Intel "Bartlett Lake" Appears as a P/E-Core Hybrid, P-Core Only CPUs Could Soon Follow

[JustBenching]

That's because e-cores aren't efficient with power, only with die area. One p-core takes up the same space as a cluster of 4 e-cores, so e-cores are a nice way to increase core count and MT performance, but they throw power economy out of the window. I have a feeling that the 12 p-core design will consume less power than Raptor Lake does, unless Intel decides to overvolt it to the moon.

This gets a lot of people confused. When they say ecores are not efficient, what they mean is at ISO power P cores are faster. Therefore more efficient. That doesn't take into account that there are 4 as many ecores at the same space, and that ecores are clocked considerably lower. There is no chance in hell the 12P core chips will be faster / more efficient than the 14900k.

 

[AusWolf]

I think Intel is reaching our for gamers and the performance crown again. Take what was Intel's for so long before AMD took it.

They probably are reaching out for gamers, but not for the performance crown. If they did, they'd put BTL under the Core Ultra branding.

This gets a lot of people confused. When they say ecores are not efficient, what they mean is at ISO power P cores are faster. Therefore more efficient. That doesn't take into account that there are 4 as many ecores at the same space, and that ecores are clocked considerably lower. There is no chance in hell the 12P core chips will be faster / more efficient than the 14900k.

Yes, but the 4 e-cores consume more power, too, at least that's what I suspect.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, but the 4 e-cores consume more power, too, at least that's what I suspect.

Than a single Pcore, i'd say probably yes, especially in RPL when they are pushed to 4.4ghz. But they are also faster than 1 pcore. If I remember the numbers correctly, on alderlake they were pulling around 80w for a score of 9k in CBR23. Which sounds absolutely horrible on paper (that's 5600x territory if im not mistaken), but then if you take into account that 2P cores would never reach that score even at 500 watts, puts that into perspective.

 

[chrcoluk]

That's because e-cores aren't efficient with power, only with die area. One p-core takes up the same space as a cluster of 4 e-cores, so e-cores are a nice way to increase core count and MT performance, but they throw power economy out of the window. I have a feeling that the 12 p-core design will consume less power than Raptor Lake does, unless Intel decides to overvolt it to the moon.

I expect them to be aggressive, but I will just tone it down to something sensible. e-cores are great for MT productivity stuff, but it is difficult to completely overcome scheduling problems. I think this 12 core design will also have more L3 cache as Intel boost it for every p-core.

 

[JustBenching]

I expect them to be aggressive, but I will just tone it down to something sensible. e-cores are great for MT productivity stuff, but it is difficult to completely overcome scheduling problems, and probably is as you said overall less power efficient. I think this 12 core design will also have more L3 cache as Intel boost it for every p-core.

If they indeed increase the cache, that 12p core part will be insane for games, especially the core heavy types (TLOU, CP etc.).

 

[badreligionx]

Was hoping for bartlett lake but was kind of worried they would not come to life anymore. Really happy about this extended life for the 1700 platform and will get one for sure. 12 P-Cores and hopeffully a bit more cache and gaming performance will be amazing. The newer architecture cores from arrow lake would be great of course but it almost sounds too good to be true.

Intel seems to wake up finally so I guess the pressure from AMD is finally doing its job now

 

[Dr. Dro]

Was hoping for bartlett lake but was kind of worried they would not come to life anymore. Really happy about this extended life for the 1700 platform and will get one for sure. 12 P-Cores and hopeffully a bit more cache and gaming performance will be amazing. The newer architecture cores from arrow lake would be great of course but it almost sounds too good to be true.

Intel seems to wake up finally so I guess the pressure from AMD is finally doing its job now

Raptor Cove will hold up. It'll be more interesting to see if they leave the AVX-512 capability enabled now that there are no E-cores in the picture. Certainly a worthy upgrade

 

[AusWolf]

Than a single Pcore, i'd say probably yes, especially in RPL when they are pushed to 4.4ghz. But they are also faster than 1 pcore. If I remember the numbers correctly, on alderlake they were pulling around 80w for a score of 9k in CBR23. Which sounds absolutely horrible on paper (that's 5600x territory if im not mistaken), but then if you take into account that 2P cores would never reach that score even at 500 watts, puts that into perspective.

Exactly. That's why I'm not interested in e-cores. They're good for MT performance, but with 8+ p-cores, I don't need more MT, especially not at such insane power costs. I'd much rather have 10-12 more conservative p-cores and a bit lower power consumption. That design would still be good for a bit of headroom for future gaming or background tasks. Not to mention the software scheduling nightmare which is also a big no-no for me.

Just really, shame that it came too late and I'm already happy with a new AMD platform. I would have definitely bought BTL a year or two ago, but not now.

 

[JustBenching]

Exactly. That's why I'm not interested in e-cores. They're good for MT performance, but with 8+ p-cores, I don't need more MT, especially not at such insane power costs. I'd much rather have 10-12 more conservative p-cores and a bit lower power consumption. That design would still be good for a bit of headroom for gaming.

Just really, shame that it came too late and I'm already happy with a new AMD platform. I would have definitely bought BTL a year or two ago, but not now.

Well that's kinda confusing though. If one does not need more MT performance why do you need 12P cores?


The only benefit that more Pcores have is the odd application (maybe games included) that scale above 8 cores but not above say 14. In those cases, a 12P core cpu will be faster than an 8+16. But that's a fringe scenario, in most cases the 8+16 will be faster. A lot faster. While pulling less power. It's still a long time till reviews are out but I can guarantee you - lock them both to same power and the 8+16 config of the 14900k will absolutely scorch a 12P core CPU. 12P core will probably end up sandwiched between a 13700k and a 14700k in MT performance.

 

[AusWolf]

Well that's kinda confusing though. If one does not need more MT performance why do you need 12P cores?

I don't need them, but it doesn't hurt to have them. Unlike e-cores which require special scheduling.

The only benefit that more Pcores have is the odd application (maybe games included) that scale above 8 cores but not above say 14. In those cases, a 12P core cpu will be faster than an 8+16. But that's a fringe scenario, in most cases the 8+16 will be faster. A lot faster. While pulling less power. It's still a long time till reviews are out but I can guarantee you - lock them both to same power and the 8+16 config of the 14900k will absolutely scorch a 12P core CPU. 12P core will probably end up sandwiched between a 13700k and a 14700k in MT performance.

The benefit of more p-cores is more MT performance without the need for software scheduling. Sure, 4 e-cores are faster than a single p-core, but the tradeoff of a purely p-core design is something I can live with.