Question How many cores do you think a desktop cpu will have in 2025 ?

How many cores do you think the top consumer chips will have in 2025 ?

  • <20

    Votes: 10 20.0%
  • <24

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • <28

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • <32

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • 32<

    Votes: 19 38.0%

  • Total voters
    50

FlameTail

Member
Dec 15, 2021
53
8
36
Today 16 cores is the limit for desktop consumer chips. The Ryzwn 8 5950X has 16 cores and the Core i9 12900K has 16 cores ( 7 efficiency, 8 performance).

How many cores do you think the top consumer* chips will have in 2025 ?

*by consumer chips i mean the Ryzen 3,5,7,9 series and Intel Core lineup. So Threadripper and Xeons are not included.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,216
1,166
126
I'm not inclined to answer the survey, because I couldn't be sure.

I'm still running Skylake and Kaby Lake quad-core systems. Unless I were to engross myself in video encoding and editing or some similarly intensive application, I can't imagine needing a system faster than the ones I have.

And what am I going to do with these old Sandy-Bridge boxes that are almost exclusively Media Center or HTPC systems? They just keep on ticking and take their licking. . . .
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,548
496
126

Intel is working on infrastructure that will allow you to use all the available hardware you already have at home together, all your Pc and laptops, console, smartphone, fridge, your car, anything with a cpu/gpu and in reach of your network will be able to work together.

So max core count for desktop might even go down in the future.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,135
803
136
I don't think we'll see mainstream platforms with 64 cores in 2025, but I would expect a 32 core desktop chip by then.

It's definitely more of a "I think that's probable" than "I'm sure of it" though. Feeding that many cores on a dual channel memory interface would be a challenge and I'm not sure we'll see quad in a mainstream platform any time soon.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,160
4,975
136
You need some <= signs in there. I would have voted for <=24. <28 just seems like an odd value; although, again, with an <=, I could see Intel going there if they continue their current trend of P&E cores.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
538
399
136
More cores are useless for 99% of desktop-use cases. What we need is faster cores, not more of them. But as it's easier to add cores than make them faster core numbers will increase, and it will do it to absurb numbers. Intel will have cpu that have ~64 cores, 8 big and 56 or so little ones - and what are actually needed are those big cores and for desktop eight of them is more than enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and biostud

Saylick

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2012
1,560
1,910
136
Are we counting little cores the same as big cores? Intel is already rumored to go to 16 'Mont cores for Raptorlake next year, so if you want to count little cores as part of the total core count, then I think it's very likely we're going to see >24 cores by 2025.
 

FlameTail

Member
Dec 15, 2021
53
8
36
To clarify any confusions in the poll, <24 means 'equal to 24 or less than 24'.

So if you think 24 is the core count select <24. If you think 22 will be the core count, then also select <24.

If you think 26 will be the count, select <28. If you think 28 will be the core count, select <28.
 

Leeea

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2020
1,478
1,828
106
Commonly used?
less then 20

Yes, you can buy 16 core monsters right now. But most computers selling at retail are still dual core, with the better ones being quad.

In the DIY market the most common units right now are the six core units ( 5600x specifically ).

There will be outliers, but most people will be using machines with less then 20 cores come 2025.


Yes, the top end models will be more then that, but that will be a 1% thing.

ps:
I would consider Threadripper to be desktop CPU, and that has 64 cores right now. It is certainly marketed as a desktop solution for visual effects and editing.


The lines between consumer / prosumer / professional are being blurred quickly.
 
Last edited:

Cardyak

Member
Sep 12, 2018
64
126
76
Are we counting little cores the same as big cores? Intel is already rumored to go to 16 'Mont cores for Raptorlake next year, so if you want to count little cores as part of the total core count, then I think it's very likely we're going to see >24 cores by 2025.
One thing that is going to change over the coming years is the concept of what exactly a CPU core is and how it is defined. Alder lake being heterogenous with Big & Little cores is just the start of a long journey.

I can't say too much, but by Lunar Lake and certainly by Nova Lake with Panther Cove & Darkmont the bifurcation of little cores and big cores becomes blurred. The core configuration will no longer be static and instead fluid and can be dynamically altered depending on the workload.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,226
5,369
136
My personal hope is that we'll get away from what I think is quite a short-sighted approach of "cook the CPU with turbo until it can't take any more", though I have a suspicion that a lot of manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that components don't last as long as they could.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,160
4,975
136
My personal hope is that we'll get away from what I think is quite a short-sighted approach of "cook the CPU with turbo until it can't take any more", though I have a suspicion that a lot of manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that components don't last as long as they could.
I don't think it will be a problem, so long as people stick to stock settings. Well, with AMD anyway. Intel seems to be pushing their CPUs a fair bit harder - so maybe you have a point there.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
3,912
2,451
136
I think we'll drift up to 8 cores (Whether its all performance cores or a mix of efficiency and performance) as the mainstream while 16 and above will stay in the HPC and professional space and make up a fraction of the overall market.

We'll be at 32 cores at the very high tippy top niche of the desktop market by then.
 

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
541
126
116
2025... shouldn't Arrow lake already push above with 40 total in 2024, abeit 32 small ones?

For big cores I would guess 16+ won't become more common as AMD implementing big little too could see the amount of large counts lower for higher single threaded performance, same way Intel is supposedly keeping 8 for a while. Maybe they'll go for 12.

So we'll easily have more than 32 cores in i7-i9 and high end Zens by 2025 but not that many "big" ones, that is a good thing overall for performance especially when software catches up (think multi core today vs early days).
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,548
496
126
My personal hope is that we'll get away from what I think is quite a short-sighted approach of "cook the CPU with turbo until it can't take any more", though I have a suspicion that a lot of manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that components don't last as long as they could.
Vcore and temp are still being forced to save levels which keeps the cpu save for long term, you just have to make sure that your mobo isn't pooing all over the safe settings, a lot of people think that mobo default settings are the same as intel default settings.
Under default conditions the CPU clocks down or adjusts vcore or does a large number of things to keep the CPU safe.

