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.)

Philste · Feb 13, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Not 3D (except for the X3D variants which are based on a very primitive form of 3D tech thats no where near Intel foveros).

You have no clue what you are talking about, right? X3D uses direct copper to copper bond, which is far more advanced than Intels Foveros with microbumps. Foveros Direct is Intels Counter for that, I think they said it's 2025 at best.

Abwx · Feb 13, 2024

msj10 said:
10% above 14900k would make it 15-20% higher than Zen 4. that would still be competitive with Zen 5.

If these numbers were real only, but the 7950X is 2% above the 14900K.

Intel Core i9-14900K, i7-14700K & i5-14600K im Test: Anwendungs-Benchmarks

i9-14900K, i7-14700K & i5-14600K im Test: Anwendungs-Benchmarks / Testmethodik / Multi-Core-Leistung / Single-Core-Leistung

www.computerbase.de

msj10 · Feb 13, 2024

Abwx said:
If these numbers were real only, but the 7950X is 2% above the 14900K.

Intel Core i9-14900K, i7-14700K & i5-14600K im Test: Anwendungs-Benchmarks

i9-14900K, i7-14700K & i5-14600K im Test: Anwendungs-Benchmarks / Testmethodik / Multi-Core-Leistung / Single-Core-Leistung

www.computerbase.de

isn't it obvious that I am talking about ST here?

H433x0n · Feb 13, 2024

msj10 said:
10% above 14900k would make it 15-20% higher than Zen 4. that would still be competitive with Zen 5.

Because I was bored I did some digging just to get a good idea of what Zen 5 would have to do to break even. I took existing scores for 13900KS / 14900K in popular 1T benchmarks and then extrapolated ARL-S performance in same benchmarks using the old data from IgorsLab.

1T Performance RPL v Zen 4-
GeekBench5 (source: TheVerge):
2235 / 2099 = +6%
CB23 (Source TPU):
2339 / 2051 = +14%
JetStream (Source TPU):
307825 / 290422 = +6%
Speedometer (Source TPU):
364 / 327 = +11%
WebXprt (Source TPU):
334 / 293 = +14%

Below is what is required to break even with ARL-S (using IgorsLab old projections)
Geekbench 5: +13-16%
Speedometer: +19-22%
WebXprt: +19-21%

Below is what is required to break even with the more recent ARL-S updated perf estimates (increased 1T perf by ~3-4%)
Geekbench 5: +16-20%
Speedometer: +22-26%
WebXprt: +22-26%

Edit: Finding reliable Geekbench data is difficult since it can vary by +/- 10% depending on configuration.

SiliconFly · Feb 13, 2024

Philste said:
You have no clue what you are talking about, right? X3D uses direct copper to copper bond, which is far more advanced than Intels Foveros with microbumps. Foveros Direct is Intels Counter for that, I think they said it's 2025 at best.

First off, you're ignoring the most important thing. Most of the AMD CPU's including Zen5 aren't X3D, they're just 2.5D tech. Whereas, all upcoming Intel CPUs are 3D.

Saylick · Feb 13, 2024

SiliconFly said:
First off, you're ignoring the most important thing. Most of the AMD CPU's including Zen5 aren't X3D, they're just 2.5D tech. Whereas, all upcoming Intel CPUs are 3D.

I still fail to see why 3D advanced packaging is going to be the deciding factor like you suggest it is. Some products simply don't need 3D packaging to be viable or successful. Intel tooting from the highest rooftops about IFS and their alleged packaging prowess is because they know that they were caught on the backfoot against TSMC.

Also, I'm not sure how this statement:

SiliconFly said:
Not accurate. Intel is the current market leader in 3D packaging tech with foveros. TSMC has 3D packaging tech, but not many customers. For example, AMD CPUs are 2.5D. Not 3D (except for the X3D variants which are based on a very primitive form of 3D tech thats no where near Intel foveros).

.. jives with this statement:

SiliconFly said:
First off, you're ignoring the most important thing. Most of the AMD CPU's including Zen5 aren't X3D, they're just 2.5D tech. Whereas, all upcoming Intel CPUs are 3D.

How can one claim that Intel is the current leader in 3D packaging when you also acknowledge that the parts that use 3D packaging aren't even out yet?

adroc_thurston · Feb 13, 2024

SiliconFly said:
they're just 2.5D tech

No they aren't.
The only client 2.5d parts AMD currently ships is N31/32, these are InFO-R.

SiliconFly said:
Whereas, all upcoming Intel CPUs are 3D.

no they're basic ass 2.5D with eMiM. Equivalent to 2020 TSM CoWoS.
Intel shipped real 3d(tm) with Lakefield and PVC, both are trainwreck products.

