Core Parking On The 7950X3D, Explained! 

These are SO much better than performance videos. There’s hundreds of performance review channels… so few do these explanation videos

We are talking about The All-knowing Wendell

@@tst6735 THE neuro-atypical Wendell

If he doesn't type out his points in notepad on screen i don't believe him TBH

Exactly. And where do we know reviews from x tubers turn to when they tech support? Ding, ding, ding! To Wendell.

I still dont know at what rate or when other tasks are pushed to the chiplet.

Core parking conjures up a negative feeling for some gamers. mostly because Bulldozer core parking would make an 8 core CPU appear to run better or worse in a super case by case way. Toss into the mix the sheer number of Windows 7 and 8 pirates who never updated to the Bulldozer friendly new Scheduler so their default assumption is its still broken / breaking their games.

@@jetrpg22 What wendel seems to like about AMDs current implementation, is that no tasks are ever pushed to one chiplet or another. All games/apps are free to use the "entire" system if they so choose. However it's windows and the scheduler (and I guess the chipset drivers?) that will determine how "big" the entire system is, ie. how many cores to keep parked. The metrics right now seem to be if an app uses less than 8cores (1CCD) then it will keep the other CCD entirely parked. Which CCD is parked is set via gamebar and perhaps the system setting of prefer cache vs frequency. However once an app asks for more than 8 cores, then the system will be forced to wake up the other CCD and both will be available. But that is a very user hands off approach (compared to say affinity) so if you wanted to run two separate apps, each on their own CCD, you can't really do that unless one of the apps launches more than 16threads. And even then, without affinity, once the entire system (both ccds) are awake/unparked, you have no control over what app runs where and when. So in some ways it's less elegant and more crude. But surprisingly effective in a large majority of scenarios.

Yes and no. Intel and Microsoft had to work together to make the scheduler work correctly for the hybrid parts. And frankly there are still issues or you'd be able to have AVX-512 enabled for 12th and 13th gen Intel parts. Microsoft isn't under any obligation to optimize performance for AMD's Vcache parts. And this is where AMD has in the past fallen behind Intel and Nvidia. Nvidia for instance has more SOFTWARE ENGINEERS than AMD has in their entire Radeon division. This is also why Nvidia GPUs tend to work better, with less problems. The same has been true with the Intel vs. AMD situation. Intel has more software engineers than AMD. It's why THEY could come out with a 1st gen GPU that uses AI for XeSS. So this is also on AMD, AMD IS getting better at getting more software engineers on their teams because they KNOW these parts are becoming ever more complex and you can't keep pushing these problems off on other companies to deal with. Microsoft isn't a black box to these hardware companies. They can get access to the software they need to do the development they need to do, and Microsoft can HELP, but it's not on Microsoft to do all this work.

@@johndoh5182 Yep, this really is a almost bulldozer level issue. I mean its not that bad because it works, but the solution so far seems so crude. And maybe i am wrong but i keep seeing people saying well if need it will un park them.... But i have not seen someone play a game start up YT, record, and something else and what cores are doing said work. If they are using the vcache cores, thats bad. I guess the good part is windows and system firmware updates could fix this or expand use later but still in its current form its just not good. I WANTED to go AMD for the 2nd time... Atm i will go intel because their solution works (maybe a 7900x if the price tanks with the x3d). The 7800x3d is a different story so ill wait for it and i do like the idea of it (even if id rather prefer more cores, i like cores, because when i bought my bother's 3xxx and my 4790k) people were saying really single core maybe duo is all you need. But today my brother is still playing modern wow on his 3xxx and my niece is using my 4790k (they are oc'ed and all that jazz). But still 8 cores is enough but even then 6-10 years it will suffer vs a 12+ core machine.

@@johndoh5182 That AVX512 problem came from software trying to use all cores for AVX-512. The E-cores lack of AVX512 in Alderlake was the main problem. It had nothing to do with the scheduler. That was a software problem. No the reason why Nvidia has better software is having a bigger market makes it easy to get volume of different system setups. size of software department has nothing to do with talent inside of it either, it's still about volume.

