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

Page 124 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tigerick

Senior member
Apr 1, 2022
495
410
96
PantherLake.png

LNL.png

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

ModelCode-NameDateTDPNodeTilesMain TileCPULP E-CoreLLCGPUXe-cores
Core Ultra 100UMeteor LakeQ4 202315 - 57 WIntel 4 + N5 + N64tCPU2P + 8E212 MBIntel Graphics4
?Lunar LakeQ4 202417 - 30 WN3B + N62CPU + GPU & IMC4P + 4E08 MBArc8
?Panther LakeQ1 2026 ??Intel 18A + N3E2CPU + IOD + MC4P + 8E4?Arc12



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

Meteor LakeArrow Lake (20A)Arrow Lake (N3B)Arrow Lake Refresh (N3B)Lunar LakePanther Lake
PlatformMobile H/U OnlyDesktop OnlyDesktop & Mobile H&HXDesktop OnlyMobile U OnlyMobile H
Process NodeIntel 4Intel 20ATSMC N3BTSMC N3BTSMC N3BIntel 18A
DateQ4 2023Q1 2025 ?Desktop-Q4-2024
H&HX-Q1-2025
Q4 2025 ?Q4 2024Q1 2026 ?
Full Die6P + 8P6P + 8E ?8P + 16E8P + 32E4P + 4E4P + 8E
LLC24 MB24 MB ?36 MB ??8 MB?
tCPU66.48
tGPU44.45
SoC96.77
IOE44.45
Total252.15



Intel Core Ultra 100 - Meteor Lake

INTEL-CORE-100-ULTRA-METEOR-LAKE-OFFCIAL-SLIDE-2.jpg

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.)

Clockspeed.png
 
Last edited:

Antey

Member
Jul 4, 2019
105
153
116
If the media engine and display engine is in the SoC tile, and Intel is placing a new 'low power island' in the SoC for low power usage. Why not place a very small and simplier GPU cores, cache, etc with a ver low power consumption design (like adreno/mali cores) in the SoC for a lower power usage in the same way? i guess it would need lots of other things like a an unified memory controller, not an easy wish.

I love that idea of having a very power efficient SoC tile and whenever you need performance Graphics/CPU... tiles wake up. It's brilliant.

In the future, wouldnt it be incredible to have the possibilty of SOCs with low power islands that are good enough for browsing, light programming, light microsoft office, etc, fanless notebooks/PCs, fully noiseless, and that extra possibility that a compute/gpu tile gives, you can have a 4090 in a GPU tile and 32+ P-Cores/E-cores in a CPU tile sleeping, just waiting for when you need it, but at the same time consuming less than <15W (when CPU/GPU tiles are in sleep mode)? and just to think that the Intel 12900k consumes 55W idle...
 

trivik12

Senior member
Jan 26, 2006
244
192
116
just to think that the Intel 12900k consumes 55W idle...
Are you sure if you dont have anything faulty.


Before we get to the game data, here is what to expect out of the 12900K at idle on Windows 11. The processor averaged roughly 27W with all power consumption preferences set to maximum. This idle power consumption can be reduced to a mere 4.72W average with the default Windows Power Saver plan. Under this power plan, the 12900K retained a reasonable degree of system responsiveness and averaged 8.77W. Even Adobe Photoshop was generally responsive and usable for basic photo editing.
 

Antey

Member
Jul 4, 2019
105
153
116
i was using techpowerup data, but it's a whole system power consumption. Well, i guess 27W idle is not that good either. And that power plan hurts performance too much even if it ''retained a reasonable degree of system responsiveness''... meteor lake with a Low power island should be way more power efficient... <10W idle or even <5W idle and <1W with that kind of power plan
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,533
10,719
136
Honestly, if I were Intel I would have avoided the Raptor Lake Refresh frequency jump. Don’t even release a 14900k. Increase the core counts of lower tier parts, sure. That should keep OEMs happy.

