> 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 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.
This isn't a criticism, just an observation. Real-world gaming results for these CPUs would be worse than what these results show.
pjmlp · 17m ago
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 attention spans, maybe that isn't the way to keep studios going.
onli · 1h ago
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.
samrus · 2h ago
122 points and no comments? Is this being botted or something?
adrian_b · 2h ago
Such articles are very interesting for many people, because nowadays all CPU vendors are under-documenting their products.
Most people do not have enough time or knowledge (or money to buy CPU samples that may prove to be not useful) to run extensive sets of benchmarks to discover how the CPUs really work, so they appreciate when others do this and publish their results.
Besides learning useful details about the strengths and weaknesses of the latest Intel big core, which may help in the optimization of a program or in assessing the suitability of an Intel CPU for a certain application, there is not much to comment about it.
PhilipRoman · 2h ago
Could be. Usually it means the subject is too advanced for the average HN user yet something that they are interested in.
whatever10 · 2h ago
I mean what is there to comment. Intel botched another product release. It is just a sad state of affairs.
Nursie · 1h ago
How so?
Not that I disbelieve, I just wasn't especially picking that up from the article.
la_oveja · 1h ago
they still cannot reach power figures they had in the last, 3? generations. 13 and 14 series, which made these figures by literally burning themselves to the point of degradation.
intel has no competition to amd in the gaming segment right now. they control both the low energy efficiency market and the high performance one.
orthoxerox · 31m ago
Do they? I thought Lunar Lake was an incredibly good efficiency generation.
FirmwareBurner · 29m ago
>122 points and no comments?
Better no comments than your typical FUD or off topic rants that tend to plague Intel and Microsoft topics.
moffkalast · 1h ago
Say, is there any talk about Intel working on an AMD Strix Halo competitor, i.e. quad channel LPDDR5X in the consumer section?
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 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.
This isn't a criticism, just an observation. Real-world gaming results for these CPUs would be worse than what these results show.
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 attention spans, maybe that isn't the way to keep studios going.
Most people do not have enough time or knowledge (or money to buy CPU samples that may prove to be not useful) to run extensive sets of benchmarks to discover how the CPUs really work, so they appreciate when others do this and publish their results.
Besides learning useful details about the strengths and weaknesses of the latest Intel big core, which may help in the optimization of a program or in assessing the suitability of an Intel CPU for a certain application, there is not much to comment about it.
Not that I disbelieve, I just wasn't especially picking that up from the article.
intel has no competition to amd in the gaming segment right now. they control both the low energy efficiency market and the high performance one.
Better no comments than your typical FUD or off topic rants that tend to plague Intel and Microsoft topics.