I hate e-cores

[nobleberry]

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?

[Realigo Actual]

Windows is a part of this too. When running the chip at the ecore speed and just boosting the pcores higher, I noticed all stutters pretty much disappear under Linux.

So I suspect Microsoft has some kind of Intel-specific ecore scheduling which is probably more tailored and targeted than Linux but which is also probably still a work in progress.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

https://www.google.com/search?q=disable+e-cores+in+Windows

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

Originally posted by _I_:

Originally posted by GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™:

So get a non-k i5 or i3. Those only have pcores.

For example, i5-12400 doesn't have ecores, it only has pcores. Same with the i3-12100.

nope


14th gen
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/core-14th-gen-desktop-brief.html

Processor Cores (P-cores + E-cores)
i9 = 24 (8P + 16E)
i7 = 20 (8P + 12E)
i5 = 14 (6P + 8E)
i3 = 4 (4P + 0E)

12-13th gen info here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Desktop_processors_(Alder_Lake-S)
its a mess
all 13th gen i5 have p and e cores, i3 do not

I'm afraid so

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134586/intel-core-i5-12400-processor-18m-cache-up-to-4-40-ghz.html

The 12400 comes with only pcores like I said homie. Now crawl back in your basement and be a good little troll.

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

Originally posted by _I_:

he said non k i5

i5 13600 NON K
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/230574/intel-core-i5-13600-processor-24m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html
# of Performance-cores = 6
# of Efficient-cores = 8

12th gen non k i5 do not, but some 13 do, all 14th gen i5 all do

Do you even PC? I wouldn't suggest a 13th/14th anything. Do you not know about those?

It's all over the web and mentioned by every tech enthusiast that those CPUs are trash. Wow, man do some research.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™:

Originally posted by _I_:

he said non k i5

i5 13600 NON K
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/230574/intel-core-i5-13600-processor-24m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html
# of Performance-cores = 6
# of Efficient-cores = 8

12th gen non k i5 do not, but some 13 do, all 14th gen i5 all do

Do you even PC? I wouldn't suggest a 13th/14th anything. Do you not know about those?

It's all over the web and mentioned by every tech enthusiast that those CPUs are trash. Wow, man do some research.

The non K even 13th Gen are fine.

[Revelene]

What games are you playing that have issues with the e-cores? The only game I've found that has had issues with them is Star Citizen, if you can even call that a game.

[_I_]

pretty much all games that dont tell windows to not use the e cores for them

basically the same effect as when the board thermal or vrm throttle some cores for the game, and stuff gets done out of order
causing game crashes or errors

[[N]ebsun]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

why do you hate then anyway? They are bad for games

Answered your own question right there...

[Revelene]

Originally posted by _I_:

pretty much all games that dont tell windows to not use the e cores for them

basically the same effect as when the board thermal or vrm throttle some cores for the game, and stuff gets done out of order
causing game crashes or errors

Okay, sure, but which games specifically? I've yet to find them.

[smokerob79]

OK kids lets really talk about this......the idea is good on paper as the E cores will be able to handle back round tasks like running windows itself to off loading other tasks like music running in the back round....

as others have said windows is the problem right now and programs taking over are also issues.....without people being able to set core priority on a per-program level, we will have issues like older games only using the slower E-cores without patches to each game......

I would be the BOMB if we could set what cores programs use like keeping steaming pile on E cores and forcing any game to the P-cores.....

[_I_]

Originally posted by smokerob79:

OK kids lets really talk about this......the idea is good on paper as the E cores will be able to handle back round tasks like running windows itself to off loading other tasks like music running in the back round....

as others have said windows is the problem right now and programs taking over are also issues.....without people being able to set core priority on a per-program level, we will have issues like older games only using the slower E-cores without patches to each game......

I would be the BOMB if we could set what cores programs use like keeping steaming pile on E cores and forcing any game to the P-cores.....

the thing is that games do not need all p cores, and the os can run on them as they are not always fully used by games

better off disabling e cores in bios and force everything to use the p cores

[AD]

Originally posted by GUMUNKUL:

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.

Running lighter, less demanding tasks on E-cores is a theoretical win from an efficiency standpoint (I haven't looked at any numbers, ok, hence "theoretical"). Like not everything a computer does needs performance, far from it. Games should stay away from them, though.

I don't know how much of a problem it really is, since I currently only use AMD and old Intel (as in before the E-cores thing).

Originally posted by _I_:

pretty much all games that dont tell windows to not use the e cores for them

That's a legit concern, honestly. Older games, for example, made before E-cores were a thing will of course not do that. But those games might also not need as much performance, so I'm unsure what the real world impact is. Either way, if Windows doesn't, it should have a way to let you the user say "I don't want this thing to run using E-cores".

[Corona Scurrae]

this shouldn't be a problem since both intel and amd will probably introduce skus without e-cores or small cores or economy cores. intel is currently doing it ( p-core only ).

but e-cores are not that bad. I built a custom setup for my gf with a 12600k and I'm impressed how little power they consume during mundane tasks while my amd 7800x3d boosts to infinity for just opening hwinfo...

though for gaming I agree but that won't pose any problems for you since both ( like I mentioned ) will introduce p-core only skus

[A&A]

Why not force all things Windows, browsers, launchers, etc. to run on E cores and games on P cores? So the OS is much more likely to choose P-cores for games that aren't forced to run on them due load balancing?

[Corona Scurrae]

Originally posted by A&A:

Why not force all things Windows, browsers, launchers, etc. run on E cores and games on P cores? So the OS is much more likely to choose P-cores for games that aren't marked to run on them?

if they tune it correctly e-cores are great in regards to power consumption.