Discussion Triple architecture CPU or dissimilar dual socket motherboard

[igor_kavinski]

Intel P-core - Really good single threaded performance

Intel E-core - Acceptable and scalable multicore performance per area

AMD Zen 3+ - Unmatched multicore performance per watt

We have a problem. We want all three types of cores in our PC. We don't want to buy two different PCs and juggle our tasks between them based on which CPU core is best for our use case.

Here's what needs to happen. Intel needs to reach out to AMD and propose a combined CPU with all three cores. AMD shouldn't mind licensing their core to Intel since this arrangement would free them from the burden of catering to desktop users and they can simply focus on their server clients. AMD gets royalties for their CPU cores used in this combined CPU assembled by Intel.

If this is not possible due to disagreement between Intel and AMD, then someone like ASUS needs to build a dual socket mobo incorporating both Intel and AMD chipsets. A KVM solution on the mobo would allow switching between the two systems. It can be a full ATX mobo. For PC users like us, we get the best of both worlds in a relatively compact PC and enjoy less hassle plus time saved from not having to daydream about the other side of the fence. I know this seems like a huge and almost insurmountable engineering problem but I have confidence that the best of the best can make this happen. They just need to believe that something like this would be well received. Please show your support for one or both of these crazy ideas and help make this miracle happen.

 

[Exist50]

Post 44 proved it wrong. Did you see that ? Quit being a know it all, you don't know.

So you're ignoring everything else in this thread? Figures...

Look, we get it, you hate Intel. But this is getting absurd. You refuse to acknowledge literally anything they do well, or even just better than a single company. Is it really so unfathomable to you that a core designed for good perf/area is good in that metric? I mean seriously...

 

[Markfw]

So you're ignoring everything else in this thread? Figures...

Look, we get it, you hate Intel. But this is getting absurd. You refuse to acknowledge literally anything they do well, or even just better than a single company. Is it really so unfathomable to you that a core designed for good perf/area is good in that metric? I mean seriously...

I didn't ignore anything. And I just BOUGHT a 12700F. I benchmarked those little cores. And I admit they are pretty good with low power. But they are not the king, and with all the controversy why can't you see that. Its that they are in the ballpark, not king.

 

[Exist50]

But they are not the king,

Of perf per area among modern x86 cores? Yeah, it is.

and with all the controversy why can't you see that

What controversy? Again, your skepticism about hybrid has proven to be unfounded.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel and AMD can best put this low power king debate to rest by making Gracemont-only Celeron and RMB-based Athlon. But they seem not that interested in selling cheap stuff these days. The Celeron brand used to be not that bad until Intel sullied it with Atom cores. I used a Sempron for a while and I absolutely loved it. I'm sure there are plenty of Athlon 3000G users out there who can't afford anything better and they are likely very happy that AMD made this for them.

AMD Athlon 3000G Review

Offering solid performance (and decent on-chip graphics silicon) right out of the box, AMD's Athlon 3000G is a worthwhile AM4-socket processor solution for anyone who can't quite afford a Ryzen 3 or Core i3.

www.pcmag.com

 

[itsmydamnation]

Of perf per area among modern x86 cores? Yeah, it is.

The least relevant metric as AMD found out with jaguar.

 

[Exist50]

The least relevant metric as AMD found out with jaguar.

AMD stopped their development of two core lines because they were starved for resources, and had to give Zen everything they could. But there's a reason it's become the norm, and AMD is dipping their toes into a return with Zen 4c.

You need a baseline level of single thread performance to have wide appeal, of course, but Gracemont certainly doesn't lack that. A more area efficient x86 core is absolutely necessary to compete with ARM in the datacenter.

 

[NTMBK]

I'd rather see Intel do what AMD are doing with Zen 4c- take their high performance CPU, and reimplement it for higher density and lower clocks. So you have a cluster of lower clocked, higher density Golden Cove cores.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Remember Larrabee being just a cluster of P54C Pentiums in the Core architecture era? Gelsinger was in charge of that. And now Gracemont with further enhancements will be used in the same many core approach to conquer servers. He has a fetish for using lots of small weak cores with instructions to boost certain capabilities, kind of like a swarm that overpowers the workload.

Raja Koduri

@Rajaontheedge
Jan 22, 2021

Iceland 2008 - standing waist deep in blue lagoon spa with a mud face mask, anand and I were fiercely debating merits of Larrabee vs classic GPU architectures..he was a big fan of larrabee...and of-course I was arguing the other side about what’s wrong with larrabee..

I would love to see that argument.

 

[Exist50]

Remember Larrabee being just a cluster of P54C Pentiums in the Core architecture era? Gelsinger was in charge of that. And now Gracemont with further enhancements will be used in the same many core approach to conquer servers. He has a fetish for using lots of small weak cores with instructions to boost certain capabilities, kind of like a swarm that overpowers the workload.



I would love to see that argument.

Sierra Forest predates Gelsinger's return to Intel, and is an approach that's already working extremely well with the ARM vendors.