides to create a workstation class processor that exists outside Desktop/Xeon. Of course it seems like SPR is likely going to be pretty expensive to make so it's not impossible that Intel would do so.

 

[ratirt]

And as I was implying earlier, only those who do not understand the balance of the Pcores VS Ecores are asking the questions. Those who have read the reviews, witnessed the numbers they provide and understand the context of those numbers are not confused at all. Intel's version of big/little takes the concept and applies it to the X86/X64 market in a way that, if devs take advantage of it, makes computing for the architechure a very effective endeavor. Not everything needs a Pcore to run effectively. For example, a set of Ecores(quad group) are about the same performance as a Core2Quad running with modern instruction sets. If you consider that Windows 11 runs perfectly fine on a Core2Duo(tested this personally), a C2Q is equally at home running the same OS. So when we bring things back to AlderLake and the upcoming RaptorLake, the entirety of the Windows OS can run on the Ecores very effectively, leaving the Pcores for heavy lifting in tasks that need the raw power and speed.

Balance?
I will ask you again in that case. How many Ecores we need to run background tasks? +2? is +4 ok? AL has +8 and it has been confirmed the new lakes releases will be +24? So we need more Ecores to run background tasks? That doesnt make sense. If we need more Ecores to run background tasks then we need more performance and those Ecores are to weak to get the job done. So why increasing Ecores since we need more and more of them while Pcores are 8 max? Just asking from the perspective that everyone here excited about AL is saying that Ecores are only for background tasks and working behind actual performance Pcores and yet we get 8+24 soon. I would not be surprised if we ended up 4+32 at some point. And people will say it just works you dont need Pcores. I dont think this is the right approach. Just because it works it doesnt mean it cant work better. Stagnation here is, we will be stuck with 8 Pcores (if we are lucky) and they will add ecores more and more till they just swap the Pcores and they will be gone and people will keep saying. But it works why are you bothered with this. I wonder, if the price will drop as well or you will get a bump in the price as well.
It will always work in some way but it not necessarily mean better or faster if they start swapping Pcores. That goes for both companies not just Intel. Ecores dont have HT but I'm sure most of the AL enthusiasts will soon say, why HT? it still works fine. Good luck with that. Or maybe they will do HT for Ecores making the transition to kick Pcores out even easier.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I will ask you again in that case. How many Ecores we need to run background tasks?

I've already answered that question. Let's review...

For example, a set of Ecores(quad group) are about the same performance as a Core2Quad running with modern instruction sets. If you consider that Windows 11 runs perfectly fine on a Core2Duo(tested this personally), a C2Q is equally at home running the same OS.

Soooo...

AL has +8

True.

and it has been confirmed the new lakes releases will be +24?

Not true. The total core count will be 24 core, 8Pcores/16Ecores.

The rest of your statement seems like little more than indignant pessimism, which I will not entertain...

 

[ratirt]

I've already answered that question. Let's review...

What was the answer if you can. How many Ecores are needed? Just give a number.

Not true. The total core count will be 24 core, 8Pcores/16Ecores.

The rest of your statement seems like little more than indignant pessimism, which I will not entertain...

It will be dont worry. +8 now +16 tomorrow 24+ in a month
Guess time will tell.

Soooo...

Are you saying that 4Ecores are the same as 2Pcores or i dont understand it right?

 

[lexluthermiester]

What was the answer if you can. How many Ecores are needed? Just give a number.

The reason I didn't give a specific number is because it depends on individual use-case-scenario and average workload. If you're a power user and do a crap-ton of things all at once, the more the merrier. If you are a gamer and do little else, 4 would do the job well. Everyone has to look at their computing habits and carefully consider what they might need. It's always best to overshop to give yourself room to expand. So if you do a lot of everything, a 12900 model would be a good way to go. If you're more of a gamer a 12700 does well, if you're more of a casual user, a 12600 or 12400 would be fine.

Are you saying that 4Ecores are the same as 2Pcores or i dont understand it right?

