Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hardwareunboxedJoin us on Floatplane: https://www.floatplane.com/channel/HardwareUnboxedBuy relevant products ...
From what I’m seeing, even with APO enabled, only 4 E-Cores are actually doing anything. The rest of the cluster is parked, doing absolutely nothing.
Actually, that’s false. They’re actually consuming power, how miniscule it may be!
And that’s one of the many reasons I don’t understand why Intel is stuffing so many E-Cores into their CPUs. Their practicality in real-world scenarios is mostly academic from the perspective of most users.
A quad-core or - at most - an octa-core cluster of E-Cores should be more than enough for handling ‘mundane’ background activity while the P-Cores are busy doing all the heavy-lifting.
Frankly, I just can’t help but feel like the purpose of these plethora of little cores it to artificially boost scores in multi-core synthetic benchmarks! After all, there are only a handful of ‘consumer-grade’ programs which are parallel enough to actually make use of a CPU with 32 threads.
Anyhow, fingers crossed for Intel’s mythical ‘Royal Core.’ A tile-based CPU architecture sans hyper-threading sounds pretty interesting… at least on paper.
ah yes who could forget the absolute TRIUMPH of the same tired architecture recycled for the 4th time in a row, on the same tired process recycled for the 5th time in a row.
Well, applications are definitely getting optimized for 8C/16T as of late so it won’t be all that surprising.
Hyper-threaded threads (hyper-threads?) can’t match an actual core by design, after all.
However, I’m merely question the addition of 8+ E-Cores in Intel’s high-end SKUs. I believe I explicitly mentioned that I can see the potential of integrating 4 to 8 E-Cores into a CPU.
A quad-core or - at most - an octa-core cluster of E-Cores should be more than enough for handling ‘mundane’ background activity while the P-Cores are busy doing all the heavy-lifting.
You either have single-threaded workloads or games that might use 6-8 threads at most. Or you have “embarrassingly parallel” workloads like rendering or all sorts of scientific computing that will use as many cores as you have.
If you literally only game on your PC then I guess just disable the e-cores.
From what I’m seeing, even with APO enabled, only 4 E-Cores are actually doing anything. The rest of the cluster is parked, doing absolutely nothing.
Actually, that’s false. They’re actually consuming power, how miniscule it may be!
And that’s one of the many reasons I don’t understand why Intel is stuffing so many E-Cores into their CPUs. Their practicality in real-world scenarios is mostly academic from the perspective of most users.
A quad-core or - at most - an octa-core cluster of E-Cores should be more than enough for handling ‘mundane’ background activity while the P-Cores are busy doing all the heavy-lifting.
Frankly, I just can’t help but feel like the purpose of these plethora of little cores it to artificially boost scores in multi-core synthetic benchmarks! After all, there are only a handful of ‘consumer-grade’ programs which are parallel enough to actually make use of a CPU with 32 threads.
Anyhow, fingers crossed for Intel’s mythical ‘Royal Core.’ A tile-based CPU architecture sans hyper-threading sounds pretty interesting… at least on paper.
The 10900K was the last best designed intel CPU. Just straight up 10 powerful cores. That’s how a CPU should be.
Yeah just don’t run Minecraft bro
ah yes who could forget the absolute TRIUMPH of the same tired architecture recycled for the 4th time in a row, on the same tired process recycled for the 5th time in a row.
You think e cores are only for synthetics? What if I show you 6p+6e or 6p+8e can defeat 8p in real world applications?
Well, applications are definitely getting optimized for 8C/16T as of late so it won’t be all that surprising.
Hyper-threaded threads (hyper-threads?) can’t match an actual core by design, after all.
However, I’m merely question the addition of 8+ E-Cores in Intel’s high-end SKUs. I believe I explicitly mentioned that I can see the potential of integrating 4 to 8 E-Cores into a CPU.
What if I showed you Intel 12th 6p+6e was able to defeat amd’s 8p in real world applications 2 years ago?
It’s perfectly reasonable for high-end SKUs.
You either have single-threaded workloads or games that might use 6-8 threads at most. Or you have “embarrassingly parallel” workloads like rendering or all sorts of scientific computing that will use as many cores as you have.
If you literally only game on your PC then I guess just disable the e-cores.
More E cores aren’t for “mundane background tasks”. They’re to maximize MT performance in a given die space.
It’s why 8+16 14900K competes with 7950X in MT applications, but would clearly lose if it was the alternative 12+0.
Most people, myself included, would struggle to really utilize 32 threads. But the 7950X and 14900K exist for those that can or may be able to.
And I never said otherwise.
I explicitly mentioned that more E-Cores can boost scores in multi-threaded synthetic benchmark and - in turn - any parallel workload.