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

[Tigerick]

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.





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.)

 

[Glo.]

I've already said in my very first post that in higher power levels the 7950x edges ahead. But when we are talking about absolute efficiency first and foremost, nothing beats the 13900k. That is a fact, isn't it?

No, the fact is simple.

AMD CPUs are more efficient than Intel CPUs, bare one specific, extreme case scenario.

THATS a fact.

 

[FangBLade]

If you re talking of Premiere Pro it s not the 13900K CPU computing that is more efficient, its due to Premiere Pro using GPU encoding and Quicksync with Intel CPUs, i m sure you perfectly know it and are blatantly trying to mislead the general public.

I've already said in my very first post that in higher power levels the 7950x edges ahead. But when we are talking about absolute efficiency first and foremost, nothing beats the 13900k. That is a fact, isn't it?

We know, we know, you did that on your previous account and the one before that. We get it, Intel is the best in the world; we can go to sleep now.

 

[Abwx]

Yes, I've seen those results from computerbase, they have done the tests 15 times by now. In all of those graphs they have the 13900k as the most efficient CPU though. Every single one. At 45w it tops the performance chart.

That s incantation at best, at 45W it s more efficient because the 7950X uncore use about 15-20W while the 13900K uncore use 6W, that s a corner case that is irrelevant since that s not the power level at wich these CPU will be used

There was someone else in this forum who kept using this exemple and sticking to it as if 95% of the users would use such a CPU at 45W, i m sure that there s 0% of the 13900K buyers who set their CPU at this power, so you re essentialy talking of something that do not exist in real world.

 

[Henry swagger]

When intel gets on tsmc 3nm node.. they.ll have the efficiency crown on all stacks

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

That s incantation at best, at 45W it s more efficient because the 7950X uncore use about 15-20W while the 13900K uncore use 6W, that s a corner case that is irrelevant since that s not the power level at wich these CPU will be used

The why doesn't matter, the fact is it is the most efficient cpu, period. But with that said, if what you are saying is true and the uncore itself draws 15-20w on it's own, doesn't that also mean that the 13900k (and intel in general) will be much more efficient at every day to day task that is basically not rendering 24/7? Let's say I have 2 streams on youtube playing, a couple of excels and pdf files, on Intel power draw is between 8 and 15w, if the uncore itself is 20w on the 7950x then that makes Intel more efficient by default on like 99% of tasks, right?

See I'm not being dogmatic, I'm asking, following your point to their logical conclusion.

There was someone else in this forum who kept using this exemple and sticking to it as if 95% of the users would use such a CPU at 45W, i m sure that there s 0% of the 13900K buyers who set their CPU at this power, so you re essentialy talking of something that do not exist in real world.

I think nobody would use either of those CPUs at 45w. Or at least almost no one. That doesn't change the fact about which one is the more efficient. But again, regardless of that, the point is most people wouldn't be running 24/7 rendering, in most tasks that people use the Intel is more efficient due to the uncore burden you just mentioned.

Especially the lower you go into the task, the more AMD loses on pretty much every power limit you test. An i5 13600k is much more efficient than the R5 7600x, and according to computerbase it's more efficient than the R7 7700x too.

 

[FangBLade]

The why doesn't matter, the fact is it is the most efficient cpu, period. But with that said, if what you are saying is true and the uncore itself draws 15-20w on it's own, doesn't that also mean that the 13900k (and intel in general) will be much more efficient at every day to day task that is basically not rendering 24/7? Let's say I have 2 streams on youtube playing, a couple of excels and pdf files, on Intel power draw is between 8 and 15w, if the uncore itself is 20w on the 7950x then that makes Intel more efficient by default on like 99% of tasks, right?

See I'm not being dogmatic, I'm asking, following your point to their logical conclusion.

I think nobody would use either of those CPUs at 45w. Or at least almost no one. That doesn't change the fact about which one is the more efficient. But again, regardless of that, the point is most people wouldn't be running 24/7 rendering, in most tasks that people use the Intel is more efficient due to the uncore burden you just mentioned.

The amount of energy you're spending to prove your claim is fascinating. How much are you paid per comment? It's hard for me to believe that someone would be this motivated for free and for a company they have no connection to.

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

When intel gets on tsmc 3nm node.. they.ll have the efficiency crown on all stacks

And rumors about 3d cache. Imagine the 13900k with 3d cache....

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

No, the fact is simple.

AMD CPUs are more efficient than Intel CPUs, bare one specific, extreme case scenario.

THATS a fact.

Aye, so AMD cpus are more efficient if we exclude the fact that they are not. Gotcha.

 

[Abwx]

I've already said in my very first post that in higher power levels the 7950x edges ahead. But when we are talking about absolute efficiency first and foremost, nothing beats the 13900k. That is a fact, isn't it?

