Read more.Quote:
And it hints at compatibility problems with older games that still use DRM.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
And it hints at compatibility problems with older games that still use DRM.
I thought Intel was continue to do a big fanfare about their AVX512 IS and that's why they've been ramming AVX2 and AVX512 down our throats for the past 3 years. Last proper data on this was a few months ago wherein it was stated that AVX512 and another feature would only be available if e-cores were disabled which was silly. I wonder if they've just fused off the components that held those areas or if they actually existed in the first place (or maybe it was true of an older ADL iteration).
I wonder if disabling e-cores will sort the DRM issue for older games but would be interesting to see how far back the ADL hybrid config issue will go.
On another note, can't wait for the reviews of what the quality of experience is like when applications switch context between e-cores and p-cores. I would expect it to be almost background to the user like it is to a degree on Arm.
Want best multi-core scores? A Cinebench to beat Zen3?
Use Windows 11.
Want the best gaming performance?
Restart your PC, turn of the e-cores in the BIOS and boot; or use Windows 10!
Still not sold on this big/little core setup outside of mobile computing use, why not just make your cores more efficient and better at scaling from low to high workloads. It seems like a solution looking for a problem and one that involves loads of re-engineering and extra complexity on the software front for seemingly little gain.
Looks like what AMD is going to be headlining and continuing with (although they are researching big.LITTLE as well) as of their 5 years with Ryzen talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Honestly I'm struggling to workout why Intel have gone down this route after they've done so much work on things like P and C-states, i would've thought it would've made more sense to introduce a new C-state that's optimised for background tasks/code.
EDIT: Obviously I'm not a processor design engineer so I'm likely not seeing the complete picture but it just seems like Intel are saying they can't make a high performance engine that also has low MPG so lets bolt a second low MPG engine into the car.
AVX 512 was something extra unfortunately software vendors are proud of accelerating workloads on GPUs that have OpenCL and CUDA, the 'extra' is great why not? just like DLSS/DLAA. BigLittle is a shortcut for solving some issues of silicon chip fabrication BUT a 'knee-jack' after effects after AMD killed Intel's marketing department with their 'ecosystem' slogan. If Intel is sincere with tech innovations perhaps consumers would be getting far better intel iGpus since 2012.
Same as you, try to be aware that I know sweet FA about this and the experts have their reasoning, but at the same time history is littered with failed revolutionary attempts in technology. My thinking was they really need to lower their TDP because Intel parts are absolutely ridiculous with their power usage, and maybe this is the best way they could do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I like to see an entire new build from Intel... they have been 10+++++++ and scarce 7nm for some time now... and nothing really new, other that they are clearly showing us they have been holding back all those years on good CPU's... I feel a bit betrayed.
The Core i5 12400 leaks says it only has the big cores.
The only reason I can see for little cores on a desktop at least is for use on all those little 'low power' background tasks that windows likes to run leaving the main cores for the 'heavy lifting'. In some ways this does kind of make sense if MS sorts out the scheduler but at the same time the ratio of big little cores seems way off with this release at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Mobile is a little different but realistically with the way that even websites can ramp up the cpu usage thanks to html5, video etc I'm not so sure they'll be that much use for much there either.
I'd rather have more big cores than little cores, especially on the desktop, but I'm after cpu performance for rendering etc
AVX512 never made any sense for consumers. AMD forced Intel to release parts to consumers with more than 4 cores when Ryzen came out, and the only parts they had available were Xeons. Some of those Xeons had AVX512, so that's what consumers got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
AVX512 takes a huge amount of silicon, and routing such a wide chunk of data around the chip is hard enough that the whole thing drops in clock speed when using AVX512.
This isn't about energy efficiency, it is about core physical size and hence count, improving the tick boxes when comparing machines for purchase. People can buy a 12 or 16 core CPU from AMD, Intel need a high core count to keep up or they lose sales. They can't just cram a die full of Atom cores, that wouldn't do well enough in benchmarks, but the 5600X shows you don't need that many good cores to win gaming benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
So, you have a few really big cores to try and win the lightly threaded gaming and browser benchmarks (and PiFast, lol). But the heavily threaded stuff like Blender and Cinebench? If they scale well, then a sea of smaller cores can be as good as a few big cores, but with a higher core count.
So Intel can now counter AMD's 6 and 8 core laptops with their 10 and 14 core laptop chips, where bigger numbers = profit.
I wonder if that is to get around the reported DRM problems of the hybrid parts. 6 of those big cores should be pretty good for gaming in current benchmarks judging by the 5600X, it should be the sweet spot for pricing for a gaming rig, and uniform cores should avoid stutters in games from sheduling onto the wrong cores and anti cheat software thinking you are up to something.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Hmm, IDK. What you say sounds plausible from an Intel point of view but i can't see everyone else, like Microsoft, buying into it just so Intel can sell more chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Maybe Intel will do a better job of explaining why there's a need for a big/little layout outside of mobile computing when they official launch them.
Not going to lie, I see this article and all I see is - BLAH BLAH BLAH
If Intel sell a consumer CPU, then it's generally in a pre-built so Microsoft sell an OS licence to go with it. That drives adoption of their latest OS, and I'm still convinced that Windows 11 is all about the Windows Store so they want people to be forced down that path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I actually think Intel have made an OK product here, but they created it for the most cynical of reasons.
My guess is that Intel nor anyone else can. I suspect its that they don't want to maintain 2 different architectures for desktop and mobile so just scale up the power on their mobile designed architecture for desktop chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34