Intel "Arrow Lake-S" to See a Rearrangement of P-cores and E-cores Along the Ringbus

[P4-630]

Yes, but Intel did a bad job with the pre-Alder generations

AMD's were never bad were they?...

 

[TumbleGeorge]

AMD's were never bad were they?...

Well, their heavy machines, as usual for such machines, were not moving at the speed of a Ferrari.

 

[JustBenching]

View attachment 353574
This is from almost a year ago. It's probably close to 80% of AMD users on TPU now. It will probably hit 90% by next year. We DIYers like to buy AMD because of the efficiency and I don't see AMD letting go of this advantage anytime soon. How you see the exact opposite of what we see is mind boggling.

Does that say anything about MT efficiency in that poll? How is that relevant to the discussion?

Yes, but Intel did a bad job with the pre-Alder generations, I consider this to be back on the train tracks where it should have been the norm. That's why it's not a wow effect for me.

Did they though? Skylake and all the derivatives were ahead or equal to amd cpus in ST performance up until zen 3. Zen 3 was a leap forward but then alderlake came around and added another 20% on top of that.

 

[dgianstefani]

Yes, but Intel did a bad job with the pre-Alder generations, I consider this to be back on the train tracks where it should have been the norm. That's why it's not a wow effect for me.

Every single one of the Skylake and its refresh generations were faster in gaming, and generally in productivity too, the Zen 1/2 CPUs had a brief period of time where it was 8 slow cores vs 4/6 fast ones, and had a MT edge there, as well as with the 3950X/5950X, which were both compromise chips that were very good for productivity but pretty bad for gaming. Zen 3 single CCD chips and the 5800X3D were the only AMD CPU to beat Intel for gaming for a brief period of time just before the release of Alder Lake, but of course lost massively in productivity even to Comet Lake, a similar situation to today 146/7/900 vs 7800X3D, the 79/7950X3D are slower in both gaming and productivity than the 13/14900K.

 

[Daven]

AMD's were never bad were they?...

Intel rocked 8086 to Pentium III; AMD was just a backup clone
Intel failed with Netburst; AMD rocked K7/K8 and derivatives
Intel rocked Core architectures; AMD failed with Bulldozer

Currently, AMD is doing better with Zen and Intel is playing catch up with respect to process nodes, core counts and efficiency. Changes such as the ring bus interconnected topography might be steps in the right direction. However, I don't see much changing for gamers and the data center. Intel is losing ground here. People can say you can underclock Intel all you want but you can do the same with AMD. I want out of the box efficiency while staying close to the highest possible absolute performance levels across a variety of applications. This is AMD hands down right now. Zen 5 will only improve things by an estimated 15-20%. It remains to be seen if Intel's new gamble with Arrow Lake will change matters much.

 

[JustBenching]

Every single one of the Skylake and its refresh generations were faster in gaming, and generally in productivity too, the Zen 1/2 CPUs had a brief period of time where it was 8 slow cores vs 4/6 fast ones, and had a MT edge there

Back then, the Ryzen 1 era, the "10% gaming lead on 1080p with an 800$ card" was irrelevant and all that mattered was MT performance. Now that Intel is faster in MT performance all that matters is the 10% lead amd has at 1080p with a 2000$ GPU.

The world has gone crazy.

 

[Philaphlous]

Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic here Intel...

 

[JustBenching]

Currently, AMD is doing better with Zen and Intel is playing catch up with respect to process nodes, core counts and efficiency.

Process node, sure. The other 2 is where Intel excels right now. Core counts and efficiency are the reasons to buy Intel right now.

 

[Denver]

I don't, my favorite company is the one that makes the most efficient products. Currently it's Intel - it doesn't idle at 30-40 watts and it's incredibly fast in MT at low power. Let's say a 13700k / 14700k vs a 7800x 3d, both set at the same 90w, the i7 parts will literally fly past the 7800x 3d in MT workloads, being both faster and more efficient. Same goes for the i5 13600k vs 7600x and the 7700x.

If you strictly care about out of the box efficiency then TPU has tested that too, here is a simulated T and non k intel chip. Nothing is nowhere near in efficiency.

Alderlake was a 40% jump in ST performance from cometlake within 15 months. It was also a huge uplift in MT performance, again during the same timespan. If you weren't impressed with that, I don't know man.

