Have Intel's Efficiency cores made a difference to you?

[Poneros]

Here we go again. What’s this got to do with AMD? Is it killing you that much that Intel are on top?

What CPU do you have? AMD by any chance and an older one at that I bet.

 

[storm-chaser]

You can call them whatever you like, no one is stopping you. Im just saying those economy cores are as dummy as the extra cores on a 7950x. In each and every single workload that the extra CCD is useful (meaning, it produces better results), so are the economy cores. Period.

And someone could argue the same about the extra ccd on the 7950x. AMD is using that extra ccd as nothing but fluff to make the processor appear more desireable for purchase because it competes with Intel on multithreading performance.

I don't care what type of cores they are, what they are named or how useful you think they are. I care about performance. Is there a scenario where the extra cores on the 7950x make a difference - while the economy cores don't? NOPE. Not a single one. Therefore, both are equivalent in terms of usefulness. That's not even something that should be debatable, yet here you are debating it. A comparison between a 13600k and a 7600x clearly demonstrates that you are absolutely horribly wrong. How is it possible in your opinion, since both has 6 good cores - for the 13600k to absolutely scorch the 7600x in pretty much everything multithreaded? Im sorry but if dummy / economy / fluff cores make my CPU 50++% faster (that's the mt difference between those 2 cpus), then by all means, fill my cpu with dummy / economy / fluff cores.

I've posted a video playing spiderman on my 12900k, those ecores seem to be fully utilized, I was hitting 80 to 90% utilization constantly.

Here is the video

12900k Spiderman Hwunboxed settings (High RT 6)

12900kSpiderman framerateRT30901080 dlssSpiderman ddr5

www.youtube.com

Okay makes sense, thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your insight, just takes me a little while for me to NOT be stubborn lol.

I accept their performance/value, but at the same time I still think it is a little sacrilegious. I don't particularly like the idea of having what is arguably intel's weakest cores pared with its strongest (P) cores. Why not just do 12C and 24T? and have each core identical? The processor would be faster if it was P cores instead of atom, right? Obviously TDP and power constraints are probably part of that equation.

 

[Bencher]

Okay makes sense, thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your insight, just takes me a little while for me to NOT be stubborn lol.

I accept their performance/value, but at the same time I still think it is a little sacrilegious. I don't particularly like the idea of having what is arguably intel's weakest cores pared with its strongest (P) cores. Why not just do 12C and 24T? and have each core identical? The processor would be faster if it was P cores instead of atom, right? Obviously TDP and power constraints are probably part of that equation.

Well the thing is, a 12P + 0E core CPU would be faster in workloads that scale past 8 cores but no more than 12. There just aren't that many workloads that have that kind of scaling. Usually workloads are either lightly threaded (games, autocad, photoshop and the likes) or heavily multithreaded. In those lightly threaded scenarios, an 8+16 configuration performs similarly to a 12+0. In those heavy MT workloads, the 8+16 is faster than the 12+0.

I don't think power is an issue, in fact P cores are more efficient than E cores at same wattage. The thing is, when you have an architecture that performs well in MT scenarios compared to its die size, there is no reason not to use it.