yRaz
Posts: 4,984 +6,470
replacing the 2 e cores with 1 p core would not take up any extra die space. Also, in a desktop, cooling isn't an issue as there is room for bigger heatsinks.
AMD talks next-gen Zen 4 CPUs, Ryzen 7000, Socket AM5, and more
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
- Status
Revolution 11
Posts: 235 +329
NeoMorpheus
Posts: 1,502 +3,249
hahahanoobs
Posts: 4,723 +2,692
V-cache adds to power consumption and cost and negatively affects core clocks. 5800X3D shines at 1080p. Not much else to justify doing it again on a new architecture already with cache improvements.
AMD themselves basically admitted V-cache only made sense on the 8 core 5800X in an interview, and they would consider doing it to more if the demand was there, whatever that meant, since AMD would know before anyone before announcing it if the performance was worth it in their testing. They def avoided confirming AM5 would last as long as AM4 when asked.
"There aren't many games that get much more uplift out of an 8 core processor and the 5800 is really like the ideal gaming processor of all of them."
wccftech.com
Personally I think AMD blew their load on V-cache with the 5800X and it wouldn't add much more performance to games going forward compared to what we've already seen. I mean, come on. AMD 96MB L3 vs Intel 30MB L3 and it's only how much faster???
AMD themselves basically admitted V-cache only made sense on the 8 core 5800X in an interview, and they would consider doing it to more if the demand was there, whatever that meant, since AMD would know before anyone before announcing it if the performance was worth it in their testing. They def avoided confirming AM5 would last as long as AM4 when asked.
"There aren't many games that get much more uplift out of an 8 core processor and the 5800 is really like the ideal gaming processor of all of them."
AMD Talks Next-Gen AM5 'Ryzen 7000' Platform Longevity, Why Ryzen 7 5800X3D Is The Only V-Cache Option, How Radeon RX 6500 XT Tackles Miners & Hint at 8 GB Option
AMD's Gaming Chief, Frank Azor, talked about the next-generation Ryzen 'Zen 3 / Zen 4' CPU & Radeon GPU products coming to the market in 2022.
wccftech.com
Personally I think AMD blew their load on V-cache with the 5800X and it wouldn't add much more performance to games going forward compared to what we've already seen. I mean, come on. AMD 96MB L3 vs Intel 30MB L3 and it's only how much faster???
Last edited:
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 3,959 +7,014
I'm fine with e cores but dont understand why we need so many. Do you really need 8+ low power cores? For low use tasks where the cores sit at 1% util anyway you only need 2, anything you are actively using should be on a P core. And as the i3 and 5 show, without e cores the p core only models are not only quite efficient but still beat AMD at threaded tasks.
As always, you can just turn it off if you dont want it, or pay mroe for threadripper
yRaz
Posts: 4,984 +6,470
Totally, it just feels like intel is using the E-cores backwards. And benchmarks have shown that on the higher end models with more E-cores, it's not the E-cores that increase performance so much as it is the larger Cache on those models. E-cores are a fantastic idea but they really belong in low end machines or mobile devices. Give me an i3 with 2P4E cores for an office computer meant for typing word documents, sending email and the occasional zoom meeting.
wiyosaya
Posts: 8,430 +7,877
According to this https://www.techpowerup.com/295134/...00-zen-4-desktop-processors-am5-ddr5-platform there will be no E-cores in Ryzen 7000 parts.
IMO, the E-cores were a stopgap that Intel implemented because of power consumption/cooling issues of including all P-cores and attempting to squeeze out maximum performance.
yRaz
Posts: 4,984 +6,470
wasn't suggesting they were, I was just talking about how I think Intel's implementation of E-cores seems backwards and a missed opportunity. An office full of theoretical 2p4e i3 machines could potentially save thousands a month on their electric bill. People who need an i9 would probably rather have an extra 4P cores instead of 8E cores.
wiyosaya
Posts: 8,430 +7,877
Actually, I agree with you. I think it was Intel being Intel and trying to put a band-aid on their gaping wound of the failure to move to another, more efficient process node.
It's not like, IMO, Intel has not shot themselves in the foot before in an effort to be the king of the hill.
Endymio
Posts: 2,003 +2,087
An Alder Lake e-core uses about 25% of the die area of a P-core, so you'd give up all 8 cores just to gain 2. Most desktops have a few hundred threads running at any given time. I'm sure there's plenty for those e-cores to chew on. Remember, benchmarks are good at measuring foreground performance, but they're rather more opaque as to the effect of that foreground task on multitasking or background applications.
I CAN turn it off, but I CAN'T not pay for millions of transistors I'm not going to use.
It is a pure waste. And in adition will negatively affect heat dispersion no matter I turn it off or not.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 1,573 +1,483
AMD is playing its cards close to the chest. Let's just say the single threaded performance jump is of order 15-27% and multi-threaded is greater than this. You really think they are going to blurt out to Intel what the actual improvements are before release. The 15% figure makes no sense at all so take it with a huge bucket of salt. Zen 4 is a bigger uplift than Zen 3 mark my words.
Man, I miss Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. The age of seeing great entertainment is over indeed.
I listened to coreteks on youtube and he has quite a different interpretation of the 7xxx numbers. I have to say that his explanations make sense. When you sum it up : process node, frequency, new architecture, L2 increase, possibly L3 increase and faster memory, I think AMD wants to have the numbers on the low side to keep the hype for next events to come. We'll have to wait and see anyways.
What?
Well, you are wrong. One P core is almost the same of an e cluster, which means 4 ecores. And yeah, 4 ecores perform way better than one P core. So by replacing the ecores with P cores, you get the same single threaded performance and way less multithreaded performance. Great idea...
Or then not. Otherwise it would be wise for Intel to include just ONE P core and all other E-cores for every Alder Lake CPU.
For some reason, Intel didn't want to...
Because a workload might have more than one intensive thread? Like...games?
Exactly. And that means multi threaded performance is about something else than just adding more E cores.
And intel figured out that most apps that scale up to 8 physical cores, can probably scale to infinity, that's why they increased the ecores.
Endymio
Posts: 2,003 +2,087
Just looking at power consumption figures, it's cleat that E-cores was basically only way Intel could add more than 16 threads on AL desktop CPU's. That is very evident since Alder Lake server CPU (Sapphire Rapids) will not contain E-cores despite server software being very scalable...
Not even close, I didn't talk about his position at all, so by definition it cannot be a strawman. But, don't worry about it, you can try agian in the future
Consumption has absolutely nothing to do with it, stop being silly. P cores take more DIE space for LESS performance.
My 12900k for example, is the most efficient CPU on planet Earth. Over 15k+ cbr23 score @ 35 watts. So yeah...tell me more about the power consumption
Of course they do but they also give much more performance in almost everything else than simple computing tasks.
15K@35 watts makes 428 points per watt.
AMD Ryzen 6800U scores 14,231 @ 28 watts. That makes 508 points per watt. Your 12900K gets smoked by AMD laptop CPU on both performance and power consumption. I won't even bother to say how much it trashes your 12900K @35W on other tasks...
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
How We Test: CPU Benchmarks, Misconceptions Explained- ddferrari replied
-
Samsung 980 Pro has a nasty firmware glitch that could kill your SSD- Athlonite replied