DavidC1 · Feb 13, 2024

Tigerick said:
We are back in times, it is all due to IFS incapable of making monolithic SoC.

The fault would be due to design, not IFS.

Intel wasn't known for top notch designs. Even the much vaunted Core 2 was in mid-2006 and was trumped pretty quickly after introduction of the iPhone in 2009. Their talking point was all about perf/watt blah blah and while it was an improvement it wasn't enough.

Sandy Bridge was impressive comparatively but only competition was against faltering AMD. I wonder what would have happened if the x86 license was opened up and there were many competitors instead? What if just Nvidia was one of them?

Up until 10nm it was process that made up for the design team's deficiency. The failure of process exposed the deep problem within the organization, hence why we see failures as we do now.

@H433x0n Since the Igor's lab leak is a legitimate slide, one wonders why Arrowlake would perform noticeably better. The only other reason is if they purposely put out that slide to misdirect speculation.

They did on Raptorlake by claiming "single digit improvements". I remember a heated debate on that one. Doesn't mean that history will be necessarily repeated as Meteorlake fell short of official claims.

H433x0n · Feb 13, 2024

DavidC1 said:
@H433x0n Since the Igor's lab leak is a legitimate slide, one wonders why Arrowlake would perform noticeably better. The only other reason is if they purposely put out that slide to misdirect speculation.

They did on Raptorlake by claiming "single digit improvements". I remember a heated debate on that one. Doesn't mean that history will be necessarily repeated as Meteorlake fell short of official claims.

I’m not assuming that ARL-S will perform noticeably better. I’m taking the data at face value. That 2nd estimate is based on more recent estimates from Intel that boosted 1T perf by 3-4% from higher fmax. I personally doubt it performs noticeably better than the data they’re providing their partners.

I put together all that data to make a point that even if Zen 5 lives up to all of the hype and gets a +30% IPC increase with no frequency regression that still would only result in them having a 1T perf lead that’s roughly equivalent to what RPL has over Zen 4 now. As far as I know the narrative online isn’t that Zen 4 is DOA because it’s behind by 10% in some 1T metrics - nobody really cares.

uzzi38 · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
6P+8E on 20A is the bulk of their volume!

Note: 6P+8E for mobile is on N3. Desktop is a different story.

That is not the bulk of volume, mobile is a far larger market than desktop is and it's not even close.

jpiniero · Feb 14, 2024

uzzi38 said:
Note: 6P+8E for mobile is on N3. Desktop is a different story.

That is not the bulk of volume, mobile is a far larger market than desktop is and it's not even close.

I have a feeling it will end up being Raptor Lake Refresh Refresh instead of any theoretical 20A Arrow Lake, even though that makes for some oddities given the different socket.

Elfear · Feb 14, 2024

H433x0n said:
Because I was bored I did some digging just to get a good idea of what Zen 5 would have to do to break even. I took existing scores for 13900KS / 14900K in popular 1T benchmarks and then extrapolated ARL-S performance in same benchmarks using the old data from IgorsLab.

1T Performance RPL v Zen 4-
GeekBench5 (source: TheVerge):
2235 / 2099 = +6%
CB23 (Source TPU):
2339 / 2051 = +14%
JetStream (Source TPU):
307825 / 290422 = +6%
Speedometer (Source TPU):
364 / 327 = +11%
WebXprt (Source TPU):
334 / 293 = +14%

Below is what is required to break even with ARL-S (using IgorsLab old projections)
Geekbench 5: +13-16%
Speedometer: +19-22%
WebXprt: +19-21%

Below is what is required to break even with the more recent ARL-S updated perf estimates (increased 1T perf by ~3-4%)
Geekbench 5: +16-20%
Speedometer: +22-26%
WebXprt: +22-26%

Edit: Finding reliable Geekbench data is difficult since it can vary by +/- 10% depending on configuration.

For what it's worth, the SPEC delta isn't that big so, depending on your use case, ARL-S may have to bring more to the table than you're estimating.

1T Performance RPL v Zen 4
(source Anandtech)

SPECint2017 : +2.8% (on average over 10 sub-tests)
SPECfp2017: +5.6% (on average over 12 sub-tests)

SiliconFly · Feb 14, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
No they aren't.
The only client 2.5d parts AMD currently ships is N31/32, these are InFO-R.

no they're basic ass 2.5D with eMiM. Equivalent to 2020 TSM CoWoS.
Intel shipped real 3d(tm) with Lakefield and PVC, both are trainwreck products.

Nope. Starting MTL (and ARL), it's basic ass 3D stacking with foveros & advanced NOC interconnect.

Zen chiplets are directly mounted on the substrate & connected using infinity fabric... outdated.

