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

Page 375 - 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
696
602
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)Lunar LakePanther Lake
PlatformMobile H/U OnlyDesktop OnlyDesktop & Mobile H&HXMobile U OnlyMobile H
Process NodeIntel 4Intel 20ATSMC N3BTSMC N3BIntel 18A
DateQ4 2023Q1 2025 ?Desktop-Q4-2024
H&HX-Q1-2025
Q4 2024Q1 2026 ?
Full Die6P + 8P6P + 8E ?8P + 16E4P + 4E4P + 8E
LLC24 MB24 MB ?36 MB ?12 MB?
tCPU66.48
tGPU44.45
SoC96.77
IOE44.45
Total252.15

LNL-MX.png

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: 24,006
  • LNL.png
    LNL.png
    881.8 KB · Views: 25,490
Last edited:

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,519
136
How do you figure ARL will "wipe out" 9950 in MT? Lets do some speculative math. Assume Lion cove and 9xxx big cores are equal if both have hyperthreading. I think this should be a fairly accurate guess. 9950x has 16 "big cores" all with HT.
ARL has 8 big cores without HT so assuming 25% gain from HT, that is equivalent to 6 AMD cores.
ARL has 16 E cores. They lack hyperthreading and will have a clock speed disadvantage as well. So in "equivalent" AMD cores, that is 16*.75(no HT)*.85(clockspeed disadvantage) = 10.2. So we have 6+10 AMD core equivalents. MT performance should be about equal at best, because I am not even considering the the E cores will have an IPC deficit as well against AMD big cores.

What all-core speed does the 16 core Zen 4 run at?
 

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,005
1,528
136
What all-core speed does the 16 core Zen 4 run at?
For both Lion Cove and Zen 5 I have seen estimates of 5.7 turbo, so I assumed 5.5 all core (for both Lion Cove and Zen 5) and 4.5 all core for Skymont. This actually gives a ratio of 0.82, but I fudged a bit and gave Skymont a ratio of 0.85. Obviously, all these are just guesses, since we have neither product in final retail form. As I said also, I fudged in favor of Intel by assuming Skymont has equal IPC to Zen 5.

Point is, I dont see how anyone can by any stretch of the imagination think ARL without hyperthreading will decisively beat Zen 5 in multithreaded. It will come down to what clock speed each can maintain, and which architecture the benchmark favors. Best case for Intel I see is trading blows depending on the benchmark. As impressive at it appears to be, an E core is still far away in performance from a full fledged big core with HT.

Despite the claimed advantages of removing HT, I feel strongly that it will hurt them in the end. It is bad enough in the high end with 16 E cores, but will be even worse in the lower tiers. Previously I7 and i5 lines had an advantage over AMD because the extra E cores gave Intel an advantage in MT workloads against the equivalent AMD 76xx and 78xx chips. Now that advantage will be largely negated because the E cores will be needed to just make up for the lack of HT. If LC had been able to achieve 25 or 30 percent IPC gain, I could see how one would want to remove HT. But the IPC gain appears by all leaks, and preliminary LL data to be equal or slightly less than for previous Intel new generations which did not give up HT. So it just seems like a loss to me, with no corresponding gain except maybe easier validation and less security vulnerabilities, although AMD still seems to make it work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
How do you figure ARL will "wipe out" 9950 in MT? Lets do some speculative math. Assume Lion cove and 9xxx big cores are equal if both have hyperthreading. I think this should be a fairly accurate guess. 9950x has 16 "big cores" all with HT.
ARL has 8 big cores without HT so assuming 25% gain from HT, that is equivalent to 6 AMD cores.
ARL has 16 E cores. They lack hyperthreading and will have a clock speed disadvantage as well. So in "equivalent" AMD cores, that is 16*.75(no HT)*.85(clockspeed disadvantage) = 10.2. So we have 6+10 AMD core equivalents. MT performance should be about equal at best, because I am not even considering the the E cores will have an IPC deficit as well against AMD big cores.
Your math is wrong. Using your own numbers, ARL-S has 8 LNC cores without HT. 16 SKT * 0.85 (clockspeed disadvantage) = ~13.6 LNC cores without HT. That is, ARL-S ~= 21.6 LNC cores without HT.

