Intel Core i7-14700K has an 8P+12E Core Configuration

[R0H1T]

What I was trying to say, is that AMD doesn't give optimistic roadmaps. 3 years ago, AMD said that zen 4 was going to be a 5nm product scheduled to launch in 2022. And that's exactly what happened. In 2018 they said that Vermeer was coming in 2020, on a matured process. That's exactly what happened. To me it sounds like that AMD/TSMC actually know where they are going, and have an efficient communication channel.

I'd give slightly, or a lot more, credit to Apple ~ they're really the driving force behind TSMC's node leadership! They're basically funding the bleeding edge almost all by themselves.

 

[Daven]

Intel being in the top 20% of charts, and even contesting the performance lead in some cases, while being 2 nodes behind is a bit of proof in itself.

The only proof here is that old nodes clock higher when you throw power usage efficiency completely out the window.

 

[Nucleoprotein]

Correct! It's the way it has been in mobile phones for years, now available for laptops/desktops and AMD is working on it too....

And they are good for gaming too, my i7 12700K beating your "gaming" CPU...

Intel Core i7-13700K Review - Great at Gaming and Applications

With the Core i7-13700K, Intel has built a formidable jack-of-all-trades processor. Our review confirms that it offers fantastic application performance, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 7900X, and in gaming it gets you higher FPS than any AMD processor ever released, delivering an experience...

www.techpowerup.com

Take a look here: RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review - Benchmark Results | TechPowerUp
It depends on task. In games my CPU is only 6,2% average slower than 13900K and is taking like half of energy, 7800X3D is squishing 13900K taking like 88W at max. Yes, it true, Intel CPUs are performing better, but at cost of insane energy usage.

 

[P4-630]

Take a look here: RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review - Benchmark Results | TechPowerUp
It depends on task. In games my CPU is only 6,2% average slower than 13900K and is taking like half of energy, 7800X3D is squishing 13900K taking like 88W at max. Yes, it true, Intel CPUs are performing better, but at cost of insane energy usage.

I that post I was mentioning my i7 12700K vs your AMD 5800x3d CPU..

 

[Nucleoprotein]

I that post I was mentioning my i7 12700K vs your AMD 5800x3d CPU..

Yes, and your CPU is taking 55W more, which is like 1/3 more of 5800X3D so it should have about 1/3 better performance and clearly it does not have that.

Curious why i have not seen any Xeon with E-Cores

 

[brucechow]

There is no rocket science here. While Intel have given the new chips a bump in cache, it is almost certain that the power requirement will also be bumped up. Given how difficult it is to cool even a 13700K under heavy CPU load, without resorting to custom water cooling and some mods, I think the same will apply to this. If its gaming performance specifically, Intel have an impossible task to match AMD's 7800X3D in terms of power vs performance. It only proves again that without an advantage or even disadvantage in terms of fab, Intel is struggling big time. The chip architecture is decent, but been pushed too hard to try and fend off competition.

I agree. As AM4 fanboy and user, I have to admit that the Intel architecture is one of the best ever, its “core” is relatively unchanged for decades and pushed amd to the edge. Amd could only match that architecture recently with chiplet + 3dvcache innovation.

I really hope Intel doesn’t take 20 years to match amd on power/performance ratio. As costumers, we really need good coopetition

 

[P4-630]

Curious why i have not seen any Xeon with E-Cores

They are coming:

Intel Discloses Multi-Generation Xeon Scalable Roadmap: New E-Core Only Xeons in 2024

www.anandtech.com

Intel announces 144 core Xeon processor

Sierra Forest will be the first to use efficient cores for lower processing power.

www.networkworld.com

 

[Upgrayedd]

How fast was gear 1 on ADL and then RPL? Did they even have gears? Are gears only for pairing with DDR4 or did they also have gears when used with DDR5? Was there a gear difference between different models of the same architecture? For example, i7 11700K is 3200MHz G1 while i9 11900K was 3600MHz G1.

 

[phanbuey]

How fast was gear 1 on ADL and then RPL? Did they even have gears? Are gears only for pairing with DDR4 or did they also have gears when used with DDR5? Was there a gear difference between different models of the same architecture? For example, i7 11700K is 3200MHz G1 while i9 11900K was 3600MHz G1.

