• 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.

On Intel Raptor Lake, any truth to the rumors that disabling all e-cores hurts single threaded performance of the p-cores??

jigger said:
You seem to assume Intel builds its desktop chips with real focus on pairing with an expensive graphics card, that’s simply not the case. Intels focus is to convince the likes of Dell to commit to long term orders. The only only chance Intel has chance to win over the Dell’s is with a combination of Skylake and Atom cores so each can offset the other’s shortcomings.

Intel is struggling to offer 8p cores on the desktop never mind 12. If you want more than 8 cores (HP cores) from Intel the price is over £100 per core, probably twice that TBH.
Click to expand...


Well really. If that were the case why do they have the 13900K and 13700K? Those are CPUs many would pair with an expensive GPU.

And yeah I would pay premium dollar for 12 P cores. Though they do not have it so do not have that option. Well Sapphire Rapids is here, but only available to OEMs and they use mesh arch which is awfully bad for gaming.

The e-cores for the additional threads have to work right and my fears about the slower IPC and different arch for secondary game threads beyond 8 need to be alleviated.

If games can successfully saturate fully more and more P cores, then how would e-cores keep up? Or do game threads beyond 8 never fully saturate other cores and thus the weaker IPC of them should not matter at all as long as the CPU and OS and hardware know how to handle it right?
 
Last edited:
Wolverine2349 said:
Thanks for the info and yes I have seen lots of reports of these games using more than 8 cores and even lots of cores. Though is that at all resolutions or only high FPS?

I have considered turning the e-cores on as reports of games actually using more and more cores are starting to spread a lot and reports of games using not many cores when I search articles 3+ years old pop up which leads me to believe now is the time more cores are really starting to matter.

Though at same time many say oh even 6 cores is still fine. Results all over the place.

You had mentioned that the perfect CPU would be Zen 5 with 12 P cores on a single CCD then you could turn off SMT and get best gaming performance possible.

Though it appears Zen 5 is still going to max out at 8 cores per CCD.

As for e-cores on Intel you state they do great and cause no issues at all and only help games or make no difference even with Windows 10? Like how is it able to do that when the cores are running different IPC/arch than the P cores? Does the CPU and more than 8 threads scaled to e-cores know how to do it so so that so that it uses proper compute resources of the e-core or e-cores so that it can utilize a larger percentage to compensate for the fact that they are much lower IPC so that the thread is efficiently running as if it were running on additional P cores? Like I imagine if the thread had additional P core, it would use much less of it unless it needed to use the whole thing in which case trouble would abound as e-cores are much weaker than P cores. Though most other threads I do not think need to do so. But still does it know how to do it right?

That has been my fear and concern all along as I want things to work super smooth with no issues for games the past 20 years including modern games and a couple of older ones.

Do you need to use Process Lasso or can you just set and forget.

And do you use WIN10 or WIN11? And do you have hyper threading on or off?

Thanks again for your help and I am sure you are very surprised to hear I am considering it given my bashing of e-cores in the past.
Click to expand...
I have windows 11, I don't use process lasso or anything else. The game uses the 8 physical threads first, if it needs more it goes to the 8 physical ecores, and if it needs even more resources then it goes to hyperthreading. When you turn off ecores you force the game to use hyper threading instead of the ecores, and that drops 1% lows significantly in lots of cases.

From the amount of cpu usage in games like last of us I would assume that 8+8 would be faster than 10p cores. 12pcores would probably be faster assuming they could get away with ring bus which Ive no idea if it's possible or not.

If zen 5 is still 8 cores then I guess I'm skipping zen 5, what else do you want me to say about it
 
Bencher said:
I have windows 11, I don't use process lasso or anything else. The game uses the 8 physical threads first, if it needs more it goes to the 8 physical ecores, and if it needs even more resources then it goes to hyperthreading. When you turn off ecores you force the game to use hyper threading instead of the ecores, and that drops 1% lows significantly in lots of cases.

From the amount of cpu usage in games like last of us I would assume that 8+8 would be faster than 10p cores. 12pcores would probably be faster assuming they could get away with ring bus which Ive no idea if it's possible or not.

If zen 5 is still 8 cores then I guess I'm skipping zen 5, what else do you want me to say about it
Click to expand...


Would it work fine with WIn10 or do you have to use WIN11?

