Either way the extra e core clusters and the ring of rings adds latency, but not nearly as much as a CCD cluster via infinity fabric.
That's the difference in how you interpret it
Intel: All the P-cores have higher latency
AMD: Cores between CCX have higher latency
An AMD setup with 8 cores per CCX still has 8 cores that can talk faster to each other, than the intel setups
trying to crop these down so nothing relevant is missing, but still enough to explain what i'm meaning
These values are main cores and SMT, so 0-1 is core1 and it's SMT, then going on in pairs until you hit another CCX or E-core.
P-cores only vs two 8 core CCX's (Story doesn't change with three orfour CCXs)
Intel has a latency gain above 2 threads, not 2 cores but two threads. - and it's far worse than what AMD has there.
On AMD, 2 threads (0+1) is 6.6ns vs 4.0ns on intel - win for intel for sure.
But a 3 thread task using 2 physical cores (core 0 to core 2) breaks massively the other way with AMD being at 16.2ns and intel at 26.6ns - and intel stays being worse with latency until another CCX is involved.
When it comes to low latency tasks like gaming, you dont buy a CPU with E-cores or extra CCX's - we've known that for a while and this is the reason why.
TL;DR: Any task under 16 threads/ 8 cores has lower latency on AMD now. Intel's advantage is now only for 1-2 cores.
Following the values we've found in these fancy charts, they match up with gaming performance fairly well - intel would have a large boost when games stick with the typical 1-2 threads that was common for a long time, then fall down if they need to sync with other cores
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review - Best of Both Worlds - Minimum FPS / RTX 4090 | TechPowerUp
Heavily single-threaded engine:
cache sensitive engine
heavily multi threaded engine known for 100% CPU usage on 4c/8t CPUs
Am i saying these latency values are the most important value at all? nope!
Just that they are important and we need to know and care if things slip backwards.
as an example of why it matters, is that you need high clock speeds and brute force power to compensate for things like this so we end up with insane differences like this
5800x3D to 13900K:
275% more power for 1.7% higher FPS minimums?
Why? Because it needs to clock insanely high to brute force things, it's like the pentium 4 all over again.
Oh i suppose this chart explains it: It's dominated by single CCX hardware (And P-core only intels), with the exception of the 7000 series 3D parts where you can lock a game to use them exclusively and it becomes single CCX as far as that games concerned
I dont want EITHER company to go down the road of throwing us the scraps from enterprise customers designs to help recover R&D costs, in ways that are actually regressions.
Gamers don't need more performance in R23, they just need 6+ cores in the same CPU without latency issues.
