Damn Bang i was way off. Over 24000 with 8 cores is nuts. My air conditioner cooled 5700x overclocked to 4.8 all core only manages 16400. Thank you so much for making this video. Its 3.23am here in Australia so i can sleep peacefully now.
Hi, in Bios, we cannot set the number of P-cores to 0, the minimum is 1. But we can try to compare the performance of 1P+8E vs. 6P+0E vs. 8P+0E, and so on, in the games, it will be a very interesting comparison.
wow the 7700x only gets 20821 at 5.4ghz, but the 13900k got 24231 at 5.8ghz that's 16.37% faster for team blue for anyone that wants to avoid ecores or chiplets on there CPU.
This paltry MT performance with E cores disabled is why I went with the 7950x... I do work inside a VM, and VMware Workstation cannot use P & E cores at same time. You have to manually edit the .vmx file to disable E cores (or disable them in BIOS) to be able to use P cores at all in VMware, limiting the performance in CB to under 24K in a VM guest. On the other hand, the 7950X gets over 37K within a VM guest, nearly as good as the score when run on the host. Don't get me wrong, the 13900K is a great CPU in gaming and the vast majority of apps.
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer Outside of a VM, in CB23, my 7950x gets 38609 stock, 39262 with PBO all core Curve Optimizer set to -15, and if limited to 200W it gets 39009 with same PBO settings. Those scores are single run and a starting liquid temp of ~33c on my EVGA CLC 360 AIO. Using DDR5 6000 CL 30, default XMP profile of F5-6000J3040G32GA2-TZ5RK.
@@jake..A i'd no idea i had kinda fell behind on the pc news scene, i'm still pretty happy though i game at 3440x1440p so the CPU isnt that big of a deal. i got a gen 4 m2 ssd as my boot drive compared to my old gen 3 ssd its much nicer. plus my new board has built in wifi and bluetooth. where as i used a crappy wifi adapter that was slow as a week in jail in my old pc. do you think its worth upgrading my RAM from 3000mhz to 3600mhz?
After finally having installed my 13900KS and testing for a while I‘m coming back to this. First we need to consider that ring clock can go 0.1 GHz higher with E-Cores off. I‘m running 5.8/5.2 at 1.295 V with E-cores off and 5.8/4.7/5.1 at 1.325 V with E-cores on. E-cores off is more efficient in gaming and has lower latency, but not all games prefer that. You also need to consider that some games like hyper-threading while others don‘t. Far Cry 6 works best with 8c8t while Hitman 3 takes everything it can get and runs best at 24c32t and difference shows especially in the lows and actually has an impact on the fluidity of the games even in 4K. If you really want the best experience in every game you‘d have to do a benchmark each time, capture the same time frame/scene with CapFrameX and analyze the different lows and the frame time graphs. I am gonna do that going forward and if anyone else is interested let me know so we can share the results!
Is the 13900KF better than the 13900K does it give more FPS? Looking at Passmark's Benchmarks it gives higher scores on both single and multi threads. How do those synthetics translate into gaming performance? Cheers.
That's a trade secret of Intel. The KS and the K are the best models. The KF models do not have a graphics chip built in/or turned off by Intel at the factory. The KF and the KS actually confuse people into thinking the KF is another performance model of chip. The KF can be as good, but don't expect better. The K and KS usually always will have better internal qualities, and get better overclocks and power usage than a KF. Not saying that a person cannot get lucky and get a good KF; the averages just don't support it as often. Just think of Intels grading system like this. KS is the dominate quality. The K models internals will not pass for a KS model, (which actually isn't that much of a difference in everyday performance) The KF is just below the K models standards. The KF just didn't make the cut for the KS or the K models, but are still able to achieve everything except a higher clock by Intel's standards. Actual overclocks by users are generally always better than the factory standards for "turbo", provided the quality of cooling on the processor.
This whole E Core and P core design is confusing to me. Why in a desktop computer would I need "E" cores? Why not just have cores with Hyper Threading and call it a day? If I wanted to conserve energy I wouldn't use a desktop PC with a top of the line i9 processor.
