Soldato
Im running games on my ecores, yes. For example both spiderman and cyberpunk show heavy utilization on the ecores and the framerates are insanely high.
-
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??
- Thread starter Wolverine2349
- Start date
Don
Presumably by having e-cores turned on (and background processes running on them) you also minimise any frame time variance or "microstuttering" where P cores would otherwise be context switching background processes.
Framerate is only part of the picture - I'd be interested in any reviews that show frame time results
Framerate is only part of the picture - I'd be interested in any reviews that show frame time results
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,520
What a mess this thread is. Can't read, can't listen, can't test anything yourself.
Soldato
From the first review from purepc we got
Civ 6 and sotr working better with e cores on.
Death stranding working better with ecores off (by 3% but still)
The rest were basically a tie although in most of them ecores on was slightly faster!!
From the 2nd review from fox laptop
Hitman 3 worked better with ecores off, although again the difference is 3%
Farcry 6, civ 6, guardians of the galaxy run SIGNIFICANTLY better with ecores on.
The rest were basically a tie.
Thats with an alderlake cpu that automatically boosts cache when you turn off ecores, and still ecores on gave much better results. On RPL the difference will be even larger. So yeah, sorry but data do not agree with your opinion
Civ 6 and sotr working better with e cores on.
Death stranding working better with ecores off (by 3% but still)
The rest were basically a tie although in most of them ecores on was slightly faster!!
From the 2nd review from fox laptop
Hitman 3 worked better with ecores off, although again the difference is 3%
Farcry 6, civ 6, guardians of the galaxy run SIGNIFICANTLY better with ecores on.
The rest were basically a tie.
Thats with an alderlake cpu that automatically boosts cache when you turn off ecores, and still ecores on gave much better results. On RPL the difference will be even larger. So yeah, sorry but data do not agree with your opinion
Last edited:
Soldato
Turning off ecores was kinda meh back in alderlake, now its just silly with rpl. You are gimping your cpu for no reason
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,547
Not true at all. In fact that benchmark was not mostly games but mostly infinite threaded productivity apps. The games most of them are better with those e-waste cores off.
And here is more proof most games benefit with them off:
Should Gamers Disable E-Cores? Core i9-12900K, 41 Game Benchmark
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hardwareunboxedJoin us on Floatplane: https://www.floatplane.com/channel/HardwareUnboxedBuy relevant products ...www.youtube.com
I'm really trying to see and understand your point but now you are frankly talking provable nonsense. You say "here is more proof", but if it was any kind of proof then the person making the video would not say this in conclusion:
So your "proof" not only does not support your premise (that E-cores should be disabled for gaming) but it actually refutes it. Come on now, surely even you can see that!?
Also this video was done over a year ago and it stands to reason that any requirement to use Process Lasso currently should be virtually non-existent, as any game that has a modicum of support would have received a patch if there was an issue in the first place.
Last edited:
Some games yes, but most games are worse with e-cores on especially CPU intensive ones (Cyberpunk, Watch Dogs, Hitman 3) with the exception being modern simulations (Total War and Civ) which are also CPU intensive that perform better with e-cores on.
So every use case is differnet are there are definitely reasons to disable them depending on games you play and most games are in fact better with them off even though some can be better with them on.
Soldato
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.
Those results show 1% lows which tell the whole FPS picture and most games better with e-cores off. 6 to 3 win for e-cores off even on WIN11 which gimps the P cores with thread director not knowing how to deal with them with P cores off.
Imagine WIN10 where e-cores off will be so much better!!
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.
Last edited:
Soldato
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.
Last edited:
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.
Soldato
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
And you know you can post your own results, right? Here is a cyberpunk maxed out + RT max on a 12900k + ecores on. Look at those ecores, they really make it run so slow
Cyberpunk 12900k 4090 1440p RT ULTRA
www.youtube.com
And this is spiderman, ecores on. SO HORRIBLE
12900k Spiderman Hwunboxed settings (High RT 6)
12900kSpiderman framerateRT30901080 dlssSpiderman ddr5
www.youtube.com
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Soldato
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
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
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!!!
Last edited:
Soldato
Great, we agree, if you want an 8pcore chip then getting a 13900k and disabling eccores will give you that. But that doesn't mean it performs better with ecores off, cause it DOESNT. You are gimping your CPU cause you want just 8cores, good for you, but dont try to convince us it's faster, cause it isn't
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,547
@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
"...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.
Last edited:
Soldato
No, they do NOT. Choose a game and post your benchmark with ecores off, ill post mine with ecores on.
Cyberpunk with ecores on, horrible
Cyberpunk 12900k 4090 1440p RT ULTRA
m.youtube.com