Of course games do well on E cores, games aren't exactly CPU limited. But watch your background compilation or transcoding get relegated to an E core and let me know how happy you are about it. For the time being, E core are more trouble than they're worth it. I've recently enabled them to see how Linux handles them, but I didn't look into it properly.
Says the guy running water cooling. The 12900k is clearly pushed too hard, throwing TDP out the window. Even my 12600k, I've constrained it to 75/125W and my humble Freezer 34 makes short work of it. Whisper quiet.
TL;DR The architecture is only slightly worse than Zen3, but out of the box, it is pushed too far.
Exactly well said. I agree for time being that e-cores are more trouble than they are worth. And FPS is way way down on e-cores for gaming but still within acceptable margin as most games are not CPU bound.
I do not have a problem per see with e-cores themselves on many SKUs as you can disable them. What I do have a massive problem with is the hard lock at 8 P cores. And Intel is just continuing to add more and more e-cores and staying at 8 P cores which is just wrong and not a good choice to do. Its not even a hybrid arch anymore like Alder Lake. At least Alder Lake had an equal amount of e and P cores or always more p cores. You could just shut off the e-cores and have a great 8 core chip, but no more than 8 strong cores. Now with future gens all Intel has made Big.Little more like Big.LittleXXXXX with the X being e-cores increasing each gen per the roadmaps.
And there is not even HEDT to turn to anymore. Well there was supposed to have been and even been here by now rebranded from HEDT to Mainstream Xeon Workstation or something like that (but who cares about the name), but it keeps getting delayed and delayed yet again and again if it ever sees the light of day.
Intel actually had better options 5-8 years ago back in the day than they do now despite their being no competition from AMD. On mainstream, you were stuck on 4 cores 8 thread chips. But they had a great HEDT platform where you could get 6 core chips (starting with Bloomfield through Ivy Bridge-E in 2010 to 2013) than 8 cores and even 10 cores starting with Haswell-E through Broadwell-E form late 2014 through 2016. Then they had Skylake-X 5 years ago as I type this though that was a step in wrong direction as latency got bad when they went to mesh form the ringbus and since have had no HEDT besides the meaningless Cascade Lake-X refresh in late 2019. Back then 4 core 8 thread chips were the same as 8 core 16 thread chips are today. And 16 cores today is like 8 cores back then. And yet Intel had excellent HEDT options with 8-10 cores that were a bit expensive, but still within reach to high end enthusiasts who have more money to spend than others, but do not want not beyond break the bank with Server high end workstation class parts that could get up to $10K or more just for a desktop.
Now despite their being competition from AMD, Intel is worse in innovation hard locking us to what was the 4 core 8 thread equivalent 5-8 years ago now with 8 cores and 16 threads, but with no HEDT option to be found to go for more on current archiecture. The e-cores are not wanted by everyone so they do not count. At the very least they need choice on mainstream platform Why not both a 10 P core Alder Lake chip in addition to their 8+8 chips as different use cases demand both especially since there is no HEDT option for more than 8 cores. Oh and before anyone like I have seen before in another thread ripping on me for wanting ore P-cores and my suggestion of that for Intel claiming it is bad to have your own products compete against each other like a 10+0 vs 8+8, well tell that to AMD. Company's own products compete against each other all the time and it serves different markets and benefits a company in the long run. I mean AMD technically has the 5800X3D competing against the 5900X and 5950X. One has only 8 cores but lots more L3 cache in 5800X3D. The other 2 have more cores but regular less L3 cache. Depends on use case. The e-cores are more trouble than they are worth for lots of people today and really in near future, and there are many who want more than 8, so a 10 P core chip would be beyond welcome.
Most people whining about them don't understand them at all. Plus don't forget, at some point AMD WILL be using them too
Yeah it would not be a problem if Intel had chips with more than 8 P cores. AMD is not hard locking us into chips with 8 at most P cores. They plan to use e-cores on lower end and mobile chips, but not flagship Ryzen Zen 5 parts.
Of course things can change and its pretty scary what someone else mentioned that companies could try just throwing more e-cores down our throat while decreasing P cores even more and market high core counts of weak cores and save money. I do not think we are anywhere near that point, but still scary thought.
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Wolverine2349: Provides very good explanation and reasoning as to wanting more from Intel in the way of performance cores rather than efficiency cores.
People like HenrySomeone providing nothing constructive as to debunking what Wolverine said:
Me: /facepalm
Oh god, I'm glad i missed the crap he wrote before i posted my last reply or I'd have to flame! I was on Windows 11, maybe Windows 10 was slightly faster at the time due to the scheduler being not so optimized but...did i really notice? No. My GPU was no longer as gimped by my CPU! Only thing I've complained about is the price of DDR5
though it *is* better in many ways...the speeeeeed (bandwidth)! Previously only achievable with HEDT and 4 memory channels, you can hit over 100GB/s on a mainstream!
CrAsHnBuRnXp was actually agreeing with me. Read their posts earlier in this thread.
For anyone whining about the P-core E-core stuff, i'd like to remind you of a video Der8auer did where he points out that the E-cores aren't exactly a slouch, running a game only on the E-cores and getting surprising results! Easy to spot the odd AMD fanboy or people who don't really know what they're talking about, isn't it?
I am not a fanboy of either company. In fact I actually slightly prefer Intel when they have comparable IPC and clocks and big boy core counts. If AMD was maxing out at 8 P cores and just adding more e-cores to CPUs, I would be just as upset with them.
I am going all AMD cause Intel has no choice of more than 8 P cores. And while Intel Golden Cove and then Raptor Cove cores will have mild/modest better IPC than Zen 3/ Probably Zen 4 too, the IPC deficit is not enough to make me switch to Intel and be stuck at 8 P cores and hybrid arch if I want more. Its no where near the IPC gap of even the Conroe vs K8 days let alone the 50% or more IPC deficit AMD had with Bulldozer and pilediver compared to Intel counterparts of the day.
