Any CPU coming soon if ever with more than 8 P cores on single ring/CCD from either Intel or AMD

[Wolverine2349]

Answer sadly seems to be no which is a shame.

 

AMD Zen 5 still going to be 8 core CCDs with a max of 16 cores which means 2 8 core CCDs and bad latency penalty crossing them which is bad for gaming.

 

And Intel still maxing out at 8 P cores and just using more stupid e-cores.

 

Yes they have Xeon X24000 and X3400 series which is Golden Cove cores, but the IPC is gimped compared to the desktop versions and latency gimped bad as well as they are on a mesh not a ring which is bad for gaming. So there is that besides just the cost. Plus the platform of W790 little known about it and requires ECC and such which probably also not good for gaming. Unlike the days of HEDT Haswell and Broadwell E where up to 10 core son single ring and no ECC RAN required and higher end motherboards without the server overhead of Sapphire and Emerald Rapids besides just the mesh that probably gimps gaming plus the less testing and available benchmarks unlike those back in 2014-2017 which overclocked well and had strong gaming benchmarks.

 

Though in reality is 8 cores and even 6 easily still more than enough for high end gaming with RTX 4090 and beyond in 2024 for all games. So many and most say yes but plenty say for high end gaming build, 8 cores is minimum and you should go with more. Problem going with more is the drawbacks mentioned above which is more than 8 cores either means the expensive bad for gaming Xeon mesh Golden Cove platform, Intel 12th or 13th or 14th Gen which has the hybrid arch and only 8 P cores and those e-cores and hybrid arch which many do not like. Or on AMD side, the dual CCDs which has its own latency issues and scheduling issues for gaming

 

So I really want to believe as such that 8 cores is easily more than enough for gaming as such as only choice of strong cores on single ring/CCD and appears to stay that way. So is 8 cores really easily more than enough??

 

Seems to be, but like more headroom. And some say oh so many games use more like Spiderman Remastered, CyberPunk LOU Part 1 and such.

 

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/on-intel-raptor-lake-any-truth-to-the-rumors-that-disabling-all-e-cores-hurts-single-threaded-performance-of-the-p-cores.18962512/page-7

 

Bencher seems to insist those games absolutely use more than 8 cores.

 

It does suck that last CPU which had such a config was the Core i9-10900K. But that is on Comet Lake arch which is only slight enhanced Skylake. Yes putting lots of cores on ring eventually has its issues, but up to 10- or even 12 scales very well as seen by 10900K. But that is outdated arch and also stuck on PCIE Gen 3 even if you tune RAM and its ring to try and have it hold its own or exceed Zen 3 in gaming.

 

Rumors suggest maybe Bartlett Lake may have a 12 P core version, but that seems unlikely sadly.

 

Just why oh why no consumer choice. Some people do not like e-cores and want normal cores on a ring bus.

 

And AMD is only going to put 16 cores on the server variants of single CCD of Zen 5 and even then it is Zen 5C which is basically their e-cores. Well not really different arch, same Zen 5 arch, but severely gimped cache compared to regular Zen 4 and Zen 5 non-C.

 

Your thoughts.

[YoungBlade]

There were some leaks that Zen 6 was going to move to up-to 32 cores per CCD. While this is likely referring to Zen 6C, it would imply that AMD is working to improve core density per CCD, which probably means that a 12 or 16 core non-C CCD is possible with Zen 6.

[PDifolco]

36 minutes ago, Wolverine2349 said:

Answer sadly seems to be no which is a shame.

 

AMD Zen 5 still going to be 8 core CCDs with a max of 16 cores which means 2 8 core CCDs and bad latency penalty crossing them which is bad for gaming.

 

And Intel still maxing out at 8 P cores and just using more stupid e-cores.

 

Yes they have Xeon X24000 and X3400 series which is Golden Cove cores, but the IPC is gimped compared to the desktop versions and latency gimped bad as well as they are on a mesh not a ring which is bad for gaming. So there is that besides just the cost. Plus the platform of W790 little known about it and requires ECC and such which probably also not good for gaming. Unlike the days of HEDT Haswell and Broadwell E where up to 10 core son single ring and no ECC RAN required and higher end motherboards without the server overhead of Sapphire and Emerald Rapids besides just the mesh that probably gimps gaming plus the less testing and available benchmarks unlike those back in 2014-2017 which overclocked well and had strong gaming benchmarks.