I would say the main reason for E cores was Intel's response to AMD when they increased the core count dramatically. Intel right now isnt able to create 16P core cpu with very high freqs, you would not be able to cool it. So they right now trying to beat AMD in games by high ipc and freq with P cores, and in multi threaded apps with E cores. AFAIK e cores also have higher effiency. CPU effeincy curve isn't linear with frequency anyway. But don't afraid that AMD won't respond because they architecture scales very well. They could add another or two CCDs with lower freq to Ryzen 9, but I dont know why they didn't. This way they could beat the shit out of intel, however that would cut a big part from it's threadripper lineup. I think CPUs in the future will have differentl cores or at least different frequencies per core groups, because lets say you want 80K in cinebench multi with very high single core too. Youll never reach both, if cpu has only one type of cores/same frequency for all cores.
@@kurta999kurta666 Agreed according the rumors 15gen top SKU should be 8P cores and 32 little cores. Looking at this it becomes apparent why intel went down this path. The little core are also very friendly with die space so they can pack alot of them in. Further potential increases could be enabling Hyperthreading late down the line for the e cores to increase multicore performance even more.
well the e cores give more power and are efficient but the cpu still uses 500w and 4 e cores are as big as 1 p core but it helps, ryzen 7000 has better single core and multicore than intel 13000 and 12000 because single core is better and multi threading can have power as two cores per core on intel hyperthreading can have like 1.2 cores per core power
if the e cores work with the p cores its good but i dont buy intel because of a lot of reasons and 2 of them are higher price and very high electricity consumtion
My Gigabyte 4090 is running about the same. Higher core clock though +240 at the moment. I'm actually peaking over my 800w psu if I go higher. I also kept the memory at 11818 for the stylish numbers lol... I think I can get it to yours though, not sure if it's worth the frames and the less stylish number. Thanks for the look at the E core on and off. I still have a 10850k at 5.0 ghz and was considering whether to upgrade or not.
Nice video unfortunately my build is on hold until I get my EK CPU block it ships from Italy so it won't be here till October 31st at the earliest. So I'll just enjoy watching your videos until it arrives.
finally 😎 I haven't tested a 13th gen yet but on my sp 104 12900 ks @5.4 GHz all core and 5.1 ring e cores off vs on I was able to oc p cores 200 MHz higher with lower vcore vs e ckres on. bf5 with 3090ti gave me peak 313 fps e cores off with e cores on 54 p cores 43 ring 43 e coes peak fps 269. I have disabled them since day 1 so many games hit those slower cores and drop fps.
Nice rig you got there but the fact that you have gone for the highest end parts doesnt justify your tag... "bang for buck" is never going for the highest end parts. Mid range parts are considered bang for buck.
In my opinion don't disable the E Cores ,if you see the timing you are 5.36 seconds behind , also if you see the frames drops, with E Cores Off ,is like 40fps low.
Its soo fast intel doesnt even need those efficiency cores.. in cinebench R23 its basically the same as 14600K with efficiency and perfornance cores enabled.
If your game is in focus, that is, the thing you are current tabbed into, it's running on the P-cores if you used Windows 11. When you alt-tab out it will shift to the E-cores, and then back when you tab back in.
I think you should have left the E cores on. I got 24328 with a 13600K. You should do great in R23 single thread or games. I'm at 4:15 so lets see what else you got.
There really isn't any good reason to turn off e-cores in bios anymore. If some game does bad with e-cores you can resolve that with process lasso. Asus has a bios setting for increasing the ring frequency further when the e-cores arnen't used but it's not really needed much anymore with raptor lake (since the cache clock just with with e-cores enabled and used).
I know my chip does 5.1GHz with E cores enabled. Haven't tried to push it with them disabled, honestly though my 12900K could not get more than 4.3GHz stable on cache with E cores enabled, so that is a big step up.
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer I think it should‘ve been at around 4.8-5.0 with E-cores off on the 12900K. Maybe some other setting in the BIOS that would’ve needed adjustment? I‘m still on a 9700K with Asus board, so I don‘t have experience with that myself. Impressive how high the 13900K can go with E-cores on though.
@@ledooni if you are only going to game it is better to disable the E cores on the 12900k and turn up the ring 4.8-5.0, plus you will need a little less voltage to get to 5.2-5.5 ghz on the core and it would be about the same fps as the 13900k just gaming, it would be good to check if the ring ratio can be increased without the E cores and the core with the 13900k
Is it normal for a core i9 13900k rtx 4090 32 gd ddr5 6400 hz and 2tb m2 drive when I stres test on cinebench r23 get temps of 94-100 degree deep cool lt720 360 is my cooler have I done anything wrong ?( I haven’t undervolted) msiz790 tomahawk ddr5 motherboard and I got the h9 elite case
To see the efficiency of the "Efficiency Cores" you need a game benchmark that is NOT using DirectX11 (which is mostly single-threaded). Try Vulkan or DirectX 12 games next time :)
@@KuramaKitsune1 That's what I was thinking. My 13700K gets 31400 in R23. That's with 5.4ghz and DDR4 3600mhz ram. My 360AIO isn't going to allow much more than 5.5Ghz overclock. But I was able to drop 15C by leaving the speed at 5.4 and taking the core voltage down to 1.25V in bios.