Turbo only goes as high as the hardware allows.

 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
15,226
5,369
136
Vcore and temp are still being forced to save levels which keeps the cpu save for long term, you just have to make sure that your mobo isn't pooing all over the safe settings, a lot of people think that mobo default settings are the same as intel default settings.
Under default conditions the CPU clocks down or adjusts vcore or does a large number of things to keep the CPU safe.

Turbo only goes as high as the hardware allows.

I wasn't talking purely about the CPU. When you have a hot CPU, the components around it will heat up more (high CPU activity will be driving some to do more work, but also passively heating them). It's obviously worse for surrounding components in a system with sustained high CPU activity, but it also wouldn't surprise me that the surrounding components also won't do well in the long term with temperature extremes from shorter periods of high CPU followed by sudden temperature drops when the CPU goes back to idling at ~30C.

With climate change, we should be designing computers that last longer, less landfill usage, etc. Right now this CPU situation seems very much like another facet of humans pedalling backwards.

Coming back to the CPU itself, I wonder if any long-term longevity tests have been done to see whether a CPU that's been pushed to 80-90C for sustained periods (or even just regularly) is as likely to last say 10-20 years compared to one that can go full-tilt indefinitely and only reaches say 60C. I have a feeling that Intel and AMD will have decided that they don't care about the long-term for mainstream CPUs, perhaps they care about their Xeon/Threadripper type CPUs in that respect.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,776
11,175
136
I have 2 computers that work perfectly. The problem is that they are so slow, nobody wants to use them. Thats the problem, and I don't see a solution. They will work forever, but our needs change too fast.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,548
496
126
I wasn't talking purely about the CPU. When you have a hot CPU, the components around it will heat up more (high CPU activity will be driving some to do more work, but also passively heating them). It's obviously worse for surrounding components in a system with sustained high CPU activity, but it also wouldn't surprise me that the surrounding components also won't do well in the long term with temperature extremes from shorter periods of high CPU followed by sudden temperature drops when the CPU goes back to idling at ~30C.

With climate change, we should be designing computers that last longer, less landfill usage, etc. Right now this CPU situation seems very much like another facet of humans pedalling backwards.

Coming back to the CPU itself, I wonder if any long-term longevity tests have been done to see whether a CPU that's been pushed to 80-90C for sustained periods (or even just regularly) is as likely to last say 10-20 years compared to one that can go full-tilt indefinitely and only reaches say 60C. I have a feeling that Intel and AMD will have decided that they don't care about the long-term for mainstream CPUs, perhaps they care about their Xeon/Threadripper type CPUs in that respect.
But the temp for the CPU is limited to 100 degrees max, if you use a mobo with components that don't even meet that then you have a whole bunch of other problems. And this 100 degrees has to radiate out to the other components first meaning that a lot less heat is going to them.
Low quality mobos that heat up everywhere on their own is a different matter.

And you are not forced to the max temp, you are not forced to get the max performance, you can set up the bios to cut the cpu off at whatever temp you like.

We already know that you can go down to 190W max and get 98% of the performance, at 125W it's still 86% of the performance, it's not like it's a locked cpu that has to run at max temps all the time because there is no way to change it.
 

FlameTail

Member
Dec 15, 2021
53
8
36
2025... shouldn't Arrow lake already push above with 40 total in 2024, abeit 32 small ones?

For big cores I would guess 16+ won't become more common as AMD implementing big little too could see the amount of large counts lower for higher single threaded performance, same way Intel is supposedly keeping 8 for a while. Maybe they'll go for 12.

So we'll easily have more than 32 cores in i7-i9 and high end Zens by 2025 but not that many "big" ones, that is a good thing overall for performance especially when software catches up (think multi core today vs early days).
As per the rumours, if we take that Arrow Lake will max out at 8P/32E, we'll have a crazy powerful cpu-

If we make a hypothetical Alder Lake CPU with a 8P/32E configuration using the same Gracemont/GC cores, such a cpu will be twice as powerful as a 12900K !

And that's not taking into account the IPC gains upto Arrow Lake.

Maybe 8P/32E will be a potential rival to AMD's threadripper ?

They might call it Core i11 or even better- Intel Breadwinner !

XD
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,776
11,175
136
As per the rumours, if we take that Arrow Lake will max out at 8P/32E, we'll have a crazy powerful cpu-

If we make a hypothetical Alder Lake CPU with a 8P/32E configuration using the same Gracemont/GC cores, such a cpu will be twice as powerful as a 12900K !

And that's not taking into account the IPC gains upto Arrow Lake.

Maybe 8P/32E will be a potential rival to AMD's threadripper ?

They might call it Core i11 or even better- Intel Breadwinner !

XD
You think that 8 big cores, almost equal to AMDs cores, and 32 little cores, far weaker, will compete with 64 AMD cores ? Not in this lifetime. Get real. And thats todays threadripper, not the one coming out next year.
 

FlameTail

Member
Dec 15, 2021
53
8
36
You think that 8 big cores, almost equal to AMDs cores, and 32 little cores, far weaker, will compete with 64 AMD cores ? Not in this lifetime. Get real. And thats todays threadripper, not the one coming out next year.
FLOP. I knew that. I just wanted to execute that Breadwinner joke.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,110
2,407
126
I went with 24 cores, because frankly 2025 isn't that far away at this point. We'll probably only be up to the 14th or 15th generation Intel Core chips by that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Ajay

ASK THE COMMUNITY