 

Though in reality is 8 cores and even 6 easily still more than enough for high end gaming with RTX 4090 and beyond in 2024 for all games. So many and most say yes but plenty say for high end gaming build, 8 cores is minimum and you should go with more. Problem going with more is the drawbacks mentioned above which is more than 8 cores either means the expensive bad for gaming Xeon mesh Golden Cove platform, Intel 12th or 13th or 14th Gen which has the hybrid arch and only 8 P cores and those e-cores and hybrid arch which many do not like. Or on AMD side, the dual CCDs which has its own latency issues and scheduling issues for gaming

 

So I really want to believe as such that 8 cores is easily more than enough for gaming as such as only choice of strong cores on single ring/CCD and appears to stay that way. So is 8 cores really easily more than enough??

 

Seems to be, but like more headroom. And some say oh so many games use more like Spiderman Remastered, CyberPunk LOU Part 1 and such.

 

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/on-intel-raptor-lake-any-truth-to-the-rumors-that-disabling-all-e-cores-hurts-single-threaded-performance-of-the-p-cores.18962512/page-7

 

Bencher seems to insist those games absolutely use more than 8 cores.

 

It does suck that last CPU which had such a config was the Core i9-10900K. But that is on Comet Lake arch which is only slight enhanced Skylake. Yes putting lots of cores on ring eventually has its issues, but up to 10- or even 12 scales very well as seen by 10900K. But that is outdated arch and also stuck on PCIE Gen 3 even if you tune RAM and its ring to try and have it hold its own or exceed Zen 3 in gaming.

 

Rumors suggest maybe Bartlett Lake may have a 12 P core version, but that seems unlikely sadly.

 

Just why oh why no consumer choice. Some people do not like e-cores and want normal cores on a ring bus.

 

And AMD is only going to put 16 cores on the server variants of single CCD of Zen 5 and even then it is Zen 5C which is basically their e-cores. Well not really different arch, same Zen 5 arch, but severely gimped cache compared to regular Zen 4 and Zen 5 non-C.

 

Your thoughts.

 

Not sure having more than 8 cores on a die is worth the additional investment from manufacturers, only some games can use more overall but don't need that much "main" fast threads, and loss of performance due to communication between CCD on parallelized tasks is not significant

Plus it'll make chips harder to build (the smaller silicon parts they use the better), and hardere to cool - Intel is already at 400W max on a 8cores ...

[RONOTHAN##]

There were some rumors about LGA 1700 getting another generation (Barlett Lake to be specific) with 12 Pcore max, but who knows if that'll actually materialize. With the 7800X3D dominating every game right now and consoles only having 8 Cores, I highly doubt a 12-16 core single CCD will release any time soon. 

[Zando_]

2 hours ago, Wolverine2349 said:

So is 8 cores really easily more than enough??

Yes. The type of games that use over 8 cores don't suffer due to the higher latency. 

[Wolverine2349]

26 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

Yes. The type of games that use over 8 cores don't suffer due to the higher latency. 

Which types of games would those be? 

 

And still having more than 8 on a single ring/CCD would be good as an all in one solution for pure gaming so do not suffer latency penalty with dual CCDs (like a game thread bouncing to other CCD even if it does not scale beyond more cores).

 

A more than 8 P core on single ring/CCD would take care of both as a set and forget it case.

 

Where as games that do not use more than 8 cores may have to manually lock them to one CCD or P cores only using Process LASSO or such and the games that scale to more do not care. Where as once again the more than 8 P cores on single CCD or ring no Process Lasso set and forget out of box best gaming performance no CPU affinity or Process Lasso and such. 

[Wolverine2349]

1 hour ago, RONOTHAN## said:

There were some rumors about LGA 1700 getting another generation (Barlett Lake to be specific) with 12 Pcore max, but who knows if that'll actually materialize. With the 7800X3D dominating every game right now and consoles only having 8 Cores, I highly doubt a 12-16 core single CCD will release any time soon. 

 

 

I have heard Bartlett Lake rumor and here is to hoping there are 12 P core variant on a ring bus and not just Xeon W5-2455X or 3425 mesh ported into an LGA 1700 chip if its true.

 

It would be so easy for Intel to just take the Xeon dies and shave them to fit into LGA 1700 and use a W5 2455X or W5 3425 which are mesh or tile and stuff them into LGA 1700 and sell it as 12 P core but that would not be interest to gamers or me.

