Intel Planning P-core Only "Bartlett" LGA1700 Processor for 2025

[P4-630]

I was planning an Arrow Lake build , still do, I guess I'll keep my current GB Aorus Master Z690 system as backup instead of selling it which I always did when I got a new build...
Assuming the Z690 Aorus Master will still get a BIOS update to run these new CPU's.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

As a straight 12+ year 4 core intel user im now to compile a new office rig with reserves for gaming after all, my take is that 6 cores are mandatory to be future proof the next 10 years,
even better to have 8 cores to not have any surprises. If AMD or Intel comes with a good chip with a fair idle, it will be an exciting choice, the
extens of the lga 1700 comes as a big surprise..
I hope both companies start releasing at the latest before winter a clear look of tech specs as i must admit amd chips
become very exciting and make me skip the wait for intel

 

[AusWolf]

I am looking forward to this mythical 12 core though and hope it does well enough for them to just do it on their new socket as well.... Would love it as my secondary setup.

I would love it even as my primary setup. Too bad I'm not in the need for a new CPU/system.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I would love it even as my primary setup. Too bad I'm not in the need for a new CPU/system.

Currently my secondary Setup houses a 5800X which I'm so fond of I'm keeping over putting a 5950X or 7800X3D to replace it lol makes no sense to me but I just love that system it's been so rock solid....

7800X3D is going to go in my standby system for if my primary system needs to be rma or somthing...

Not sure what to do with my 5950X but I already have too many systems lol....

 

[ARF]

As a straight 12+ year 4 core intel user im now to compile a new office rig with reserves for gaming after all, my take is that 6 cores are mandatory to be future proof the next 10 years,
even better to have 8 cores to not have any surprises. If AMD or Intel comes with a good chip with a fair idle, it will be an exciting choice, the
extens of the lga 1700 comes as a big surprise..
I hope both companies start releasing at the latest before winter a clear look of tech specs as i must admit amd chips
become very exciting and make me skip the wait for intel

This is a laptop area. You need something like Ryzen 5 *500U.

 

[JustBenching]

I'm not trading the ecores for pcores. Id much prefer a 10+8 or 12+8 configuration but 12+0 = nogo for me. The 16 on the 14900k are overkill for my use case but the 0 on this new die is also meh.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

I'm not trading the ecores for pcores. Id much prefer a 10+8 or 12+8 configuration but 12+0 = nogo for me. The 16 on the 14900k are overkill for my use case but the 0 on this new die is also meh.

ecores are an overrated concept, as long as the cpu itself with just p cores is efficient any free core will do the work of the several e cores in an efficient low power consumption way.
It does give your mind some peace that with e cores light tasks are outsourced to it, but look at my pc until today just 4 cores...

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm not trading the ecores for pcores. Id much prefer a 10+8 or 12+8 configuration but 12+0 = nogo for me. The 16 on the 14900k are overkill for my use case but the 0 on this new die is also meh.

Choice is always a good thing though I do wish intel had shipped this 6-12 months ago.

Same with a a dual vcache 16 core cpu not becuase I think it'll be magically be significantly better than the current setup but becuase I want to get the hardware in hand and decide myself if it's worth any price premium etc.

 

[JustBenching]

ecores are an overrated concept, as long as the cpu itself with just p cores is efficient any free core will do the work of the several e cores in an efficient low power consumption way.
It does give your mind some peace that with e cores light tasks are outsourced to it, but look at my pc until today just 4 cores...

Maximizing performance per area is definitely not an overrated concept. It's the most important design goal of any company. Ecores do just that, offer max performance for the die space they need. Replacing them with full pcores will just drop the mt performance of the chip at similar die sizes.

A 12pcore chip will barely be faster than a 13700k, that's a 2 year old chip. Now let's see how much that 12pcore chip will cost and then tell me how great it is.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

Maximizing performance per area is definitely not an overrated concept. It's the most important design goal of any company. Ecores do just that, offer max performance for the die space they need. Replacing them with full pcores will just drop the mt performance of the chip at similar die sizes.

A 12pcore chip will barely be faster than a 13700k, that's a 2 year old chip. Now let's see how much that 12pcore chip will cost and then tell me how great it is.

i agree with you, but this is comparing old tech vs new, obviously new concepts are better, but bartlett can baffle you as e.g. at least a 6 core or 8 will display good efficiency mark my words

(i bookmarked this to future check this, stay tuned)

 

[JustBenching]

i agree with you, but this is comparing old tech vs new, obviously new concepts are better, but bartlett can baffle you as e.g. at least a 6 core or 8 will display good efficiency mark my words

How would an 8pcore display good efficency? It will be barely better than a 7700x/7800x 3d. Even my 2021 12900k will be more efficient than an 8pcore chip.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

How would an 8pcore display good efficency? It will be barely better than a 7700x/7800x 3d. Even my 2021 12900k will be more efficient than an 8pcore chip.

you compare old with new tech, dont forget it isnt coincidental that al the chip numbers you name from intel are from an almost declared elo platform 1700, look at attachment
look at the 12900.. it isnt in the overview, the 12600 is first in row which has 'e cores'

 

[ARF]

"Great" results...

The 16-core draws less power than the lower-core-count CPUs.

 

[JustBenching]

you compare old with new tech, dont forget it isnt coincidental that al the chip numbers you name from intel are from an almost declared elo platform 1700, look at attachment
look at the 12900..

This is not an efficiency chart, this is a power draw chart.

At iso power the new 12pcore will be losing massively to the 14900k and the 14700k. Might be competitive with the 13700k

"Great" results...

