Originally posted by TemplarGR
View Post
It doesn't really matter on the desktop, because nobody cares if they use more power. It will matter for Raptor Lake, and it's a very big question exactly how that will look.
Intel's e-cores are really efficient compared to their p-cores. It's not nearly as impressive versus Zen 3 cores, though. How high will they be clocked on Raptor Lake, and what kind of efficiency will they get there? I have no idea. Maybe you are tuned into the Intel rumors more than I am, but I don't think there's currently much out there.
Raptor Lake isn't coming out much before Zen 4, by the way, so that is it's competition. Not the current Zen 3 based Epyc systems.
AMD's approach of just adding more slightly weaker than Intel p-cores won't be better in efficiency in any multi-threaded use case. It is just a matter of time until schedulers get optimized and by then AMD's Zen 4 is going to be a dinosaur. AMD's "plan" is to just add 50% more cores and some more cache.
The reason AMD came back from the dead was not that they had the better architecture, they never had it. Ryzen has always been a me-too copycat of Intel's designs.
That will teach them to price their products sky-high every time in history they have a competitive product while pretending to be the pro-consumer company.
4 e-cores equal 1 p-core in die area. That means that instead of a 128 core Ryzen you can get in a theoretical scenario 512 Intel e-cores.
Sure, lower clocked and slightly lower IPC, but you get 4 times the cores. You need a heavily multi core system, remember? Which is going to be more efficient?
Leave a comment: