You have NO idea what are you talking about. There are three types of threads:
1st thread on P core,
thread on E core
2nd thread on P core.
These threads are utilised in this order, as the thread count of the load increases.
If you have 8 thread load, all these threads will be on P cores.
Each thread above 8 will be placed on E core.
Only after you run out of unutilised cores, the second threads on P cores will be utilised.
For example for 14700K, CPU with loads with 20 and less threads will perform exactly the same whether the HT is on or off. Only the extreme 28 thread loads will utilise HT and will improve performance of these loads by about 10%.
HT is not needed anymore for normal consumer workloads.
SMT is a very space efficient way to get more MT performance from the same superscalar processor since it utilize unused execution units that would otherwise have just been doing nothing when ILP is low (most of the time).
You are asserting that MT performance is unimportant in "consumer workloads". I disagree.
Yet Lion Cove is still bigger than a Zen 5 core!
N3B is slightly better performance-power wise than N4P, at least in the low to mid curve. I've seen power numbers with Spec and yeah even at lower frequencies this thing is not good at all.
... and Lion Cove is on a more dense/better process node than Zen 5. Lion Cove also lacks AVX512... and SMT.... which is quite puzzling. How can it have so much going for it and be larger and less performant than Zen 5.
I'm not so sure about that. If my measurements are correct Zen 5C on N3E is about the same size as Skymont on N3B but it has SMT too which helps quite a lot in certain workloads. So it seems to waste less die space than letting Intel design a CPU core.
I thought that Skymont was smaller than Zen 5c by a pretty good margin?
If this was true, all the productivity benchmarks wouldn't scale in performance from, say a 9900X to 9950X (i.e 24 to 32 threads) now wouldn't it, so with the current Core/thread count(s) on client at least it absolutely is not useless.
Agree. Additionally, as time goes on, MT will become more and more important.
That's for Turin Dense right?
I'm getting 1.9mm2 without the L2 cache using SP5 package size which is 75.4mm x 72mm. That's bigger than Skymont with 1MB L2. Without it, it's 1.15mm2.
So what are your calculations for:
1) Skymont
2) Zen 5c on N4P
3) Zen 5c on N3E
So they dropped HT in consumer Arrow Lake to dial back power consumption?
I don't think so. Everything I have ever read for the last 3 decades indicates that SMT improves overall performance/power. I am guessing it was die size.
This is the first iteration of TSMC 3nm, N3B, the worst performing version of their 3nm. Please tell me what was the performance of Intel's first iteration of 14nm, 10nm, Intel 4?
I mean, it sounds great seeing how high Intel chips can get to clock, until you realize how many refinements their node needs to do so.
No matter how crazy you get analyzing the situation, Lion Cove is larger, and on a more advanced node than Zen 5 desktop. Add to this the fact that N3B was the MOST DENSE version of TSMC N3 node (and also the most expensive). N3B also offers better PPC than N4P albeit not tons (<10% IIRC). Still .... that isn't "nothin"
Read my lips.
"5 nodes in 4 years."
When I read those lips, all I hear is "Oh My GOD this is risky ...... and expensive".
There is something worth considering when comparing the 285K to the 14900K and that is cooling. Without a good sample, a fair bit of tuning, and a good cooling solution (think AIO 360) you are not going to get 5.5GHz all-core out of a 14900K under heavy load, which of course is when you need that frequency. A 14900K at stock settings from the VID table programmed into the average 14900K you're looking at around 5GHz and 225W.
If on the other hand a 285K at 225W can maintain 5.4GHz with air cooling then ARL now has the IPC and the frequency advantage over Raptor Lake. Yes, I understand that gaming presents a more bursty and less all-core intensive load so the 14900K will probably still be on top but if all you are looking for is productivity then ARL could be a good solution.
Then again there is that pesky 9950X that is as fast or faster in many applications and even more efficient.
My point is that in the real world the 285K looks to be a big step up. Again, Intel created all of this nonsense over the last few years by pushing Raptor into supernova energy territory.
... and THIS is the most important thing for Intel right now IMO. If they are to have any hope of catching up to AMD in the DC (where the majority of the growth AND profits are), they have to get a handle on their performance/power.
Also, it was an important step for Intel to establish "tiles". I feel like they made a lot of advancement with Arrow Lake, but most of the advances they made aren't going to pay off for a couple of years.