The 16-core draws less power than the lower-core-count CPUs.

View attachment 355437

Because every chip can be limited to draw as much power as the company making it wants. Amd wanted the 5950x to draw as much as the 5800x so here you go

 

[Onyx Turbine]

This is not an efficiency chart, this is a power draw chart.

At iso power the new 12pcore will be losing massively to the 14900k and the 14700k. Might be competitive with the 13700k

i not necessarily agree with this, as the different types of die and sillicon used today create huge difference look at this image, what is strange is the 12400 compared to the 13400
where your luck, the 13400 has e cores, but the 13100 has None, as such it depends what the workload is the cpu does e.g. a game with background tasks, how is the chip designed
to rout the tasks, if a smart non e core chip, with well concipitated p cores as e.g. 13100 can be that much good that e cores become negligble and do not warrant the overall performance trade ins.
As your take in filling up a chip is not that simple

 

[JustBenching]

i not necessarily agree with this, as the different types of die and sillicon used today create huge difference look at this image, what is strange is the 12400 compared to the 13400
where your luck, the 13400 has e cores, but the 13100 has None, as such it depends what the workload is the cpu does e.g. a game with background tasks, how is the chip designed
to rout the tasks, if a smart non e core chip, with well concipitated p cores as e.g. 13100 can be that much good that e cores become negligble and do not warrant the overall performance trade ins.
As your take in filling up a chip is not that simple

You keep posting power draw charts. Power draw isn't efficiency

 

[Onyx Turbine]

You keep posting power draw charts. Power draw isn't efficiency

for me it is same with total consumer price of a chips, why would someone buy a car to drive 1 mile and 1 gallon and the car is 2 times more expensive than an average model..?

 

[AusWolf]

I already have too many systems lol....

With my gaming PC, two HTPCs, a netbook, an unused old laptop, and a whole bunch of spare parts and collection items sitting on a shelf, I can totally relate to that. Sometimes I wonder where the distinction between enthusiast and hoarder lies.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Nice, looks like I'll be keeping my Z690 board for a while then, even if i doe switch to AM5 or LGA1851

 

[Hecate91]

They dont recommend that, this is something the board vendors did of their own back.

Also 125w is more than enough for gaming, I have never seen my CPU go anywhere near 125w, unless of course guess what? I run cinebench,

The issue is Intel allowed board makers to do what they wanted with power settings, IMO their guidelines aren't enough of a limitation when companies want to outdo each over a few points in synthetic benchmarks.
Also while 125w is enough for gaming, the performance hit is too much for what is supposed to be the flagship product, Intel needs to at least do a recall on the 13900k and 14900k.

You keep posting power draw charts. Power draw isn't efficiency

For most people power draw is efficiency, and 8 cores is more than enough for most things, even gaming. Having performance cores that are also efficient is why AMD is beating out Intel at about half the power draw.

 

[Onyx Turbine]

Somehow it annoys me current roadmaps and little information tech specs (especially detailed info about power draw) if not something significantly sustainable is released i might test the tide and install a 13100 or 13400, as they resemble for until now the pinnacle of efficiency
(if anyone reads this what version of 13400 would you recommend stepped or not stepped b0 or c0 if im correct?)

 

[JustBenching]

For most people power draw is efficiency,

No it's not.

why AMD is beating out Intel at about half the power draw.

No it doesn't.

Again, power draw isn't efficiency. If you wanna compare efficiency you put 2 cpus at the same power and compare the results. When you do that you'll realize that amd is lagging behind in most segments in both ST and MT efficiency. Let's not go over this again. It's just a fact, ComputerBase has done the work for us, lets just accept it and move on.

 

[Lycanwolfen]

Well, Well well, What an interesting thing too see. After I posted on another post that I want to see a Pure Desktop Gaming CPU from intel. A pure 12 core would be nice. Heck maybe we can look forward to a 16 Core Pure P's Then finally Intel can compare to AMD maybe.

 

[chrcoluk]

The issue is Intel allowed board makers to do what they wanted with power settings, IMO their guidelines aren't enough of a limitation when companies want to outdo each over a few points in synthetic benchmarks.
Also while 125w is enough for gaming, the performance hit is too much for what is supposed to be the flagship product, Intel needs to at least do a recall on the 13900k and 14900k.

For most people power draw is efficiency, and 8 cores is more than enough for most things, even gaming. Having performance cores that are also efficient is why AMD is beating out Intel at about half the power draw.

Dont disagree, Its within Intel's power to stop all these shenanigans with board vendors trying to out do each other, so I blame both parties for that one. Of course its too late for raptor lake, because any clamp down now would rely on consumers upgrading their bios. I suspect they wont clamp down on z890 or the bartlett bios revisions. At best might get stock being within spec.

Also things like tjmax, and safety protection settings shouldnt be optional in the first place, at what point does it make sense to allow the tjmax to be risen above the safety threshold.

 

[JustBenching]

Dont disagree, Its within Intel's power to stop all these shenanigans with board vendors trying to out do each other, so I blame both parties for that one. Of course its too late for raptor lake, because any clamp down now would rely on consumers upgrading their bios. I suspect they wont clamp down on z890 or the bartlett bios revisions. At best might get stock being within spec.

Also things like tjmax, and safety protection settings shouldnt be optional in the first place, at what point does it make sense to allow the tjmax to be risen above the safety threshold.

Tbf, the k lineup is an enthusiasts lineup, then you put that on a high end z mobo that's also an enthusiasts mobo, then you let it run at default. At this point some of the blame is to the user.