I know you stated there is 0 reason to disable e-cores even on WIN10. So it should work well right as the thread director internally in CPU knows how to handle it do you know? Though WIN11 uses thread director at OS level where as WIN10 does not but if internal at hardware level it may not matter much?
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Would it work fine with WIn10 or do you have to use WIN11?

I know you stated there is 0 reason to disable e-cores even on WIN10. So it should work well right as the thread director internally in CPU knows how to handle it do you know? Though WIN11 uses thread director at OS level where as WIN10 does not but if internal at hardware level it may not matter much?
Click to expand...
I don't see why it shouldn't work on windows 10 as well, but just test it?
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Well really. If that were the case why do they have the 13900K and 13700K? Those are CPUs many would pair with an expensive GPU.

And yeah I would pay premium dollar for 12 P cores. Though they do not have it so do not have that option. Well Sapphire Rapids is here, but only available to OEMs and they use mesh arch which is awfully bad for gaming.

The e-cores for the additional threads have to work right and my fears about the slower IPC and different arch for secondary game threads beyond 8 need to be alleviated.

If games can successfully saturate fully more and more P cores, then how would e-cores keep up? Or do game threads beyond 8 never fully saturate other cores and thus the weaker IPC of them should not matter at all as long as the CPU and OS and hardware know how to handle it right?
Click to expand...

Intel possibly could scale past 8 cores with its ringbus design, but not with the current levels of IPC. Mesh has more capacity to scale than Ringbus and supports faster cores without suffering limited scaling. Between the two options Mesh is the more promising tech IMO, but both have downsides, hence the dilemma Intel is currently in.

Sapphire rapids is the closest part to what you describe, but if gaming is your only reason to own a PC then buying all AMD is way to go. If AMD see enough demand for X3D and it generates enough money they will likely focus more resources into reasonably priced desktop parts tailored to gaming.

If enough people buy Sapphire rapids maybe Intel would start similar development to AMD’s X3D parts.
 
jigger said:
Intel possibly could scale past 8 cores with its ringbus design, but not with the current levels of IPC. Mesh has more capacity to scale than Ringbus and supports faster cores without suffering limited scaling. Between the two options Mesh is the more promising tech IMO, but both have downsides, hence the dilemma Intel is currently in.

Sapphire rapids is the closest part to what you describe, but if gaming is your only reason to own a PC then buying all AMD is way to go. If AMD see enough demand for X3D and it generates enough money they will likely focus more resources into reasonably priced desktop parts tailored to gaming.

If enough people buy Sapphire rapids maybe Intel would start similar development to AMD’s X3D parts.
Click to expand...

Buy all AMD including GPU or just CPU?

And X3D is best. Though is 7800X3D being only 8 cores enough as does the big L3 cache matter most?
 
If you want to tune intel for gaming, disable Ht, max out pcores, ring and ecores. Then mem as much as you can. Stability test. Save bios and forget.
 
Last edited:
Wolverine2349 said:
Buy all AMD including GPU or just CPU?

And X3D is best. Though is 7800X3D being only 8 cores enough as does the big L3 cache matter most?
Click to expand...
AMD have poured resources into gaming specific platforms and parts. If those platforms show a positive return future development will continue.
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Intel p cores are actually really good.

The e cores such on other hand.

4 e cores take same die space as 1 p core and maybe Slightly more. And 4 e core cluster takes somewhat more power than one p core.

So they could make a 10 to 12 p core 13th gen.

In your view do any games you notice benefit from more than 8 cores.
Click to expand...
Id rather have a 64 ecore cpu for 50 quid.
 
Last edited:
Bencher said:
@Wolverine2349 Look at the below,, imagine what would have happened if I turned off Ecores

www.youtube.com

12900k + 4090

www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...

Yes I see a pretyy good load on each core. It would be bad if e-cores were off in that situation as all P cores pegged to almost 100% or maybe 100%

What game is that? Is that the Last of Us Part 1. Or is it a recent (as in last 3-5 years) Battlefield game)?

ANd do you know is there a way to stop core parking with e-cores on. I noticed on both 12th and 13th Gen if I have e-cores on, in WIndows 10, it parks any P core not at idle. In WIN11 it parks all cores both P and e not at idle. If e-cores are all disabled, no CPU cores ever get parked just like none ever get parked on any Intel CPUs prior to Intel 12th/no- e-core 12th Gen versions, nor any AMD Ryzen 7000, 5000, or 3000 series CPUs.

Have you noticed it parks cores if you gold your mouse cursor over a core in Task Manager that is idle? Any way to disable that sop cores are always active regardless?
 
