Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads

Tigerick · Aug 22, 2022

As Hot Chips 34 starting this week, Intel will unveil technical information of upcoming Meteor Lake (MTL) and Arrow Lake (ARL), new generation platform after Raptor Lake. Both MTL and ARL represent new direction which Intel will move to multiple chiplets and combine as one SoC platform.

MTL also represents new compute tile that based on Intel 4 process which is based on EUV lithography, a first from Intel. Intel expects to ship MTL mobile SoC in 2023.

ARL will come after MTL so Intel should be shipping it in 2024, that is what Intel roadmap is telling us. ARL compute tile will be manufactured by Intel 20A process, a first from Intel to use GAA transistors called RibbonFET.

Comparison of upcoming Intel's U-series CPU: Core Ultra 100U, Lunar Lake and Panther Lake

Model	Code-Name	Date	TDP	Node	Tiles	Main Tile	CPU	LP E-Core	LLC	GPU	Xe-cores
Core Ultra 100U	Meteor Lake	Q4 2023	15 - 57 W	Intel 4 + N5 + N6	4	tCPU	2P + 8E	2	12 MB	Intel Graphics	4
?	Lunar Lake	Q4 2024	17 - 30 W	N3B + N6	2	CPU + GPU & IMC	4P + 4E	0	8 MB	Arc	8
?	Panther Lake	Q1 2026 ?	?	Intel 18A + N3E	3	CPU + MC	4P + 8E	4	?	Arc	12

Comparison of die size of Each Tile of Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake, Lunar Lake and Panther Lake

	Meteor Lake	Arrow Lake (20A)	Arrow Lake (N3B)	Arrow Lake Refresh (N3B)	Lunar Lake	Panther Lake
Platform	Mobile H/U Only	Desktop Only	Desktop & Mobile H&HX	Desktop Only	Mobile U Only	Mobile H
Process Node	Intel 4	Intel 20A	TSMC N3B	TSMC N3B	TSMC N3B	Intel 18A
Date	Q4 2023	Q1 2025 ?	Desktop-Q4-2024 H&HX-Q1-2025	Q4 2025 ?	Q4 2024	Q1 2026 ?
Full Die	6P + 8P	6P + 8E ?	8P + 16E	8P + 32E	4P + 4E	4P + 8E
LLC	24 MB	24 MB ?	36 MB ?	?	8 MB	?
tCPU	66.48
tGPU	44.45
SoC	96.77
IOE	44.45
Total	252.15

Intel Core Ultra 100 - Meteor Lake

As mentioned by Tomshardware, TSMC will manufacture the I/O, SoC, and GPU tiles. That means Intel will manufacture only the CPU and Foveros tiles. (Notably, Intel calls the I/O tile an 'I/O Expander,' hence the IOE moniker.)

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Sound too high.

Zen4 is 5.7 on a slower node.
Not really?

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
Zen4 is 5.7 on a slower node.
Not really?

Zen4 is on one of the best TSMC nodes... N4. Generally speaking, newer nodes like N3B/20A can't be expected to clock as well as N4 during the first iteration.

FlameTail · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Zen4 is on one of the best TSMC nodes... N4. Generally speaking, newer nodes like N3B/20A can't be expected to clock as well as N4 during the first iteration.

N5, not N4?

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

FlameTail said:
N5, not N4?

N5 is also a very mature node.

It's gonna be a tad difficult for 20A/N3B to compete with mature nodes in clock frequencies.

coercitiv · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
N5 is also a very mature node.

FYI Zen 4 is 18 months old already, and it launched with 5.7Ghz boost.

Hulk · Mar 8, 2024

H433x0n said:
It wouldn’t surprise me if the results end up pretty close to RPL-R while using half the power. I don’t think MT scores are that important past a certain point. It will become important to Reddit once Intel loses the pointless CB R23 supremacy. It's going to be so annoying seeing r/buildapc re-orient themselves and move the goal posts.

For what it's worth, a 14900K isn't actually running at 5.7ghz in CB R23 unless it's pulling well over 300W. I also only see a regression of 15% without HT in CB R23 (I go from 40K to 35K when I disable HT).

You make some good points. The one regarding power is critical and one that many people who do not own a 14900K or 13900K haven't experienced. While a 14900K can boost all the way to 5.6 or 5.7GHz all core it takes a lot of power and a 360 AIO or custom loop to actually achieve.

So in reality I am comparing what a 14900K can theoretically do against what hopefully a "15900K" can do with sane power draw and cooling.

