Intel Core Ultra Gen 1

[ShrimpBrime]

It's out now for purchase. 

8P-cores 16-little cores (285K).
Did note 7Ghz P-core submissions under LN2 so far.
HT has been severed like a head (Halloween joke).
E-cores gained some performance. New platform and more pins. 
Memory department will be an interesting trait. Only seeing up to 3800Mhz so far.

And looks like an unfinished product as you may read elsewhere. Minimal testing before release.
Reports on reviews pre-release talking about not doing as well FPS gaming department.
Also seen a few places announcing instability. Of course this is a fresh launch, but should had been tweaked better.
Pricing is 650$ for a 285K, which is said to be slower than previous counter parts both from Intel themselves and AMD.
Looking at comparison for myself, from a 14700K to a 265K is not worth a teardown and rebuild (If I where to use a case)

Hopefully in time the New Core Ultra product will get better with some patches, ME updates and windows updates too. 
Or maybe Core Ultra Gen 2 will have better products with some actual performance gains, both in Performance cores and Gaming.

Quick, someone throw money at 265K and test it so I can have some comparison figures!! Cause I'm not spending money on this platform. 9950X looks really good right now.

[Aleslammer]

Looking at some 245K subs, seeing some 4.2K RAM using cascade on the CPU, 245K looking good in more than few benches, but would like to see some ambient scores.
MB prices for entry level look good, Asus Apex and Hero on Newegg at the $700 mark, give or take a little.
Be awhile before I drop a dime on the platform.
Added:
Real good mem scores being posted now on the Bot, 265KF took top spot, though LN2 on the RAM.

[georgekokovinis]

On a more general approach.

Be it Intel or Amd, things have rather topped out.

I can't observe any significant improvements for real life work. Benchmarks may or may not show some small improvements here and there.

I, certainly, will not be one of those that will drop $$$ to something that seems to carry more problems than solutions.

[MachineLearning]

Oct 24, 2024 18:30:16 GMT -5 ShrimpBrime said:

Quick, someone throw money at 265K and test it so I can have some comparison figures!! Cause I'm not spending money on this platform. 9950X looks really good right now.

Maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but TPU has their reviews for 285K / 265K / 245K live right now.

[ShrimpBrime]

Yep, I've read all of them actually.

Gonna stick to 14700K, it clobbers Core Ultra in all the areas I want it too. I don't need CBR23 type benchmarks and I don't do any PC work that requires a cpu like that. I have enough e-cores already and would prefer HT on my Performance cores.

The W11 24H2 gaming benchmarks look really bad. Some showing as low as Ryen 3000 series performance. I'm sure this will get worked out, but doesn't look good on release launches.

I'm not even certain these are viable for competitive benchmarking 3D unless it's all old DX9 benchmarks that use less than 8 threads. So basically 3DMark06 and lower, should do OK. Don't see any 8Ghz chips though, so might not even be good for that.

I expected disappointment long ago when announcing dropping HT. Dumb mistake. They should stick to traditional desktop design. 1 sized cores with HT at high frequency. IMO.

[georgekokovinis]

Dead end Jon.

For both companies.

Turning round and round like a cat chasing its tail.

There is no way to change the laws of physics.