scary how fast Intel is getting the underdog treatment
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
a hell of a lot of people. and most of the competitive people
Soldato
You are probably right, but this uncertainty is based on lack of knowledge rather than being an intel fanboy. I am used to just buying the latest model of the same thing I have bought for years. They new one would always be better. Suddenly, that's no longer true, so I have to actually do some research to work out what I want to get. That's a process prone to making a very expensive mistake.
ok so watched a few reviews, terrible performance vs lower spec CPU's that are from previous generations
But this is a new chipset, there will be bugs and this will be ironed out from updates and patches?>
I mean if someone wanted a new build they wouldn't get a 14th Gen CPU or the AMD 7950 series equivalent, no? because otherwise they would have bought this over a year ago
So would it be best to get a Ryzen 9950X, oh hang on there is no 9950X3D unless its coming out
I cant see any other Intel CPUs releasing anytime soon
So take a chance and hope it gets better ? Doesn't seem wise thing to do it's not like it's any cheaper than better performing AMD options
Jumping on 14th now but no future CPU? Best option would be the 14700k
You can go from 7950x to 9000 series using the same motherboard I wouldn't do that though
I would say best would be 7950x3d or wait for 9950x3d it will be released when you say you plan on keeping the system for long time, and future option maybe zen 6 on same motherboard?
Last edited:
Yeah, from what I've heard in the few reviews I watched, the 245K is pretty much just a productivity CPU, since the gaming performance is very inconsistent and not great overall.
I'm pretty sure that first part is not true, the E-Cores do have the necessary instruction sets to run games. How much they're used? That's a different question, from what I've seen 6 P-Cores or 8 P-Cores makes the E-Cores redundant in most games, but they are used effectively in something very CPU-dependent like Civ.
The point is still valid though, a CPU without them would likely be just as effective for gaming in the vast majority of games and better value.
They help Intel remain competitive(ish) in productivity, that's the main benefit I can see. The Xeon-E models without E-Cores are very uncompetitive against Ryzen. Epyc 4004 makes them look like tonka toys.
Not sure what you're looking at but I see the results being in line with each other baring slight differences for avg runs. The only more weird part is the beginning for 7800X3D (testing itself at all 3 resolutions) where for the first 6 seconds there's a 10 fps difference between 1080p vs 1440p which quickly resolves and the results track along the same fps (see image below). Didn't see anything out of the ordinary for 14900K results (at different resolutions), they track each other almost perfectly.Some weird goings on with hat benchmark, at 1080P the 14900K is 20% ahead, you would expect them to close up at 1440P, nope.... it flips with the 7800X3D now being 20% ahead, here's the kicker, there is little difference between the 1080P and 1440P runs for the 14900K, for the 7800X3D the 1440P run gets a huge boost in frame rates. To be clear the frame rates are much higher at 1440P than they are at 1080P.
This makes no flipping sense, this is the review you want us to trust? Its garbage mate....
When you're looking for something that looks to tell a different story to the consensus and you find it there is probably reasons for it other than everyone else is doing it wrong.
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with the discrepancy at 1080p. It's actually quite common when properly CPU limited (which you'll be more at 1080p vs higher; and remember, it's actually 540p because of DLSS P, plus the per pixel scaling of RT will alleviate that significantly at higher res) that the game can run worse because of all the stalling occurring. That's why when actually gaming you shouldn't do it without an fps cap (and that's without going into various per engine details as it relates to specific timings etc)
[7800X3D 1080p (red) vs 1440p (gold) vs 4K (green)]
@LtMatt I don't think they've specified exactly how (probably don't want to be copied) other than through mods and certain people helping them out. Before these changes they used to have a dev build from CDPR for when they tested pathtracing pre-release that allowed them something similar (at least for CP2077). Can imagine for a lot of more moddable games you can just do it with a free-cam mod.
Last edited:
Caporegime
AMD made this market less of a cash cow with the release of 16 core mainstream CPUs. HEDT struggled on with Threadripper on and off over the years but Intel gave up largely.
Edit - forgot Intel have a Xeon range that's sort of Workstation/HEDT focused with Sapphire Rapids.
