The story about cpu cores
The story about cpu cores
Sure, I'd be happy to clarify. Intel uses different numbers of cores for their processors, but having more E cores doesn't automatically mean they're slower. It depends on various factors like architecture and workload. AMD focuses on core count but also emphasizes performance per core. It's not just about the number of cores, but how well they work together. Let me know if you'd like more details!
Intel reports they can accommodate four E Cores within the footprint of one P core. Given each E Core delivers roughly 30% more performance than a P core, you effectively achieve a 120% boost for the same speed if the workload supports it. You still retain a few P cores for single-threaded tasks, though most of those are limited to six to eight cores. The concept is based on theory; in reality, compatibility issues remain significant due to software limitations. This approach likely originated from adapting ARM designs for better efficiency, but since those efficiency cores didn’t perform well, the decision probably stemmed from balancing trade-offs. AMD has opted for homogeneous CPUs now, citing the downsides outweighing the gains. Rumors suggest they’re exploring hybrid solutions, which could mean both companies are moving toward mixed architectures within the next couple of years.
They move slower individually but accommodate more in a given area. This results in a quicker overall CPU performance during tasks with many threads. The idea mirrors designs like the Threadripper, which use many slower cores for better efficiency than fewer high-speed ones. Performance varies by workload—some games perform better on P cores while others gain from E cores. Additionally, Intel’s P cores are notably power-hungry compared to AMD, so they’re activated during idle times to reduce energy use.
I've picked up from a friend that games typically use fewer than four cores. If you're comparing something like the 14700kf with 20 cores versus the 7900x with its 12-core setup, you'd likely focus on the 7900x for multitasking and streaming. As for power usage, the 7900x draws about 170 watts while the 14700kf uses around 125 watts.
They're aiming to launch a custom scheduler for multiple games, which only adds to the humor. That's why I skipped the 7950X3D. I'm not confident any firmware can handle gaming well, and Intel seems to be trying hard to extract maximum performance from their inefficient cores. Even the Celeron N100 isn't impressive compared to a Steam Deck, which has all four full Zen 2 cores. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/com...ne=3890185 The N100 uses roughly double the power for this task.
4 cores take up the same space as one P core and use far less power per core. For tasks needing N threads, 4 cores outperform a single SMT P core at the same power draw. For select jobs with just one thread, the per-core energy use is lower even if completion time increases. Pick tasks that don’t rely on latency and prioritize N-threaded work—this approach works well. Early 80s experiments had limited success, but today’s engines deliver impressive performance. Chrysler, Mazda, GM, Honda, and Ford all implement this in modern vehicles. Where do you observe the actual power consumption on your bench?