Intel Criticizes AMD for “Adding Core Count Just Because You Can”

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,871
Points
113
Intel’s chief performance strategist wants the world to know that more cores doesn't necessarily mean better performance. In his latest post on Medium, Ryan Shrout looked at the gaming performance of a Core i9-9900K CPU and found that there was little benefit of going above eight cores. The implication is that single thread is still king and that the high core count of chips such as the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X doesn't matter.

“Adding core count just because you can,” he concludes, “without a corresponding increase in sustained frequency and architectural design decisions necessary to feed these cores (like low latency memory systems), doesn’t result in better performance. The software engines that power games across the PC ecosystem scale best with frequency and IPC, and Intel plans to lead in this space for years to come.”
 
P4 days will just never die, to bad they are going to 10 cores like chumps.
 
LOL at Intel. PC's are used for more then gaming.
And since no seems to know how to get much past 5 ghz on a single core, multi core and more thread aware programs is the way the world is going. They have been complacent for to long and have no one to blame but themselves.
 
I noticed he didn't use any AMD cpu's to see if that data hold true across the existing total landscape.

Gee...... what a surprise?

Yup......I just use my computer to game.......
 
While agree not everyone needs 16 core 32 thread processors, that doesn't mean there isn't a use for them.

I know, for myself, having those extra cores has pushed me to explore new things. Stuff I wouldn't normally do.
 
I want all the cores... well ok 12... I want 12 cores. I currently have 4 and feel... like less of a man without 12. I'm too deep in... need a lifeline....
 
I could use more than 8/16, but that's all I could afford.

And I don't need Intel telling me what I need. I'll dictate what my needs are. More cores is one of my needs. That's why the 3900X is ****ting all over Intel.
 
IKV1476 said:
LOL at Intel. PC's are used for more then gaming.
And since no seems to know how to get much past 5 ghz on a single core, multi core and more thread aware programs is the way the world is going. They have been complacent for to long and have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...
Not really the same type of processor but there is more than just intel and amd.

mobile.serverwatch.com

Oracle Reboots SPARC with New M8 Processor | ServerWatch

Though Oracle has laid off many of its Solaris and SPARC employees, the company is continuing to push forward with new developments. On Sept. 18th, Oracle announced its M8 SPARC silicon platform, re-committing to the the RISC-based platform it gained via the acquisition of Sun Microsystems. The...
mobile.serverwatch.com
 
Honestly surprised ARM isn't all up in this yet. They may not win "fastest", but speed isn't the only metric that matters
 
I'd say it's mixed truths, and b.s., here. For gaming, sat the moment, 6 or 8 multi threaded cores will suffice and twelve, or more, might be overkill. Four cores have been the standard for far too long. For numerous enterprise software's I'm sure there's many that will enjoy as many cores as they can get. Unfortunately, for both, it really depends on the program or engine. Ironically, how long has hyper threading been around and we still see things barely tapping its potential? Heck, I had to laugh last week when I was updating to the October build and noticed only 3-4 out of the twelve on my 4930k were being used.
 
My PC does everything in my house. Gaming, streaming, Plex server. With my 3700X I can play COD:MW while OBS streaming to Twitch at 1080P with my wife watching a movie on Plex and it might buffer the movie a little bit, depending on bitrate of the MKV.

I suppose most people aren't going to be in this situation. But I'm considering selling the 3700X and upgrading to a 3950X when it's released. I could use the extra cores, for sure.
 
Despite opinions to the contrary, Ryan isn't entirely off the mark. It's obvious why he's saying that but the statement does have some accuracy to it. For most desktop users, there is no benefit to having that many cores and simply adding them increases costs, power consumption and generates more heat.

I'm not saying that there aren't cases where you can benefit from increased core counts. It isn't as though applications where going beyond 8c/16t don't exist,a ren't available or are even super rare. However, for the gamer, there is absolutely no benefit to going above eight cores right now. I've looked at this time and time again with the 3900X, 2990XW, 9900K, KF, 3700X and so on. When coupled with a fast GPU, you often don't even get much of a benefit going above 6c/12t.

I've done a ton of processor testing in the last few months in games at various resolutions. I even talked about the rabbit hole I ended up going down because Destiny 2 ran like crap on my 12t/24c Threadripper CPU and an RTX 2080 Ti. Honestly, if AMD could manage it I think it would be a worthwhile trade to reduce the number of cores and increase clocks. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Since they are at a clock speed wall, adding cores to drive sales makes sense so long as it doesn't negatively impact clock speeds too much. In terms of single-threaded performance, it doesn't at this juncture and they can get enough cores clocking high enough that it's worked out well for AMD on its higher core count offerings.

It's also alluring to people who do use their CPU's for more than just gaming. However, in many instances it isn't simply cores that are the reason for the improved performance but rather the Ryzen 3000 architecture itself in those cases. I saw this with the 3700X often doing just as well as the 3900X in some cases or the results being super close.

Aside from gaming I do a lot of Photoshop work and do mess with a few VM's here and there. For the most part I haven't noticed any loss in performance dropping from a 12c/24t Threadripper to the Intel Core i9 9900K. However, in gaming, the difference has been much larger than I would have imagined.
 
With modern power management, wouldnt core count not necessarily result in an increase in power or thermals?

I mean - the power only goes up if you use it... if your just browsing the web, the architecture is going to mean more for overall power draw than having too many cores will.
 
Brian_B said:
With modern power management, wouldnt core count not necessarily result in an increase in power or thermals?

I mean - the power only goes up if you use it... if your just browsing the web, the architecture is going to mean more for overall power draw than having too many cores will.
Click to expand...

Naturally. But the fact is when you load these CPU's up with applications that can leverage their core count in some way, or you can via multi-tasking then you will see greater power consumption on the parts with higher core counts. Also keep in mind that AMD's higher end offerings have higher single-threaded boost clocks due to better binning of the good chiplet. As a result, they'll pull slightly more power even if your just using one core.
 
Well software lags, pretty much always, so what to do, keep status quo forever? If they figure out a way to do it better regardless of numbers of core, then I am sure they will do so.
I don't know how will multicore improved software would work with a single core high IPC high frequency processor... Just thinking in extremes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top