In addition to being an apples-to-oranges comparison, evaluating the poor performance of a processor downgraded to i5 level against a stock Ryzen seems fundamentally flawed. On all other sites, the i9 pulls 300-400W in intense multi-threaded applications like Blender and CineBench, whereas here it is close to TDP-like levels. Additionally, how does the processor only consume 21W when mobile processors—where efficiency is crucial—with half the core count reach 100-200W? This is yet another indication that something is wrong.

 

[Daven]

Does that say anything about MT efficiency in that poll? How is that relevant to the discussion?

The 70-80% of us buying AMD is because of ST, MT and gaming performance and efficiency. The poll is just confirmation of this. TPU is a review site. They review products. They are not here for us to argue. When making an informed buying decision, people consult reviews. So 70-80% of us read the reviews and conclude buying AMD. That's why it's relevant. It will probably only get worse for Intel after 3D chips are released for Zen 5.

Is that clear enough?

 

[JustBenching]

In addition to being an apples-to-oranges comparison, evaluating the poor performance of a processor downgraded to i5 level against a stock Ryzen seems fundamentally flawed. On all other sites, the i9 pulls 300-400W in intense multi-threaded applications like Blender and CineBench, whereas here it is close to TDP-like levels. Additionally, how does the processor only consume 21W when mobile processors—where efficiency is crucial—with half the core count reach 100-200W? This is yet another indication that something is wrong.

View attachment 353575

It's a simulation of a T and a non k CPU. What's fundamentally flawed about it? That's how these cpus run out of the box.

The 70-80% of us buying AMD is because of ST, MT and gaming performance and efficiency.

But AMD is behind in both ST performance, ST efficiency, MT performance and efficiency (in most segments except the 7950x). So...uhm, if that's the reason you are buying amd, reconsider dude. Seriously...

 

[Daven]

Process node, sure. The other 2 is where Intel excels right now. Core counts and efficiency are the reasons to buy Intel right now.

The vast majority of us conclude the opposite. You will just have to accept how we see things even if you do not agree.

But AMD is behind in both ST performance, ST efficiency, MT performance and efficiency (in most segments except the 7950x). So...uhm, if that's the reason you are buying amd, reconsider dude. Seriously...

Except for the 7950x, all 3D chips and only if you downclock Intel processors to 35W and even then its benchmark to benchmark and not at all in games.

 

[dgianstefani]

The 70-80% of us buying AMD is because of ST, MT and gaming performance and efficiency. The poll is just confirmation of this. TPU is a review site. They review products. They are not here for us to argue. When making an informed buying decision, people consult reviews. So 70-80% of us read the reviews and conclude buying AMD. That's why it's relevant. It will probably only get worse for Intel after 3D chips are released for Zen 5.

Is that clear enough?

Where do you get your numbers?

 

[JustBenching]

The vast majority of us conclude the opposite. You will just have to accept how we see things even if you do not agree.


Except for the 7950x, all 3D chips and only if you downclock Intel processors to 35W and even then its benchmark to benchmark and not at all in games.

Well computerbase tested exactly that actually. They havent tested 14th gen yet (not with power limits), but with their 13th gen testing the most efficient chip for the their whole test suite was the 13900k. When it comes to ISO performance in MT Intel were leading by a lot.

Maybe you mean something different with efficiency. What I'm talking about is you take 2 cpus, you put them at the same power and measure which one is faster in apps like cbr23, blender etc.. Intel tends to have a big lead there in most segments, as computerbase testing will show you. The 7800x 3d you keep mentioning is vastly losing to my 3 generations old 12900k in that. I have no clue why you keep mentioning it, MT efficiency isn't really it's strong point.

 

[P4-630]

Where do you get your numbers?

View attachment 353576

Don't make them cry! dgianstefani...

 

[rv8000]

Where do you get your numbers?

View attachment 353576

He was very clear he was pulling numbers from the TPU survey, and a user base localized to this site.

We also don’t need another thread polluted by “moving the goal post” fevgatos. TPU reviews and nearly all other sites conclude and state intels inefficiency problems in the current landscape. Any processor can be tuned to play the cherry picking game he presents, and there’s already a thread he dedicated to doing so.

How many times to we have to beat these very dead horses.