I find it stupid that Intel would put an E-Core in a desktop also it’s where you don’t have to worry about battery life. This is why AMD CPU is better but even a their Mobile cpu is just as efficient thanks to 5/4nm process while intel still stuck at 10nm or I heard that P-Cores still stuck at 14nm
Ever think about doing a 7900x + 7900xtx vs 13900k + 4090 where both systems are OCed/tweaked for max FPS? Most people going for 1% systems dabble in at least system tweaks.
if intel did make same stuff as was in 9x generation i'd prefer take stuff without e-cores and ht. as i did and took 9700k instead 9900k. but now when 13700k use same ht and just less e-cores and frequency and cache, i don't see any sense to take i7 instead i9... i think best of the best for gamers it's create i7 without ht and e-cores but with faster p-cores + a little bit more cache... but if any chance to use something else except games so probably that's e-cores and ht very good... in any way this ht don't make it worst, just useless for games... and this is first generation from 2008 year i don't care about oc so far, and probably will not till next upgrade in 2026 or so on.... but as we can see in the video. more powerful settings use more memory, so probably all i said is crap of mice
Try the Final Fantasy XIV End walker Benchmark Yourself eu.finalfantasyxiv.com/benchmark/
Damn Bang i was way off. Over 24000 with 8 cores is nuts. My air conditioner cooled 5700x overclocked to 4.8 all core only manages 16400. Thank you so much for making this video. Its 3.23am here in Australia so i can sleep peacefully now.
You are welcome
Just quickly did a search of someone running a 7700x zen4 chip at 5.4 all core and they scored 20600, so without LN2 its got no chance.
@@MrIsmaeltaleb85 AMD lost it this gen sadly
@@XxGAMERxXPS3 Your comment didn't age well, the 7800x3d is beating intel's best.
Hi, in Bios, we cannot set the number of P-cores to 0, the minimum is 1. But we can try to compare the performance of 1P+8E vs. 6P+0E vs. 8P+0E, and so on, in the games, it will be a very interesting comparison.
Use extreme tuning
@@boraboris2036 read my post carefully....
@@canberrano1widowmaker i mean, you can change what cores a program is running on in windows
Summer Glau on your pc background?! You sir are a particularly distinguished man of culture.
Judging by this test, looks like its better to just leave them on. Seems like Win 11 is doing a good job of scheduling.
Yes but where are the 0.1 and 1% lows? That's where you really see the bad scheduling...
@@spaggtrait1608 That is true. Personally all my games have ran smoothly on my 13900K and 4090, so I anecdotally believe it's working fine.
@@soapa4279 I also have the 13900k and I am also not aware of any problems. Perhaps win11 is doing a good job.
wow the 7700x only gets 20821 at 5.4ghz, but the 13900k got 24231 at 5.8ghz that's 16.37% faster for team blue for anyone that wants to avoid ecores or chiplets on there CPU.
gets 23000 at 5.5 as well way less power usage only using 60-70w in games rn haha got ring at 5.0
This paltry MT performance with E cores disabled is why I went with the 7950x... I do work inside a VM, and VMware Workstation cannot use P & E cores at same time. You have to manually edit the .vmx file to disable E cores (or disable them in BIOS) to be able to use P cores at all in VMware, limiting the performance in CB to under 24K in a VM guest. On the other hand, the 7950X gets over 37K within a VM guest, nearly as good as the score when run on the host. Don't get me wrong, the 13900K is a great CPU in gaming and the vast majority of apps.
How much does it get outside VM Guest?
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer Outside of a VM, in CB23, my 7950x gets 38609 stock, 39262 with PBO all core Curve Optimizer set to -15, and if limited to 200W it gets 39009 with same PBO settings. Those scores are single run and a starting liquid temp of ~33c on my EVGA CLC 360 AIO. Using DDR5 6000 CL 30, default XMP profile of F5-6000J3040G32GA2-TZ5RK.
Im really impressed by your temps! My 13900K is running extremely hot with my h150i elite capellix... Which cooler do you use?
I use custom water cooling, you can't buy it off the shelf but full specification is in the description box
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer oh sheesh you got that mo- ra. Thats why you can push that cpu :D my system cant handle more that ~200Watts on the 13900K.
25W at idle, bit how much it was during cb23 test?
This looks promising. I have the MSI Z690 Unify and I plan to get the i9-13900K. But it's for a content creator build so gaming doesn't concern me.
i just built a i7 12700k pc 2 days before this launched i'd no idea lol, agh well its still way better than my old i9 9900k pc
I upgraded from the 9900ks to the 12900ks 2 months ago knowing the 13900k was coming out soon. No big deal both cpus are more than good enough.
@@jake..A i'd no idea i had kinda fell behind on the pc news scene, i'm still pretty happy though i game at 3440x1440p so the CPU isnt that big of a deal. i got a gen 4 m2 ssd as my boot drive compared to my old gen 3 ssd its much nicer. plus my new board has built in wifi and bluetooth. where as i used a crappy wifi adapter that was slow as a week in jail in my old pc. do you think its worth upgrading my RAM from 3000mhz to 3600mhz?
@@bigdaddywatt Not worth the ram upgrade. I use ddr5 6400mhz cl32 and from my ddr4 32000mhz cl14 it makes a big difference though.
@@jake..A i bought the ddr 4 version motherboard i'll spend my money on another gen 4 m2 ssd probably cheers
After finally having installed my 13900KS and testing for a while I‘m coming back to this. First we need to consider that ring clock can go 0.1 GHz higher with E-Cores off. I‘m running 5.8/5.2 at 1.295 V with E-cores off and 5.8/4.7/5.1 at 1.325 V with E-cores on. E-cores off is more efficient in gaming and has lower latency, but not all games prefer that. You also need to consider that some games like hyper-threading while others don‘t. Far Cry 6 works best with 8c8t while Hitman 3 takes everything it can get and runs best at 24c32t and difference shows especially in the lows and actually has an impact on the fluidity of the games even in 4K. If you really want the best experience in every game you‘d have to do a benchmark each time, capture the same time frame/scene with CapFrameX and analyze the different lows and the frame time graphs. I am gonna do that going forward and if anyone else is interested let me know so we can share the results!
What a great throwback seeing a Sarah Connor Chronicles wallpaper lol
Is the 13900KF better than the 13900K does it give more FPS? Looking at Passmark's Benchmarks it gives higher scores on both single and multi threads. How do those synthetics translate into gaming performance? Cheers.
That's a trade secret of Intel. The KS and the K are the best models. The KF models do not have a graphics chip built in/or turned off by Intel at the factory. The KF and the KS actually confuse people into thinking the KF is another performance model of chip. The KF can be as good, but don't expect better. The K and KS usually always will have better internal qualities, and get better overclocks and power usage than a KF. Not saying that a person cannot get lucky and get a good KF; the averages just don't support it as often. Just think of Intels grading system like this. KS is the dominate quality. The K models internals will not pass for a KS model, (which actually isn't that much of a difference in everyday performance) The KF is just below the K models standards. The KF just didn't make the cut for the KS or the K models, but are still able to achieve everything except a higher clock by Intel's standards.
Actual overclocks by users are generally always better than the factory standards for "turbo", provided the quality of cooling on the processor.
This whole E Core and P core design is confusing to me. Why in a desktop computer would I need "E" cores? Why not just have cores with Hyper Threading and call it a day? If I wanted to conserve energy I wouldn't use a desktop PC with a top of the line i9 processor.
It allows you to have the e-cores running the background task and the P-Cores doing all the heavy grunt work like Gaming, Rendering, ETC
I would say the main reason for E cores was Intel's response to AMD when they increased the core count dramatically. Intel right now isnt able to create 16P core cpu with very high freqs, you would not be able to cool it. So they right now trying to beat AMD in games by high ipc and freq with P cores, and in multi threaded apps with E cores. AFAIK e cores also have higher effiency. CPU effeincy curve isn't linear with frequency anyway. But don't afraid that AMD won't respond because they architecture scales very well. They could add another or two CCDs with lower freq to Ryzen 9, but I dont know why they didn't. This way they could beat the shit out of intel, however that would cut a big part from it's threadripper lineup. I think CPUs in the future will have differentl cores or at least different frequencies per core groups, because lets say you want 80K in cinebench multi with very high single core too. Youll never reach both, if cpu has only one type of cores/same frequency for all cores.