It's an attempt to retake performance crowns for the sake of publicity. Nothing more. The 14900k is probably not going to be a good product except for reviewers that ask the wrong questions.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tlh97 and Ajay

H433x0n

Senior member
Mar 15, 2023
820
867
96
It's an attempt to retake performance crowns for the sake of publicity. Nothing more. The 14900k is probably not going to be a good product except for reviewers that ask the wrong questions.
It's going to be horrible publicity. It’s easy to predict how it’s going to go. I predict that HUB’s review in particular will show zero performance improvement over 13900K and talk about power consumption for 30 minutes.

Assuming motherboard vendors continue to set default with “MCE” active and no power limits it’s going to get miserable reviews.
 

Antey

Member
Jul 4, 2019
105
153
116
Honestly, whats the difference between a 14900K and a 13900KS?

At least the 10900k added 2 cores over the 9900k and 200mhz, 11900k at least a different microarch (even if the final result wasnt that great or even worse)... but this one?
 

H433x0n

Senior member
Mar 15, 2023
820
867
96
Honestly, whats the difference between a 14900K and a 13900KS?

At least the 10900k added 2 cores over the 9900k and 200mhz, 11900k atleast changed archs... but this one?
It's the 13900K with a tweaked Intel 7 process. The final result is +200mhz clocks at isopower. The 13900KS was +100mhz all core and +200mhz boost clocks but with additional power consumption. It's not a revolutionary product, it's a stopgap solution. It is unambiguously better than the 13900KS though.

13900K:
base clocks- 3.0ghz (125W)
boost clock - 5.8ghz
all core clock - 5.5ghz (=253W)

13900KS:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (150W)
boost clock - 6.0ghz
all core clock - 5.6ghz (>253W)

14900K:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (125W)
boost clock - 6.0ghz
all core clock - 5.7ghz (=253W)
 
Last edited:

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,125
972
106
It's the 13900K with a tweaked Intel 7 process. The final result is +200mhz clocks at isopower. The 13900KS was +100mhz all core and +200mhz boost clocks but with additional power consumption. It's not a revolutionary product, it's a stopgap solution. It is unambiguously better than the 13900KS though.

13900K:
base clocks- 3.0ghz (125W)
boost clock - 5.8ghz
all core clock - 5.5ghz (=253W)

13900KS:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (150W)
boost clock - 5.8ghz
all core clock - 5.6ghz (>253W)

14900K:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (125W)
boost clock - 6.0ghz
all core clock - 5.7ghz (=253W)
13900ks goes to 6 GHz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Antey

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,110
11,523
136
i was using techpowerup data, but it's a whole system power consumption. Well, i guess 27W idle is not that good either. And that power plan hurts performance too much even if it ''retained a reasonable degree of system responsiveness''... meteor lake with a Low power island should be way more power efficient... <10W idle or even <5W idle and <1W with that kind of power plan
Desktop Alder Lake uses 3-5W in idle, and there is no perceivable system responsiveness penalty to pay. Figures like 27W are only attainable with sleep states disabled, which is not stock config. Windows power plan can stay on Balanced or High Performance.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,119
1,901
136
It's the 13900K with a tweaked Intel 7 process. The final result is +200mhz clocks at isopower. The 13900KS was +100mhz all core and +200mhz boost clocks but with additional power consumption. It's not a revolutionary product, it's a stopgap solution. It is unambiguously better than the 13900KS though.

13900K:
base clocks- 3.0ghz (125W)
boost clock - 5.8ghz
all core clock - 5.5ghz (=253W)

13900KS:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (150W)
boost clock - 6.0ghz
all core clock - 5.6ghz (>253W)

14900K:
base clocks- 3.2ghz (125W)
boost clock - 6.0ghz
all core clock - 5.7ghz (=253W)
Where did you find the 5.7GHz all core clock spec for the 14900K? I have been curious about that.
 

