News Intel Bartlett Lake-S: up to 12P-Core or up to 8P-Core +16E-core

[Thunder 57]

Well, looking at my post, I missed several words that would clarify my point. As late as Bartlett Lake is to market, and given that Intel has all the needed Xtor IP blocks for Intel3 for the same P and E cores as well as all the needed IO, it's almost silly that they didn't just make Bartlett Lake on Intel3 with 12 P cores. It might not have moved the needle a whole lot for 1t as I'm not sure they could have clocked it much higher, but, the nT benchmarks would have loved the improved node, and everyone would have loved the better Perf/Watt numbers, especially utility scale buildouts that have to pay for all that power usage over the long haul...

Gracemont was made on Intel 3? Also, the cost of designing a new die with Raptor Cove + whatever E core on Intel 3 for what would be a niche market at best doesn't seem like it would have a good ROI and LBT seems to want 50%+ margins which wouldn't happen.

 

[LightningZ71]

No, Meteor Lake's CPU core die was on Intel 4, then ported to Intel 3 for Arrow Lake refresh. Meteor Lake's cores are Redwood Cove, which are barely touched raptor cove cores for the P core and a VERY mildly tweaked Gracemont called Crestmont for the e cores. To do a 12 P core die for Bartlett Lake starting from Raptor Lake STILL requires changes to the floorplan and power delivery on the Raptor Cove die, which is NOT trivial. If you're going to do all that work, and you've already got the needed blocks for Intel 3, why are you using Intel7?

 

[Thunder 57]

No, Meteor Lake's CPU core die was on Intel 4, then ported to Intel 3 for Arrow Lake refresh. Meteor Lake's cores are Redwood Cove, which are barely touched raptor cove cores for the P core and a VERY mildly tweaked Gracemont called Crestmont for the e cores. To do a 12 P core die for Bartlett Lake starting from Raptor Lake STILL requires changes to the floorplan and power delivery on the Raptor Cove die, which is NOT trivial. If you're going to do all that work, and you've already got the needed blocks for Intel 3, why are you using Intel7?

Well I had a brain fart since this mythical Bartlett Lake 12 P core wouldn't have E cores. Derp. It would be a nice swan song for LGA 1700 but I think Intel has other priorities. No ODM's would use it so Intel would have to make money on a small market of enthusiets. It just doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

 

[LightningZ71]

We say that and yet Intel just introduced a new Comet Lake SKU the other day. Stranger things have happened.

 

[jpiniero]

If you're going to do all that work, and you've already got the needed blocks for Intel 3, why are you using Intel7?

It's cheap and they have the capacity for it (unlike Intel 3)

 

[LightningZ71]

While they are most likely not as capacity constrained on Intel7 as they are on Intel3, it is most certainly NOT cheap. Intel 7 apparently requires a LOT of multi-patterning to get their DUV machines to give them the power/performance/density targets that they want. In addition, to achieve the clock speeds that they managed with Raptor Lake, they had to relax their density requirements multiple times on what was originally 10esf+. It's not area efficient, it's not power efficient on the end of the V/f curve that they play in to get their performance numbers, and as a result, it's not cheap.

 

[jpiniero]

While they are most likely not as capacity constrained on Intel7 as they are on Intel3, it is most certainly NOT cheap. Intel 7 apparently requires a LOT of multi-patterning to get their DUV machines to give them the power/performance/density targets that they want. In addition, to achieve the clock speeds that they managed with Raptor Lake, they had to relax their density requirements multiple times on what was originally 10esf+. It's not area efficient, it's not power efficient on the end of the V/f curve that they play in to get their performance numbers, and as a result, it's not cheap.

But the tools have long been paid off.

The main purpose was mainly because Embedded wanted something cheap that only had P cores and didn't want to resort to crazy things like buying AMD. But since it'd be faster in games than Arrow Lake, it may still get a regular desktop release.

 

[dullard]

But since it'd be faster in SOME games than Arrow Lake, it may still get a regular desktop release.

Fixed that for you. Many games don't benefit from the additional cores. Other games will be hurt by the lower top all-core frequencies that Barlett Lake would have. There is a fundamental power constraint. As you add more and more cores without changing the node or the power limit, each core gets less and less power.

 

[jpiniero]

Fixed that for you. Many games don't benefit from the additional cores.

Arrow Lake... not Raptor Lake.

