Intel Core i7-14700K has an 8P+12E Core Configuration

[btarunr]

The upcoming Core i7-14700K "Raptor Lake Refresh" processor has a core configuration of 8P+12E. That's 8 "Raptor Cove" performance cores, and 12 "Gracemont" efficiency cores spread across 3 E-core clusters. Compared to the i7-13700K, which has been carved out of the "Raptor Lake-S" silicon by disabling 2 out of the 4 available E-core clusters and reducing the L3 cache size to 30 MB from the 36 MB present; the i7-14700K gets an additional E-core cluster, and increases the shared L3 cache size to 33 MB, besides dialing up the clock speeds on both the P-cores and E-cores in comparison to the i7-13700K.

The processor likely has a P-core base frequency of 3.70 GHz, with a 5.50 GHz P-core maximum boost. In comparison, the i7-13700K tops out at 5.40 GHz P-core boost. An alleged i7-14700K engineering sample in the wild has been put through Cinebench R23, where it scores 2192 points in the single-threaded test, and 36296 points in the multi-threaded test. The processor also scored 14988.5 points in the CPU-Z Bench multi-threaded test. Intel is expected to release its 14th Gen Core "Raptor Lake Refresh" desktop processors some time in October 2023.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Hyderz]

Cool! Can’t wait for the benchmarks

 

[P4-630]

So basically it's somewhat a Core-i9.

 

[Daven]

This is similar to the 8th and 9th gen Coffee Lake transition where Intel was stuck with nothing new and just enabled hyper threading throughout the range.

So Intel is stuck again and just enabling more E cores on lower SKUs. Its the exact same chip as Raptor Lake. That means no change to IPC and Core i9 parts will only have slight core and memory clock speed increases.

The only change from past behavior is maintaining pin compatibility of the socket unlike the skylake/kaby lake to coffee lake/coffee lake refresh 1151 debacle.

The EXACT same thing could be accomplished if Intel just lowered 13th gen prices and made the 13900KS more widely available. But nope they want yearly model number changes to push/trick people into upgrading.

 

[john_]

E cores.... E CORES..... MORE E CORES

 

[P4-630]

E cores.... E CORES..... MORE E CORES

Yes , but it just works!

 

[Daven]

Yes , but it just works!

But not really

E cores.... E CORES..... MORE E CORES

Technically, the number of E cores are staying the same. Just the number of locked ones at a certain price and the model numbers are changing.

 

[ratirt]

Not much of a difference in terms of frequency but I guess it will somewhat be faster. Wonder how much faster it will be.

 

[Dammeron]

Cool! Can’t wait for the benchmarks

I'm worried about the "cool" part - it's not what Intel's been known for for the last years.

 

[P4-630]

But not really

Says the guy who doesn't even own a 12/13 gen Intel CPU.....

 

[Deleted member 232534]

a haswell refresh moment

 

[Daven]

Says the guy who doesn't even own a 12/13 gen Intel CPU.....

I don’t own a lot of CPUs but I can read benchmarks so I can buy the best CPU. And the benchmarks say that AMD’s 16 Zen 4 cores perform like Intel P-cores but sip energy closer to Intel E-cores. That’s why Intel’s solution just doesn’t work. I'd rather have 16 fully functional cores than 8 with a bunch of disabled versions and a complex thread scheduler especially if the overall performance is the same but the power is much lower.

a haswell refresh moment

And a coffee lake refresh moment

 

[john_]

Yes , but it just works!

For the marketing department it does wonders. People usually buy the model with the more cores.

It's funny, seriously. Companies copy each other to win market share at times.

~ 2006(?) : Intel uses glue, takes over the market while AMD is losing time building the first native quad core
~ 2016-2022(?) :AMD uses glue, takes over the market while Intel still straggling with monolithic in an older manufacturing node

~ 2016-2022(?) : AMD sells more cores (lower IPC) than Intel at the same price point, wins market share
~ 2022-20xx(?) : Intel sells more cores (lower IPC for the E cores) than AMD at the same price point, wins market share



.... and some times to destroy themselves
2001(?) : Intel creates the Pentium 4 that targets high frequencies, almost loses the market
2011(?) : AMD creates the Bulldozer that targets high frequencies, almost goes bankrupt

PS:
? : dates might not be correct

 

[Dyatlov A]

More E Cores, cool, i love them Intel.

 

[Legacy-ZA]

 

[Daven]

For the marketing department it does wonders. People usually buy the model with the more cores.

It's funny, seriously. Companies copy each other to win market share at times.

~ 2006(?) : Intel uses glue, takes over the market while AMD is losing time building the first native quad core
~ 2016-2022(?) :AMD uses glue, takes over the market while Intel still straggling with monolithic in an older manufacturing node

~ 2016-2022(?) : AMD sells more cores (lower IPC) than Intel at the same price point, wins market share
~ 2022-20xx(?) : Intel sells more cores (lower IPC for the E cores) than AMD at the same price point, wins market share



.... and some times to destroy themselves
2001(?) : Intel creates the Pentium 4 that targets high frequencies, almost loses the market
2011(?) : AMD creates the Bulldozer that targets high frequencies, almost goes bankrupt

PS:
? : dates might not be correct

And while all this is going on, an unsuspecting DIY PC enthusiast community misses the real winners: ARM SoCS and GPU accelerators. Ironically, the first Apple iPhone and the first Nvidia compute module were both released within two months of each other in 2007; right at the beginning of your timeline. AMD but mostly Intel never saw them coming.

 

[Nucleoprotein]

Says the guy who doesn't even own a 12/13 gen Intel CPU.....

Yep, E-Core are good for Cinebench scores

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

This is similar to the 8th and 9th gen Coffee Lake transition where Intel was stuck with nothing new and just enabled hyper threading throughout the range.

So Intel is stuck again and just enabling more E cores on lower SKUs. Its the exact same chip as Raptor Lake. That means no change to IPC and Core i9 parts will only have slight core and memory clock speed increases.

The only change from past behavior is maintaining pin compatibility of the socket unlike the skylake/kaby lake to coffee lake/coffee lake refresh 1151 debacle.

The EXACT same thing could be accomplished if Intel just lowered 13th gen prices and made the 13900KS more widely available. But nope they want yearly model number changes to push/trick people into upgrading.

Hey, it works. Dont blame them. Blame the consooomer who see number go up and throw their wallets at intel.

And while all this is going on, an unsuspecting DIY PC enthusiast community misses the real winners: ARM SoCS and GPU accelerators. Ironically, the first Apple iPhone and the first Nvidia compute module were both released within two months of each other in 2007; right at the beginning of your timeline. AMD but mostly Intel never saw them coming.

Can those ARM SoCs be placed onto ATX motherboards and run all my windows software?

No?

Then WGAF?

 

[P4-630]

Yep, E-Core are good

Correct! It's the way it has been in mobile phones for years, now available for laptops/desktops and AMD is working on it too....

And they are good for gaming too, my i7 12700K beating your "gaming" CPU...

Intel Core i7-13700K Review - Great at Gaming and Applications

With the Core i7-13700K, Intel has built a formidable jack-of-all-trades processor. Our review confirms that it offers fantastic application performance, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 7900X, and in gaming it gets you higher FPS than any AMD processor ever released, delivering an experience...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Daven]

Hey, it works. Dont blame them. Blame the consooomer who see number go up and throw their wallets at intel.


Can those ARM SoCs be placed onto ATX motherboards and run all my windows software?

No?

Then WGAF?

A lot of windows software have cloud/compute-over-internet components as well as the initial download and update servers. Not to mention the email, file transfer and cloud storage technologies you rely on to save and send your creations. These types of things are handled by data centers which are increasingly run on ARM and Nvidia technology.

So for you as a windows app user, they are extremely important.

 

[kondamin]

if it lowers prices that's nice.

I still find it a waste of a generation

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

A lot of windows software have cloud/compute-over-internet components as well as the initial download and update servers. Not to mention the email, file transfer and cloud storage technologies you rely on to save and send your creations.

This is a red herring argument. Nothing you have listed is run on a DIY desktop, nor does what these services run on have ANYTHING to do with "unsuspecting DIY PC enthusiast community misses the real winners: ARM SoCS and GPU accelerators"

These types of things are handled by data centers which are increasingly run on ARM and Nvidia technology.

So, how are "unsuspecting DIY PC enthusiast community misses the real winners: ARM SoCS and GPU accelerators"?

So for you as a windows app user, they are extremely important.

Again, how are "unsuspecting DIY PC enthusiast community misses the real winners: ARM SoCS and GPU accelerators"? Sure sounds to me like they are benefiting from them just fine.

 

[watzupken]

There is no rocket science here. While Intel have given the new chips a bump in cache, it is almost certain that the power requirement will also be bumped up. Given how difficult it is to cool even a 13700K under heavy CPU load, without resorting to custom water cooling and some mods, I think the same will apply to this. If its gaming performance specifically, Intel have an impossible task to match AMD's 7800X3D in terms of power vs performance. It only proves again that without an advantage or even disadvantage in terms of fab, Intel is struggling big time. The chip architecture is decent, but been pushed too hard to try and fend off competition.

 

[bug]

Yep, E-Core are good for Cinebench scores

Cinebench happens to be the reference multithreaded benchmark on TPU, but E-cores work in all similar scenarios. An E-core takes up a quarter of the space a P-core does. So, where you could have 4 more fast threads (2 P-cores), you get 8 slower threads (8 E-cores). Since E-cores aren't actually pretty fast, you do get better multi-threading capabilities. For workloads that don't multi-thread well (still a lot in 2023), you can just pile them up on P-cores and pretend E-cores don't exist.

 

[Tomgang]

That's good and all. But Intel,instead of more and more e-cores and same amount of p-cores. It begins to remind of the sad nm 14+++++++ saga. 10 gen up to 10 cores, 11 gen back to 8 cores and now 3 gens later, we are still at 8 p-cores. Something has to change. Is not time for that I ask.

Increase the number of P-cores. It has been the same for 4 gens now with 14 gen. Something new needs to be done. Also to really give amd a run for their money. At least give those e-cores hyper threading as well (what I have seen, amd new efficient cores has smt). That would really make powerful cpu. Let's say 15 gen up to 12 p-cores and up to 24 e-cores. All with hyper threading. That would be up to 36 cores and 72 threads.

Does that sound totally out the line for a possible near future cpu?

I dont think so. It all depends on Intel.