Cyber-Mav said:
Id rather have a 64 ecore cpu for 50 quid.
Click to expand...


Intel has neither. All hiugh end SKUs have 8 P cores and a bunch of e-cores.

The low end SKUs like 12th Gen Core i5 12400 have 6 P cores only.

They should look into making more options on the market.

A 10-12 P core Raptor Lake.

And 48 e-core Raptor Lake. Well I say 48 because 8 P cores take same space as 32 e-cores and there are 16 e-cores on 13900K so 16+32 is 48. Not sure if they could fit any more on them.

Well there is HEDT Sapphire Rapids, but on a mesh and mesh has horrible latency.
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Intel has neither. All hiugh end SKUs have 8 P cores and a bunch of e-cores.

The low end SKUs like 12th Gen Core i5 12400 have 6 P cores only.

They should look into making more options on the market.

A 10-12 P core Raptor Lake.

And 48 e-core Raptor Lake. Well I say 48 because 8 P cores take same space as 32 e-cores and there are 16 e-cores on 13900K so 16+32 is 48. Not sure if they could fit any more on them.

Well there is HEDT Sapphire Rapids, but on a mesh and mesh has horrible latency.
Click to expand...

Intel have been looking into scaling past 8 cores. Unfortunately non have been viable, and won’t be for some time…
 
jigger said:
In every regard. Intel are lacking in all areas and in trying to look competitive against AMD they have managed to paint themselves into a corner if you will.
Click to expand...


Like how have they painted themselves into a corner against AMD on the desktop side?

I mean take a Ryzen 7700X vs a Core i7 13700K or 13900K and disable the c-cores so we have 8 P cores vs 8 P cores from each company.

Fix the clock speed of both at the same

In most tests Intel comes out on top by like 6% which means their IPC is better. And even Golden Cove is on par or slightly ahead of Zen 4 when using CPU-Z and Cinebench R23 in above scenario. And Intel CPUs also can clock higher with the 6% higher IPC giving advantage there.

Though Intel is lacking in terms of server/Enterprise as they cannot get lots of big cores on CPUs as costs efficient as AMD can

And they still top out at 8 on desktop and need to add more e-cores to trade blows with the 16 Big cores from AMD in productivity monster apps.

So yes Intel is lacking in many regards, but every regard, not really as they still have their advantages.
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Like how have they painted themselves into a corner against AMD on the desktop side?

I mean take a Ryzen 7700X vs a Core i7 13700K or 13900K and disable the c-cores so we have 8 P cores vs 8 P cores from each company.

Fix the clock speed of both at the same

In most tests Intel comes out on top by like 6% which means their IPC is better. And even Golden Cove is on par or slightly ahead of Zen 4 when using CPU-Z and Cinebench R23 in above scenario. And Intel CPUs also can clock higher with the 6% higher IPC giving advantage there.

Though Intel is lacking in terms of server/Enterprise as they cannot get lots of big cores on CPUs as costs efficient as AMD can

And they still top out at 8 on desktop and need to add more e-cores to trade blows with the 16 Big cores from AMD in productivity monster apps.

So yes Intel is lacking in many regards, but every regard, not really as they still have their advantages.
Click to expand...

Intel has had to push its tech past maxing everything out (on everything) just to look competitive against AMD, while AMD can maintain scaling in every metric for the foreseeable future.
 
Wolverine2349 said:
Like how have they painted themselves into a corner against AMD on the desktop side?

I mean take a Ryzen 7700X vs a Core i7 13700K or 13900K and disable the c-cores so we have 8 P cores vs 8 P cores from each company.

Fix the clock speed of both at the same

In most tests Intel comes out on top by like 6% which means their IPC is better. And even Golden Cove is on par or slightly ahead of Zen 4 when using CPU-Z and Cinebench R23 in above scenario. And Intel CPUs also can clock higher with the 6% higher IPC giving advantage there.

Though Intel is lacking in terms of server/Enterprise as they cannot get lots of big cores on CPUs as costs efficient as AMD can

And they still top out at 8 on desktop and need to add more e-cores to trade blows with the 16 Big cores from AMD in productivity monster apps.

So yes Intel is lacking in many regards, but every regard, not really as they still have their advantages.
Click to expand...
Intel are lacking compared to TSMC. After all, the 3d cache is all TSMC.

They don't really care about AMD, if they can get their nodes back in order - their CPU design is much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom