And now they are listing an 8 core i9… As if things can't get any worse for them.
And now they are listing an 8 core i9… As if things can't get any worse for them.
8 Comments
>add “E” to the model number
>remove the “E” cores
Can Intel get ANYTHING right these days?
Did the e-core thing actually work as intended?
So it’s an overclocked i7 then?
So it’s still not faster than a 7800X3D and has now lost its massive multicore lead
The E series are embedded skus.
They’re releasing accumulated bins of dies with bad e-cores, presumingly at a heavily discounted price. Absolutely no way this was manufactured raw without e cores. As they don’t appear to be released to the GP it suggests for embedded and other niche system builds, perhaps ones that don’t use a thread director and won’t play nice with asymmetrical architecture. The key thing I see here is that base clock is higher than the equivalent non-e SKU and still pulls less wattage. Who’s placing bets these could actually be any cores since the 12th gen?
So, the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb here. When AMD does this (5[6/7]x3d) they are praised, when intel does it they are desperate. ?Question mark?
Next thing we know they also remove the P cores. And we are just left with cores… wait.
I was never a big fan of the e core p core architecture. Letting the system decide what cores to use just adds more points of failure to an optimally running system.
I know this isn’t really that relevant to the article itself, but what the hell is that comment section? Half of it isn’t even relevant to tech at all.
The Dead Internet Theory sounds truer and truer every passing day.