Gear 1 on alderlake was great on lower end chips -- goes to 4000/4133 MHz on ddr4 (MSI A-Pro cheapo board and a 12600k).

DDR5 on raptor lake only seems to work in gear 2 though, even at lower settings -- at least on my current mobo.

 

[AusWolf]

So basically it's somewhat a Core-i9.

No, it's a Core i8.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

It wouldn't, AMD would just release probably a 4c/5c Zen chip with 24-32 cores & obliterate them!

Which is great for us, we'll have better CPUs for cheaper.

 

[Od1sseas]

I don't care what people say, but i love E-Cores. They give a massive boost in performance in literally everything except gaming.

 

[Daven]

I don't care what people say, but i love E-Cores. They give a massive boost in performance in literally everything except gaming.

You know what else gives a massive boost in performance, more P-cores. I guess I don’t get it. You can have 16 AMD P-cores with the same total performance as 8 Intel P-cores plus 16 Intel E-cores for less energy usage. Why go with the higher power, heterogeneous version other than brand loyalty?

 

[Tek-Check]

The last hurray on LGA1700 for anyone who wants a one-off upgrade. i7 seems a good offering for Alder Lake folks.

 

[R0H1T]

No, it's a Core i8.

You mean Core 8 Ultra Max Super Tie

 

[Hxx]

Correct! It's the way it has been in mobile phones for years, now available for laptops/desktops and AMD is working on it too....

And they are good for gaming too, my i7 12700K beating your "gaming" CPU...

Intel Core i7-13700K Review - Great at Gaming and Applications

With the Core i7-13700K, Intel has built a formidable jack-of-all-trades processor. Our review confirms that it offers fantastic application performance, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 7900X, and in gaming it gets you higher FPS than any AMD processor ever released, delivering an experience...

www.techpowerup.com

I wouldn’t buy an intel chip for just gaming so long as the 5800x3d / 7800x3d exist and are available to purchase in your region . Just doesn’t make any sense . Unless you have a specific need , from a gaming perspective no way I would pick an intel platform

 

[dyonoctis]

Yes, and your CPU is taking 55W more, which is like 1/3 more of 5800X3D so it should have about 1/3 better performance and clearly it does not have that.

Curious why i have not seen any Xeon with E-Cores

More like 20 more watts in gaming, now look at the 5900x/5950x and the 7900x/7950x in gaming. That not quite half the power of a 13700k/13900k is it ?
X3D are an outlier. Weaker than the regular chips in applicative, but much, much more efficient in gaming, because the design is just really optimized for gaming. Even the classic Ryzen seems massively inefficient versus their 3D counter part in gaming. But X3D chip are only attractive to gamers, other users will find a better price/performance with the classic Ryzen.

The comparison between a 13900k and a 5800x3D is only a thing because Intel doesn't sell a gaming focused chip, but the i9 happens to be the fastest intel chip for gaming. Still, those two products are meant for two radically different target. What's a 5800x3D is going to accomplish against the i9 in applicative ? And a pure gamer will ultimately benefit more from a 13600k/strong GPU combo. The i9 only give you 2% more performance.

Using the i9 as your reference in a pure gaming scenario is a bit disingenuous. Even in intel own line-up that's the least efficient CPU for gaming. The 13600k make it look bad in that specific scenario, just like it also make the 7900x/7950x looks bad in gaming if we are going to cherry pick.

Intel is indeed less efficient, just not as much as you try to paint it, once you look at the bigger picture. Look at the graphs on TPU, and you will see a few games in which a 13700K use less, or as much power as a 7900x.

 

[dirtyferret]

what if the E cores develop an inferiority complex to the P cores? I mean the P cores get to have all the fun assignments and the E cores get regulated to background tasks, will the Cinebench scores suffer down the road? Is there an app we can run for our E cores well being?

 

[Daven]

what if the E cores develop an inferiority complex to the P cores? I mean the P cores get to have all the fun assignments and the E cores get regulated to background tasks, will the Cinebench scores suffer down the road? Is there an app we can run for our E cores well being?

Weather bug?

 

[dyonoctis]

You know what else gives a massive boost in performance, more P-cores. I guess I don’t get it. You can have 16 AMD P-cores with the same total performance as 8 Intel P-cores plus 16 Intel E-cores for less energy usage. Why go with the higher power, heterogeneous version other than brand loyalty?

Quicksync, for some and less platform quirks. The latter is not really AMD fault's, and it's getting better, but you are still going to see a few people reporting odd behavior of specific apps on a Ryzen system.
Zen 2 for example had an exclusive bug in Maya:
AMD Ryzen and Unfold 3D Maya problem - Autodesk Community - Maya

I myself had an issue with shutter encoder who works well 1 out of 2 time with my 3700x, but works just fine on my intel laptop. I've seen a professional 3d artist say that he's sticking with Intel, even if it's slower for peace of mind. AMD still need to work on the mindshare aspect, to convince people that "it's safe to switch". I've heard a loooot of people (especially people outside the tech community) who don't see them as a safe option just yet

 

[Hxx]

Using the i9 as your reference in a pure gaming scenario is a bit disingenuous.

Why is it disingenuous for gaming? The point is to compare the best of the best from both platforms. Yes the i9 is not "the best value" compared to an i5 for gaming but thats irrelevant. Do not confuse best value with best performance. The 7800x3d is also not the best value either since a 5800x3d almost matches its performance in certain games for much less and other AM5 chips also come in pretty close in gaming but the 7800x3d is the best performing chip (which also happens to be much more power efficient than intel).

 

[dyonoctis]

Why is is disingenuous for gaming? The point is to compare the best of the best from both platforms. Yes the i9 is not "the best value" compared to an i5 for gaming but thats irrelevant. Do not confuse best value with best performance. The 7800x3d is also not the best value either since a 5800x3d almost matches its performance in certain games for much less but the 7800x3d is the best performing chip (which also happens to be much more power efficient than intel). so from a gaming perspective, if one wants the best out there, then a comparison between a 13900k vs 7800x3d makes the most sense.

As I said, that scenario make sense for a tech comparison, since it's the fastest that intel got, even if it's ill suited for a pure gamer. But not for a real world situation in most case. The price of the two chips are not comparable, someone who's looking to shop for a 13900k is more likely to look at the 7950x/7950x3D, and decide it's worth the 100€ premium. The 7800x3d is faster and cheaper. Case closed, the i9 is always going to lose for a gaming scenario. Unless you have more money than sense, you will not buy the i9 if you don't need the threads/much higher performance in applicative.

 

[..0]

the e core and p core count sem like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
with a bit of tweaking like i did to my 12700k it should run fine on a good air cooler.
my 4090 is starved for more cpu power so a 14700k might not be much of an uplift in that sense.
by the time a 5090 is out we have a 15700k so why does this generation exist?

 

[JustBenching]

that AMD’s 16 Zen 4 cores perform like Intel P-cores but sip energy closer to Intel E-cores.

That is absolutely true. Zen 4 cores are similar to ecores in performance / wattage, and they both stink. You can even watch the review from this very site, when they compare 1p vs 1 zen 4 core, the zen 4 core is both slower and draw more power, rofl

Given how difficult it is to cool even a 13700K under heavy CPU load

Really? I have to believe you don't have or haven't used one. Intel cpus are stupidly easy to cool.. Put a 125w power limit and a 20$ cooler can do it, all the while maintaining 95% of the performance. Problems with temperatures are caused when you are trying to run all core workloads at 300 watts with 4096 power limits. Why would anyone ever do that?

 

[Od1sseas]

You know what else gives a massive boost in performance, more P-cores. I guess I don’t get it. You can have 16 AMD P-cores with the same total performance as 8 Intel P-cores plus 16 Intel E-cores for less energy usage. Why go with the higher power, heterogeneous version other than brand loyalty?

U get much more performance with e-cores than p-cores for the same die size. So, you're incorrect
1 P-Core (With HT) R23-> ~2500
4 E-Cores -> ~4000

60% more performance for the same area