 

Its got to be the Raptor Cove ring bus with the e-cores out and replaced by 4 extra P cores for me to be excited.

[Zando_]

5 minutes ago, Wolverine2349 said:

Which types of games would those be? 

 These:

3 hours ago, Wolverine2349 said:

And some say oh so many games use more like Spiderman Remastered, CyberPunk LOU Part 1 and such.

 

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/on-intel-raptor-lake-any-truth-to-the-rumors-that-disabling-all-e-cores-hurts-single-threaded-performance-of-the-p-cores.18962512/page-7

 

Bencher seems to insist those games absolutely use more than 8 cores.

Those are all massive, demanding single-player titles. They need to use multiple cores to work, and don't suffer any negative consequence from higher latencies. There is no competitive edge to gain or lose via a few ms or ns of latency difference. 

 

The games where it matters aren't using 8 or more cores, heck I can't think of a fast-paced e-sports title that isn't well known for being single-threaded. Maybe league? I can't remember if it scales with a few cores or no. Certainly nothing that scales noticeably past 8. 

 

Lots of old titles are also single-threaded because it's simpler. And they aren't so demanding that they need to run a bunch of stuff in parallel to be playable. See the older Bethesda games. 

13 minutes ago, Wolverine2349 said:

Where as games that do not use more than 8 cores may have to manually lock them to one CCD or P cores only using Process LASSO or such and the games that scale to more do not care. Where as once again the more than 8 P cores on single CCD or ring no Process Lasso set and forget out of box best gaming performance no CPU affinity or Process Lasso and such. 

OS/game developers can do that themselves. As big/little chips or multiple CCDs have become standard we've seen both improve their handling of CPU core usage, and they will continue to do so. Ball is already rolling, stopping it would sacrifice a lot for... what gain? Again, games that will suffer from higher latencies aren't using more than 8 cores to begin with. That type of game usually only cares about single-core performance, which is decided (mostly) by IPC x Clock. Up the cores per ring/CCD -> that brings density up -> chips get hotter -> scale back voltage/current to bring temps down -> chip cannot clock as high -> lower single-core performance -> lower performance in those games. 

 

[Wolverine2349]

Quote

 

Those are all massive, demanding single-player titles. They need to use multiple cores to work, and don't suffer any negative consequence from higher latencies. There is no competitive edge to gain or lose via a few ms or ns of latency difference. 

 

The games where it matters aren't using 8 or more cores, heck I can't think of a fast-paced e-sports title that isn't well known for being single-threaded. Maybe league? I can't remember if it scales with a few cores or no. Certainly nothing that scales noticeably past 8. 

 

Lots of old titles are also single-threaded because it's simpler. And they aren't so demanding that they need to run a bunch of stuff in parallel to be playable. See the older Bethesda games.

 

 

The strange thing is I have tested some of those games on an 8 core 7800X3D and CPU usage never exceeded much more than 60 to 70 percent even in most CPU intensive parts of those games except in Shader compilation LOU of course takes 100% CPU but that is temporary until you start playing.

 

Where is this Bencher guy getting all these numbers from?

 

And Hardware Unboxed seems to think there is practically no benefit in any games of more than 6 cores let alone 8. Why are results all over the place and what is the real truth? I have heard rumors that some games like Starfield show lots of CPU usage and taxing way more than 8 cores, but in reality it is just doing it to be wasteful and it has no need or benefit to do so but rather to make people think all those extra e-cores or more than 8 AMD cores are benefitting???

 

 

That thread above seems to argue on that and while I tested LOU Part 1 and Cyber Punk have not ever played nor tested Starfield nor Spiderman Remastered/Miles Morales?

 

 

Quote

OS/game developers can do that themselves. As big/little chips or multiple CCDs have become standard we've seen both improve their handling of CPU core usage, and they will continue to do so. Ball is already rolling, stopping it would sacrifice a lot for... what gain? Again, games that will suffer from higher latencies aren't using more than 8 cores to begin with. That type of game usually only cares about single-core performance, which is decided (mostly) by IPC x Clock. Up the cores per ring/CCD -> that brings density up -> chips get hotter -> scale back voltage/current to bring temps down -> chip cannot clock as high -> lower single-core performance -> lower performance in those games. 

 

 

Yes they can but they often do not. Games are often buggy. If there was a more than 8 core on single ring/CCD on single arch covers all cases as no games are going top benefit form 16 cores. Very few even benefit from more than 8, but some do maybe though evidence is contradictory?