CPU Benchmark Performance: E-Core

In this batch of testing, we're focusing primarily on the E-cores. Intel claimed that the performance was around the level of its Skylake generation of processors (6th Gen to 10th Gen, depending which slide you read), and we had to put that to the test. In this instance, we're comparing to the flagship Skylake processor, the Core i7-6700K, which offered 4C/8T at 91 W. We also did a number of multi-threaded tests to see where the E-cores would line up.

In order to enable E-core only operation, we used affinity masks.

Single Threaded

(3-2b) Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12 World Gen 129x129, 550 Yr(3-3) Dolphin 5.0 Render Test(4-8a) CineBench R20 Single Thread

(8-1c) Geekbench 5 Single Thread

In these few tests, we can see that the E-core is almost there at 4.2 GHz Skylake. Moving down to 3.9 GHz, perhaps something like the i7-6700, would put it on par. 

Multi-Thread Tests

(1-1) Agisoft Photoscan 1.3, Complex Test(2-1) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (non-AVX)(2-2) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (Peak AVX)(2-5) NAMD ApoA1 Simulation(2-6) AI Benchmark 0.1.2 Total(3-1) DigiCortex 1.35 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)(4-2) Corona 1.3 Benchmark(4-3a) Crysis CPU Render at 320x200 Low(4-5) V-Ray Renderer(4-8b) CineBench R20 Multi-Thread(5-1a) Handbrake 1.3.2, 1080p30 H264 to 480p Discord(5-1b) Handbrake 1.3.2, 1080p30 H264 to 720p YouTube(5-1c) Handbrake 1.3.2, 1080p30 H264 to 4K60 HEVC(5-2c) 7-Zip 1900 Combined Score(5-3) AES Encoding(5-4) WinRAR 5.90 Test, 3477 files, 1.96 GB(7-1) Kraken 1.1 Web Test(7-2) Google Octane 2.0 Web Test(7-3) Speedometer 2.0 Web Test(8-1d) Geekbench 5 Multi-Thread

Having a full eight E-cores compared to Skylake's 4C/8T arrangement helps in a lot of scenarios that are compute limited. When we move to more memory limited environments, or with cross-talk, then the E-cores are a bit more limited due to the cache structure and the long core-to-core latencies. Even with DDR5 in tow, the E-cores can be marginal to the Skylake, for example in WinRAR which tends to benefit from cache and memory bandwidth.

CPU Tests: SPEC MT Performance - P and E-Core Scaling CPU Benchmark Performance: Windows 11 vs Windows 10
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kvaern1 - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    Because there are no games which are 'incompatible'' with ADL.
  • eastcoast_pete - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    While AL is an interesting CPU (regardless of what one's preference is), I still think the star of AL is the Gracemont core (E cores), and did some very simple-minded, back of a napkin calculations. The top AL has 8 (P cores with multithreading) = 16 + 8 E core threads (no multithreading here) for a total of 24 threads. According to first die shots, one P core requires the same die area as 4 E cores. That leaves me wanting an all-E core CPU with the same die size as the i9 AL, because that could fit 8x4= 32 plus the existing 8 Gracemonts, for a total of 40. And, the old problem of "Atoms can't do AVX and AVX2" is solved - because now they can! Yes, single thread performance would be significantly lower, but any workload that can take advantage of many threads should be at least as fast as on the i9. Anyone here knows if Intel is considering that? It wouldn't be the choice for gaming, but for productivity, it might give both the i9 and, possibly, the 5950x a run for the money.
  • mode_13h - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    They currently make Atom-branded embedded server CPUs with up to 24 cores. This one launched last year, using Tremont cores:

    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...

    I think you can expect to see a Gracemont-based refresh, possibly with some new product lines expanding into non-embedded markets.
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    Yes, those Tremont-based CPUs are intended/sold for 5G cell stations; I hope that Intel doesn't just refresh those with Gracemont, but makes a 32-40 Gracemont core CPU available for workstations and servers. The one thing that might prevent that is fear (Intel's) of cannibalizing their Sapphire Rapid sales. However, if I would be in their shoes, I'd worry more about upcoming AMD and multi-core ARM server chips, and sell all the CPUs they can.
  • mode_13h - Tuesday, November 9, 2021 - link

    Well, it's a start that Intel is already using these cores in *some* kind of server CPU, no? That suggests they already should have some server-grade RAS features built-in. So, it should be a fairly small step to use them in a high core count CPU to counter the Gravitons and Altras. I think they will, since it should be more competitive in terms of perf/W.

    As for workstations, I think you'll need to find a workstation board with a server CPU socket. I doubt they'll be pushing massive E-core -only CPUs specifically for workstations, since workstation users also tend to care about single-thread performance.
  • anemusek - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    Sorry but performance it isn't all +- a few percent in the real world will not restore confidence. Critical flaws, disabling functionality (dx12 in hanswell for example), instabbility instruction features etc.
    I cannot afford to trust such a company
  • Dolda2000 - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    I just wanted to add a big Kudos for this article. AnandTech's coverage of the 12900K was by a wide margin the best of any I read or watched, with regards to coverage of the various variables involved, and with the breadth and depth of testing. Thanks for keeping it up!
  • chantzeleong - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    I run Power bi and tensorflow with large dataset. Which Intel CPU do you recommend and why?
  • mode_13h - Tuesday, November 9, 2021 - link

    I don't know about "Power bi", but Tensorflow should run best on GPUs. Which CPU to get then depends on how many GPUs you're going to use. If >= 3, then Threadripper. Otherwise, go for Alder Lake or Ryzen 5000 series.

    You'll probably find the best advice among user communities for those specific apps.
  • velanapontinha - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    We've seen this before. It is time to short AMD, unfortunately.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now