Intel's 14th Gen Core K-Series CPU Specs Break Cover with Speeds Up to 6GHz

https://hothardware.com/news/intel-14thgen-core-k-cpu-spec-leak

by rbanffy • 3 years ago

41 42 3 years ago

hothardware.com

FirmwareBurner3• 3 years ago

With Speeds Up To 6GHz

The ghost of NetBurst appears.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst#Scaling-up_issues

ThrowawayR2• 3 years ago

Not that having a ton of E-cores isn't cool but is there the memory bandwidth to keep all of the P- and E-cores fed and if there isn't, then what's the point? There are probably two memory channels like all of Intel's past consumer products and, IIRC, DDR5 crams two channels of half width into each physical channel but I haven't seen an explanation of whether that's really the equivalent of 4 DDR4 memory channels.

LoganDark• 3 years ago

AFAIK the point of having tons of E-cores is to crunch the hell out of multithreaded workloads, that is, a bunch of cores collaborating on the same task (therefore running the same code). This is, notably, one of the best ways to score highly on multithreaded benchmarks, something I'm very sure hasn't impacted their core counts at all, with "high-performance" desktop CPUs being mostly the low-power E-cores

Const-me2• 3 years ago

Not that having a ton of E-cores isn't cool

Personally, I don’t find that cool, and I think I will stay with AMD CPU for my next desktop. I want all cores to be fast, and I have enough parallelizable work for them. Also I’d like to get AVX-512: Intel doesn’t support that in their reasonably-priced consumer targeted CPUs.

I haven't seen an explanation of whether that's really the equivalent of 4 DDR4 memory channels.

For throughput, it could be the case. DDR4-3200 has theoretical peak 25 GB/sec/channel, for DDR5-8000 62.5 GB/sec/channel.

FirmwareBurner3• 3 years ago

I want all cores to be fast

E-cores aren't slow just because they're not called "performance" cores, they're just more efficient at lower clock speeds and more in numbers, optimized specifically for multi-threaded tasks you said you need.

P-cores are great mostly for single thread tasks that bank on high clock speeds, that's why the CPU has so few of them, as it seeks to cram in as many E-cores as possible.

AMD is also going the big.LITTLE route with the next Ryzen generation.

LargeTomato• 3 years ago

I want all cores to be fast, and I have enough parallelizable work for them.

To each their own, but I just want to browse Lemmy and play RimWorld. My PC is from 2016 and it works great.

JonChesterfield• 3 years ago

I thought ddr4 and ddr5 were in the same ballpark for performance, with the latter using less power and needing more on the fly error correction. Which basically makes ddr5 seem worse than ddr4, so hopefully I'm missing something. Pretty sure there isn't a 2x in bandwidth gain.

Our_Benefactors• 3 years ago

DDR5 isn’t a mature technology yet. It’s not worse than DDR4, but not better by more than a few % either in real-world usage at the moment.

whalesalad• 3 years ago

I just got a 13900K on Monday. Naturally something bigger and badder is right around the corner. I cry evrytim.

andrewstuart3• 3 years ago

It’s a great time to buy a CPU.

Lots of competition and lots of innovation.

blagie2• 3 years ago

No. A great time to buy a CPU was a few decades ago, when each new CPU made your computer go 10x faster. Moore's Law was a fun ride.

usrnm• 3 years ago

Or terrible time, because whatever you're getting might become obsolete in just a few years

maskedinvader• 3 years ago

Haha yes that’s me every time I upgrade, every new thing you buy is bound to be outshined by the next iteration. The best cpu you can buy is always the next gen going to come soon I guess.

zcw100• 3 years ago

That's why I always buy old shit for a fraction of the price. Always a step behind but it's a constant step.

blibble• 3 years ago

that chip has been out for about 6 months and intel release a new generation every 9 months or so

it's not exactly unexpected

forinti• 3 years ago

Do you actually need the extra performance?

andrewstuart3• 3 years ago

Gotta be careful when comparing to AMD….. not all cores are alike.

jl6• 3 years ago

I am glad to see Intel still pushing faster single-threaded performance. Many (most?) important workloads are not meaningfully improved by adding cores.

Asraelite• 3 years ago

not meaningfully improved by adding cores.

This is true and I hate it, because it doesn't have to be this way. Almost all existing workloads are theoretically parallelizable to at least some significant degree, developers just don't do it because it's so difficult. (I'm talking about large scale systems, not individual algorithms)

I think more research needs to go into designing new programming languages and paradigms to make multithreading easy and automatic. There's been some improvement here in the last few years, e.g. coroutines, move semantics, but there's still a long way to go. It's silly that people are buying 32-core CPUs that basically only get used for video rendering.

fennecfoxy• 3 years ago

I was gonna say, the issue is definitely that conscious thought and planning has to be put into it, and even then issues still crop up.

We really need a new language that self-parallelises with zero effort from developers.

vlod• 3 years ago

I think more research needs to go into designing new programming languages

It was my understanding that golang supports multi-core?

[0] https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/jeffdecola/my-go-examples/goro...

gregors• 3 years ago

How we program multicores - Joe Armstrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo5WL5IQAd0

rewmie• 3 years ago

(...) developers just don't do it because it's so difficult.

I don't think this is true, or at least generalizable.

I've been involved in a few tickets to turn problematic sync calls to async calls or background tasks. In all of them, the root cause was the same:

* Let's add a handler that does nothing of note, such as setting a flag or logging something or emitting a metric.

* We have another feature, and it requires something being triggered by the handler. Let's add it next to the logger/metric call. Let's also clean this up and extract a function out of this code.

* We need to tweak that feature to do one more thing. Calling that function from the handler under rare cases can add a bit of lag and block stuff. We can live with it, so let's keep it like that.

* Oh it turns out that member function can render the app unusable. We can't live with it anymore, and we need to refactor it.

constantcrying3• 3 years ago

Many (most?) important workloads are not meaningfully improved by adding cores.

Absolutely. No browser can use more than a single core. And in any case, who in their right mind uses more than a single thread at a given time anyway? I certainly never open more than a single appliation at a time.

In all honesty, this is one of the more delusional comments I have seen on here...

Clamchop• 3 years ago

And this is one of the least charitable readings of a comment I have seen before.

ksaj• 3 years ago

I have probably too many cores on my music production Mac, and I definitely would rather have faster single-threaded performance, even if it meant half the cores I currently have available.

I mean, I'm pretty happy with it. But the workload is only marginally faster/smoother than it would be with half the cores, and still sometimes feels sluggish. Law of diminishing returns, for sure. It never hangs on a hard load though, but I feel that would be the same with fewer but faster cores anyway.

musicale• 3 years ago

Music production seems like a great "embarassingly parallel" application since instrument voices tend to be independent and effects chains are readily pipelined. Multicore should provide direct benefit in terms of more tracks, more instrument voices, and deeper effects chains.

What is the single-threaded workload that is sluggish? Is it something like encoding or compression?

piinbinary• 3 years ago

Hopefully the power draw will be reasonable

NullPrefix• 3 years ago

Does it void warranty?

Intel's 14th Gen Core K-Series CPU Specs Break Cover with Speeds Up to 6GHz

Related Stories