Like you I'm also running my 14900K with HT off. The 16E cores are more than enough to handle any "overflow" from the P's and the additional heat/voltage required for the brief moments HT may be in operation aren't worth it. I've been down that rabbit hole and it ain't fun. Also I don't allow my system to single/dual core turbo, only time it every happens is idle when background tasks are going on and the voltage spikes can't be good for the CPU, yeah I know current would be low but still I don't like my CPU going over 1.3V. I'm set for 5.5/4.4 and 200W. It runs cool and stable. My longwinded point is that 5.5/4.4 is really what ARL needs to compete with because that is the "sane" top end of RPL. Anything higher I consider overclocking.

All that being said, 40,000 is what we're used to seeing for the 14900K so that's what most people will compare ARL against. Though I see people over at the Overclockers forum running their rigs with chillers day-to-day who are achieving 46,000 higher, but those people are a different breed...

At the end of the day I think we're going to be seeing ARL besting RPL by 10 to 15% in ST and losing or perhaps breaking even in rendering or other perfectly multithreaded applications/benches. As you noted, probably at much lower power levels and thermals. Meaning a "better" CPU at the end of the day. Also, since many applications today still only rely on <8 cores I think we're going to see a nice uplift from that 10-15% ST improvement in many applications.

If this is the ARL that we see then it will be very competitive with Zen 5 ST but Zen 5 and it's 16 full size cores should be able to beat ARL in MT rendering.

In conclusion, I agree with you in that I think we're looking at ARL having a nice ST bump, say 12%, and perhaps holding the line in MT with much better power draw/temps/heat.

This is why I had been speculating ARL might be 8+24 as that would take care of any CB concerns Intel marketing might have. I am also wondering if we might be surprised and be seeing a 6+24 Intel part eventually?

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

Hulk said:
You make some good points. The one regarding power is critical and one that many people who do not own a 14900K or 13900K haven't experienced. While a 14900K can boost all the way to 5.6 or 5.7GHz all core it takes a lot of power and a 360 AIO or custom loop to actually achieve.

So in reality I am comparing what a 14900K can theoretically do against what hopefully a "15900K" can do with sane power draw and cooling.

Like you I'm also running my 14900K with HT off. The 16E cores are more than enough to handle any "overflow" from the P's and the additional heat/voltage required for the brief moments HT may be in operation aren't worth it. I've been down that rabbit hole and it ain't fun. Also I don't allow my system to single/dual core turbo, only time it every happens is idle when background tasks are going on and the voltage spikes can't be good for the CPU, yeah I know current would be low but still I don't like my CPU going over 1.3V. I'm set for 5.5/4.4 and 200W. It runs cool and stable. My longwinded point is that 5.5/4.4 is really what ARL needs to compete with because that is the "sane" top end of RPL. Anything higher I consider overclocking.

All that being said, 40,000 is what we're used to seeing for the 14900K so that's what most people will compare ARL against. Though I see people over at the Overclockers forum running their rigs with chillers day-to-day who are achieving 46,000 higher, but those people are a different breed...

At the end of the day I think we're going to be seeing ARL besting RPL by 10 to 15% in ST and losing or perhaps breaking even in rendering or other perfectly multithreaded applications/benches. As you noted, probably at much lower power levels and thermals. Meaning a "better" CPU at the end of the day. Also, since many applications today still only rely on <8 cores I think we're going to see a nice uplift from that 10-15% ST improvement in many applications.

If this is the ARL that we see then it will be very competitive with Zen 5 ST but Zen 5 and it's 16 full size cores should be able to beat ARL in MT rendering.

In conclusion, I agree with you in that I think we're looking at ARL having a nice ST bump, say 12%, and perhaps holding the line in MT with much better power draw/temps/heat.

This is why I had been speculating ARL might be 8+24 as that would take care of any CB concerns Intel marketing might have. I am also wondering if we might be surprised and be seeing a 6+24 Intel part eventually?

I concur. Even I believe the final IPC gains of ARL over RPL (after accounting for all factors like clocks, tiles, uarch, etc.) should be around 10% - 15%.

(But this is assuming that LNC brings in only decent IPC improvements and not some wild unexpected IPC gains.)

Hulk · Mar 8, 2024

I have been thinking about the rumored removal of HT from ARL and what impact and why it will have on ST performance?

AFAIK HT was originally implemented on the P4 to "reclaim" lost cycles that occur due to pipeline stalls, which could be especially costly with the P4 since the last incarnation I believe had a 31 stage pipeline. Since Raptor Cove currently is a HT CPU that would seem to indicate that pipeline stalls are still an issue and the front end is not being utilized as effectively as it could be, hence the inclusion of HT? Will Intel have to seriously increase the capacity of the front end, in particular the OoO scheduler and other related logic, to saturate the CPU without employing HT?