H433x0n

Senior member
Mar 15, 2023
820
867
96
Where did you find the 5.7GHz all core clock spec for the 14900K? I have been curious about that.
It’s from the geekbench logs. The maximum frequency listed for the multi core benchmarks usually say something like “5686mhz”, whereas when I run the test on my 13900K that same log says “5489mhz”.

That coupled with the base clock being +200mhz higher makes me feel pretty confident in the 5.7ghz all core clock prediction.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5180.png
    IMG_5180.png
    94.7 KB · Views: 14

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,119
1,901
136
It’s from the geekbench logs. The maximum frequency listed for the multi core benchmarks usually say something like “5686mhz”, whereas when I run the test on my 13900K that same log says “5489mhz”.

That coupled with the base clock being +200mhz higher makes me feel pretty confident in the 5.7ghz all core clock prediction.
That makes sense. I like it. Thanks.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,119
1,901
136
Are these test chips running on the node that is planned for production?
What I mean specifically is are Arrow Lake test parts built on 20A and are Lunar Lake test parts on 18A?
My follow up question would be how does Intel make it cost effective to sample the nodes for these parts in small quantities of for testing. AFAIK the machines cost 150million, can they be used for short runs? Can they be quickly changed from one node to another?
Is the production of the samples completely different production-wise from an actual production run of parts for sale?
I know that you can't easily change nodes as an architecture is designed for a particular node. I'm curious about how this works?
 

Dayman1225

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2017
1,150
971
146
Are these test chips running on the node that is planned for production?
What I mean specifically is are Arrow Lake test parts built on 20A and are Lunar Lake test parts on 18A?
My follow up question would be how does Intel make it cost effective to sample the nodes for these parts in small quantities of for testing. AFAIK the machines cost 150million, can they be used for short runs? Can they be quickly changed from one node to another?
Is the production of the samples completely different production-wise from an actual production run of parts for sale?
I know that you can't easily change nodes as an architecture is designed for a particular node. I'm curious about how this works?
Can’t answer most of the question but Lunar Lake is N3B not 18A
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,332
7,787
136
Are these test chips running on the node that is planned for production?
What I mean specifically is are Arrow Lake test parts built on 20A and are Lunar Lake test parts on 18A?
My follow up question would be how does Intel make it cost effective to sample the nodes for these parts in small quantities of for testing. AFAIK the machines cost 150million, can they be used for short runs? Can they be quickly changed from one node to another?
Is the production of the samples completely different production-wise from an actual production run of parts for sale?
I know that you can't easily change nodes as an architecture is designed for a particular node. I'm curious about how this works?
Intel has at least one R&D lab in Oregon where they run smaller batches of wafers. Stands to reason that they have EUV powered lithography machines there. I haven’t read much about Intel R$D fabs for years, so I don’t know the particulars.
 
Jul 27, 2020
14,864
9,130
106
Intel has at least one R&D lab in Oregon where they run smaller batches of wafers. Stands to reason that they have EUV powered lithography machines there.
That's quite possibly right.


Don't think they would have an expensive machine delivered to anywhere other than their single testing site in the US:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

H433x0n

Senior member
Mar 15, 2023
820
867
96
Are these test chips running on the node that is planned for production?
What I mean specifically is are Arrow Lake test parts built on 20A and are Lunar Lake test parts on 18A?
My follow up question would be how does Intel make it cost effective to sample the nodes for these parts in small quantities of for testing. AFAIK the machines cost 150million, can they be used for short runs? Can they be quickly changed from one node to another?
Is the production of the samples completely different production-wise from an actual production run of parts for sale?
I know that you can't easily change nodes as an architecture is designed for a particular node. I'm curious about how this works?
New process tech is developed in Oregon.

It begins with research stage where the characteristics of the node are developed (number of layers, chemistry, etc.). This transitions to Initial Development where they try to get the process to yield. After initial development they attempt volume production and if that works it’s ready to be exported to another Intel fab to enter HVM (I think this is what they mean by manufacturing ready).

So a product like ARL on a new process could most likely have ES chips fabbed at Oregon.