7 ms·
Interesting read. I wonder what went into the decision on the ratio of P to E cores. Naively it seems like more of the die space should be dedicated to E cores
by polishTar 3y ago
Interesting read.
I wonder what went into the decision on the ratio of P to E cores. Naively it seems like more of the die space should be dedicated to E cores since they're so killer for workloads where efficiency or throughput matter. Obviously some jobs can't spread the load across multiple threads and are sensitive to single-threaded latency, but those workloads won't benefit from so many P cores anyways.
- masklinn 3y agoThere’s only so many background / non-interactive tasks you need to run, and especially that you need to run now: with more Es you increase the parallelism but if everything goes idle quickly you’ve kinda wasted the silicon. P cores are more relevant for interactive work which the user is waiting on, hence he sacrifice if efficiency.
- thfuran 3y agoBut there's a far more limited amount of interactive tasks that you need to run right now at the highest speed.
- masklinn 3y agoHowever when there are interactive tasks to run, you need to run them now, because the user is waiting. That is why I find Intel's core mix dubious. By definition background tasks are not generally time-critical, having more cores for them doesn't usually save me time, or money.