@@kurta999kurta666 Agreed according the rumors 15gen top SKU should be 8P cores and 32 little cores. Looking at this it becomes apparent why intel went down this path. The little core are also very friendly with die space so they can pack alot of them in. Further potential increases could be enabling Hyperthreading late down the line for the e cores to increase multicore performance even more.
well the e cores give more power and are efficient but the cpu still uses 500w and 4 e cores are as big as 1 p core but it helps, ryzen 7000 has better single core and multicore than intel 13000 and 12000 because single core is better and multi threading can have power as two cores per core on intel hyperthreading can have like 1.2 cores per core power
if the e cores work with the p cores its good but i dont buy intel because of a lot of reasons and 2 of them are higher price and very high electricity consumtion
You don't use max performance?
you have HT on ?
My Gigabyte 4090 is running about the same. Higher core clock though +240 at the moment. I'm actually peaking over my 800w psu if I go higher. I also kept the memory at 11818 for the stylish numbers lol... I think I can get it to yours though, not sure if it's worth the frames and the less stylish number.
Thanks for the look at the E core on and off. I still have a 10850k at 5.0 ghz and was considering whether to upgrade or not.
Nice video unfortunately my build is on hold until I get my EK CPU block it ships from Italy so it won't be here till October 31st at the earliest. So I'll just enjoy watching your videos until it arrives.
finally 😎
I haven't tested a 13th gen yet but on my sp 104 12900 ks @5.4 GHz all core and 5.1 ring e cores off vs on I was able to oc p cores 200 MHz higher with lower vcore vs e ckres on.
bf5 with 3090ti gave me peak 313 fps e cores off with e cores on 54 p cores 43 ring 43 e coes peak fps 269.
I have disabled them since day 1 so many games hit those slower cores and drop fps.
Do you get capped at 400fps? Been having an issue with my 4090 13900k Setup at 4k capping around then.
Why didn't you run Cinebench with the E cores enabled so we can see the difference?
That's not what this video was about, plus I did all those benchmarks in this previous video ruclips.net/video/G0D-1CSGlb0/видео.html
Nice, thank u for this
Nice rig you got there but the fact that you have gone for the highest end parts doesnt justify your tag... "bang for buck" is never going for the highest end parts. Mid range parts are considered bang for buck.
Bang4buckpc with an rtx4090 and i9-13900K....
In my opinion don't disable the E Cores ,if you see the timing you are 5.36 seconds behind , also if you see the frames drops, with E Cores Off ,is like 40fps low.
Does turning off e cores help OC p cores higher?
Its soo fast intel doesnt even need those efficiency cores.. in cinebench R23 its basically the same as 14600K with efficiency and perfornance cores enabled.
is it beneficial to turn the E cores off during gaming.
or at least use task manager affinity / process lasso to make the game only use the P cores ?
If your game is in focus, that is, the thing you are current tabbed into, it's running on the P-cores if you used Windows 11. When you alt-tab out it will shift to the E-cores, and then back when you tab back in.
I think you should have left the E cores on. I got 24328 with a 13600K. You should do great in R23 single thread or games. I'm at 4:15 so lets see what else you got.
That is a cute little score, watch thid video from 12:50 onwards. ruclips.net/video/RcLD5UPgIao/видео.html
Love this wallpaper, can you share it?
wall.alphacoders.com/big.php?i=586706
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer
Thx!
There really isn't any good reason to turn off e-cores in bios anymore. If some game does bad with e-cores you can resolve that with process lasso.
Asus has a bios setting for increasing the ring frequency further when the e-cores arnen't used but it's not really needed much anymore with raptor lake (since the cache clock just with with e-cores enabled and used).
code compilation, virtual machines
How’d you unlock voltage control on the 4090 man msi afterburner doesn’t let me do it on my suprim x
Under the settings tab in MSI Afterburner , make sure you check the box " unlock voltage control" ibb.co/qxgC0jy
It is better to disable Hyper Threading than e-cores
No need to disable any when the processor performs as well as it does
Does the cache/ring still overclock higher with E-cores disabled or did we hit a wall with what it can do with E-Cores enabled on the 13900K?
