41–50 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah intel either needs to ensure much better day 1 support for E / P core split or drop it entirely. People see them as an active negative right now rather than how intel pitches them
Is this a problem with Intel or with the OS scheduler? Haven't they had this kind of CPUs for a few years now, with this being touted as a reason to move from Win10 to 11?
To see what that means in practice, in my multi generational meta benchmark the 285K lands currently only on rank 12, behind the top Intel processors from the last two generations (i7-13700K and 14700K plus the respective i9) and several AMD processors. https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu . The 3D cache just helps a lot in games, but the loss against the own predecessor must hurt even more.
I see strange discrepancy: my "old" i7-12700K vs i7-13700K:
Games: 170 vs 270 Software: 271 vs 1875 (!!!)
I can believe into 170 vs 270 (though, these two CPUs are not so different!) but 7x difference in software!? Is it believable?
> E-Cores are turned off in the BIOS, because setting affinity to P-Cores caused massive stuttering in Call of Duty. I understand doing this for the purpose of specifically analyzing the P-core microarchitecture in isolation. However this does make the test less interesting for potential customers. I don't think many people would disable E-cores in BIOS if they bought this CPU, so for the purpose of deciding which CP…
Yeah intel either needs to ensure much better day 1 support for E / P core split or drop it entirely. People see them as an active negative right now rather than how intel pitches them
Although Intel’s configurations are unhelpful to say the least: it’s hard to make good scheduling decisions when Intel sells a 2P, 8E, 2LE as a 12 cores to the user.
To see what that means in practice, in my multi generational meta benchmark the 285K lands currently only on rank 12, behind the top Intel processors from the last two generations (i7-13700K and 14700K plus the respective i9) and several AMD processors. https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu . The 3D cache just helps a lot in games, but the loss against the own predecessor must hurt even more.
Is your benchmark trustworthy? I see strange discrepancy: my "old" i7-12700K vs i7-13700K: Games: 170 vs 270 Software: 271 vs 1875 (!!!) I can believe into 170 vs 270 (though, these two CPUs are not so different!) but 7x difference in software!? Is it believable?
The benchmark is creating a global order based on which one is faster, including indirect comparisons. But that only takes care of the position, not the rating. That one is based on the percentage between direct neighbor iff there is a direct comparison in the benchmark data, otherwise it's a small .1 increment. So many small percentage increases that don't necessarily match the direct comparion between parts that are not neighbors. Sometimes that works great, sometimes not.
Here the example looks a bit pathological, that difference is further off than I expected when introducing the calculation recently. For the 12700K and 13700K, the direct comparison sees the 12700K at 85% of the 13700k:
https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...
For apps it's 79%:
https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids[]...
So yeah, sorry, that part is misleading right now. I'll check the calculation.
But the ingested individual benchmark numbers and the ranking, so the position, is very solid I'd say. With the caveat that ranking position can change with more data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not “no effort to make sure it performs well in the first place”, that isn’t fair. Lots of effort probably went into it performing well, just this case isn’t handled yet and to be fair this only impacts some people currently and there is a chance to update it. This just reads like “if they haven’t handled this specific case they’ve made no effort at all across the board” which seems extreme.
Then why taking the effort to look better that it actually is?
That'd be because this article is trying to analyze Intel's Lion Cove cores. The e-cores and issues caused by heterogeneous cores are therefore irrelevant, only the P-cores are Lion Cove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is funny because the pushback the PS3 got from developers was too much. Maybe it was "too heterogeneous" But I guess the future was already set.
When Cell came to be, heterogeneous computing was mostly a HPC thing, and having the compute units only programmable in Assembly (you could use C, but really not), didn't help. Now every mobile device, meaning any form of computing on the go, has multiple performance/low power CPU cores, a GPU, programble audio, NUMA, and maybe even a NPU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a problem with Intel or with the OS scheduler? Haven't they had this kind of CPUs for a few years now, with this being touted as a reason to move from Win10 to 11?
It doesn't matter to the public's perception.
But since we're on a technical forum where my initial comment's parent seems to argue this issue is Intel's fault, I think it's interesting to determine whether that's actually the case.
Of course, had Intel not released such a CPU, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But since they have released similar ones a few years ago now, is it still (only?) their fault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many haven't yet grasped the future is heterogeneous computing, especially, when many desktops are actually laptops nowadays. Software working poorly in such setup means no effort was made to actually make it perform well in first place. Games requiring desktop cases looking like a rainbow aquarium with top everything will become a niche, in today's mobile computing world, and with diminishing sales and atten…
> Software working poorly in such setup means no effort was made to actually make it perform well in first place. How do you optimize for a system architecture that doesn't exist yet? (e.g. CoD could probably be fixed quite easily, but you can't do that before the hardware where that problem manifests even exists - I'd say it's much more likely that the problem is in the Windows scheduler though) > Games requiring de…
For a game that gets yearly releases, I guess a decade would be long enough, given the existence of heterogeneous core programming across consoles and desktop systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Cell came to be, heterogeneous computing was mostly a HPC thing, and having the compute units only programmable in Assembly (you could use C, but really not), didn't help. Now every mobile device, meaning any form of computing on the go, has multiple performance/low power CPU cores, a GPU, programble audio, NUMA, and maybe even a NPU.
I did some programming for the Cell, and it definitely wasn't in assembly. It did require using intrinsics though, so I guess it was a little assembly-like.
> E-Cores are turned off in the BIOS, because setting affinity to P-Cores caused massive stuttering in Call of Duty. I understand doing this for the purpose of specifically analyzing the P-core microarchitecture in isolation. However this does make the test less interesting for potential customers. I don't think many people would disable E-cores in BIOS if they bought this CPU, so for the purpose of deciding which CP…
I think many haven't yet grasped the future is heterogeneous computing, especially, when many desktops are actually laptops nowadays. Software working poorly in such setup means no effort was made to actually make it perform well in first place. Games requiring desktop cases looking like a rainbow aquarium with top everything will become a niche, in today's mobile computing world, and with diminishing sales and atten…