@@johndoh5182 Odd, I have had more problems with Nvidia software than AMD. Those engineers were often employed to do dumb things like add massive tesselation to games to win on benchmarks. When you're running a mix of softare, some using older APIs and continue using older hardware Nvidia are a massive PITA, their effort is put into the latest releases and Jensen's goals to rule the metaverse. I've lost so much time due to bad practices by Nvidia, which are a matter of deliberate policy. An example is features missing from the WHQL drivers, so when support is dropped by them, you lose functionality provided in Experience. Another example trick Nvidia used was to punt scheduling from the GPU onto the unused cores of CPUs, that allowed the GPU to borrow power budget from the CPU and score higher. The trouble with that is, it is troublesome for async compute and when that CPU roundtrips cannot match hardware scheduling, then you have games that a heapened to do stream decompression on a heap of cores while the console the game was developed on had a decompression engine built into its disk management silicon. Of course if you're into the latest game releases, your best option is Sony Playstation or Xbox , but if you are on PC then Nvidia are better tested on release because they're the market leader. Want to carry on using that 1080ti or play old classic games then you may well discover that bitrot is a characteristic feature of Nvidia, you MIGHT find time consuming work rounds for the API they aren't interested in anymore.

The scheduler is MS's, but MS need strategies to deal with high core count CPUs, otherwise they'll be relegated to containers running in virtual machines, like in many server deployments. There was always a problem of threads core bouncing, you really don't want to evict a thread from the primed L1 & L2 cache they're using, but Windows appeared to like mixing it up, while the high boost ST is reasonable to migrate to a cooler 2nd core, you really don't want to do that when thermals are not constraining things. Fundamentally having CCX's with different properties and cache sizes is a coming problem that MS needs answers for. I can imagine having 4 power efficient but slower cores intended for OS tasks and assisting drivers, integrated into the IOD. They'd be like the ARM little cores in phones or the original design intent of Intel's Atom cores, where not waking up main cores, but doing light processing at lower frequency could benefit the overal design. In future something like the Zen2 compact 4 CCX block, might have a compact variant on a cheaper process node, than the main flagship cores intended to run applications and heavier tasks.

Factorio absolutely VORES that cache

@@GewelReal Vore me daddy

Hardware unboxed tends to include factorio in there cpu reviews. Check there review.

AMD esta triste jajaja y Intel es mejor bestia brutal!!

Why have you chosen it over a regular 7950X or the upcoming 7800X3D?

@@Anankin12 I like the energy efficiency that it has as well as the extra cores. I'm upgrading from a 5900X

The issue i am having is, what trips this. So far i haven't seen a video of someone running chrome with a yt video, recording, and say discord, while playing a game and looking at app and core behavior. If all those run on vcache cores, until its like nearing 80-90% use, thats not good. You are going to have negative effect from this... still any current issues could be improved via windows and other updates so there is a lot of room for improvement.