That s a "fact" for a marketing guy who is in need to dupe customers but it doesnt hold in a technical forum, you re just making a fool of yourself, i mean even the most intel friendly members in this forum do not dispute the better efficiency of AMD s CPUs, it takes someone who is eventually in Intel s payroll to say the contrary.

Let's say I have 2 streams on youtube playing, a couple of excels and pdf files, on Intel power draw is between 8 and 15w, if the uncore itself is 20w on the 7950x then that makes Intel more efficient by default on like 99% of tasks, right?

Still wrong because in ST the single loaded core will gladly use 50W that will add to the 6W uncore power, if you set the CPU at 45W, wich is ridiculous, you wont reach the max boost frequency when a single core is loaded.

You can turn things like you want, all that you ll prove is that it s it s difficlult, if not impossible, to state the contrary of the reality, but if it help you making some bucks why not after all, still a better and much easier job than construction or roads maintenance...

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

That s a "fact" for a marketing guy who is in need to dupe customers but it doesnt hold in a technical forum, you re just making a fool of yourself, i mean even the most intel friendly members in this forum do not dispute the better efficiency of AMD s CPUs, it takes someone who is eventually in Intel s payroll to say the contrary.

I'm making a fool of myself for repeating computerbases's findings. Okay man. I'm not disputing anything, im just stating that the most efficient cpu right now is the 13900k at 45w. Nothing beats that. If that's not important for you, great, we don't all have the same usecases.

Still wrong because in ST the single loaded core will gladly use 50W that will add to the 6W uncore power, if you set the CPU at 45W, wich is ridiculous, you wont reach the max boost frequency when a single core is loaded.

You can turn things like you want, all that you ll prove is that it s that it s a difficlult, if not impossible, to state the contrary of the reality, but if it help you making some bucks why not after all, still a better and much easier job than construction or roads maintenance...

I never said setting the CPU at 45w. I said that in an ST task the Intel CPU will be both faster and more efficient due to that uncore burden you mentioned. Most of the tasks im doing are ST, im not working for disney rendering 24/7.

For example, there seems to be a HUGE disparity here. The 7950x competes with rocket lake, the 13900k seems to be more efficient while at the same time being faster! If we use your methodology of throughput, the 7950x would need to consume twice the power to match the 13900k. Is that right or am I miscalculating something?

 

[SiliconFly]

I see Pat Gelsinger has hired a few people to strengthen the marketing, even a new account has emerged, lol, and the amount of lies they've told speaks for itself. I have nothing more to comment on that. Have a pleasant rest of the day.

Rubbish. Just because a person likes Intel doesn't mean they're paid by Intel marketing.

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

Rubbish. Just because a person likes Intel doesn't mean they're paid by Intel marketing.

Don't even like Intel. I'm just repeating what the reviews show.

 

[SiliconFly]

...13900K... ...twice as efficient as the 7950x.

I love Intel. But even I wouldn't go that far.

For all I know, the difference in power efficiency between 13900K & 7950X3D isn't that much on average day to day workloads. But, I don't think 13900K can come even remotely close to being 2X efficient than a 7950X3D. Maybe on a very specific workload which doesn't concern us. Just my 2 cents. I maybe wrong though.

 

[FangBLade]

Don't even like Intel. I'm just repeating what the reviews show.

You repeat this with every account, there's a reason they banned you here, and you didn't last long. You created a new account, and instead of learning a lesson, you're going the same way from the first comment. The same fate will happen to you again. Can't you see anything wrong with your approach?

 

[SiliconFly]

No, the fact is simple.

AMD CPUs are more efficient than Intel CPUs, bare one specific, extreme case scenario.

THATS a fact.

Yep. Thats right. This computerbase testing chart seems to be a one off. We shouldn't rely on it to come to a general conclusion.

 

[S'renne]

Lol I don't understand why that person can't just admit Intel is less efficient with Raptor Lake compared to AMD Zen 4 and that's the issue they're addressing from Meteor Lake onwards with Intel 4/20A or TSMC 3B

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

I love Intel. But even I wouldn't go that far.

For all I know, the difference in power efficiency between 13900K & 7950X3D isn't that much on average day to day workloads. But, I don't think 13900K can come even remotely close to being 2X efficient than a 7950X3D. Maybe on a very specific workload which doesn't concern us. Just my 2 cents. I maybe wrong though.

Agreed, but the way abwx wants to test (equalising throughput) yes it can get 2x as efficient. That's because it's the wrong way of testing though, but he insisted

 

[SiliconFly]

When intel gets on tsmc 3nm node.. they.ll have the efficiency crown on all stacks

I seriously doubt it. In spite of all the rumors suggesting that Intel might use TSMC N3B for the CPU tile, I believe Intel is gonna stick to Intel foundry nodes for their future CPU tiles.

