• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
617 (1.23/day)
System Name BarnacleMan
Processor 14700KF
Motherboard Gigabyte B760 Aorus Elite Ax DDR5
Cooling ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240 + P12 Max Fans
Memory 32GB Kingston Fury Beast 5600 cl36 Oc'd to 6000 cl32
Video Card(s) Asus Tuf 4090 24GB
Storage 4TB sn850x * 2, 4TB MX500 * 2, 2TB sn850x, 2TB Netac Nv7000 + 2TB p5 plus = 22TB. Plus dvd burner.
Display(s) Dell 23.5" 1440P IPS panel
Case Lian Li LANCOOL II MESH Performance Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z623
Power Supply Gigabyte 850w
Mouse Some piece of shit from China
Keyboard Some piece of shit from China
Software Yes Please?
If it fixes the degradation problems.... that might be the way.
Regarding the 12p core chip, if it can somehow match the 14700k in MT performance, I'll be damn interested. If it doesn't, it will be meh.
Well of course it wont. Thats the whole point of ecores. They give better multicore performance with less die space.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,367 (0.78/day)
I mean I'm not going to disagree that you can have faster and slower cores, but irrespective of that consoles are still developing around 8 cores and 16 threads so meeting or exceeding that is ideal.

If it fixes the degradation problems.... that might be the way.

Well of course it wont. Thats the whole point of ecores. They give better multicore performance with less die space.

Yup exactly the 12P is more to bump up ST and offer a chip that's more affordable. It'll probably be fairly similar to a14600K in MT actually. It might be a bit quicker though due to some of the changes beyond simply inserting more P cores. I think the 14600K will almost assuredly beat the 10P core version even in spite of that I suspect, but I didn't really crunch the math on that. If I remember right 4E cores is similar to 2P cores in MT at least with HT, but w/o it that changes things. If you bump up cache and adjust IPC and frequency it probably balances out pretty close anyway in spite of removing HT. The big perk is the much higher ST which is good for every workload. It's a pretty significant bump.

I really think Intel should consider doing the opposite of a low power island with a single P core in some manner where they isolate a P core or maybe all the P cores with a bit of a thermal buffer space to make it easier to boost and/or at lower voltages since heat makes it more difficult to run lower voltages.

I don't know how they would go about that 100%. I think they could have like a cache between low power and regular E cores and another cache between the standard E cores and P cores. They should probably maybe considering using as many low power E cores as they do the amount of P cores so the regular E cores are more the higher density cores and balanced in the middle, but then has access to a bit of shared cache with low power E cores and high power P cores. They could get priority access to the cache from the low density cores that shared, but wouldn't get priority access from the shared cache with P cores.

Something like that might be possible and work reasonably, but idk it would probably be a bit of a engineering challenge to figure out how to arrange of all it in the manner. It would spread the heat out a bit though by having a shared cache in between clusters of core types.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
275 (0.18/day)
System Name Old friend
Processor 3550 Ivy Bridge x 39.0 Multiplier
Memory 2x8GB 2400 RipjawsX
Video Card(s) 1070 Gaming X
Storage BX100 500GB
Display(s) 27" QHD VA Curved @120Hz
Power Supply Platinum 650W
Mouse Light² 200
Keyboard G610 Red
It will be much better than a 5800X3d though and upto 12 P cores...
I meant the significance of the 5800X3D launch which has disrupted the 12900K.

Intel plans to do the same, disrupting the 9800X3D by launching BTL in Q3 2025.

If they're launching it in Q3'25, they're aiming for the 9800X3D.

It's about quality. The 12400F (6C12T) performs faster than a 10900K (10C20T).

having a bit of additional headroom for other multi-tasking just is a nice benefit for a variety of reasons. I'd say in general a PC should strive to either meet console specs or for 2-4 cores above them to allow for a bit of additional MT reassurance leeway. I'm not about to tell people what's best for them outright, but I think it's pretty reasonable and sensible guidance to consider.
Sure.

If Intel bumps up cache on these a reasonable bit
They should not go lower than 48MB L3 Cache (12MB more than 36MB we got with Raptor Cove).

past history
They are done with releasing 4C8T Core i7s and 4C4T Core i5s.

That's exactly WHY we need competition, to drive innovation and of course for better prices.

Now, if Intel does not rise again, AMD will become the new Intel (stagnation all over again) so we need both of them strong in order to have a thriving CPU market.