 

[LightningZ71]

Fixed that for you. Many games don't benefit from the additional cores. Other games will be hurt by the lower top all-core frequencies that Barlett Lake would have. There is a fundamental power constraint. As you add more and more cores without changing the node or the power limit, each core gets less and less power.

Which is why I suggested doing it on Intel 3 instead. The node improvement would show up most in all core boost scenarios. Intel could finally have a 12 core AVX512 workstation class processor. Heck, that target market probably wouldn't mind if Intel omitted the iGPU and made them all -F chips to save for space, or to trade off increasing the L3 size by at least 50%.

 

[jpiniero]

Which is why I suggested doing it on Intel 3 instead. The node improvement would show up most in all core boost scenarios.

And Bartlett Lake was supposed to be done on the cheap.

 

[Kosusko]

Intel’s Top Bartlett Lake-S CPU To Feature 12 P-Cores, Up To 6 GHz Clocks, But No “Unlocked” Flavors​

source: https://wccftech.com/intel-bartlett...cores-up-to-6-ghz-clocks-no-unlocked-flavors/

 

[ondma]

Intel’s Top Bartlett Lake-S CPU To Feature 12 P-Cores, Up To 6 GHz Clocks, But No “Unlocked” Flavors​

source: https://wccftech.com/intel-bartlett...cores-up-to-6-ghz-clocks-no-unlocked-flavors/

I know some posters were really excited about this back in the day, but I dont really see the point, unless they are really cheap. If they can infact do 5.5 ghz all core, that is impressive, but it is about to be a two gen old architecture on an outdated process. Besides that, is more cores really going to increase gaming performance against 14900K? Does anybody know if BL has been cured of the instability issues?

And finally, the real elephant in the room is Zen 6. If it has a 12 core CCD as rumored, why would anyone choose BL over 12 core Zen, at least unless it is half the price?

 

[jpiniero]

And finally, the real elephant in the room is Zen 6. If it has a 12 core CCD as rumored, why would anyone choose BL over 12 core Zen, at least unless it is half the price?

I'm sure it would be a lot cheaper but I think it was probably more for Intel loving OEMs. You know Dell only sells one AMD desktop model with dGPUs right now - a Threadripper Workstation.

I think there was some hope that they would add more cache or re-enable AVX-512.

 

[Thunder 57]

I know some posters were really excited about this back in the day, but I dont really see the point, unless they are really cheap. If they can infact do 5.5 ghz all core, that is impressive, but it is about to be a two gen old architecture on an outdated process. Besides that, is more cores really going to increase gaming performance against 14900K? Does anybody know if BL has been cured of the instability issues?

And finally, the real elephant in the room is Zen 6. If it has a 12 core CCD as rumored, why would anyone choose BL over 12 core Zen, at least unless it is half the price?

It would be interesting but only as a novelty item to see what could have been but I can't imagine there is a real market for it at this point or rather when/if it came out.

 

[LightningZ71]

Without AVX512, it's a novelty. It could make for a PASSABLE low end Xeon chip with that and ECC, but that's about it. Like above said, against 12 core, single CCD Zen6, it just won't make sense, especially if that also has X3D cache. It's not even going to be on a remotely comparable process at that point.

 

[nenforcer]

It would be interesting but only as a novelty item to see what could have been but I can't imagine there is a real market for it at this point or rather when/if it came out.

I think there still are quite a bit of demand for the LGA1700 socket chips I believe they are still outselling the newer LGA1851 Arrow Lake chips. They have 3 generations of LGA1700 socket motherboards out there the majority of whom have not upgraded to Arrow Lake. There are only suppose to be 3 new Arrow Lake chips launched at CES 2026 the K parts, Core Ultra 5 245K+, Core Ultra 7 265K+ and Core Ultra 9 285K+.This could be a stopgap release to drive revenue until the Nova Lake LGA1954 socket arrives in late 2026.

 

[dullard]

I think there still are quite a bit of demand for the LGA1700 socket chips I believe they are still outselling the newer LGA1851 Arrow Lake chips.

There is a huge demand for sub-$200 CPUs. Not only from the resource poor (most of the world), but also from businesses that just need simple computers, and also from non-enthusiasts. I'm certainly not recommending an i5 or higher for my parents to browse the web. Think i3-class chips, Pentium chips, Celeron chips. Arrow Lake has almost no access to that market*.

* With the exception of the recently released Arrow Lake 205.