But all is well, The current desktop 14th gen is RPL refresh based on Intel 7. Next desktop 15th gen is Arrow Lake based on Intel 20A with a massive PPW gain of 63% when compared to 14th gen RPL refresh. ARL desktop parts power efficiency will be off the charts even if we don't include the overall tiled power efficient design.

Everything considered, ARL might almost double the power efficiency of 14th gen RPL refresh.

 

[Abwx]

I'm making a fool of myself for repeating computerbases's findings. Okay man. I'm not disputing anything, im just stating that the most efficient cpu right now is the 13900k at 45w. Nothing beats that. If that's not important for you, great, we don't all have the same usecases.


I never said setting the CPU at 45w. I said that in an ST task the Intel CPU will be both faster and more efficient due to that uncore burden you mentioned. Most of the tasks im doing are ST, im not working for disney rendering 24/7.

For example, there seems to be a HUGE disparity here. The 7950x competes with rocket lake, the 13900k seems to be more efficient while at the same time being faster! If we use your methodology of throughput, the 7950x would need to consume twice the power to match the 13900k. Is that right or am I miscalculating something?

There s only 12W difference in CB ST at computerbase for the full system, and that s using the most favourable test for RPL, and no one do renderings in ST, so that s meaningless.

Beside no one buy those CPUs to just browse the net or do social networks like X, but even then those usages are INT code based and that s where the 7950X is even more efficient than in FP.

Yep. Thats right. This computerbase testing chart seems to be a one off. We shouldn't rely on it to come to a general conclusion.

They have the most precise measurements, FI TPU doesnt even state what is the idle powers, anyway i wont keep polluting the thread with this useless debate whith people who believe that santa claus really exist.

 

[Joe NYC]

When asked about Meteor Lake desktop Michelle Johnston Holthaus says it comes in 2024. I'm not so convinced she is correct though.

In another interview, Ian Cutrass called Michelle Johnston Holthouse "cool".

I think the quality he sees in her is mainly her signature on his check from Intel.

 

[Abwx]

Everything considered, ARL might almost double the power efficiency of 14th gen RPL refresh.

At least that s within the thread discussion...

You have too big expectations, according to Intel themselves the used process will be at best 52% more efficient at same throughput and same uarch...

Guess than once ARL will be released you will backtrack from your fairy taled metrics for efficency.

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

There s only 12W difference in CB ST at computerbase for the full system, and that s using the most favourable test for RPL, and no one do renderings in ST, so that s meaningless.

Full system is meaningless, tpup measured a 50+% delta in performance / watt and that wasn't even on similar throughputs. Using your method the 7950x would literally consume double the wattage.

 

[SiliconFly]

At least that s within the thread discussion...

You have too big expectations, according to Intel themselves the used process will be at best 52% more efficient at same throughput and same uarch...

Guess than once ARL will be released you will backtrack from your fairy taled metrics for efficency.

Kindly consider reading the anandtech article on Intel foundry nodes roadmap. Then you'll realize it's you who's living in the fairy tale world.

Intel roadmap article clearly states the ppw gains from each node jump in their 5 nodes in 4 years plan. And the ppw gain from Intel 7 to Intel 20A is clearly stated at 63%. Thats the official published figure. Nothing fairy tale about it.

And this 63% ppw gain is from the node jump alone. Then comes the major new ground-up tiled SoC architecture design for Intel desktop lineup for the first time. Just for reference, the current 14th gen RPL refresh is still monolithic & outdated design & power hungry. On the other hand, ARL is getting the new power efficient tiled SoC design like MTL. This too adds a layer of power-efficiency to ARL.

Finally comes the Lion Cove P cores. We still don't know much about LNC perf/ppw, but it's definitely not going to be less efficient that the previous gen. It doesn't work that way. LNC is also expected to add a bit of power-efficiency to ARL.

If you put everything together, we're looking at a nice ARL desktop CPU that can offer up to 2X power efficiency compared to the previous RPL refresh 14th gen desktop parts which are based on power hungry/outdated design.

 

[Abwx]

Kindly consider reading the anandtech article on Intel foundry nodes roadmap. Then you'll realize it's you who's living in the fairy tale world.

But i did read the article and looked at Intel s slides for expected perf/watt improvement, i didnt pull the 52% perf/watt improvement out of nowhere, i let hasardous estimations for whom think that they know better than Intel themselves.

Beside they state that ll regain perf/watt leadership in 2025, so they are admitting that they dont hold it currently, yet there s people who apparently also know better than Intel in this area...

 

[CopernicusLazarus]

Beside they state that ll regain perf/watt leadership in 2025, so they are admitting that they dont hold it currently, yet there s people who apparently also know better than Intel in this area...

Link?