• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel’s Nova Lake-S LGA1954 52 cores

Overlocking? No idea yet. We haven't even gotten a look at TSMC 2nm, and all we have from Intel 18A so far is Panther Lake.

Making some Nova Lake chips at TSMC could still make good business sense even if 18A turns out to be better. China counts Taiwan as "domestic", and they levy import duties on chips based on where they're fabbed. So fabbed in Taiwan by TSMC Nova Lake CPUs would be treated as a domestic product by China even if they were sent to Arizona for packaging. Assorted trade wars could make production outside the US preferable for other markets too. Never know when another trade war is going to flare up these days, and dual sourcing would make one easier to work around.
 
270k spanks the 14900K in multithreading. Proving we dont need it. And well fed cores without SMT, are great all around.

I don't think it really matters.

They will be good CPUs. But, without an also new design CPU without hyperthreading: we cant really know which might technically be a little better here, or there.

Where Intel needs some strides, is performance per watt, with SMT.
 
chameleoneel said:
270k spanks the 14900K in multithreading.

I don't think it really matters.

They will be good CPUs. But, without an also new design CPU without hyperthreading: we cant really know which might technically be a little better here, or there.
Click to expand...
You can turn HT off, so we just don't know what could have been with newer chips that don't have HT. I'd have to find it but a couple years back someone posted a big long video on here comparing game results on a Raptor Lake chip (14900k or 14700k, forget which) trying all 4 combinations of HT & e-cores on or off. The only overall bad setup was both off. Some games really did not like that at all, and plenty more ran slower. Other than that it was a mix between both on, HT off e-cores on, and HT on e-cores off. IIRC HT off e-cores on slightly edged out both on, but by very little. So little you'd just leave both on if you had some productivity app that benefitted from HT. As best I can tell the thing that really kills your performance is not having enough threads. You know how 6c/12t, like a current Ryzen 5, is generally regarded as enough for gaming and 8x/16t is slightly better in some games? Both off is only 8 threads.

My old rig generally does better with HT off, even in games that most tests say do better with HT on. Of course those tests aren't using an i9-10980XE. 18 cores on a monolithic die.

My bet is HT will only be a benefit for gaming on lower core count CPUs. Current 6 core Ryzen 5 absolutely needs it. 6P+8E i5 no not really. Thread counts in games will go up over time, and eventually we'll need 16 threads, then 20, etc. So stuff like 8P+12E Intel procs are safe for a while. Right now 12 threads is fine. Also games only have a small number of hot threads. 6 P-cores is overkill as long as the hot threads end up on the P-cores. Hot thread landing on the wrong core is the whole problem with Intel e-cores and AMD procs with dual CCDs or compact cores (laptop chips). 9950X3D does well with all threads just shoved onto the X3D CCD, but can do even better if a game knows how to use both CCDs effectively. It's not a hard problem at all. Game devs just have to deal with it. We pin threads all the time at work. It's easy to do, and these days a lot of games are doing it.
 
zandor said:
Thread counts in games will go up over time, and eventually we'll need 16 threads, then 20, etc.
Click to expand...
Thread count is a bit different than core count benefit and core count needed, chrome launch 80 thread fast to take an extreme example does not mean the experience on an 80 threads cpu could be better.

Destiny game engine in 2015 created one job thread per core and could use 16 cores, was not able to go faster, the need is in CPU multithread performance never in cores counts and why game loop reality than a couple of cores will always be stressed games will almost certainly always have some task that can run in parrallel but take less time than the most stressed core one, opening the door for a single core to make many of them on a fast enough cpu. That why a new zen 6 cores cpu game faster than the previous generation zen 8-12 core cpu even in game capable to use 8-10 cores. Game engine tend to have a lot of synchronisation to do which as a cost to adding threads, spreading over cores that diminish the return.

A bit there is that bit of general misread about needing cores count when of course what you need is MT performance and in general the highest MT on the lowest cores the better for something like game (sharing cache travel time). There is a reason that the ps4, ps5, ps6 could all end up being 8 cores cpu, even a game that can and benefit well on a current 12 cores cpu does not need 12 of them, the next generation of cpu will probably still run it faster on a 8 cores cpu and maybe the advantage on 12 cores will disapear if the core are fast enough.
 