 

[Thunder 57]

I think there still are quite a bit of demand for the LGA1700 socket chips I believe they are still outselling the newer LGA1851 Arrow Lake chips. They have 3 generations of LGA1700 socket motherboards out there the majority of whom have not upgraded to Arrow Lake. There are only suppose to be 3 new Arrow Lake chips launched at CES 2026 the K parts, Core Ultra 5 245K+, Core Ultra 7 265K+ and Core Ultra 9 285K+.This could be a stopgap release to drive revenue until the Nova Lake LGA1954 socket arrives in late 2026.

ARL is a sidegrade at best, on a dead end platform as well.

 

[hemedans]

There is a huge demand for sub-$200 CPUs. Not only from the resource poor (most of the world), but also from businesses that just need simple computers, and also from non-enthusiasts. I'm certainly not recommending an i5 or higher for my parents to browse the web. Think i3-class chips, Pentium chips, Celeron chips. Arrow Lake has almost no access to that market*.

* With the exception of the recently released Arrow Lake 205.

Most people here are not budget users but that core 5 with 8 core is really good deal.

 

[Kosusko]

Too late only cove 12C/12T P-core Raptor Cove.

A 16c+/16T+ die shrink Skymont or Darkmont E-core would have higher performance with low power consumption, i.e. they would be more efficient. Intel missed the chance again...

Intel Core Ultra 7 Processor 255HX

8C/8T Lion Cove P-core
• CPU-Z: Single Thread: 861,5 (+14,95%)
• CPU-Z: Multi Thread: 6 139,3 (69,87%)

12c/12T Skymont E-core
• CPU-Z: Single Thread: 749,4 (86,99%)
• CPU-Z: Multi Thread: 8 786,2 (+43,11%)

______________________________________________________

Intel Core i9 Processor 14900KS OC
16c/16T Gracemont E-core OC
• CPU-Z: Single Thread: 552,5
• CPU-Z: Multi Thread: 8 824,2

______________________________________________________

8c/8tT Zen5c (AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 12C/24T)
• CPU-Z: Single Thread : 519 (69,26%)
• CPU-Z: Multi Thread : 5 294 (60,25%)

source: https://diit.cz/clanek/preview-asus-zenbook-s16-s-amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370-je-v-redakci​

12c/12T Skymont E-core (Intel Core Ultra 7 Processor 255HX 16C/16T)
• CPU-Z: Single Thread: 749,4 (+44,39%)
• CPU-Z: Multi Thread: 8 786,2 (+65,97%)

source: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/share-your-cpuz-benchmarks.216765/page-103#post-5566171​

 

[DrMrLordX]

A 16c+/16T+ die shrink Skymont or Darkmont E-core would have higher performance with low power consumption, i.e. they would be more efficient.

Intel doesn't want to burn 18a wafers on a product like that. They only have so much capacity, and 18a/18ap will be responsible for major datacentre products like Diamond Rapids.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel doesn't want to burn 18a wafers on a product like that. They only have so much capacity, and 18a/18ap will be responsible for major datacentre products like Diamond Rapids.

Yeah the whole point of Bartlett Lake is that it's on 10 nm.

 

[Kosusko]

I was thinking something analogous to Intel backporting Sunny Cove, which is the 10nm Ice Lake core, to 14nm like Cypress Cove, which is used in Rocket Lake (11th generation desktops from 2021).

In other words I was thinking something analogous to Intel backporting Skymont, which is the TSMC N3B as part of E-core Arrow Lake, to on Skymont an enhanced 10nm SuperFin process called Intel 7 (LGA 1700).

Intel 7 (enhanced 10nm SuperFin process) Skymont E-cores would have higher performance with low power consumption, i.e. they would be more efficient as Intel 7 (enhanced 10nm SuperFin process) Raptor Cove P-cores (LGA 1700).

 

[511]

No, Meteor Lake's CPU core die was on Intel 4, then ported to Intel 3 for Arrow Lake refresh. Meteor Lake's cores are Redwood Cove, which are barely touched raptor cove cores for the P core and a VERY mildly tweaked Gracemont called Crestmont for the e cores. To do a 12 P core die for Bartlett Lake starting from Raptor Lake STILL requires changes to the floorplan and power delivery on the Raptor Cove die, which is NOT trivial. If you're going to do all that work, and you've already got the needed blocks for Intel 3, why are you using Intel7?

You can't really call it a port cause Intel 3/4 is the same thing ... with different process step i would doubt they would have to do any thing in terms of design much