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

Page 318 - 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
686
576
106
PPT1.jpg
PPT2.jpg
PPT3.jpg



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 + N3E3CPU + 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
 

Attachments

  • PantherLake.png
    PantherLake.png
    283.5 KB · Views: 23,984
  • LNL.png
    LNL.png
    881.8 KB · Views: 25,456
Last edited:

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
439
623
96
We can't expect skymont or any other monts for at least one or two more generations to have real world performance comparable to GLC.
You barely see anyone asking for 16 Gracemont based chips do you? That's because single thread performance is still king. People want 8 Golden Coves over 16 Gracemonts. So when Skymont comes out there will be a faster P core, Lion Cove, and then people want many Lion Cove cores, not Golden Coves. And on and on and on.
This all looks impressive, first time I've been impressed by Intel in awhile.
I'm guessing AVX 512 isn't on the menu for Skymont?
They(leakers) aren't expecting AVX10.2 even with the successor. It looks like the E core team does what they want, which IMO is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Mahboi

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
261
90
61
I often edit way after I post, so go read again. The E cores are still behind in clocks.


Yeah makessense then so they will still perform worse. How far behind in clocks.

Though Golden Cove IPC if true should be good. I remember hearing that Skmont was going to be more like Tiger Lake or Cypress Cove IPC and not Golden Cove.

Though Gracemont has Skylake IPC but behind in clocks and is worse in latency sensitive workload themselves. Though if it was possible to disable all P cores on 12th to 14th Gen and use just Gracemont, would it perform like a 9700K or double core count in case of 13th and 14th Gen i9s which has Skylake like IPC? Or not really?
 

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
439
623
96
Yeah makessense then so they will still perform worse. How far behind in clocks.

Though Golden Cove IPC if true should be good. I remember hearing that Skmont was going to be more like Tiger Lake or Cypress Cove IPC and not Golden Cove.
Obviously that was a guess. I was betting on it being Golden Cove+ for Integer looking at the history(30% for new uarchs), and that the leaker said they were aiming for "ADL", or Golden Cove.
Though Gracemont has Skylake IPC but behind in clocks and is worse in latency sensitive workload themselves. Though if it was possible to disable all P cores on 12th to 14th Gen and use just Gracemont, would it perform like a 9700K or double core count in case of 13th and 14th Gen i9s which has Skylake like IPC? Or not really?
They can do it in theory, and that's basically what they are doing with Sierra Forest. But I don't think it'll sell well in client.

If they were to do it they'll need to change the config to a single core setup rather than a module, have three tier caches, and connected to a high speed interconnect.

Gracemont is better than Skylake in Integer but worse in FP as well.
 

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
439
623
96
The graph seems to be showing 45% gain in Integer and 75% in FP, if it's linear. If that's the case, that explains both the core size increase, because it beats the typical 30% gain.

*Sniff* Atom is growing.

Being straight up increase in FP units, the performance improvement will be uniform rather than maybe as with new AVX standards.

Also,
Clearwater Forest
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
261
90
61
Obviously that was a guess. I was betting on it being Golden Cove+ for Integer looking at the history(30% for new uarchs), and that the leaker said they were aiming for "ADL", or Golden Cove.

They can do it in theory, and that's basically what they are doing with Sierra Forest. But I don't think it'll sell well in client.

If they were to do it they'll need to change the config to a single core setup rather than a module, have three tier caches, and connected to a high speed interconnect.

Gracemont is better than Skylake in Integer but worse in FP as well.

So they could do only e-cores in theory. Is there any reason why on 12th to 14th Gen you cannot disable all P cores and run with only the Gracemont e-cores in the BIOS? Is there any technical limitation to it or is it artificial from Intel and mobo makers that require at least one P core active form BIOS settings to POST and boot PC to an OS.
 

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
439
623
96
One guy on twitter is saying 37% is the official number, looks like that's the Integer figure. So the leakers were exactly right that it's aiming at "ADL". I did not expect the FP improvements though. So it'll beat Golden Cove in both Int and FP by about 10-15%.

Golden Cove has 3x 256-bit FP units. In applications where only 128-bits are used, 4x 128-bit on Skymont is more capable than on Golden Cove, because the 256-bit on Golden Cove is only taken advantage for 256-bit instructions.
 

Henry swagger

Senior member
Feb 9, 2022
450
284
106
One guy on twitter is saying 37% is the official number, looks like that's the Integer figure. So the leakers were exactly right that it's aiming at "ADL". I did not expect the FP improvements though. So it'll beat Golden Cove in both Int and FP by about 10-15%.

