• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Alder Lake - Official Thread

Page 53 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
@IntelUser2000 As you mentioned.
i7-6700K and i7-7700K are both 4C8T based on Skylake and Kabylake respectively, so they should have similar IPC to Gracemont, yet the difference in performance is 45% at 1% low or 25% at average FPS.

I also checked Techpowerup review, and they also tested Battlefield V, Cyberpunk 2077 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
8 P-cores no HT vs 8 E-cores, both at 3.9GHz. The difference between reviews was:

TechspotTechpowerup
Game4x E-core vs 4x P-core8x E-core vs 8x P-core no HT
Battlefield V114 vs 213 (+87%)169 vs 245 (+45%)
Cyberpunk 207771 vs 121 (+70%)104 vs 116 (+12%)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider73 vs 133 (+82%)162 vs 251 (+55%)
The difference is much smaller in TPU review.

At TPU they also had i7-6700K, and It performed similarly to the E-cores, which is quite surprising considering It was 4C8T vs 8C8T and In Shadow of the Tomb Raider the i7-6700K was actually a lot faster 162 vs 236 FPS.
 
Last edited:
Differences between Win11 and Win10, the 11 scheduler has subpar gaming performance with custom P/E core mixes, suggesting that the Win11 "optimization" for gaming is to always avoid the E-cores.

1638429228263.png

It's a beautifull mess, luckily we can drown any worry in gallons of Cinebench charts where scaling has zero issues.
 
Markfw said:
So use Windows 10, because windows 11 is slower, or disable the ecores, which windows 11 was written for. These CPUs have serious issues IMO.
Click to expand...

Hopefully there will be updates to Windows 11 scheduler in due course! Makes me think perhaps I should have gone for the 5600X rather than my 12600K.

That being said, I have excellent performance and no complaints thus far.
 
Shivansps said:
So, keep using Windows 10?
Click to expand...
This testing shows Win11 cannot handle custom core configurations (yet), with stock 8+4 or 8+8 config performance will be fine in gaming. Let's wait for more testing from Hardawre Unboxed though, maybe we get some info from Intel too.

JoeRambo said:
Disabling E cores works wonders too.
Click to expand...
That's a good measure until the software side gets sorted out, but in the end customers would like to use all the cores they paid for.
 
coercitiv said:
That's a good measure until the software side gets sorted out, but in the end customers would like to use all the cores they paid for.
Click to expand...

Not optimal ofc, but as consolation bonus you get extra L3 cache slices and none of the problems with scheduler. Also it improves performance of P cores by keeping uncore frequency higher, cause with E-Cores active, L3 cache can't be clocked that high, since uncore slices share voltage with E-Core L2 cluster.

Markfw said:
So use Windows 10, because windows 11 is slower, or disable the ecores, which windows 11 was written for. These CPUs have serious issues IMO.
Click to expand...

I might be a rarity - but i don't have any problems with Windows 11. Performance is great, task bar ( after moving it to the left side ) is fine. But OS definitely needs more work, there are some features that are lacking atm, but might get fixed in the future.
 
These performance problems are a good indication of why intel went with 6p cores in the mainstream desktop segment.
Specifically the low end i5s marketed for budget gaming, it's a segment that just needs to plug in, add a graphics card and work well enough among a wide range of systems and software with users who will not be able to troubleshoot these things.

While I still anticipate the 2p+8e core cpus I'm not sold on desktop e-cores. They feel like marketing gimmick today.
Give me 2-4 for low power draw in idle and tertiary tasks or a huge 32+ array for specialised workstation tasks.
I think it's telling how apple's m1++ is laid out. 8cores for performance and 2 efficient for extended battery life that's letting them scale across performance laptops, DTR and mid range workstations (big imacs).
 
coercitiv said:
Differences between Win11 and Win10, the 11 scheduler has subpar gaming performance with custom P/E core mixes, suggesting that the Win11 "optimization" for gaming is to always avoid the E-cores.

It's a beautifull mess, luckily we can drown any worry in gallons of Cinebench charts where scaling has zero issues.
Click to expand...

Shivansps said:
So, keep using Windows 10?
Click to expand...

In that chart it looks like there's only a problem here, if you create one by disabling P cores. It's very difficult to find an actual problem if you just leave the CPU with all it's cores enabled (6 to 8 P cores on all shipping CPUs). What video is the source of that chart??

What Intel is doing works fine, and actually makes some sense. Since they aren't shipping any low P core parts aimed at gaming. Only the ultra low power mobile part has less than 6 P cores.

With 6 P cores devoted to gaming, the E cores will deal the background tasks.
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
These CPUs have serious issues IMO.
Click to expand...

You recently chastised someone for making a hyperbolic statement regarding 12900K performance vs. 5950X. In all fairness, do you think your statement is a little over the top? And to quote you, "do you own one?"

Games need certain threads to stay on the P cores and the scheduler in rare cases isn't doing this correctly. It's a pretty simple press of the scroll lock to disable the E's in those rare cases.

I have a 12700K and don't game. I have ZERO issues. In fact, this is the most stable system I've ever built.

Besides the game issue I mentioned, which I don't think qualifies as "serious issues," what other issues are you referring to?
 
coercitiv said:
Differences between Win11 and Win10, the 11 scheduler has subpar gaming performance with custom P/E core mixes, suggesting that the Win11 "optimization" for gaming is to always avoid the E-cores.

View attachment 53700

It's a beautifull mess, luckily we can drown any worry in gallons of Cinebench charts where scaling has zero issues.
Click to expand...
You can't have blanket conclusions based on one single game.
Tomb raider was also the poster game to show how bad it is to have two ccxs, it took them a while to fix that.
 
Hulk said:
Games need certain threads to stay on the P cores and the scheduler in rare cases isn't doing this correctly. It's a pretty simple press of the scroll lock to disable the E's in those rare cases.
Click to expand...
The scheduler is working fine putting low priority threads or threads they deem low priority by the instructions they use on e cores, and rendering graphics which is what a game would be doing checks both these requirements.
Games have to be updated to tell the OS that game rendering is pretty important, no scheduler no matter how smart can tell the difference between a game rendering graphics and cinebench or whatever other background task rendering graphics.
 
guidryp said:
What Intel is doing works fine, and actually makes some sense. Since they aren't shipping any low P core parts aimed at gaming. Only the ultra low power mobile part has less than 6 P cores.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be plenty of 4+8 laptops that will at least come with a dGPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top