Seems like a irrational trade off honestly, but I mean that very much depends on other factors. The pricing especially though there could be other implications that would make a 12P or 10P option enticing like increased cache and/or other differences in design like maybe the IMC is more robust. Like from where I'm standing with a 14700K with 8P cores and 12E cores I don't find purging 12 E cores in favor of 2P cores or 4P cores overly enticing in and of itself. The P cores are hopefully Lion Cove that would certainly make it a little bit more enticing though it still comes across as a bit too insignificant.
If I had a Alder Lake CPU on the other hand I'd almost 100% take it into consideration and weigh the relative pro's and con's versus building a new system on a new MB and socket. That's actually pretty enticing for a drop in replacement. It's really the sweet spot too core count I'd say for gamer.
Like 8 cores is all you more or less need for gaming now to be mostly fine strictly for that purpose, but another 2 to 4 cores to handle a bit light background activity is certainly welcome that want do certain background tasks like streaming or maybe running a game light server in the background for game you host and play on. Like it provides a nice bit of leeway. It's not like workstation leeway mind you for heavy heavy MT task scenario, but it's not too shabby.
I think honestly had this option been available when I got 14700K I would have weighed the pro's and con's and gone with it potentially at least if it's based on Lion Cove and what we've heard around that. The ST uplift is nothing to slouch at. If it does away with HT and like security concerns surrounding that and just general HT dynamics that end up being quirky in practice and sometimes better and worse trade-offs it seems a bit justifiable in spite of being better and worse depending situational circumstances.
I think in terms of performance it's generally going to be a touch worse for like HT aware and beneficial tasks like decompression, but in other cases it could be better. Some stuff HT just doesn't seem benefit and creates more heat waste and draws more power which is a concern and issue at times anyway especially with boost frequencies and cooling and so HT relationship status is complicated.
I'd say for people on Alder Lake in particular this is interesting. Even in the case of certain Raptor Lake/Raptor Lake refresh SKU's it's going to be less enticing or more enticing I'm sure to handful of people. It seems like a good decision by Intel. I only wonder if it'll really arrive soon enough. Like will enough people want or consider this option by the time it even arrives becomes a legitimate question. I'd say defiantly maybe for people on Alder Lake looking for some uplift economically that's a simple drop in replace it's probably going to be heavily considered by a handful of individuals.
It's funny I pretty much said this same hypothetical scenario would be plausible for Intel to do and could make justifiable sense just a little while ago. I had some other hypotheticals as well, but I think it certainly strikes a balance on a economical niche being filled pretty well.
We'll have to see what details it really entails and pricing, but it looks to be sound in theory.
Wait. A 12 core P-core only CPU?
Can we reschedule that to like, next week?
Also - the timing seems a little weird to me from a product stack standpoint. A new LGA1700 series after a refresh generation? That I can accept, but managing a whole new lineup after the launch of a completely new platform, and possibly beating it in many speed & CU oriented performance metrics - seems a bit backwards.
If such products exist - I would expect to see them launched for LGA1851, not an EOLing platform.
Perhaps Intel is kind of testing the waters a bit with this. I mean if it's successful they can always extend the P core only option to the newer socket platform. I mean a number of consumers have clamored for it all along and maybe a handful want more than 10 to 12 at the same time so they can stagger it out a bit and have something new to insert later alongside what they already launched that differs. In terms of the newer socket I could see Intel exploring other options further with this same type of idea.
I mean I literally suggested that they could go down this route not too long ago and explained how and why they could go about and offer different options for different consumers based on differing interest and metrics with how they plan to utilize CPU's for their given usages.
They could easily offer a CPU that's more E core heavy in design or more P core heavy in design or a mixture that more of a 1/4 to 3/4 split of either or or more of a 1/3 to 2/3 split between the different core types. I think ultimately that benefits consumers and puts more purchasing power in consumers and allowing them really kind of pick the right option best suited to serve their particular needs and weighted trade offs between the various design differences of each.
I see this is a smart play on Intel's behalf honestly. Like personally I'd deviate more towards something of a 4P core option a lot more E cores in place of fewer P cores. It'll get better too with time if they start making more core types like they did with the low power island cores. Like how many of those might we get in place of a few of the standard E cores? What about like a high power P core island variant? Like a bit separated from the other P cores and can boost a bit higher.
I think there is wiggle room for Intel to get a little creative and flexible on the engineering side to allow for more SKU options. Like they could stand to take some cues from Nvidia with products SKU's even though they can be a bit scummy on many of those they still offer way more SKU options than AMD is able to offer by contrast and sometimes that's better than no option for a consumer really itching for a upgrade. Not every SKU can be the price to performance leader in the end however more SKU options available to pick from in general is a positive I would say.
Too few product SKU's is one area where I'd say AMD has failed itself at a times at least on the GPU side or in recent years. I'd say on CPU side they've done a better job and have bit closer parity especially taking into account server space where they'd done nicely with Ryzen.
It makes me wish that Intel could do something else as well with LGA1700 and older sockets like maybe shrink the chipset and insert some cores or like AI chips or something into that design for a MB upgrade, but at that point you'd probably be better off switching sockets anyways with the the way current MB's are designed.
Now maybe they could start integrating chipsets that are socketed and replaceable perhaps in the future and it would change that dynamic and possibilities a bit, but who knows and seems a little unlikely given it hasn't happened yet though I'd like to hope that maybe eventually we might see something like it.
I think socketed replaceable chipsets could be interesting. They also just seem like a logical place to try to insert some low power cores for more mundane stuff at low energy draw. I'm tossing around hypotheticals around though.
There's probably a reason for this but why couldn't Intel do something like this with the next generation CPUs?
I think they absolutely can and probably will eventually. I see it as a staging ground for Intel. Like let's test the waters and dip are toes in a bit with this and see how it goes over and if it seems promising let's perhaps wade in a bit deeper. Like this allows them to see how consumers react w/o having to full commit to it quite the same.
Should have done this already... but power consumption could be a huge problem.
Huge factor into probably why they didn't already. Comet Lake ran rather hot and power hungry from what I recall. It's ultimately why Intel ended up reducing core count for the follow up Rocket Lake. That's kind of what we're seeing as well with Arrow Lake as well. It's bit of a down grade or side grade in area's in relative terms from what's been leaked about it. It's fascinating to see what else Intel might do based on this. To me it carries heavy implications.
I think they could even insert more low power island cores in favor of P cores or E cores. Let's just L cores for loser cores because they suck at latency though are efficient and lighten your power load. Like sure you take a hit on relative performance, but it is more efficient and free's up power budget a bit so it's a trade off consideration.
Intel sir would like you more loser cores!!? We can offer you many more moar. We'd really like like to offload some of these dumpster fire silicone lottery chips. We've got factories to the roof tops full of them please we'll practically pay you to take them. Jokes aside though I'm genuinely interested as a technology enthusiast in what they do, where how, and for what reasons!!? LGA1700 now with 4 less P cores, but +16L cores...