Golden Cove has 3x 256-bit FP units. In applications where only 128-bits are used, 4x 128-bit on Skymont is more capable than on Golden Cove, because the 256-bit on Golden Cove is only taken advantage for 256-bit instructions.
Damn kopite was write with skymont having adl ipc.. can't wait for beast lake
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,438
13,017
136
What Gracemont like Skylake ST performance or Skymont being close to Golden Cove single threaded performance?
You asked about Gracemont vs. Skylake. It would not be close in ST perf and would likely lose in mixed workloads as well. Keep in mind Skylake would have frequency advantage, inter-core latency advantage, memory latency advantage. Most consumer workloads would prefer these attributes over maximized throughput at 16 threads.

Also, where did you pull the Skylake close to GC ST performance from? The discussion is about IPC equivalence, not performance.
 

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
261
90
61
You asked about Gracemont vs. Skylake. It would not be close in ST perf and would likely lose in mixed workloads as well. Keep in mind Skylake would have frequency advantage, inter-core latency advantage, memory latency advantage. Most consumer workloads would prefer these attributes over maximized throughput at 16 threads.

Also, where did you pull the Skylake close to GC ST performance from? The discussion is about IPC equivalence, not performance.


So Gracemont not close to Skylake performance.

Also was asking about supposed Skymont Arrow Lake e-cores compared to Golden Cove. Will those have the IPC and latency and core to core communication of Golden Cove? Or not even close?
 

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
439
623
96
So Gracemont not close to Skylake performance.

Also was asking about supposed Skymont Arrow Lake e-cores compared to Golden Cove. Will those have the IPC and latency and core to core communication of Golden Cove? Or not even close?
Remember, Gracemont is faster on Integer but quite a bit slower on FP. So even if everything else is equal, the core differences mean the average equivalence really turns out to be lot of fluctuations.

Golden Cove compared to Gracemont:
Int: +23%
FP: +66%

So based on those numbers Gracemont is 10% faster on Integer but Skylake is 22% faster in FP. Based on the differences between Zen 4 and ADL, gaming workloads favor FP more than Int.

We don't know if it'll have the same level as Golden Cove, but historically we can assume client parts won't be. They likely will need to do lot of low level changes to make it equal, and if Lion Cove is faster, why do that on the lower cost core?
 
Last edited:

Ghostsonplanets

Senior member
Mar 1, 2024
572
968
96
I have to LOL @ Intel for making Lunar Lake on TSMC N3B/N6 when their own latest process is supposedly superior.
When LNL started development and they had to make a node choice, there was 0 confidence and foresight if they would have a competitive node by the time LNL would launch. Hence why ARL and LNL use TSMC N3B extensively, as reported by Nikkei back in 2020.

Panther Lake will come in 2025 H2 and make usage of Intel 18A and Intel 3 extensively.
 

Mahboi

Senior member
Apr 4, 2024
741
1,316
96
Interesting, so it's a calendar reason?
I thought the decision was due to LNL aiming for low power draw and so TSMC N3 was deemed better than Intel 3.
 

Magio

Junior Member
May 13, 2024
23
20
41
Interesting, so it's a calendar reason?
I thought the decision was due to LNL aiming for low power draw and so TSMC N3 was deemed better than Intel 3.
It's possible that that's also the case, but regardless they don't have the capacity on N3 (or 20A even if it was library complete) for a launch as big as LNL and ARL are supposed to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dullard

Joe NYC

Platinum Member
Jun 26, 2021
2,337
2,957
106
Yields? Intel7 must be yielding insanely good the last years so MTL didn't help with yields.

Intel told investors that Intel's pre-EUV nodes are very expensive and also said transition to EUV nodes will bring cost savings.

So unless Intel is BSing in an investor call, it would imply that Intel 7 yields are not good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Ghostsonplanets

Senior member
Mar 1, 2024
572
968
96
Intel told investors that Intel's pre-EUV nodes are very expensive and also said transition to EUV nodes will bring cost savings.

So unless Intel is BSing in an investor call, it would imply that Intel 7 yields are not good.
Years ago Intel CFO said that Intel 10/7 would never make the ROI for them, but it was a necessary step to overcome into ever so smaller and advanced manufacturing processess. So I guess it's kinda of both ways: Intel 7 is complex and expensive, but products are depreciated and in high-volume. While Intel 4+ brings costs-savings, but the product using it is more expensive to be made due to 3D tiled design + packaging.