I hate e-cores

[Catticus, Coveter of Snack]

E-cores are small cheap CPU cores that reside side by side with normal CPU cores in some new Intel processors.
They are fine in theory, but in practice they suck, especially for games. And AMD is also looking towards making asymmetric processors with different types of cores. Is there a safe haven for e-core haters in the far future? I just want all CPU cores to be equal, and equally powerful. Will there be top tier or high mid tier CPUs that don't have e-cores?

[Andrius227]

You know you can just disable them. And why do you hate then anyway? They are bad for games, but they can do all the other tasks more efficiently.

[Catticus, Coveter of Snack]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

You know you can just disable them. And why do you hate then anyway? They are bad for games, but they can do all the other tasks more efficiently.

They don't do tasks more efficiently. They have lower performance and use less electricity. And I'd prefer to not disable hardware I paid for, because what's the point? I'd rater have 2 full cores instead of four ecores.
Ecores is just Intel's way to cope with their CPUs having higher and higher TDP each generation.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Some games wont run properly when the E-Cores (Windows & Intel Efficiency Mode) is enabled.

There is a nice free app called CoreDirector that will allow you to Whitelist Apps and Games so they don't use E-Cores while the rest of your OS does.

[_I_]

they are fine as long as windows scheduler keeps putting background tasks on them
but often windows likes to level out core loads and not do it correctly

if it does not work correctly, update bios and get the correct chipset drivers from intel

or worst case just disable them in bios
higher end cpus with the e cores have enough p cores for games anyway

[A&A]

e-cores can brute force high core count applications or offload every OS component to them. However, does scheduler cares what the browser or the game will run on... Well, it's best to set affinity by yourself.

Even if you have P cores, they are not equally fast.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by PAIN:

I just want all CPU cores to be equal, and equally powerful.

While I understand the desire, there's not a whole lot of a reason for them to be.

Beyond a point, the e-cores are typically better and here's why; they are more space efficient. If you can fit two performance cores in the same amount of space you can fit a cluster of 4 e-cores, then you end up with more performance for anything that uses them.

Performance cores are better in a vacuum. But these things don't exist in a vacuum. Space is a restriction we have to consider. So any software that's "infinitely parallel" will benefit more from e-cores instead of more performance cores.

The key is to have "enough" performance cores. Intel has decided that's eight. And on AMD's side, you need to step up to dual CCD CPUs to go beyond eight cores as well, which can incur latency penalties (won't matter as much in "infinitely parallel" stuff [starting to notice a recurring trend?], but will in games). So you'd really only do that if you, again, have "infinitely parallelizing" software. Games are not under this category by far. In other words, there's not a whole lot of software need for more than 8 performance cores right now. Of course, tech should always try and move forward despite what software needs, but that takes time, and the space efficiency reason (and power savings since Intel can't afford to go all performance cores with their problems right now) make this a good route for now. Maybe come Zen 6 or Zen 7, on AMD's side the CCDs will be bumped from 8 cores to 12 or 16, and Intel will likely offer more cores by then too, but right now, what game or single application needs it? The ones that do benefit from so many cores are, I'm going to say it yet again, mostly "infinitely parallel" and are better served by whatever method puts more performance in the same space, not the method that makes faster individual cores.

Keep in mind, this is all coming from someone on an AMD CPU where all cores are equal and most likely moving to another AMD one as my next CPU, so I'm not being biased for something I have. To the contrary, I don't have it yet recognize the benefit. I just don't need a CPU with a massive amount of cores so it doesn't matter to me. But to those who do justify a lot of cores, the e-cores have a convincing strength.

The real drawback is scheduling. I can't comment on how good or bad that is, mind you, but you definitely want to be on Windows 11 for Alder Lake or newer.

[_I_]

intel is going to drop ht/smt
since the space for the ht can better be used for cache or other cores and improve overall performance

ht only helps a bit with higher thread load, but e cores do better at that
will also make windows schedulers job easier with fewer threads to handle

[Mr White]

I believed they were developed in response to Apple design. Intel was hoping Apple would drop its designed processors and keep Intel in Apple products.

[D. Flame]

They are great. Performance cores can be running my game with Efficiency cores are running Discord and music in the back ground.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by A&A:

e-cores can brute force high core count applications or offload every OS component to them. However, does scheduler cares what the browser or the game will run on... Well, it's best to set affinity by yourself.

Even if you have P cores, they are not equally fast.

This is why Windows Scheduler alone can't be relied upon. Some games are not updated to support those e cores so when a game tries to use them since nothing is telling it not to, the game performs badly or crashes in most instances.

[Viking2121]

Your phone probably has e-cores, well they don't call them that but ya know.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by Viking2121:

Your phone probably has e-cores, well they don't call them that but ya know.

Not really; Phones and Tablets are extremely far behind. They have 8-Core/8-Thread at most.

E-Cores is new and Intel & Microsoft can't seem to agree on how to make that work properly without US using 3rd party software and tweaks to address the very many stupid issues that it has. It's why I'll never go back to Intel anytime soon. I have my 4790K @ 4.8Ghz since it was built and has no trouble running nearly any game out there well; coupled with RTX 3080 10GB and 32GB DDR3-1866.

My 2 modern builds are all Ryzen w/ RTX 3080 Ti and 4070 Ti Super
and will remain so until Intel gives me a real reason to switch back, if ever. I do see plenty of people online having Ryzen issues but this is because they often tend to either do it all wrong, or don't install things correctly.

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by PAIN:

E-cores are small cheap CPU cores that reside side by side with normal CPU cores in some new Intel processors.
They are fine in theory, but in practice they suck, especially for games. And AMD is also looking towards making asymmetric processors with different types of cores. Is there a safe haven for e-core haters in the far future? I just want all CPU cores to be equal, and equally powerful. Will there be top tier or high mid tier CPUs that don't have e-cores?

Ecores are not an issue but more of a stop gap for Intel while they struggle to get the blood back in their hands after sitting on them for almost 10 years.

Intels biggest issue is stability because of the amount of power they shoot through their chips.

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Originally posted by Viking2121:

Your phone probably has e-cores, well they don't call them that but ya know.

Not really; Phones and Tablets are extremely far behind. They have 8-Core/8-Thread at most.

E-Cores is new and Intel & Microsoft can't seem to agree on how to make that work properly without US using 3rd party software and tweaks to address the very many stupid issues that it has. It's why I'll never go back to Intel anytime soon. I have my 4790K @ 4.8Ghz since it was built and has no trouble running nearly any game out there well; coupled with RTX 3080 10GB and 32GB DDR3-1866.

My 2 modern builds are all Ryzen w/ RTX 3080 Ti and 4070 Ti Super
and will remain so until Intel gives me a real reason to switch back, if ever. I do see plenty of people online having Ryzen issues but this is because they often tend to either do it all wrong, or don't install things correctly.

Dude, why can NOBODY just FKN GOOGLE before making crap up?

The big core little core design is almost TEN YEARS OLD it made its debut in PHONES.

YES PHONES has this design first.

Why can't you kids even be bothered to google something before posting?

[The_Abortionator]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

They are great. Performance cores can be running my game with Efficiency cores are running Discord and music in the back ground.

While I'm not here to hate on Ecores thats not how they work AT ALL.

The job of Ecores is mostly to steal the work during light loads. Then the secondary job is to take on the lighter tasks while giving the bigger tasks to the bigger cores.

However "tasks" do not mean programs. If discord or another program has a data burst it will hit the big cores.

On the flip side a games audio engine and texture stream will hit the Ecores while the game's logic and physics will sit on the big cores.

Thats the dream anyways but the schedulers in Windows suck even after being updated.