 

[napata]

In addition to being an apples-to-oranges comparison, evaluating the poor performance of a processor downgraded to i5 level against a stock Ryzen seems fundamentally flawed. On all other sites, the i9 pulls 300-400W in intense multi-threaded applications like Blender and CineBench, whereas here it is close to TDP-like levels. Additionally, how does the processor only consume 21W when mobile processors—where efficiency is crucial—with half the core count reach 100-200W? This is yet another indication that something is wrong.

View attachment 353575

Your post implies you do not understand what a power limit is. Those laptop CPUs consume that much because that's how they're configured. Weird that I have to explain that on a tech forum. An i9 consumes 300-400W because that's how it's configured.

The only fair way to measure effiency is to either lock a target performance and see how much power they consume or lock the power and see the performance. By your logic Zen 3 is more efficient than Zen 4 in a lot of tasks.

 

[JustBenching]

TPU reviews and nearly all other sites conclude and state intels inefficiency problems

TPU and nearly all other sites conclude and state intel's K lineup out of the box inefficiency problems. Completely agree with those. The K cpus out of the box are almost - maybe not even almost - unusable.

Also TPU and all other sites conclude that the non k or T cpus are the most efficient CPUs humanity has ever laid eyes upon.

Any processor can be tuned to play the cherry picking game

That's simply not true though and I don't get why people keep repeating it. Take an R7 7700x, limit it to whatever power you want, it will lose - by a lot - to an i7 13700k in both performance and efficiency. Computerbase already tested this

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Apps

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Apps / So wurde getestet / Leistung in Single-Core-Lasten (klassisch)

www.computerbase.de

A 7700x at 142w is slower than a 13700k at 88 watts. At 125w it is tied to a 13700k at 65w. It needs almost twice the power for similar performance. I get that a lot of people don't really care about efficiency when it comes to desktop CPUs, but that's not a reason to spread falsehoods.

The only fair way to measure effiency

The only scientifically proper way.

Otherwise you are not testing efficiency but out of the box settings. Which is fine as well of course, but your conclusion can't be about efficiency if you are not testing for efficiency.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

AMD users have their fingers in their ears going la la la la la la

Looking forward to arrow lake, it's looking better with every snippet.

 

[KellyNyanbinary]

TPU and nearly all other sites conclude and state intel's K lineup out of the box inefficiency problems. Completely agree with those. The K cpus out of the box are almost - maybe not even almost - unusable.

Also TPU and all other sites conclude that the non k or T cpus are the most efficient CPUs humanity has ever laid eyes upon.


That's simply not true though and I don't get why people keep repeating it. Take an R7 7700x, limit it to whatever power you want, it will lose - by a lot - to an i7 13700k in both performance and efficiency. Computerbase already tested this

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Apps

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Apps / So wurde getestet / Leistung in Single-Core-Lasten (klassisch)

www.computerbase.de

A 7700x at 142w is slower than a 13700k at 88 watts. At 125w it is tied to a 13700k at 65w. It needs almost twice the power for similar performance. I get that a lot of people don't really care about efficiency when it comes to desktop CPUs, but that's not a reason to spread falsehoods.


The only scientifically proper way.

Otherwise you are not testing efficiency but out of the box settings. Which is fine as well of course, but your conclusion can't be about efficiency if you are not testing for efficiency.

The very source you linked also has these data points... Comparing 13700K to 7700X is disingenuous, as 13700K is closer to the 7900X in ~~both MSRP and~~ (edit: not MSRP, I got mixed up) current retailing price in the US. 13600K is in the same price category as the 7700X. The 7600X's competitor would be something like a 13400 or 13500, but that's not in the graphs. The 13600K is more efficient than the 7700X at some power levels (125 W to 145 W), and I concede that win. 13900K also wins against the 7950X at 45 W. But all other power levels, Ryzen wins.

 

[rv8000]

TPU and nearly all other sites conclude and state intel's K lineup out of the box inefficiency problems. Completely agree with those. The K cpus out of the box are almost - maybe not even almost - unusable.

Also TPU and all other sites conclude that the non k or T cpus are the most efficient CPUs humanity has ever laid eyes upon.


That's simply not true though and I don't get why people keep repeating it. Take an R7 7700x, limit it to whatever power you want, it will lose - by a lot - to an i7 13700k in both performance and efficiency. Computerbase already tested this

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Benchmarks in Apps

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Benchmarks in Apps / So wurde getestet / Leistung in Single-Core-Lasten (klassisch)

www.computerbase.de

A 7700x at 142w is slower than a 13700k at 88 watts. At 125w it is tied to a 13700k at 65w. It needs almost twice the power for similar performance. I get that a lot of people don't really care about efficiency when it comes to desktop CPUs, but that's not a reason to spread falsehoods.


The only scientifically proper way.

Otherwise you are not testing efficiency but out of the box settings. Which is fine as well of course, but your conclusion can't be about efficiency if you are not testing for efficiency.

Here we go with moving the goal posts and comparing apples to oranges…

A 7700X vs a 13700k is a horrendously disingenuous comparison. On no planet bar LN2 overclocked will a 16 thread processor outscore a 24 thread processor. You’re looking to compare a 7900X/7900X3D.

Stop acting like a clown.

 

[JustBenching]

Here we go with moving the goal posts and comparing apples to oranges…

A 7700X vs a 13700k is a horrendously disingenuous comparison. On no planet bar LN2 overclocked will a 16 thread processor outscore a 24 thread processor. You’re looking to compare a 7900X/7900X3D.

Stop acting like a clown.

Those 2 CPUs were released within 2 weeks of each other, with the same name (x7 x700x vs x7 x700k, i mean come on) and the exact same MSRP. How is a horrendously disingenuous comparison?

The 7900x / 7900x 3d had a way higher MSRP, being identical to a 13900kf (and the latter is obviously more efficient).

as 13700K is closer to the 7900X in both MSRP

Totally not true. The 13700k had an msrp of 399, the exact same as the 7700x. The 7900x had an MSRP of 549$, actually matching the 13900kf.

I get the current pricing argument, but that an efficient CPU makes not. Dropping the price doesn't mean your chips are more efficient. Say Intel drops the 14900 to 150$, will we suddenly be comparing it to a 4core amd part and saying it's more efficient? I mean come on, that's just silly.

 

[InVasMani]

Seems like a good adjustment to improve general latency and help in improving thermal distribution between the core types. Regardless of P cores and E cores this should be helpful to push E cores a bit higher due to MT reasons or to push P cores higher due to ST for either scenario and as well as mixed usage.

Seems like a relatively minor change, but it should be helpful just the same. I'm sure it could've helped some on my 14700K with some of the scenario's I played around with testing out how the hardware behaved and reacted with adjusting P core and E core ratios and/or disabling some of them. From a tuning perspective this just makes things better balanced and easier to fine tune for a particular usage case and make the most of it.

I'd say generally most would be targeting heavier usage of either P cores or E cores for more ST or MT driven scenario's, but there are also mixed usage scenario's and this should aid a good bit in those use cases to extra more performance. Like if you want to tune 3/4 prioritized more for P cores and 1/4 for E cores or in reverse this should behave more nicely than 14th gen at doing so. It remains to be seen in practice how much of a difference that makes, but it really should be a improvement.

A little bit underwhelming, but the low hanging fruit honestly is mostly picked over by this point.

 

[rv8000]

Those 2 CPUs were released within 2 weeks of each other, with the same name (x7 x700x vs x7 x700k, i mean come on) and the exact same MSRP. How is a horrendously disingenuous comparison?

The 7900x / 7900x 3d had a way higher MSRP, being identical to a 13900kf (and the latter is obviously more efficient).


Totally not true. The 13700k had an msrp of 399, the exact same as the 7700x. The 7900x had an MSRP of 549$, actually matching the 13900kf.

I get the current pricing argument, but that an efficient CPU makes not. Dropping the price doesn't mean your chips are more efficient. Say Intel drops the 14900 to 150$, will we suddenly be comparing it to a 4core amd part and saying it's more efficient? I mean come on, that's just silly.

Because you and everyone else knows you don’t measure efficiency by how much something costs.

Like, really? And as previously mentioned I’m done entertaining your troll behavior.

 

[Zendou]

The vast majority of us conclude the opposite. You will just have to accept how we see things even if you do not agree.

This has never been nor never will be a reason to justify anything. The implications that someone exists that believes it is appropriate to make this statement is startling. Tyranny of the majority (mob) does not prove one correct, it just proves there are like minded individuals and they are apparently participating in intimidation tactics.