Last edited:
There's supposed to be a W890 coming, but if it follows W790 then it won't be affordable.
right, ive given up on this platform anyways, now im stuck on choosing either 7950X3D on a X670E mobo or a 9950X with a X870E mobo or stay on Intel and get the 14th Gen on LGA 1700 or take a risk and get Ultra 9 on the new LGA 1851
Big choice to choose from
very hard choice
Associate
That's complete nonsense. They have instruction parity with the P-cores. That's why AVX-512 wasn't enabled in the P-cores as they had to have instruction parity. Otherwise the OS can't move threads from P cores to E-cores.
You could run windows fine on a single E core. It performs exactly like a full cpu core. It's just designed for efficiency and had Hyper Threading removed from the start.
I suspect that DFs video will do Intel a lot of damage. Deservedly so?
Last edited:
I think their benefit is limited to mobile devices, with limited power and cooling.
But the clock rate seems to be increasing, so maybe the difference will narrow?
Last edited:
Lots of PC gamers still use 1080p monitors. My 2 brothers still do.
Some games I play at the equivalent of 1080p, especially if it improves 1% low frametimes.
Last edited:
The newer AMD CPUs are definitely worth it for some workloads, if you use AVX512 the difference is pretty big.
The X3D has three features that I like:
- Gaming performance.
- Power efficiency.
- Less sensitivity to memory frequency.
14th gen I'd just avoid, 'cos we have no idea if they'll be safe in the longer-term, or start degrading again even with running the patched microcode.
There's nothing here that convinces me to buy the 285 really.., but it does pull out a small lead sometimes.
If Intel can address the performance inconsistency where in some benches it falls way behind other architectures (including raptor lake), then maybe that'll change.
Intel Core Ultra 200S Content Creation Review
We examine the performance of Intel's new Core Ultra 200S series desktop processors in content creation applications.
www.pugetsystems.com
Caporegime
They sort of are, aren't they? The major difference between P- and E- cores in the 12-14th gen was that you had Hyper-Threading on P-cores but now they've ditched Hyper Threading the two cores are much closer. Either they're going to need a new concept for what the difference is, or they'll likely start shedding them.
Where is that a quote from? It does not match with anything I can find elsewhere. In fact, Intel seem to have abandoned AVX-512 specifically in order to keep the E- and P- cores on the same instruction set.
It’s definitely possible to play games with E-cores only:
www.techpowerup.com
Seems to handle Cyberpunk (not on the highest settings) and Borderlands 3, struggling more with the latter.
They’ve been improved since then, also.
Seems like Intel should release cheap E-core only CPUs on their new platform.
Then, some P core only models for the enthusiasts…
Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review
With Alder Lake, Intel is betting big on hybrid CPU core configurations. The Core i9-12900K has eight P(erformance) cores and eight E(fficient) cores. We were curious and tested the processor running the E-Cores only to see how well they perform against architectures like Zen 2, Zen 3, Skylake...
Seems to handle Cyberpunk (not on the highest settings) and Borderlands 3, struggling more with the latter.
They’ve been improved since then, also.
Seems like Intel should release cheap E-core only CPUs on their new platform.
Then, some P core only models for the enthusiasts…
Last edited:
Caporegime
I'm not sure this is really true. Apart from E-cores being useful to keep background stuff out of the way even if the game you're playing doesn't directly benefit from them, in terms of silicon you get four E-cores for the price of one P-core. Individually they're not offering as much, but four of them probably outweigh a single P-core a lot of the time.
That said, with Arrow Lake dropping Hyper Threading presumably the ratio of transistors P-Core to E-Core is much lower, but you're also getting less threads running on the P-Cores so... who knows?
Notably, we haven’t seen the Core 3, Core 5 or Core 7 CPUs yet for the 15th gen (LunaLake /Arrow Lake):
en.m.wikipedia.org
Just the Core Ultra series so far.
The new branding scheme strongly suggests these will be released.
Seems like Intel wanted to include a couple of P cores, even in the (Raptor Lake based) non ultra series:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-processor-150u-12m-cache-up-to-5-40-ghz.html
But maybe the point is to phase out P cores at the low end.
Celeron CPUs had poor latency vs Intel’s main series, but presumably that’s no longer an issue.
Arrow Lake (microprocessor) - Wikipedia
Just the Core Ultra series so far.
The new branding scheme strongly suggests these will be released.
Seems like Intel wanted to include a couple of P cores, even in the (Raptor Lake based) non ultra series:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-processor-150u-12m-cache-up-to-5-40-ghz.html
But maybe the point is to phase out P cores at the low end.
Celeron CPUs had poor latency vs Intel’s main series, but presumably that’s no longer an issue.
Last edited: