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

[Wolverine2349]

No they don't, I went through the games one by one. Out of both the reviews you posted only 2 games performed better with ecores off (and VERY marginally at that) while games performed WAY better with ecores on.

Completely false. You only tested Spiderman Remastered which is like only one of the games that uses e-cores.

Even Hitman 3 which actually is one of the few games to offload certain parts to e-cores performed better with e-waste cores off!! Hah Hah

Even Cyber Punk performs better with them off in that benchmark

All games are different and it depends on your use case and OS.

To say there is no reason or its silly to turn them off is just wrong wrong wrong!! Every use case is different. Some people buy a 13700K or 13900K for only 8 P cores and would have otherwise bought an 8 P core only Intel Raptor Lake with 36MB L3 cache if Intel sold one. But they do not. So we buy the 13900K and disable e-cores because we do not want hybrid gimmick crap and wanted 8 super fast P cores with most L3 cache and that's it.

So stop trying to say it is illogical for anyone to disable the e-cores as once again every user case is different in terms of what the user wants and needs especially when there is no option to buy an 8 P core only Intel chip let alone one with 36MB L3 cache. And do not respond with buy AMD if you want 8 cores and no e-cores. Well first of all AMD Zen 4 cores are weaker than Intel Raptor Cove cores and many of us want Raptor Cove cores and no e-cores so that leaves us 13900K or 13700K and then disable e-waste cores.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Man, YOU posted 2 links. From purepc and foxlaptops. I checked their numbers, and besides 2 games everything else was working BETTER with ecores on. WTF are you talking about again?

Of course it's illogical to turn off ecores, even YOUR links prove it.

You are looking at WIN11 results which gimps P core performance because of the info on Fox laptop. The thread director with no e-cores has no clue how to distinguish between a logical and phywsical core and there is no way to disable the thread director in WIN11. WIN10 does not use it.

There are no benchmarks to show how superior WIN10 is in gaming with e-waste cores off. Every benchmark now uses WIN11 unware of that info which is so true on Fox laptop regarding thread director mis allocation of threads between physical and logical cores when e-cores are off. Simple solution. Disable thread director, but you cannot on WIN11.

It is flat out stupid to say it is illogical to disable the e-cores on WIN10 as every user case is different!!

WIn11 is a different story and yes it is illogical only because there is not way to disable thread director and avoid the bug.

But to say it is illogical in all cases is just flat out untrue as many of us bought these CPUs because we want 8 P cores but wanted no more and Intel had no option for an 8 P core only CPU to buy. Sp if running WIN11, you have ot have at least 1 e-core enabled. On WIN10, disable all of them and no issues at all and better gaming performance overall.

I wish there were WN10 gaming benchmarks but no one tests these with WIN10 as reviewers all assume you need WIN11 and are unaware of thread director issue in WIN11 with e-cores all off.

 

[Wolverine2349]

So wait a minute. You posted 2 links to show how ecores off is better, turns out that you were wrong and ecores on was actually better even in games, and now you are telling me it's because they use windows 11? Then why did you even post these reviews in the first place???

But the question is, if what you are saying about windows 10 is true (im absolutely sure it's not, but ill go with it), you should upgrade to windows 11. Since games usually perform better with ecores ON, windows 11 + ecores on is better in games than windows 10 and ecores off

I did not realize all these benchmarks were using WIN11 until I dug further.

And no WIN11 is a buggy mess and the UI sucks!!!

And no games do not perform better with e-cores on usually. They perform better with them off if thread director is not on or if OS is not thread director aware as in WIN10 case.

 

[Wolverine2349]

So you gimp performance cause you don't like the UI. Gotcha

Spiderman, ecores on, so horrible

12900k Spiderman Hwunboxed settings (High RT 6)

12900kSpiderman framerateRT30901080 dlssSpiderman ddr5

www.youtube.com

Lol NO!!

I purchased the 13900K to use as an 8 P core chip. If Intel had an 8 P core only chip with 36MB L3 cache, I would have purchased that. but they do not. So I got the 13900K and dsiabel e-cores first thing so I can use Intel's superior best in calss P cores with no e-cores.

Every user case is different once again. And there are people who want 8 Intel P cores without the e-cores and disabling e-cores is the only way to get that as Intel does not have a separate product with 8 P cores only. It is thus not illogical to disable them as all user cases are different once again!!!

 

[Wolverine2349]

@Wolverine2349 So no response that your own cited proof states the opposite of what you are doing?

"...so again for the most part this really is going to be a non issue for gamers, at least right now and likely some time into the future. So for now, my advice is to use a program like ProcessLasso, where need be, and then leave those E-Cores to do what they were marketed to do and that is to handle background tasks...." Steve - HUB

Performance is performance regarldess of how small or big.

And sometimes even big performance drop can be a non issue if FPS is high enough.

Still does not change that overall games do perform better with e-cores off almost all games except Spider Man Remastered.

Yeah maybe it is a non-issue mostly, but disabling e-cores is also a non issue and gives much more thermal and power headroom for higher P core clocks and higher ring clock especially on air cooling.

I did purchase the chip once again as an 8 core chip and wanted the lots of L3 cache and no e-cores.

If Intel had a 10 P core chip I would have purchased that instead. But they do not. Fortunately games do not have any meaningful benefit from any more than 8 cores or even 6 right now unless you run Discord and a bunch of intense background stuff which I do not as I keep my OS clean and lean and minimal. But does not change fact that fewer faster cores are better for gaming than more slower cores unless you go to 4 cores or less in which things change.

 

[Wolverine2349]

You was told to move the discussion on in the other forum and a day later you start a thread here, do you want confirmation that badly that these so called e-waste cores are holding back your processor as disabling or enabling them is your choice as you said every use case is different but dont bend the truth to push a narrative onto others.

You best be using a setup like a overclocked delided 13900K/KS with direct die custom water cooling @ 5.9 ghz all cores with 8200mhz tuned ram and a 4090 or otherwise you have performance left to gain.

Well I only air cool. Direct die is very difficult.

The start of this thread is because someone over at overclock.net stated that there was weird behavior or performance reduction of even P cores single thread and stated you just need one e-core turned on and I was very worried about that. In reality I was hoping for confirmation that the CPU would perform no different than an 8 core 16 thread CPU with the IPC and perf of Raptor Cove with no e-cores at all than if it has them and you disable them at BIOS level.

Falkentyne at overclock.net stated there were weird issues. It seems they are probably unfounded on WIN10, though Thread Director 2 is exclusive for WIN11 and yes based on this below:

Core i7-12700K review revealing that E-cores hurt P-cores, but without them, everything is only worse

A review of the Core i7-12700K reveals that the presence of E-cores negatively impacts the performance of P-cores, but without them, the overall performance is even worse.

fox-laptop.com

It would seem turning all e-cores off screws with it only on WIN11 because of thread director which fortunately WIN10 is not aware of. As thread director will auto assign 2nd priority to e-core and if no e-cores it has no idea how to assign threads to logical cores.

Though I made this thread to get opinions to be sure.

It does appear based on testing only a WIN11 problem fortunately.

Problem started when Bencher came in and stated nada reason to disable e-cores and that is how the arguments started and they were trying to shove their opinion down my throat as well and started it.

Every use case is different but Bencher keeps saying its beyond illogical to disable them when it is not. You cannot compare that to someone buying a 7950X and disabling 1 CCD because you can buy a 7700X. With Intel no P core only option and not everyone likes the hybrid approach either. And Intel has no 8 P core only CPU base don current arch so you have to buy 13900K or 13700K and disable e-cores to get 8 Intel P cores.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I can see it is probably going to be futile to get a simple answer from you for a simple question.

I'll try one more time. Why did the 'proof' you put forward to support your premise actually tell people do the exact opposite of what you are doing?

