Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

chipsandcheese.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#71

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

vel0city wrote: post #70
mathiaspoint wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point you have to blame the driver model on Windows. People have been saying "it's the drivers" for 30 years. Also most of this is intentional first party behavior from Microsoft. Windows intentionally periodically wakes from sleep to do communication (for notifications etc.) Microsoft's advice last I checked is to not store sleeping laptops running windows in laptop bags. There's a ton of other decisions the…

> At some point you have to blame the driver model on Windows. Serious question, specifically what is wrong with the driver model in terms of this situation? What change would you propose to solve this? Why isn't it a matter of the device manufacturers churning out crappy and poorly tested devices and solely Microsoft's fault? I do agree, Microsoft should probably make it easier to point out "hey this device is causi…

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2318281/...

> Therefore, we highly recommend that all customers do not put the Surface in their bag while sleeping, as this can indeed cause overheating.

> Best Regards,

> Mitchell | Microsoft Community Support Specialist

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#72

Post by onli »

jfindley wrote: post #61
onli wrote: post #7

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.

If you want people to take your benchmark seriously, you'd need to provide a very great deal more information on how those numbers are generated. "It's complicated, just trust me" isn't a good enough explanation. If you want people to listen, you need to have a link where you explain what hardware you're using, what settings you're using, what apps/games you're running, what metrics you're using and how you compute y…

Hey, I do try to make the site as transparent as possible - but admit that the site does not make it obvious. For such a doubt, go into the comparison of the two (https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...) where all benchmarks used that the two processors share are listed. The benchmark bars are clickable and go to the source.

It does get really complicated to address something like that when all comparisons are indirect. Thankfully, that's not the case here.

The 13900K and 14900K in games really have been that close, see https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/intel-core-i... for an example, where the two have a 2% FPS difference.

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#73

Post by vel0city »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #71
vel0city wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point you have to blame the driver model on Windows. Serious question, specifically what is wrong with the driver model in terms of this situation? What change would you propose to solve this? Why isn't it a matter of the device manufacturers churning out crappy and poorly tested devices and solely Microsoft's fault? I do agree, Microsoft should probably make it easier to point out "hey this device is causi…

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2318281/... > Therefore, we highly recommend that all customers do not put the Surface in their bag while sleeping, as this can indeed cause overheating. > Best Regards, > Mitchell | Microsoft Community Support Specialist

Posted by: Anonymous

Yeah, real official documentation there.

Got anything more real in terms of documentation other than a forum post by anonymous?

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#74

Post by dist-epoch »

StillBored wrote: post #65
pjmlp wrote: post #14

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…

Is it? No one has come close to solving the problem of optimizing software for multiple heterogeneous CPU's with differing micro-architectures when the scheduler is 'randomly' placing threads. There are various methods in linux/windows/etc which allow runtime selection of optimized paths, but they are all oriented around runtime selections (ex pick a foo variation based on X and keep it) made once, rather than on cpu…

> Which is why AMD seems to be showing everyone a better path by simply using process optimizations and execution time optimization choices with the same zen cores.

Funny you would say that, because AMD X3D CPUs have cores with 3D Cache, and cores without, and massive scheduling problems because of this.

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#76

Post by Aurornis »

mort96 wrote: post #8

> 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 don't think many people would disable E-cores in BIOS if they bought this CPU, so for the purpose of deciding which CPU to buy, it would be more interesting to see results which factor in the potential software/scheduling issues which come from the E-core/P-core split.

Every mainstream review includes the E-cores. It’s not interesting to continue to repeat that testing.

The purpose of this article is an architectural exploration. Disabling the E-cores is a way to reveal that.

If you’re looking for simple gaming benchmarks to decide which CPU to buy, this isn’t the site for it. There are countless outlets for generic gaming reviews. This site examines architectural details.

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#78

Post by Aurornis »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #17
onli wrote: post #7

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 don't fully follow this, so what has been gained with the new models? I seem to remember you'd need dedicated industrial cooling for the 14700k. Does the new model at least pump much less power?

> I seem to remember you'd need dedicated industrial cooling for the 14700k.

Those CPUs run hot, but it got exaggerated a lot online. It’s not hard to handle their heat with a good air cooler (even some of the $50 units like the Peerless Assassin) or a run of the mill closed loop water cooler.

There are a lot of old notions in the gaming community that you need to keep CPUs under arbitrary temperature thresholds or that any throttling is bad. Modern CPUs and GPUs run themselves deep into the performance curves and slight throttling is barely noticeable.

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#79

Post by moffkalast »

jeffbee wrote: post #77
moffkalast wrote: post #10

Say, is there any talk about Intel working on an AMD Strix Halo competitor, i.e. quad channel LPDDR5X in the consumer section?

I am still waiting on evidence that memory architecture helps anyone.

I'm pretty sure memory is still the main bottleneck in the vast majority of operations, and why the X3D is such a monster with so much L3 cache. There's almost nothing that doesn't benefit from having twice the memory bandwidth.

Re: Intel's Lion Cove P-Core and Gaming Workloads

#80

Post by StillBored »

dist-epoch wrote: post #74
StillBored wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? No one has come close to solving the problem of optimizing software for multiple heterogeneous CPU's with differing micro-architectures when the scheduler is 'randomly' placing threads. There are various methods in linux/windows/etc which allow runtime selection of optimized paths, but they are all oriented around runtime selections (ex pick a foo variation based on X and keep it) made once, rather than on cpu…

> Which is why AMD seems to be showing everyone a better path by simply using process optimizations and execution time optimization choices with the same zen cores. Funny you would say that, because AMD X3D CPUs have cores with 3D Cache, and cores without, and massive scheduling problems because of this.

Which is just caching/locality asymmetries, knowledge of which has been at least partially integrated into schedulers for a couple decades now.

It just goes to show how hard scheduling actually is.

But also, you call it a 'massive' problem and its actually somewhat small in comparison to what can happen with vastly different core types in the same machine. Many of those cores also have quite large cache differences too.

Post reply on HN