@@jetrpg22 I don't know if the following is the case (especially given how kludgy the current Windows workarounds are), but the information that really needs to be collected (if it even can be, since collecting this info is very nontrivial) in order to make good scheduling decisions about mapping threads to V-Cache cores versus ordinary cores (including the important case you mention, that is, thinking twice before switching a thread to a different core complex for no justifiable reason) - includes how big the memory space is that is referenced by the set of threads that comprise each process, relative to the putative L2+L3 cache size is (for a given proposed mapping), along with the level of locality of memory reference (as opposed to its opposite namely scatteredness of memory reference), as well as the CPU-usage intensity cumulative over the threads comprising each process (i.e., do these threads cumulatively want to consume all available CPU cycles), plus the CPU-usage intensity of each of the latter threads comprising a given process. Even if you had all the above info at your fingertips, you (in the role of a scheduler) would have a hard time making optimal scheduling decisions. An algorithm to do so is very non-trivial (and I have some historical expertise in this area from which to compare, having contributed to a classical scheduler that was the best of its era, and knowing how much simpler the requirements were back then versus the mess of a scheduling problem we face now, given that Intel has contributed one axis of hybridity to the scheduling problem via its Apple-like E-cores and P-cores, while AMD has just now contributed an orthogonal axis of hybridity to the scheduling problem via its normal-cache-cores versus big-cache-cores). Short of a beautiful clean scheduling algorithm for what we have to deal with these days, one can at least state some general rules of thumb. First, per @jetrpg22, don't switch a thread from a normal-cache-core to a big-cache-core for no good reason - you would do so only for the betterment of all threads. Currently, the latter rule in the context of X3D CPUs is equivalent to saying don't switch to a different core complex for no good reason; but this could be even more complicated if a future CPU has 3 core complexes with a mix of 3D V-Cache or not. Second, at a high level, your goal is to give the big-cache-cores (on a core complex containing 3D V-Cache) to those threads of those processes that would benefit the most from having the massive amount of L2+L3 cache available to them. This leads to two obvious cases and one non-obvious contra-case. In a thread within a process that has a large amount of memory being accessed, and furthermore this thread is itself using a large chunk of available CPU, it is beneficial to put that thread on a big-cache core residing in the core complex that has 3D V-Cache. Especially if there's sufficient locality of memory reference, the massive L3 cache (plus sizable L2 cache) will hopefully make it such that most memory references are L3 cache hits, with a fairly large chunk of those actually being L2 cache hits, and only in the worst case do you have to load from memory. In DDR5 memory that's a huge speedup - a cache hit versus a memory access. It could as much as triple the effective CPU speed over memory-only accesses. The second case is not so much when memory is huge, but rather when memory accessed is sufficiently small such that all memory fits into L3 cache. That's even better actually. You might also say that you should put the sister threads of that process onto the same core complex - if possible. But counter-intuitively, in some cases - namely sister threads that, say, only run one millisecond out of every second - might best be put elsewhere (to make room for threads from some other process) since they execute so few instructions that that they macht nichs). In general, the rule is to keep sister threads together on the same core complex if you can, but don't worry about that for threads that are mostly idle - you're generally better off putting those elsewhere if their slot can be producticely used in some thread in some other CPU-intense process. You can see how complex this scheduling decision process "should be" if done right. And ideally, you want to know what the cache hit rate would be for each thread under the two alternate scenarios of putting the thread on one of the big-cache cores vs one of the normal-cache cores - along with how much CPU that thread uses in general. For dealing with the hybridity of Intel big.LITTLE cores, Intel has added useful data collection features to help out the Windows scheduler. I don't know whether AMD has (or has not) added the required data collection features (such as memory sizes and cache hit rates and whether a thread is a big CPU consumer or not). If they haven't added these features, they should do so in their next iteration of 3D V-Cache CPUs.

Windows sometimes drives me up the wall, motivated parkour.

@@MusicChann3l I got mine. Smooth sailing from here.

Its still not. This didnt answered or show really how or when unparking is occurring for non-game apps in the background.

there is already a video on the level1linux channel where he discusses that the latest beta kernel already works mostly fine with the 7xx0X3D CPUs.