It does not for most games. Most games actually perform a little better with e-cores off. It is a fact. Now whether significant enough to matter is another debate and depends on individual. And yes there are a few that do better with e-cores on, but the majority in the reviews for games do better with them off. That is a fact.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Well I feel you may be disappointed going forward as it seems it is here to stay, and the rumours are that AMD may go the same way. They are designing more power efficient compact dies at the sacrifice of peak performance (Zen4c) and launching for EPYC customers, I wouldn't be surprised it makes its way into consumer products in the future.

It should be here to stay for laptops and mobile devices It has no place in desktops.

I mean I am sure Intel could make a separate die with 8 P cores only as it would be cheaper than the dies with 8 P cores and 16 e-cores and just selling defective e-core clusters as 13700Ks and defective P and e-cores as 13600Ks.

Why not another die as they in fact had a separate die for the Core i5 12400 which had 6 P cores only.

They in fact had 8 P core dies only for Coffee Lake and Comet Lake.

And they also had 10 P cores with Comet Lake

Why not they make a 10 P core Raptor Lake as well for gamers.

I mean how about an 8 P core only chip with a better ring clock and IMC and lots more L3 cache. That would knock out AMD's X3D chips and they would corner the gamer enthusiast only market as no games get much if any benefit form more than 6-8 cores and games love and love L3 cache and it would mop the floor with even AMD's X3D lineup as Intel has somewhat better IPC in their Raptor Cove cores than AMD and they clock much higher as well on same type of cooling.

And why not more than 8 OP cores. Oh I know some will say Saphire Rapids HEDT is right around the corner for that. Well that is not good for gamers because Saphire Rapids CPUs are going to use a mesh instead of ring which will reduce gaming performance.

Yes no more than 8 strong cores are needed for gaming but some hate the hybrid arch and use their PCs for gaming and also other intense background tasks and could benefit form more than 8 cores without using the big.little approach and sapphire rapids will not be the answer for them on same system because of the mesh topology certainly not if gaming is a big point of their PC without reduced performance.

 

[Wolverine2349]

No, no, no! First of all that response is non sequitur because it does not answer the question I asked. That is typically what you will often find politicians doing when they don't want to admit to something.

Secondly the times where you find the few occasions where games slightly under preform when E-cores are on is because HT is also on; turn HT off and you will find 99% of games performing exactly the same or better.

So the conclusion of this thread is that if you are gaming you can leave E-ores on but you should also turn HT off.

Most games perform very close either way and very little difference including Spiderman Remastered e-cores on or off. Benchmarks show most either HT on or off better with e-cores off, but only slightly/ Same for games that perform better with e-cores on, only slightly. There is 2 to 3% difference at most either way.= assuming equal clocks speed of the P cores. But faster clock speed P cores and ring/cache e-cores off will beat slower P cores and e-cores on.

Though all else equal with same P core speed and ring/cache speed with ecores on or off almost no difference either way for gaming.

But e-cores off more thermal headroom for air coolers with only 8 cores to cool instead of 16 additional and potential higher P core clocks with air coolers. With excellent cooling can probably do high P core clocks with e-cores on and thus no difference. With air cooling though much much harder if at all possible.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I have a small single tower air cooler. I have no problem clocking my pcores with ecores on or off. Why would that make a difference? If a game doesn't use ecores, then having them off doesnt give you any thermal headroom

If you do a static all core all the time clock rather than dynamic clock, it does matter. For dynamic clock, there are ways to have speeds boost even on lesser cooling as long as other cores are not used at all.

Though I like a static all core all the time clock speed. I am a traditionalist when it comes to overclocking and that is the way I do it. Better latency as well that way.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Just tested cyberpunk, in the tom's dinner area, heaviest area of the entire game, disabling ecores murders the performance. Drops wattage by around 25-30 watts, but performance takes a huge nosedive.

Somehow I doubt that unless you have a bunch of stuff running in the background like Windows updates and discord and such. Games just do not scale beyond 8 cores and only come close to even maxing out 8 cores in the most toughest detailed city/town areas of games which is fine unless you have stuff using a decent chunk of CPU resources running in the background. What resolution and framerate.