No, I'm saying that Ecores compliment Pcores and take the light loads off of them. For example;

This is a screen shot of Windows 11 running on my recently acquired Lenovo Core2 based system, running an E8400. That CPU is roughly equal to 1.5 Ecores and it runs 11 perfectly(surprisingly) well and smooth, so a full 4 Ecores will be more than enough to run Windows by themselves. 8 Ecores will allow Windows to even more smoothly. Either way, this leaves the Pcores to do heavy lifting. The Pcores can then be power-gated(shut-off) when not needed leaving the rest of the system perfectly smooth and the user won't know the difference.

The reason I'm comparing the Ecores to the Core2 line of CPU's is because they are, from what I understand, very similar architecturally. While the Ecores are FAR more efficient in electrical power usage, they seem to be in the ballpark of performance. So IMO, it's a fair comparison.

Does this make sense?

 

[ratirt]

The reason I didn't give a specific number is because it depends on individual use-case-scenario and average workload. If you're a power user and do a crap-ton of things all at once, the more the merrier. If you are a gamer and do little else, 4 would do the job well. Everyone has to look at their computing habits and carefully consider what they might need. It's always best to overshop to give yourself room to expand. So if you do a lot of everything, a 12900 model would be a good way to go. If you're more of a gamer a 12700 does well, if you're more of a casual user, a 12600 or 12400 would be fine.

No, I'm saying that Ecores compliment Pcores and take the light loads off of them. For example;
View attachment 237517
This is a screen shot of Windows 11 running on my recently acquired Lenovo Core2 based system, running an E8400. That CPU is roughly equal to 1.5 Ecores and it runs 11 perfectly(surprisingly) well and smooth, so a full 4 Ecores will be more than enough to run Windows by themselves. 8 Ecores will allow Windows to even more smoothly. Either way, this leaves the Pcores to do heavy lifting. The Pcores can then be power-gated(shut-off) when not needed leaving the rest of the system perfectly smooth and the user won't know the difference.

The reason I'm comparing the Ecores to the Core2 line of CPU's is because they are, from what I understand, very similar architecturally. While the Ecores are FAR more efficient in electrical power usage, they seem to be in the ballpark of performance. So IMO, it's a fair comparison.

Does this make sense?

It does make sense but it still doesn't made me think it is a good approach. Like I said, saying that something works and Ecores are to compliment the Pcores is an obvious thing. Some people have concerns, including me, that this approach will make the Pcores kicked out for good. I understand that there is an individual use case and some may need 2Ecores some 4Ecores for background tasks. The problem is the Pcores are not going to change instead only Ecores will and those are for the background tasks as you said. So 16Ecores for more background tasking?
I still dont buy that Ecores thing and I think we are going backwards with tech. I'm afraid, if You can run windows on Ecores as you said (you can obviously) desktops will no longer have Pcores at some point. Because people like you will say you dont need them to play a game and thus, Pcores will only go to expensive HEDT or servers leaving you and me, us out. Of course the price for a Ecores complete CPU will not change but the price for Pcores in an HEDT and server CPUs will sky rocket. Which means we will be back at square one. I also dont buy this less power for desktops. Since when we need less power for desktops? Obviously it needs to be balanced but i feel like the advancement for Pcores has stopped because it is convenient for the companies to do it. Advertising their products as less power hungry. anyway, I get what you are saying that it works and it fine for gaming. But that is not my concern and point here.
For example: If 4Ecores are like a Pcore than I can guarantee you, companies will get rid of the Pcores form Desktop segment whenever they get a chance with similar performance. Since Intel is locking Pcores to 8 only in the CPUs, the change has started already and it's just a matter of time. That is how I see it. Pcores will be for HEDT and server for astronomical price only with boost in performance of course.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Every Intel CPU on their roadmap at least up to 2024 has P cores, maybe more E cores but still has the P's. P cores are not going to disappear

 

[ratirt]

Every Intel CPU on their roadmap at least up to 2024 has P cores, maybe more E cores but still has the P's. P cores are not going to disappear

Yeah but they definitely gonna be stuck because who needs more than 8 right?
actually we will see what the future holds in time. Maybe they wont stay.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Only AMD users need more than 8



/s better put this or people will whine at me.