Zen5 uses the same old tech like Zen4 and has some serious catching up to do in packaging tech.

SiliconFly · Feb 14, 2024

Saylick said:
I still fail to see why 3D advanced packaging is going to be the deciding factor like you suggest it is. Some products simply don't need 3D packaging to be viable or successful. Intel tooting from the highest rooftops about IFS and their alleged packaging prowess is because they know that they were caught on the backfoot against TSMC.

Chiplets and 3D packaging like foveros are the future. Old tech like monolithic and 2.5D like Zen are just passé. Although, leaks suggest Zen6 will be full 3D.

Saylick said:
How can one claim that Intel is the current leader in 3D packaging when you also acknowledge that the parts that use 3D packaging aren't even out yet?

MTL is chiplets, foveros & NOC.

Glo. · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Chiplets and 3D packaging like foveros are the future. Old tech like monolithic and 2.5D like Zen are just passé. Although, leaks suggest Zen6 will be full 3D.

MTL is chiplets, foveros & NOC.

Intel has bigger problem than which packaging technology is bigg... I mean, better.

Hitman928 · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Chiplets and 3D packaging like foveros are the future. Old tech like monolithic and 2.5D like Zen are just passé. Although, leaks suggest Zen6 will be full 3D.

MTL is chiplets, foveros & NOC.

What packaging tech does MTL have that MI300 doesn't because MI300 has packaging tech that MTL doesn't. . .

gdansk · Feb 14, 2024

It's weird seeing CPUs with a base (at TDP?) frequency of 700MHz on Intel Ark.

Or wait there's also the 164U with 400MHz.

Hitman928 · Feb 14, 2024

gdansk said:
It's weird seeing CPUs with a base (at TDP?) frequency of 700MHz on Intel Ark.

Or wait there's also the 164U with 400MHz.

That's just the LPE cores, but yeah, many (12) cores and a 9W base TDP leads to very low base clock frequencies.

adroc_thurston · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Starting MTL (and ARL), it's basic ass 3D stacking with foveros & advanced NOC interconnect.

It's a passive 2.5d slab.
With eMiMs.

SiliconFly said:
Zen5 uses the same old tech like Zen4 and has some serious catching up to do in packaging tech.

What is strix-halo

gdansk · Feb 14, 2024

Hitman928 said:
That's just the LPE cores, but yeah, many (12) cores and a 9W base TDP leads to very low base clock frequencies.

Perhaps it doesn't matter but looking at similar last-generation Alder Lake U at 9W the regular E core also dropped 100MHz base frequency. And the P cores stay at 1100MHz. Really seems like no real efficiency improvement at ultra low power levels (-100 MHz * 8 E cores is effectively equal to the +400MHz * 2 LP-E cores).

Very low power is where I was hoping MTL would be better. But maybe there's a reason that chip is as-of-yet missing.

SiliconFly · Feb 14, 2024

Hitman928 said:
What packaging tech does MTL have that MI300 doesn't because MI300 has packaging tech that MTL doesn't. . .

Lets refocus. Zen5 is gonna use the same old 2.5D tech with infinity fabric like previous gens. Whereas, ARL is gonna be foveros 3D with advanced NOC interconnect fabric.

Meaning, if LNC delivers on performance and/or efficiency. it can take on Zen5 very easily. Now the fate of ARL squarely rests on LNC and LNC alone.

SiliconFly · Feb 14, 2024

adroc_thurston said:
It's a passive 2.5d slab.
With eMiMs.

What is strix-halo

Foveros is 3D.

Youtube link.

adroc_thurston · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Foveros is 3D.

Youtube link.

Only in LKF and PVC.

Hitman928 · Feb 14, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Lets refocus. Zen5 is gonna use the same old 2.5D tech with infinity fabric like previous gens. Whereas, ARL is gonna be foveros 3D with advanced NOC interconnect fabric.

Meaning, if LNC delivers on performance and/or efficiency. it can take on Zen5 very easily. Now the fate of ARL squarely rests on LNC and LNC alone.

Yes, MTL and ARL use more advanced packaging than Zen 4 or Zen 5 desktop (excluding the 3D cache variants which use more advanced packaging than what Intel currently has to offer). That's different than your original statement but if this was the point you were trying to make then, o.k. We'll see how much it actually helps them fairly soon.

H433x0n · Feb 14, 2024

I don’t get the hype over the packaging. There’s a high probability that the packaging will be the cause for ARL-S having poor gaming performance.

Chiplets, tiles, whatever you want to call it is always a compromise solution in client products. It’s not a feature or impressive tech - it’s there to save money at the expense of a worse product.

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

Senior member

Attachments

Member

Lifer

Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Member

Senior member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Senior member