4 ms·
Intel is back to their tricks by reselling the same old CPUs as new. Not sure why would "enthusiast" want any "efficient" cores? For low latency and real time
by varispeed 3y ago
Intel is back to their tricks by reselling the same old CPUs as new.
Not sure why would "enthusiast" want any "efficient" cores?
For low latency and real time workloads your system is as fast as your slowest core.
Unless you can turn them off? Then why pollute the die with these?
They have lost the plot.
- Havoc 3y ago>Unless you can turn them off? Then the background tasks need to run on the performance cores slowing down your main workload. > Then why pollute the die with these? That's partially the point - they're much much smaller than P cores physically. So if you can move some non-critical stuff off the P cores at a very low die space cost then that's a win. ...all of which assumes correct & intelligent scheduling which I gather isn't always the case
- varispeed 3y agoWhat you saying makes sense, but I am thinking that this may be false economy. It of course depends on the nature of background tasks, but likely they would have a chance to finish quicker on a performance core than on efficiency core and if main workload depends on those e.g. something generating an event, you still are probably going to get a performance penalty greater than if everything was running on P cores or if main task needs I/O and slow background process is blocking it for longer.