I keep Windows updates disabled and only use manual updates and have gamer mode so AV does not try and update and games come no where close to using 8 cores let alone more in almost all areas except cities/towns of Red Dead 2. And even in the highest cities and towns with lots and lots of AI and NPCs, with 8 cores active, it only comes close to fully maxing them and it never actually does max them out. Comes to like 75 to 80% consistently and maybe 90 to 95% for CPU usage with 8 cores for a brief second if that.

I suppose things could be different once again if Windows updates starts or browser are open with intense web pages or AV initiates update or if you are running 1080P with 3090 or higher or 1080P/1440P with 4090 or higher which would procue insanely high FPS. None of which apply to me with a 3090 at 1440P or a 4090 I am about to switch to at 4K with graphics details near maxed out,

 

[Wolverine2349]

That is probably never gonna happen. There are already games that benefit from turning off HT, then there are games that benefit from turning on HT, then there are games that despise ecores, then there are games that love them.

Realistically, a 12core single CCD 3d Zen 5 would be the best bet for gaming. You turn off HT, and it still has enough cores to not lose performance, with the massive cache and no cross CCD penalty. When and if such a part gets released, I kiss Intel goodbye. Until then I have to stick with them for gaming

I totally agree about the 12 core Zen 5 single CCD part. When if ever is it going to come. We got a long ways. Not sure why AMD did not do that with Zen 4? Too much heat density?

Will Intel ever have such a part.

 

[Wolverine2349]

This thread is ridiculous. The OP didn’t come here wanting any evidence or facts to prove or disprove his conjecture, he just wanted to hear some nonsense to confirm his own bias.

He refuses requests to provide any benchmark figures if his own, he posts threads and articles that directly contradict his position, he ignores others evidence as it doesn’t suit his hardwired opinion.

You’ve tried your best @Bencher, don’t waste anymore time on the unhinged.

No its not. My points are valid. I do not want the e-cores on at all and

Falkentyne at overclock.net somewhere in this thread https://www.overclock.net/threads/o...and-discussion.1799628/page-252#post-29071515 had mentioned you have to have at least one e-core enabled or ST performance becomes erratic unlike 12900K which bothered me as I want 0 e-cores on and wanted to confirm that is not true at all and you can disbale all e-cores and use it as an 8 core 16 thread CPU no different than if it came with no e-cores.

That point was concerning.

It appears it is only an issue on WIN11 due to thread director 2. WIN10 is not thread director aware so no issues with hyper threading and ST performance disabling all e-cores.

I tested myself and in WIN11 with all e-cores off with 13900K at 5.6GHz, CPU-Z single thread score was all over the place from 870 all the way to 914 and usually 870 severely gimped. Turned on one e-core and thread director knew how to behave and P core score always 914.

With WIN10 and all e-cores disabled, CPU-Z single thread score multiple runs no weird behavior. Score always the same 914. Also one e-core on CPU-Z single core score also always 914. WIN10 has no such issues as it does not use thread director so you can safely disable all e-cores and use it as an 8 core 16 thread chip.

Core i7-12700K review revealing that E-cores hurt P-cores, but without them, everything is only worse

A review of the Core i7-12700K reveals that the presence of E-cores negatively impacts the performance of P-cores, but without them, the overall performance is even worse.

fox-laptop.com

I believe the above article can only summarize the issues as to why disabling e-cores causes issues on WIN10. Though it does seem to affect 13th Gen and not really 12th gen most likely because Intel updated Thread Director to version 2 and that also only works with WIN11. Thread Director version 1 was probably much weaker so less of an impact.

But with WIN10, no thread director is used at all in 12th nor 13th gen.

 

[Wolverine2349]

You’re a broken record, and you’ve proven there’s no point trying to engage with you as you just traipse out the same crap endlessly, ignoring all rhyme and reason. As my dad used to say; no point arguing with idiocy, they’ll only drag you down to their level and win with experience.

My main concern is for @Bencher - wasn’t it Einstein who said the definition of insanity was repeating the same thing over and over again (ie arguing with you) and expecting a different result?

/Taps out of the thread, nowt to see here.

