you can just process lasso on your current rig and see how well it works
Intel
Rules
-
Be civil. Uncivil language, slurs, and insults will result in a ban. If you can't say something respectfully, don't say it at all.
-
No Unoriginal Sources, Referral links or Paywalled Articles.
-
All posts must be related to Intel or Intel products.
-
Give competitors' recommendations only where appropriate. If a user asks for Intel only (i.e. i5-12600k vs i5-13400?) recommendations, do not reply with non-Intel recommendations. Commenting on a build pic saying they should have gone AMD/Nvidia is also inappropriate, don't be rude. Let people enjoy things.
-
CPU Cooling problems: Just like 95C is normal for Ryzen, 100C is normal for Intel CPUs in many workloads. If you're worried about CPU temperatures, please look at reviews for the laptop or CPU cooler you're using.
I honestly just wish they’d give us P cores again…
I don't work for or at Intel.
But I would be surprised if their future direction was "simply more of the same."
At some point, I would expect further differentiation between cores, e.g. not just E and P cores, but more letters of the alphabet, with different specializations per core type.
Maybe Arc moves into the main processor as A and/or G cores. Maybe an L and/or I core variant derived from E for even lower power when idle. Maybe yet more cores dialed in for bursty network traffic or sustained numerical workloads or equal-path crypto engines or who knows what.
we went from quad core 7700K to 24 cores 13900K within 6 yrs.
Why wouldnt be possible to have 64 cores in far future?
I would like to see 16P cores with no E-cores.
do have to say that that many cores in a CPU would make it large, at least in the current production size. Wonder how many pins?
no, I wish for all p cores like my i9 9900kf. a very fast CPU at 5200 and no overheating. Think if they made a all p core many of us would take a serious look.