LukeTbk said:
Thread count is a bit different than core count benefit and core count needed, chrome launch 80 thread fast to take an extreme example does not mean the experience on an 80 threads cpu could be better.

Destiny game engine in 2015 created one job thread per core and could use 16 cores, was not able to go faster, the need is in CPU multithread performance never in cores counts and why game loop reality than a couple of cores will always be stressed games will almost certainly always have some task that can run in parrallel but take less time than the most stressed core one, opening the door for a single core to make many of them on a fast enough cpu. That why a new zen 6 cores cpu game faster than the previous generation zen 8-12 core cpu even in game capable to use 8-10 cores. Game engine tend to have a lot of synchronisation to do which as a cost to adding threads, spreading over cores that diminish the return.

A bit there is that bit of general misread about needing cores count when of course what you need is MT performance and in general the highest MT on the lowest cores the better for something like game (sharing cache travel time). There is a reason that the ps4, ps5, ps6 could all end up being 8 cores cpu, even a game that can and benefit well on a current 12 cores cpu does not need 12 of them, the next generation of cpu will probably still run it faster on a 8 cores cpu and maybe the advantage on 12 cores will disapear if the core are fast enough.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is called cost (BOM)
For the same reason it gets a mid-range GPU too.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Yes, it is called cost (BOM)
For the same reason it gets a mid-range GPU too.
Click to expand...
More smaller core vs less bigger one does not necessarily cost more on a bom than larger cores when it come time to decide between zen6 and zen6c.

When you look at the gpu side of things on them, the "cores" count doubled from ps4 and ps5... should again take a jump, cost is one, games CPU side of things difficulty for the needed for each frame amount of sync growing cost of parrallisation, how much MT each core can do going up race against how much beneffit and challenge to parralize the bottleneck game loop task is an other one.

Game on PC run faster on high end gpu with more core vs mid-range with less not so much with cpu and no game really scale that much past 10 free of anything else cores, previous gen gpu with more cores are often faster than the smaller new gpu, yet to see that with CPUs.

Let put it like this, everytime the 6/8 cores new Zen cpu is faster than the 12 cores previous gen, you never "needed" more cores than that, what you needed is (of course) more multi-thread performance how you achieve it via core count of faster core not only does not matter, it is usually better if you didi with less cores when it come to games.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
More smaller core vs less bigger one does not necessarily cost more on a bom than larger cores when it come time to decide between zen6 and zen6c.

When you look at the gpu side of things on them, the "cores" count doubled from ps4 and ps5... should again take a jump, cost is one, games CPU side of things difficulty for the needed for each frame amount of sync growing cost of parrallisation, how much MT each core can do going up race against how much beneffit and challenge to parralize the bottleneck game loop task is an other one.

Game on PC run faster on high end gpu with more core vs mid-range with less not so much with cpu and no game really scale that much past 10 free of anything else cores, previous gen gpu with more cores are often faster than the smaller new gpu, yet to see that with CPUs.

Let put it like this, everytime the 6/8 cores new Zen cpu is faster than the 12 cores previous gen, you never "needed" more cores than that, what you needed is (of course) more multi-thread performance how you achieve it via core count of faster core not only does not matter, it is usually better if you didi with less cores when it come to games.
Click to expand...
Everything about the consoles are decided by BOM cost.
Do not fool yourself.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Everything about the consoles are decided by BOM cost.
Do not fool yourself.
Click to expand...
and the most performance by that decided BOM cost, putting 12 zen6c core instead of 8 zen6 core is about the same bom cost on a chip (it is even a bit smaller), the zen6c core vs big core math is not a bom cost one, same die area, same yield, same price, can even make the yield better by accepting more failure with the cost of a missing core being smaller, you can get way more per dollar raw parrallel multithread performance with them, for games that not what you want.
 
LukeTbk said:
and the most performance by that decided BOM cost, putting 12 zen6c core instead of 8 zen6 core is about the same bom cost on a chip (it is even a bit smaller), the zen6c core vs big core math is not a bom cost one, same die area, same yield, same price, can even make the yield better by accepting more failure with the cost of a missing core being smaller, you can get way more per dollar raw parrallel multithread performance with them, for games that not what you want.
Click to expand...
There is a reason consoles are always a mid CPU with a mid APU -> BOM.

Telling yourself otherwise is delusional.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
There is a reason consoles are always a mid CPU with a mid APU -> BOM.

Telling yourself otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...
I am not sure you understand (or that I understand what you mean), CPU cost and number of cores are 2 things, the main thing that goes into a cpu cost (BOM wise, R&D to amortize is different) is the die size and the node used, using many smaller core does not cost more than less bigger one (it open the door to cost less generaly has you can more easily disable some to boost yield), that one reason why GPU are so much cheaper than cpu despite having way more "cores".

If you go with 12 Zen6c core the cpu will be a bit cheaper than 8 zen6 cores.
 
LukeTbk said:
I am not sure you understand (or that I understand what you mean), CPU cost and number of cores are 2 things, the main thing that goes into a cpu cost (BOM wise, R&D to amortize is different) is the die size and the node used, using many smaller core does not cost more than less bigger one (it open the door to cost less generaly has you can more easily disable some to boost yield), that one reason why GPU are so much cheaper than cpu despite having way more "cores".

If you go with 12 Zen6c core the cpu will be a bit cheaper than 8 zen6 cores.
Click to expand...
Price is the metric for consoles from the companies and their respective "walled eco-system" fanboys.

The big debate now is not about "performance", it is about "price", because RAM BOM is making the price go up.
You act like consoels ar esome high end enthusiast product.
It is not.
It is mainstream mid-range consumer stuff, ruled by BOM and always have been.

When things get cut out in consoles it is never due to "performance", it is always about cost.

Hence:
The primary factor in console design is Bill of Materials (BoM) — not raw performance. Performance is chosen only to the extent that it fits inside a tightly‑controlled cost envelope.

If performance were primary, consoles would:
- Use larger dies
- Use more memory
- Use higher‑end cooling
- Use higher clocks
- Use more expensive SSDs

But they don’t because every one of those increases BoM and breaks the retail price target.

Consoles are engineered for:
- Predictable cost
- Predictable margins
- Predictable mass‑market price

Telling yourself otherwise IS delusional.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Price is the metric for consoles from the companies and their respective "walled eco-system" fanboys.

The big debate now is not about "performance", it is about "price", because RAM BOM is making the price go up.
You act like consoels ar esome high end enthusiast product.
It is not.
It is mainstream mid-range consumer stuff, ruled by BOM and always have been.

When things get cut out in consoles it is never due to "performance", it is always about cost.

Hence:
The primary factor in console design is Bill of Materials (BoM) — not raw performance. Performance is chosen only to the extent that it fits inside a tightly‑controlled cost envelope.

If performance were primary, consoles would:
- Use larger dies
- Use more memory
- Use higher‑end cooling
- Use higher clocks
- Use more expensive SSDs

But they don’t because every one of those increases BoM and breaks the retail price target.

Consoles are engineered for:
- Predictable cost
- Predictable margins
- Predictable mass‑market price

Telling yourself otherwise IS delusional.
Click to expand...
If some people want the latest, most expensive Apple phone why don't they apply that idea to gaming consoles?
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
You act like consoels ar esome high end enthusiast product.
It is not.
It is mainstream mid-range consumer stuff, ruled by BOM and always have been
Click to expand...
you definetly do not seem to understand what I am saying if you think that, I am not sure how to make the point clearer

12 core Zen6c has a lower not higher BOM cost than 8 core Zen6 cores, if they choose to go with less but bigger cores it would not be for cost, it is that for games you prefer faster cores to high core counts.

What single point I ever made make you think that I remotly disagree that consoles operate under a planned and aggressive low BOM cost ? The sentence: and the most performance by that decided BOM cost, does not mean I think they are high end machine.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Try charging Apple prices for consoles and hear the outcry 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Oh, well I meant like Console 1 (base model), Console 2 (bells and whistles model lol).
EDIT: Or lol maybe the Dolce and Gabbana model with transparent case and Swarovski crystals. (Yeah, with certificate of authenticity and white presentation gloves.)
 
wandplus said:
Oh, well I meant like Console 1 (base model), Console 2 (bells and whistles model lol).
EDIT: Or lol maybe the Dolce and Gabbana model with transparent case and Swarovski crystals. (Yeah, with certificate of authenticity and white presentation gloves.)
Click to expand...
Microsoft kinda tried that approach sith the S | X spilt between models, but console gamers are whiney, crying consumers.
Just look at all the crying over new console prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top