No I am not. There are those who want e-cores on and there are those that do not. All use cases are different. There are legitimate reasons for disabling them. To suggest otherwise is foolish. All use cases/scenarios are different.

I want them off. I have the best 8 core 16 thread chip in existence and run WIN10. Am proud of it. That works great for me!!

 

[Wolverine2349]

No there aren't. Any. Whatsoever.

Yes there are!! Stop trying to shove your views down other's throats. Every user case is different. There are legitimate reasons for leaving them on and also for disabling them!!

If Intel had an 8 P core only Raptor Lake with 36MB L3 cache, then no as you can just buy that. But many want the 8 P cores and do not want any e-cores. Intel ahs no separate SKU. So yes there are legit reasons for disabling those e-cores if that's what you want.

AMD on other hand would be a waste to buy a 7950X and disable one CCD as they have a 7700X. Likewise a 7900X and disable one as they have a 7600X.

Intel does not. So stop acting like a broken record and shoving your views down other's throats.

I accept that there are those who like the e-cores and want them on. I just started this thread due to my concern from Falkentyne findings as I do not want the e-cores. Turns out those concerns are only a WIN11 thing due to thread director and are not valid and of no worry using WIN10. Then you Bencher try and tell me there is 0 reason for disabling them which is completely false as I do not want them and did not buy the CPU for them!! Respect that Bencher just as I respect you and others can use the e-cores.

You need WIN11 for thread director 2 to work: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...ee1766ef19&utm_source=embedly&utm_term=xqt5l3

Though yes you can still use e-cores and P cores hybrid config on WIN10 and it works fine even without thread director mostly, but for best experience you need WIN11 so it uses Intel thread director 2.

Once again Every use case is different and every desire is different. There are legit reasons for keeping them on and also legit reasons for turning them off.

https://www.overclock.net/threads/o...-results-bins-and-discussion.1799628/page-770: Power consumption alone is so insane and more thermal headroom turning off more cores.

And there are other legit reasons as well. Once again every use case is differnet so stop trying to say nada Bencher especially since Intel has no 8 P core only Raptor Lake. If they did it would be a different story but they do not.

 

[Wolverine2349]

But it's been 3 months, still waiting for those reasons to turn them off. You haven't given any


Power consumption in games is the exact same, whether you have the ecores on or off. Ive tested it. So your whole "more headroom" argument is just absolutely wrong and it's obvious you haven't actually tested it

How about this. I want them off. That is more than reason enough. I bought the chip for the 8 p cores and never wanted the e-cores. Legit reason big time to turn them off. Intel has no 8 P core only option at all let alone with 36MB L3 cache otherwise your point would be valid.

So yes valid reasons to turn them off!! Thats how I want it and that's good enough.

More headroom is accurate if you are doing old school traditionally static all core all the time clocks instead of dynamic clocks. 5.6GHz all P cores on air with only 1.26VCORE LLC6 on 13900KS. Not a chance with e-cores on using static all core all the time clock speeds and 5GHz ring clock.

There is also the risk of a game thread getting caught on one which would cripple performance in WIN10 certainly. WIN11 manages it better. And want set and forget not to have to use Process Lasso all the time to ensure game threads do not touch e-cores. Starcraft another example of a game that is flat out worse with them on.
And many other games as well. Yes most are within margin of error, but performance is performance.

Plus no risk of a rogue process hogs the CPU cycles and power consumption, it will not overheat as more thermal headroom and no extra e-cores to take up even more thermal headroom when the first case even with e-cores off will cause it to get hot enough anyway. And these chips can degrade easily and fast for those that think no big deal it will just throttle at 100C.

With 5.6Ghz all core clock e-cores off maximum power consumption on chip was 240 watts no more. Easily would top 300 watts if that happened and e-cores were enabled:

Overclocking Raptor Lake - 13900k,13700k, 13600k etc...

www.overclock.net

Listen to Ichirou in this thread. Just a couple of hours to degrade a chip. No worries P cores clocked 5.6GHz and maximum power draw under tough stress test of 240 watts. Plus thermal headroom if a rogue CPU hogging process hits as well to prevent degradation

There are legit reasons to turn them off and that is final. Just as there are legit reasons to have them on. Its all about each user case and what you want and desire!! Stop saying otherwise!!!

