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

[Bencher]

From what I've heard from the Star Citizen players with the frame rates using 12th and 13th gen Intel, it wasn't so much the raw peak FPS that was the problem, but random hitching, freezes and stutters. All of which went away when you used something like ProcessLasso to force the game to only use the physical P cores.
Obviously, Star Citizen is poorly optimised and has generally low performance, but it is very very much CPU bound and uses lots of threads and that seems to be the scenario that makes the issues with E cores in gaming apparent.

AMD kinda had similar issues with stuff going between chiplets but that was to a much lesser extent, and I believe caused lower fps but stuttering/hitches etc weren't an issue.

Realistically the only way to fix all these kind of issues is with the Operating Systems getting better at knowing where to allocate/schedule process threads onto which type of CPU cores. That seems like a massive ask/task, unless they just add some kind of flag when launching a game/program that require only the P cores to perform properly. Not as involved as something like ProcessLasso as you'd be expecting the OS to know which cores are the P cores etc, and way simpler to implement from an OS stand point, as it doesn't need to know what each specific program should run on, only to look for a flag and then allocate based on that.

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

 

[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.

 

[oxf77]

I'm pretty confident Intel will remove this hybrid architecture. It's already NOT in the new Xeons

 

[Techen]

I'm pretty confident Intel will remove this hybrid architecture. It's already NOT in the new Xeons

Why would intel remove one of there best features?

You can already disable E cores if you want for better gaming performance but I leave all mine on for fast render times, Better mutitasking and gaming, I got 14 core chip for 300 quid, Kills it for rendering stuff. Plus I can throw on a game and let the E cores do work in the back while my P cores enjoy all the gaming sessions.

 

[Deleted member 258511]

Why would intel remove one of there best features?

You can already disable E cores if you want for better gaming performance but I leave all mine on for fast render times, Better mutitasking and gaming, I got 14 core chip for 300 quid, Kills it for rendering stuff. Plus I can throw on a game and let the E cores do work in the back while my P cores enjoy all the gaming sessions.

It’s made so simple to turn off E-Cores, I honestly don’t see the problem. If the odd game like Star Citizen doesn’t like them……switch them off.

 

[oxf77]

Why would intel remove one of there best features?

You can already disable E cores if you want for better gaming performance but I leave all mine on for fast render times, Better mutitasking and gaming, I got 14 core chip for 300 quid, Kills it for rendering stuff. Plus I can throw on a game and let the E cores do work in the back while my P cores enjoy all the gaming sessions.

If it's so good why do the Xeons not have both P and E cores?

 

[Trick]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Trick]

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.

 

[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!!

 

[Bencher]

There are legitimate reasons for disabling them

No there aren't. Any. Whatsoever.

 

[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.

 

[Bencher]

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.

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

 

[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!!!

 

[Bencher]

How about this. I want them off. That is more than reason enough.

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

 

[Robert896r1]

For anyone still reading this mess, the guy from ocn is full of it about degradation. Hundreds of people in the oc community have beaten these chips much harder and longer than his claim and we’ve yet come across a deg scenario from anyone respectable.

 

[Bencher]

For anyone still reading this mess, the guy from ocn is full of it about degradation. Hundreds of people in the oc community have beaten these chips much harder and longer than his claim and we’ve yet come across a deg scenario from anyone respectable.

Ichirou is, let's just stay not very knowledgeable. He was erroring out in ycruncher and he was claiming its not his oc being unstable

 

[Robert896r1]

Ichirou is, let's just stay not very knowledgeable. He was erroring out in ycruncher and he was claiming its not his oc being unstable

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

www.overclock.net

This is a gem. If r23 is a “power virus” what’s he’s using to stability test? YC and occt with tuned will pull more.

 

[subbytna]

*yawn*

Anyone noticing the nights getting shorter now and the days longer, it's great

 

[Bencher]

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

www.overclock.net

This is a gem. If r23 is a “power virus” what’s he’s using to stability test? YC and occt with tuned will pull more.

Ah, cbr is a known power virus, rofl. I mean its actualy lighter than a lot of real world applications people use. Imagine what his threshold for stability is. Csgo stable i guess is the new threshold for stability. Yikes