 

[ratirt]

Only AMD users need more than 8



/s better put this or people will whine at me.

I have a use for more meanwhile Intel users can go with 'whatever cores and number of them' to play a game with youtube and twitter in the background.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

From what i have seen of Intels roadmap, they are sticking to 8P cores and increasing the E cores.

And yet there not just for core count wars, AHH the irony of your posts.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah but they definitely gonna be stuck because who needs more than 8 right?

I can think of many uses where more than 8 would improve performance. The idea that we're stuck at 8 is a silly notion.

 

[ratirt]

I can think of many uses where more than 8 would improve performance. The idea that we're stuck at 8 is a silly notion.

Pcores to be exact. You know what I'm taking about don't try to change the meaning.

 

[Vayra86]

There is massive hype about Alder Lake because it is a very strong come back from Intel. People seems to ignore power consumption and efficiency in favor of Single and Multi threaded performance, Intel is taking advantage of it, plus Intel's over a decade expertise in improving IPC (for a period of time that was the way they had decided to offer performance gains) keeps them on top. It took AMD 3 generations of Zen to beat Intel in ST performance and Intel took that back easily.

But my problem is the fusion between Atom and Core lines. It's not "AMD vs Intel", it's not about Intel finding the magical spell to beat AMD. It's "today vs tomorrow products". Today we get P cores. Tomorrow we will be getting combinations of P and E cores. Today in every generation we get faster of more P cores. Tomorrow we could be getting from generation to generation a single digit performance gain in P cores and just more E cores or a little faster E cores. We might start seeing even more E cores in the place of P cores for cheaper models. The possibilities are endless for series of refreshes that will be offering nothing. We could go for example from 6+0 configurations to 4+2 and latter to 2+4. Next generation cores will always offer better performance, so we will be releaving a stagnation period by seeing faster than before E cores replacing P cores, landing us in about the same MT performance. Why? Because if I was a corporation, that's what I would be doing to increase my profits. Especially knowing that my competitor will be doing the same. In mobile SOCs it's already happening. From 4 P + 4 E configurations we have gone to 2 + 2 + 4, or even 1 + 3 + 4.

Right. And how is this new? Intel ran its quads for ages too. And, things dont scale infinitely.

If you look at higher segments its no different. CPU core configs dont keep going up steadily, new technology enables that in waves.

In th end if there is no advantage taken from a newer product you wont upgrade. Which goes back to the earlier discussion. Especially if you think this is one massive cartel instead of two competitors closely watching one another...

 

[lexluthermiester]

Pcores to be exact.

Yup, I was talking about Pcores too. There are a lot of usage scenario's where more than 8 would be great! I would love to see a version of AlderLake/RaptorLake with 12Pcores/12Ecores or 16Pcores/16Ecores. Yes, yes!

You know what I'm taking about don't try to change the meaning.

Wasn't trying to. No worries!

 

[ratirt]

Yup, I was talking about Pcores too. There are a lot of usage scenario's where more than 8 would be great! I would love to see a version of AlderLake/RaptorLake with 12Pcores/12Ecores or 16Pcores/16Ecores. Yes, yes!

If that would be the case I'd be less concerned but apparently it won't be. Not that we have even a rumor about Intel going for more Pcores than 8. Increase in Ecores only my friend. 16+16 would have been nice. I only hope we wont have 4+24 at some point. It's really hard for me to understand why people constantly (here at TPU) think that everything revolves around gaming thinking, gaming drives the PC industry. I'm skeptical don't mind me.

Wasn't trying to. No worries!

Thanks.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Not that we have even a rumor about Intel going for more Pcores than 8. Increase in Ecores only my friend.

You don't and can't know that. Intel can and will do whatever they think will give them an edge and make money. Such models might become their HEDT range.