 

[Wolverine2349]

Absolutely, and good for you. You can even turn the Pcores off if that makes your day. But let's stop pretending that it performs better, cause it doesn't.

Ichirous power consumption was in CINEBENCH. In cinebench turning off ecores is stupid regardless, since its both slower and less efficient, lol. Good job, you turned ferrari into a lada

Lower power consumption and do not have to account for e-cores in stability testing for manual overclock settings. That is more than enough reason to turn them off.

There is no reaosn to turn off P cores because you can buy chips with less of them. There exists no chips without those e-cores and some of us want only P cores

I never turned a Ferrari into a lada. I got the chip for those 8 awesome P cores alone. More like turning a Cadillac Escalade into a Chevy Corvette.

 

[Wolverine2349]

So the reason you turn off ecores is to be able to run stability tests....Have you thought about turning them off, stress your pcores, and then turn them back on? Wow, right?

Anyways, show me your corvette in cyberpunk, tom's dinner area. I bet my 12900k which im using now is faster than your 13900k with ecores off. Corvette my ass

Oh yeah turn them back on without testing to make sure whole config is stable. All cores that are on have to be confirmed stable at 100% load for all of them!! Not just well stress the P cores and let e-cores on. Turning on my cores can induce stability and also the ring clock has to be tested as well.

And yeah Corvette is great analogy. Its not always about raw speed. The Escalade can actually transmit so much more cargo and is also more expensive than a Corvette starting MSRP. E-cores on and P cores on fast as lots of data can be processed. Corvette can rocket but is small and cannot carry any cargo.

E-cores off lighter and more thermal headroom and less to account for in stability testing and ring clock. Turning a 6.2L V8 Chevy Suburban into a 5.7L V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee is more like it.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I do not have CyberPunk at the moment. In fact I am still trying to get a whine free 4090 before I move forward.

 

[Wolverine2349]

That is probably never gonna happen. There are already games that benefit from turning off HT, then there are games that benefit from turning on HT, then there are games that despise ecores, then there are games that love them.

Realistically, a 12core single CCD 3d Zen 5 would be the best bet for gaming. You turn off HT, and it still has enough cores to not lose performance, with the massive cache and no cross CCD penalty. When and if such a part gets released, I kiss Intel goodbye. Until then I have to stick with them for gaming

I was hoping Zen 5 would be that way and finally more than 8 cores on a single CCD and many early reports almost 1 year ago in Spring 2022 said it would be with maybe up 16 cores per chiplet? Not going to happen apparently if this is to be believed:

Ryzen 8000 Is INSANE!

Pick up one of Power Color's new Devil Skin backplates: https://www.powercolor.com/new?id=1679904586https://shop.powercolor.com/AMD's new A620 motherboards (...

www.youtube.com

Still only 8 cores per chiplet which means severe cross latency penalty for any game situations that potentially can use more than 8 cores.

Intel did have 10 good cores cores on 10900K and 10850K, but not more than 8 good cores on modern architectures.


Wish they would build a 12 P core 13th Gen. I mean 4 e-cores take the same die space as 1 P core, so they could build one.

And some would say that is what Sap[hire rapids HEDT is for as you can now get modenr arch from Intel with more than 8 P cores. To which I say no because Sapphire Rapids CPU cores are on a mesh topoliogy and mesh toplogy sucks for latency and thus gaming. Wake me up when Intel has more than 8 P cores on a ring bus with the modern architectures be it HEDT or consumer.

Maybe they will have a special Sapphire rapids 10 core CPU on a ring, but not holding my breathe as I actually doubt it, They just bin there mesh CPUs and sell lower core counts that have same build as higher core counts, but with defective core disabled. There would be a hole bunch of money to create another brand new die on a ring with 10-12 P cores which I do not think they will do sadly.