I know my chip does 5.1GHz with E cores enabled. Haven't tried to push it with them disabled, honestly though my 12900K could not get more than 4.3GHz stable on cache with E cores enabled, so that is a big step up.
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer I think it should‘ve been at around 4.8-5.0 with E-cores off on the 12900K. Maybe some other setting in the BIOS that would’ve needed adjustment? I‘m still on a 9700K with Asus board, so I don‘t have experience with that myself. Impressive how high the 13900K can go with E-cores on though.
@@ledooni if you are only going to game it is better to disable the E cores on the 12900k and turn up the ring 4.8-5.0, plus you will need a little less voltage to get to 5.2-5.5 ghz on the core and it would be about the same fps as the 13900k just gaming, it would be good to check if the ring ratio can be increased without the E cores and the core with the 13900k
@@Cora630 for me 12900k for 5.2 it required more than 1.4 volts...
Is it normal for a core i9 13900k rtx 4090 32 gd ddr5 6400 hz and 2tb m2 drive when I stres test on cinebench r23 get temps of 94-100 degree deep cool lt720 360 is my cooler have I done anything wrong ?( I haven’t undervolted) msiz790 tomahawk ddr5 motherboard and I got the h9 elite case
It is normal, these processors get very hot. You need really good cooling to prevent this.
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer I got a deep cool lt720 360 mm what do you suggest ! Thanks
Can you test this with warzone 2
Processor power?
It's in the video
How about a 13900k stock vs your OC.
App freezing when i run multicore so only single core i can test dunno why 13900k stock all z790ace
To see the efficiency of the "Efficiency Cores" you need a game benchmark that is NOT using DirectX11 (which is mostly single-threaded). Try Vulkan or DirectX 12 games next time :)
I wonder if disabling the e cores hurts performance in any games, because I’m reading that it does in some but not in others.
Anything that uses Vulkan or DirectX12 basically...
So you seem to get a little bit better preformance with the E Cores off. That's interesting
my cinebench is 39200 with the E-cores on
@@KuramaKitsune1 That's what I was thinking. My 13700K gets 31400 in R23. That's with 5.4ghz and DDR4 3600mhz ram. My 360AIO isn't going to allow much more than 5.5Ghz overclock. But I was able to drop 15C by leaving the speed at 5.4 and taking the core voltage down to 1.25V in bios.
Really weird the stock power consumption was around 25w on idle (although I guess the screen recording software take a shot on that)
The screen is being recorded by a separate PC. so that was basically Idle
I find it stupid that Intel would put an E-Core in a desktop also it’s where you don’t have to worry about battery life. This is why AMD CPU is better but even a their Mobile cpu is just as efficient thanks to 5/4nm process while intel still stuck at 10nm or I heard that P-Cores still stuck at 14nm
Has anybody done this with the i7-13700?
I think buldzoid mentioned that if you disable e core's then avx works
For Alderlake yes, but it shouldn't be possible with Raptor lake
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer oh I see
Ever think about doing a 7900x + 7900xtx vs 13900k + 4090 where both systems are OCed/tweaked for max FPS? Most people going for 1% systems dabble in at least system tweaks.
My 6 core 12 thread R5 5600x only just hits 12000.
My laptop gaming ryzen 7 4800h with GTX 1650 12550 on cinebench
@@FBL9982 cinebench 23?
@@Chuckclc yes💪
@@Chuckclc and Amazing battery ... 9 hour , with Linux + 3 hours battery
@@FBL9982 nice. I now have a 5800x3d. Hits 15200
No performance difference.
River Tam is very pretty XD
@@ar_3083 You mean Summer Glau
@@Bang4BuckPCGamer River freaking Tam ;p
so 2E cores = 1P core
if intel did make same stuff as was in 9x generation i'd prefer take stuff without e-cores and ht. as i did and took 9700k instead 9900k. but now when 13700k use same ht and just less e-cores and frequency and cache, i don't see any sense to take i7 instead i9... i think best of the best for gamers it's create i7 without ht and e-cores but with faster p-cores + a little bit more cache... but if any chance to use something else except games so probably that's e-cores and ht very good... in any way this ht don't make it worst, just useless for games... and this is first generation from 2008 year i don't care about oc so far, and probably will not till next upgrade in 2026 or so on.... but as we can see in the video. more powerful settings use more memory, so probably all i said is crap of mice
a ac unity test please