per the HCL the AMD(socket am4) seems to not wake-up from suspend, whereas the i7-11700 (also on the list, LGA1200) seems to have no such issue.
the AMD looks to be a better value for CPU Mark, but I hesitate to buy if down the road, the Intel are going to present less future issues with compatibility / suspend /etc
my system says it will support TDP 65W and I note the i9 is listed as TDP 125W , I’m not sure an i9 is a good idea, or would be able to use it to its design?
What are you looking to use it for? I’ve got an AMD SFF box (Ryzen 7 5800U) and, while it doesn’t suspend, that doesn’t particularly bother me - I shut it down when not in use.
I would think an i9, that far over rated TDP, would be heavily throttled and pretty much worthless. You’re not even gaining much over the i7 - it consumes more power, but isn’t much faster in terms of peak clocks.
In terms of “general compatibility and usability,” I think the Intel box is less likely to present weird issues - and if you care about suspend, that’s pretty much your option. That said, my AMD box works fine as a machine - I have no trouble with it, I just can’t suspend/resume it, and Intel has been more than a bit concerning in how little they seem to understand the core of their microarchitectural vulnerabilities.
This is confirmation that my choice now between AMD vs Intel I didn’t choose wrong with Intel despite their ME as AMD has the same security and privacy vulnerabilities but at least there is slightly more hope with Intel right now in attempting mitigation of such ongoing exploits many chips are currently weak in
I have two different computers where Suspend works when the memory is set to the normal speed, but doesn’t work when set to XMP. I’ve see other people make the same comment using differing OS’s too. I don’t know why this could occur (and not always).
It’s good to consider latter upgrades, so that may help narrow socket choices. The number of hard drives, if any, would help determine the case/motherboard size (mini-ITX in a shoebox, for example).
out of curiousity, if one buys something like late generation 8 e-cores, 8 p-cores, 24 threads (like an i7-13700 LGA1151) , will the e-cores or threads be used. OR is it just a waste of money ?
The E-cores will be used, but you only get 16 threads, with the default settings. Hyper-threading is disabled for security reasons, which is why you lose 8 threads.
Hyper-threads does not have the same performance as cores, in terms of performance you lose around 15% at max load.
CPU Pinning Alder Lake talks about VM pinning and the P/E core heterogeneous compute CPUs. It sounds like it’s complicated, but can be done (with reasonable user control over what’s where) if you want to take the time to set things up.
Pinning may offer a speed benefit at this point, but on the order of percentage points not magnitude (the link posted above goes in more detail). And what cores to pin to what for the maximum gain and how does that change over time, even if just a single session? I have an LGA1700 i9-14900K on a Qubes OS system and went about it, but bagged it as too much work for too little gain.
When reading many other posts on CPU pinning I was surprised to learn Windows HyperV doesn’t use e-cores, so may using that software disable all e-cores in the BIOS. That’s quite a waste when an i9-14900K has 8 p-cores capable of multi-threading and 16 e-cores without multi-threading.
OK, now what if with 8 p-cores and 8 e-cores one engages
smt=on sched-gran=core in grub/xen ; I’ve been told “the 8 cores won’t be used” ; so does it still end up as 16 threads?
And what about the cpus with 8 p-cores and 16 e-cores, does that end up as 24 threads? (I’ve been told this asymmetry, means that the “smt=on, etc” “won’t work” )
sorry, I’m not an advanced tech asker
PS: I’m not sure I understand cpu pin -ing, I see a choice of how many Vcpus but nothing else. (maybe it only appears with e/p cores cpu’s?)