@@thetj8243 and Benjamin Lynch, this makes sense to me - I would expect the Linux engineers to probably have better abilities to properly address the scheduling issues here, and the Microsoft engineers to probably be somewhat less facile at this task. This is on the (almost certainly true) assumption that Dave Cutler no longer leads this team at Microsoft. Where's Dave when you really need him (lol)? Since lots of people play games on Windows, it might be that the existing solution approaches in Windows (as so excellently explained by Wendell) are sufficient to solve the complex Windows scheduling issues presented by what amounts to the hybrid-but-different-type-of-hybrid-than-Intel architecture of the AMD 7900X3D and 7950X3D chips, at least on systems mostly used for gaming. The advantage that gamers have (that implies that the current "partial Windows solution to the X3D scheduling problem" is probably good enough for gamers) is that when you're actually playing a game currently, your focus is pretty much completely on the game. Sure there's a few system kernel threads that have to run at the same time, but you're not likely to be streaming RU-vid and TikTok videos at the same time. Admittedly, the stuff Wendell describes here is a gigantic kludge. But it's a kludge that is likely to kinda-sorta work for gamers at least. On the other hand, if you're not gaming but running a host of simultaneous productivity applications that all need lots of threads and lots of memory, I'm betting that the beta Linux scheduler might do a better job. For those folks, gamers or otherwise, who are committed (or stuck) using Windows, and who would like to use an X3D AMD CPU in their next system build, I'd recommend the following decision matrix. If money is no object, go ahead and buy the 7950X3D. By saying money is no object, what you're really saying is that I can afford the delta cost of a 7950X3D over a 7900X3d to get the delta +4 (=16) cores over the 7900X3D part just for those cases where I really need the extra CPU horsepower, and especially for those cases where I have 8 cores (16 threads) using lots of memory that can benefit from the 3D V-Cache to increase the cache hit rate markedly, while having say 8 other cores (16 threads) worth of work that can comfortably run on the other core complex without the 3D V-Cache. Hopefully the core parking and other crazy features will make pretty good scheduling decisions for the borderline cases. This scenario it tantamount to buying the Chevy Suburban because occasionally you need to haul around your kids basketball team, even though most of the time you're just driving a family of four. For the person who wants a very high-end system but chokes on the extra delta cost of a 7950X3D over the 7900X3D, consider buying the 7900X3D. The advantage of that CPU part is that whenever it does have to park cores (cuz it judges it better to do so, which may or may not have been a good decision, but hey, Windows is at least trying its best), it's only "wasting" (by parking) a max of 4 cores typically (8 threads). In other words, the only money you wasted (and only in those rare scenarios where such a waste is actually most likely to yield better performance on that task mix) is the delta cost of the 7900X3D over the cost of the 7800X3D (which has 8 cores instead of 12 cores). This leaves the option of buying the 7800X3D to many buyers that want to save a substantial couple hundred dollars on the CPU part of their system cost. My guess is that about half or more of customers fall into this bucket. For most gamers in particular, they might be better off spending that extra cash on a better GPU. A 7800X3D plus a 4090 or a 7900XT is probably going to game better than a 7900X3D with a 4080, for instance. Clearly, the reason AMD is delaying the release of the 7800X3D a couple months just to incentivize those customers that are thinking seriously about a 7900X3D or a 7950X3D to pull the trigger on that rather than waiting for the 7800X3D to arrive. Finally, for the buyer that wants 3D V-Cache on the cheap, with no wait, there's always the 5800X3D with the advantage of a cheaper motherboard and cheaper memory.

I have the same chipset driver version but my 7950X3D cores are still parking properly.

@BenjaminRay Yeah, initially, it didn't seem like they were parking in the same behavior, but after several runs it seems they are.

First off love this comment, so few are mentioning this. Second i agree AMD really pulled a fast one not listing clock speed per CCD, I was hoping they had fixed the extra cache slowing max clocks, but the frequency on the 7800X3D killed that dream. "The Vcache CCDs aren't running faster JUST BECAUSE there's another CCD. It CAN'T."

@@chainingsolid I still have yet to see anyone having background apps run naturally on the non vcache side without an affinity mask. I dont think they do, unless Ts thinks vcache cores are mostly loaded... but thats a bad thing, because that means you continually load up your game cores with background shit until it gets bad.

yeah im super curious how the 7900x3d performs since it has only 6 cores of 3d cache. Really disappointed that amd didnt seed any to reviewers for launch day coverage

@@TheTechhX According to some of the reviews I watched, AMD wasn't sampling anything other than the 7950X3D to reviewers, meaning the reviewers will have to buy the part themselves now that it is released to test it. Reviews should come in a couple of days once they've had time to benchmark everything. I can only speculate why AMD chose to only sample the 7950X3D to reviewers; best case scenario is they wanted to put their best foot forward and wanted to maintain as high consumer stock as they could on both parts while doing so. It could also be that the 7900X3D performs almost identically to the 7950X3D in most workloads (but certainly not production/extremely core heavy workloads) and they were concerned that the reviews would cause sales of the 7950X3D to be cannibalized by their lower margin part. This is what I'm betting on, as I've already ordered a 7900X3D to finish up my newest computer build once it and the GPU arrive. Worst case scenario is the 7900X3D has serious performance problems compared to the 7950X3D due to the four less threads on the CCD with the extra L3 cache, requiring most workloads to utilize both at the same time. Considering how this is a problem with every multi-CCD Zen processor (latency communicating between cores) and most workloads have the 7900X similar to the 7950X, I'm doubtful that this is the reason, but there's always the possibility that the heterogeneous core design causes even more disparity between utilizing one CCD versus both in any particular workload... Again, this seems unlikely given the multicore performance of the 7950X3D versus the 7950X, but there's always the possibility of Murphy's Law coming into effect and that the lack of enough threads on the CCD with the L3 cache becomes an issue for the cheaper part.