It's really a sign healthy competition in the CPU market actually because if AMD was doing a poor job competing we'd just be stuck on quad cores with a 50MHz bump on a new socket.
Oh, the good old days™ ;)

If it fixes the degradation problems.... that might be the way.
This^

meeting or exceeding that is ideal.
Sure.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
3,021 (2.02/day)
System Name Mean machine
Processor 12900k
Motherboard MSI Unify X
Cooling Noctua U12A
Memory 7600c34
Video Card(s) 4090 Gamerock oc
Storage 980 pro 2tb
Display(s) Samsung crg90
Case Fractal Torent
Audio Device(s) Hifiman Arya / a30 - d30 pro stack
Power Supply Be quiet dark power pro 1200
Mouse Viper ultimate
Keyboard Blackwidow 65%
I mean I'm not going to disagree that you can have faster and slower cores, but irrespective of that consoles are still developing around 8 cores and 16 threads so meeting or exceeding that is ideal.



Yup exactly the 12P is more to bump up ST and offer a chip that's more affordable. It'll probably be fairly similar to a14600K in MT actually. It might be a bit quicker though due to some of the changes beyond simply inserting more P cores. I think the 14600K will almost assuredly beat the 10P core version even in spite of that I suspect, but I didn't really crunch the math on that. If I remember right 4E cores is similar to 2P cores in MT at least with HT, but w/o it that changes things. If you bump up cache and adjust IPC and frequency it probably balances out pretty close anyway in spite of removing HT. The big perk is the much higher ST which is good for every workload. It's a pretty significant bump.

I really think Intel should consider doing the opposite of a low power island with a single P core in some manner where they isolate a P core or maybe all the P cores with a bit of a thermal buffer space to make it easier to boost and/or at lower voltages since heat makes it more difficult to run lower voltages.

I don't know how they would go about that 100%. I think they could have like a cache between low power and regular E cores and another cache between the standard E cores and P cores. They should probably maybe considering using as many low power E cores as they do the amount of P cores so the regular E cores are more the higher density cores and balanced in the middle, but then has access to a bit of shared cache with low power E cores and high power P cores. They could get priority access to the cache from the low density cores that shared, but wouldn't get priority access from the shared cache with P cores.

Something like that might be possible and work reasonably, but idk it would probably be a bit of a engineering challenge to figure out how to arrange of all it in the manner. It would spread the heat out a bit though by having a shared cache in between clusters of core types.
LOL man, it will be faster than the 14600k. Ballpark 13700k +10% but depends on the clocks, if pushed to 5.5 like RPL it can actually surpass the 14700k
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,367 (0.78/day)
I don't know how this degradation matter will unravel it might snowball out of control for all we know. The scope of it could change readily over time and we're mostly just start to see emerging problems primarily with the 13900K and 14900K SKU's, but other's like the 14700K and 13700K are going to be next on the chopping block. The 14700K in particular more so than the 13700K due to the additional E cores and binning. Like if it due to the ring and added stress from additional cores and higher SKU binning they might just be degrading a bit slower, but give it a few more months could be in the same scenario.

That said once you start alleviating some of that added pressure the ring bus is likely very durable overall in terms degradation concerns. Like there might be a general cutoff point in terms of what's over stressing it in the first place between core count and frequency with binning. I'm concerned it might snowball and then it's question of how much does it do so!? Like if it does snowball will even go as far back as some Alder Lake chips that aren't viewed as a problem right now in like 5 or 6 months or something!?
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
275 (0.18/day)
System Name Old friend
Processor 3550 Ivy Bridge x 39.0 Multiplier
Memory 2x8GB 2400 RipjawsX
Video Card(s) 1070 Gaming X
Storage BX100 500GB
Display(s) 27" QHD VA Curved @120Hz
Power Supply Platinum 650W
Mouse Light² 200
Keyboard G610 Red
Exciting CPU for once.
This^

I despise E cores, or ZENc ones for that matter. I mean, we're not on a mobile platform, we're ON desktop.

Performance (or rather, PROPER) cores are all we need, TBH.

High time to set things straight regarding LGA1700 by launching 12C24T Core 9, 10C20T Core 7 and 8C16T Core 5 BTL (PROPER-cores only) processors.

I'm very interested.
To the mad moon!
 
Top