A HT CPU could be viewed as a hybrid cpu with the P core being the physical core and the E core the logical one. Intel seems to be simplifying things by designing both P and E cores for ST performance, while aiming the P cores toward maximum performance and the E's at maximum performance for a given area.

I know there are many around here with deep understanding of CPU architecture and I'd appreciate hearing (reading) your thoughts on this?

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
newer nodes like N3B/20A can't be expected to clock as well as N4 during the first iteration.

Yes they are it's foundry stuff.
Please consult TSM yield ramp charts.

Hulk said:
Will Intel have to seriously increase the capacity of the front end, in particular the OoO scheduler and other related logic, to saturate the CPU without employing HT?

No they're cutting it off because Apple has no SMT.
It's that simple.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
No they're cutting it off because Apple has no SMT.
It's that simple.

Totally. It has to be just that only.

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Totally. It has to be just that only.

Yeah.
Unironically.

jpiniero · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Totally. It has to be just that only.

I was thinking it's either because there's a massive security hole in HT that Intel doesn't want to admit to right now or they are simply cutting costs by not doing the validation.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
Yeah.
Unironically.

Obviously. They just have no other reason.

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

jpiniero said:
I was thinking it's either because there's a massive security hole in HT that Intel doesn't want to admit to right now or they are simply cutting costs by not doing the validation.

It's mostly Apple and a bit of the latter.

SiliconFly said:
Obviously. They just have no other reason.

Yes?
They're making LNL-M a thing specifically because Apple does tablet chips.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

jpiniero said:
I was thinking it's either because there's a massive security hole in HT that Intel doesn't want to admit to right now or they are simply cutting costs by not doing the validation.

Agree. It does reduce validation time, eliminates a whole lot of security issues, increases ST performance, reduces die area and hence cost. And since it is one of most under-utilized features in a cpu, Intel is better off without it. And the best time to get rid of it is with LNC.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
It's mostly Apple and a bit of the latter.

Yes. It's all because of Apple only. No reason to even doubt it.

adroc_thurston said:
Yes?
They're making LNL-M a thing specifically because Apple does tablet chips.

LNL/PNL are niche. Not exactly an Apple competitor.

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
LNL/PNL are niche

No?
At least Intel doesn't think so.

SiliconFly said:
Not exactly an Apple competitor.

A 4+4 pretty fat iGP SOC with MoP is mainline Mx competition *exactly*.

FlameTail · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
A 4+4 pretty fat iGP SOC with MoP is mainline Mx competition *exactly*.

I agree with Adroc on this.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
A 4+4 pretty fat iGP SOC with MoP is mainline Mx competition *exactly*.

Pales in comparison when we compare the performance of the cores. Not exactly an Apple competitior.

SiliconFly · Mar 8, 2024

FlameTail said:
I agree with Adroc on this.

Apple M series silicon are high performance parts. LNL doesn't stand a chance against M series cpu performance. It's more of a niche product designed for low-power ultra mobile market.

FlameTail · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Apple M series silicon are high performance parts. LNL doesn't stand a chance against M series cpu performance. It's more of a niche product designed for low-power ultra mobile market.

Weird. An ARM chip like Snapdragon X Plus would better serve that segment.

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Pales in comparison when we compare the performance of the cores

No?

SiliconFly said:
Not exactly an Apple competitior.

It is, literally the entire reason it exist is mainline Mx compete part.

FlameTail said:
An ARM chip like Snapdragon X Plus would better serve that segment.

ARM is not a requirement and Phoenix-based parts are pretty powerhungry so it won't fit.

FlameTail · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
ARM is not a requirement and Phoenix-based parts are pretty powerhungry so it won't fit.

Phoenix, the Oryon core?

adroc_thurston · Mar 8, 2024

FlameTail said:
Phoenix, the Oryon core?

Yes it's called Phoenix.
The successor is Pegasus.
8cx g4 is a higher power SoC than anything mainline Mx since it just outright has more big cores.
Not direct competitiors really.
Meanwhile, LNL is Mx compete to a tee, 4+4, fat iGP.

FlameTail · Mar 8, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
Yes it's called Phoenix.
The successor is Pegasus.
8cx g4 is a higher power SoC than anything mainline Mx since it just outright has more big cores.

Yes, yes. I know about Phoenix and Pegasus. I am the master of the Qualcomm thread.

I was not sure which Phoenix you were referring to, because AMD also has one.

Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads

Senior member

Attachments

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member