Welp, there it is. All I could hear the entire video through was parkour.

lol

yes, and you can script it so this "always" happens. Or a utility like process lasso can totally do this for you.

@@Level1Techs This is really helpful! Thank you so much! here is my conclusion on the 7950X3D: Everyone seems to say that 7950X3D is a more expensive 7800X3D, but for 250$ more you get all the productivity performance and if you are willing to play around in your system and optimize scheduler per game basis you could end up getting the best of both world. So basically 7950X3D is like having a 7800X3D and a 7700X together but "binned" so you get a slightly better CCDs for both. At the end of the day, 7800X3D will be a plug and play, great gaming experience for most games, 7950X3D will be for advanced mixed users who have the budget and like to tweak thing for a slightly better performance.

@@Level1Techs Thats the Thing. As far as i can tell no Reviewer did test this or tell ppl this or make Charts for this with and with out X3D. All Charts i see are always only the 7950X3D but only the X3D Part of the CPU is tested. No one testet the 7950X3D with the none V Cache CCD. I have seen some Tests where Reviwers did also Test an normal 7950X besides the 7950X3D and tell ppl that it is better than the 7950X3D in some Cases. But that doesnt make any Sense to me at all (maybe a few FPS sure but not a few %). While its correct in Theorie... when you make Tests and an out of the Box Experience... i think it should very well be highlighted that you can also just get the same Performance always on the 7950X3D compared to the 7950X. I know its unfair to Rant (i am not so sorry if that sounds like i am) and very much Work but it seemed like no one really cared to even test this Theorie to tell ppl... look, if you have an 7950X3D you basically can also have the same FPS as an 7950X. At least ONE TEST to prove the Point would be nice. Because honestly now it seems everyone is kinda biased and against AMD because there should never be the Case where the 7950X3D is (Way) worse than the 7950X. If it is it should be solved since its basically just an 7800X3D and an 7800X. What i heard from every Review is that you should 100% wait a Month for the 7800X3D. No Question about it. And thats somethin i honestly think is unfair in a Way towards AMD and the Consumer who thinks the 7800X3D will always be the better choice against the 7950X3D. And thats simply not the Case. There are Games out there where the 7950X3D will be the better Choice because you can just force the none V Cache to do the work. With the 7800X3D there is no such Choice. Of corse i get that the 7800X3D is Way cheaper and also almost no Difference will be in most Games. But still i think that it just is not the whole Story. Just because 98% of ppl wont care and know... There are some who want the best of the best and them telling the 7800X3D will be even bit better seems... strange. When you could tell them, look it depends on so many Things. (Sorry for so much Text and maybe its not 100% Clear either what i meant. English isnt my main Language. Also again i am not mad against any Reviewer but i just feel like everyone was missing that. If i am wrong just say so. I might be not getting it)

@@slimmkawar9780 Oh. I just wrote a similar Thought. Well, thanks. lol. Yeah, i too think its strange no one pointed that out. Its like everyone thinks the X3D Part will always be the best Choice for Games which isnt the Case and there is a good Chance that the Scheduler improves as Time goes by and that at some Point we dont need to mess around anything anymore but the 7950X3D just automatically knows whats better to use. the CCD with the 7800X3D or the 7700X. Right now it seems kinda bugged if i am totally honest. Not really but you get the Idea what i mean.

Same thing for a user friendly GPU override.

AFAIK Bergamo will be simply lots and lots of dense zen4c cores. No heterogeneous mixing there that need to be handled, so I don't see how this applies?! I'd also guess the primary OS the main target customer base will use with those parts is not desktop Windows.

Same waiting mine tomorriw

Say goodbye to your life

I have to ask, have you slept yet? 😜

@@ripgfa lol

@@optiquest86 No, not yet 🙂

There's something called CPPC "preferred cores", which tells Windows which cores are the highest performing. In normal use, the second CCD is used more often.

@@Aashishkebab CPPC doesn't work across CCDs, it is working inside a CCD, all those cores ratings are specific per CCD when they are created and evaluated at the factory level. But maybe they did something like instructing OS to use CCD2 as the main CCD with that driver.

@@andreiga76 I'm guessing you don't have one. If you look in BIOS with the latest update, you can specify the CPPC to prefer cache, frequency, or driver/auto.

In that case, at least on Intel, there is a thing you can do: disable the other cores from BIOS. Well, not the best, but you can maximize your performance that way.

Is this a denuvo thing?

@@BBWahoo Not, sure, you can try it with Task Manager directly and see if loads move to the cores you select.

this is amd's solution for now. i'm guessing that in time they could make it work with bios/windows/amd driver updates and without the gamebar but who knows. 1st generation products are always overcomplicated and may not always work properly

if you don't know what is causing something from your own past experience, then the direction you can turn to are Profilers like Intel Vtune and AMD uprof. these are the same tools that Software Engineers use to profile their own Software. you can get all the data you could ever need out of the CPU to see exactly what it is doing and ergo what the bottleneck is. if it's Anti-Cheat protected games though, then you're kinda out of luck if you don't have the experience to know yourself, since you probably can't hook there Profilers to those games (without getting banned, atleast).

@@taiiat0 so I've tried AMDs profiler. It only does processes, and I tested it on a game, specifically VRChat and it won't even show the process for the game when I run it as aministrator. Idk what's going on but this is driving me crazy.

@@nathantron hmm i don't think VR should make a Process special, and i'm pretty sure VRchat doesn't have Anti-Cheat... past that, beats me, sorry. i don't have any experience using AMDs' tool.

@@taiiat0 I didn't think so either. I tried it in VR mode and Desktop mode. It's so weird, but the game has an issue where it grinds to a hault when anything avatar related is loaded. I even moved the avatar cache folder to ram and it didn't help at all.

Its more like they dont explain it as everyone would fall asleep

@@malborboss xD

One of them is parked, okay he didnt say otherwise. That is what the gamebar does. Now if you go to a hiogh load on those cores it will unpark and move process to the other CCD, that not a great thing. It better than not having any more cpu left. But it also means you are now moving processes from the CCD you want to the one you dont, and they can be game processes.

@@jetrpg22 you are part of the problem. you do not understand what I said or what he said and you're just spewing bs

The thing is, the 7800X3D is basically the same as a 7950X3D in gaming. So it's actually better overall, unless you absolutely need 16 cores, or unless you want to do heavy workloads while gaming. You basically only gain productivity performance with the 7950, which is what hurts its value a bit. You don't really want a situation where in gaming you have all 8 cores on the VCACHE to be in use + 2 cores not on the VCACHE, because then the other cores will not really have the benefit of VCACHE, so they'll be slowed down some. That's why the 7800X3D is better, you will never get that scenario. Games also aren't all that multithreaded to begin with. Even if a game uses 8 cores, it can only do so much with them, usually underutilizing some cores.

​@@peoplez129You're missing the point of the 7950x3d. I said in my original comment I need more than 8 cores for work, but also wanted 3d vcache for gaming. So explain to me how the 7800x3d is better for my use case? You just rambled on about how the 7800x3d is better for gaming. And nobody is saying that it doesn't make more sense if you're just gaming. But I'll remind you yet again that I'm not just gaming.

I believe you are correct with everything except for one important thing. AMD's software only changes which cores get parked with the selector. So, it would be interesting to see what would happen when the setting is set to park the cache cores, but the game has a manual affinity set to only the cache cores. I have a hypothesis that the game would suffer from major stuttering.

@@mattparker7568 AMD's software doesn't change which cores get parked. It changes from the Windows default of "no cores can park" to "up to half of cores can park". Windows always parks the higher numbered cores first, and AMD numbers the cores from 0-7 on the cache CCD and 8-15 on the frequency CCD. See the slides from AMD in Techpowerup's review, and the Microsoft documentation on Processor Power Management Options.

@@Vegemeister1 Thank you for the information.

100% it will move your games to the non vcache cores currently. If it was working otherwise, they wouldnt need to park at all. This is a dumb solution where windows/xboxbar sees a game and says, "game". Then it parks the non vcache CCd (or vcache CCD if it sees a game that it knows likes hz). If it was smart like intels you could just keep all of them unparked and push most non game process to the desired CCD (like intel typically does with E cores). More so you have to shift these processes and shifting cores is bad for lows (you get jumps).

Well a 7700x and 7800x3d glued together, but yes you get the idea ;)

Its bad in its current iteration tho, and maybe this is due to the poor Task scheduler performance, but its bad. Because unlike with intels E cores (which are lame but do work) You arent off loading non game processes to the 7700x ccd part of the chip. Instead, its all on the selected core (typically 7800x3d part , or the vcache part), unless it its super full then it unparks the other CCD (7700x ) for current processes. It unparks them for not just the background process, but all process, INCLUDING THE GAME PROCESSES. Thus, you can now have your game running on the 7700x if you have a lot running, or if say its 6-8 years from now and well you need both CCD's to keep up with the current gen games. But intel isnt much different in its poor long term prospects, with a max of 8 P cores. Because say in 6-8 years it could leverage 12 p cores.. well there is no 12 p core option. This is why a 7900x isnt the worst option if you are looking long term (but really long term like i said 6+ years). I would wait for the 7800x3d to drop if the 7900x price drops a good amount its not a bad long term option, high hz (still matter) 12 full cores.

@@jetrpg22 Intel’s iteration was horrible with the 12000 series as well. The e-cores were Intel’s poor excuse to counter AMDs higher core counts. Some games wouldn’t even run because the DRM didn’t know what the e-cores were. Thankfully Intel and Microsoft fixed those issues. AMD will also fix those issues without a doubt. Ironically Intel did the initial legwork. Honestly though, I think AMDs solution has much better potential compared to intel. Intel is packing weaker cores that will always be weak when compared to their power cores, but AMD has cores that are both powerful but optimized for different workloads. AMD still has a ways to go but they’ll get there eventually. Imagine a world, which is kind of already here, where the windows scheduler perfectly parses out a gaming task and a production task and directs them to the right CCXs. For example, a streamer who is using OBS with the production cores and playing a game with the x3D cores. That would be amazing since they would get the best of both worlds. I know you were discussing long term prospects but I believe you missed out a huge factor in AMDs AM5 platform, and that is its amazing longevity. You can hop onto any of their current CPUs, and easily sway it with a better one further down the line. It’s trivial just how easy it is to do so, especially since AM5 CPUs are LGA now.

@@greensleeves8095 Well i mis-clicked and lost it all. Anyway, Intels e cores are lame, but thats a design issue. The solution is better (on chip scheduler and current algs). AMD isnt saying they will get 7xxx3d to work this way. But i think the possibility is there with Xbar, even with this being a really crappy way of doing this. Intel only having 8 p cores means 7900x, and higher, has better longevity anyway. Odd in that while 7800x3d will probably appear to be the best option today BY FAR. The 7900x3d with its extra full cores means in 5-6 years its going to smoke the 7800x3d. This also means the 13700k is probably the better option than the 7800x3d, price depending, regarding longer term and current performance. The socket point is a good one.

This is basicly making me think all the time and im glad that im not the only one who thinks about this.

Yes, this is how it currently works. And whythe "if it needs to unpack it will" narrative isnt exactly helpful. Unless this info is also being included. Its a bad solution. The solution works now. But by 2029 and your cpu is the bottleneck, its a bad solution. But because this is mostly a software issue, it may not be an issue by then at all. And work like intels P cores vs E cores (but even a bit better).

There's a BIOS version of the scheduler which does something like that.

@@spankeyfish the BIOS has nothing to do with the scheduler in Windows apart from maybe providing some information to it.

I tried this while driving and ended up parking my car into a wall.

But they arent wrong. Intel is already doing this, however. And has been.