Assume 1 Zen5 core without HT ~= 1 LNC core without HT. So, 16 Zen5 cores with HT = 16 * 1.25 ~= 20 LNC cores without HT.

i.e, ARL-S = 21.6 & Zen5 = 20

Advantage ARL.

4.5 all core for Skymont
4.6 GHz

...I dont see how anyone can by any stretch of the imagination think ARL without hyperthreading will decisively beat Zen 5 in multithreaded. ...
There lies the issue, you assume HT gives a sustained boost. It doesn't. Physical cores do.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,677
14,275
136
Ok. Scale it down further. But also adjust for HT. You'll see no way a 16 core HT cpu will stand against a 24 core cpu.
You were debating the napkin math of another poster, do the math again and show your results. (or point out the mistake in the other poster's napkin exercise)

Finishing your reply with "you'll see no way" sounds more like faith and less like fact.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
You were debating the napkin math of another poster, do the math again and show your results. (or point out the mistake in the other poster's napkin exercise)

Finishing your reply with "you'll see no way" sounds more like faith and less like fact.
None of these are facts. I think HT barely provides 15% to 20% performance delta in reality. So, if you adjust for that, it still comes down to same. No more magical numbers based on napkin math. I stop here.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
115
101
76
I took the newest clock numbers for ARL QS and came out at a 5% lead for ARL. Looks like it will be ZEN4 vs RPL again. Performance in ST and MT basically the same (probably slight lead for Intel in both, but nothing to worry). Efficiency will see a clearer winner and in this regard my personal guess is that the rules will switch. Intels node jump is just too big. That's for vannilla ZEN5. 3D will bring gaming parity again and will be the most efficient too because of it's low clocks, but Intel will be way closer than before.
which is a healthy back and forth. On the basis of pure speculation, I believe that we haven't seen the real performance of Lion Cove yet. Weren't the benchmarks of the LNC core based on a trimmed version with less cache for Lunar Lake. I'll wait and see..
 

Klingenberg

Member
Oct 29, 2012
46
6
71
I can see big advancements in consumer choices in the coming years with a big boost in efficiency, and for sure it will lean in favor of Intel. I don't know, they seem like they are one step further in technology
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
...I believe that we haven't seen the real performance of Lion Cove yet...
True. ARL's LNC is yet to be seen. And I'm not sure, but I think we haven't seen Zen5 final yet either. Both should be revealed soon. Interesting times ahead...
...I don't know, they seem like they are one step further in technology
I don't think we should classify Intel as "one step" ahead in technology when they have a lead that kinda marginal at best. In terms of abstracted out (agnostic/modular) cores, tiles, fabric, gpu, process, etc, they've kinda caught up or exceeded a bit. A clear win requires leadership in at least most of it I guess.
 

Klingenberg

Member
Oct 29, 2012
46
6
71
True. ARL's LNC is yet to be seen. And I'm not sure, but I think we haven't seen Zen5 final yet either. Both should be revealed soon. Interesting times ahead...

I don't think we should classify Intel as "one step" ahead in technology when they have a lead that kinda marginal at best. In terms of abstracted out (agnostic/modular) cores, tiles, fabric, gpu, process, etc, they've kinda caught up or exceeded a bit. A clear win requires leadership in at least most of it I guess.
Who would you say is the best one then?
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Who would you say is the best one then?
Neither. After years of lagging competition, Intel has finally caught up (in almost all areas). That in itself is a massive feat! They're both almost at par now. A few percent points difference shouldn't be considered a big win.

Things may actually change a lot depending on how both the companies execute in the future. But not anytime now imho.

Based on LNC/Zen5 leaks, it looks like 2024 is gonna be the year of the equals.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,167
15,315
136
Neither. After years of lagging competition, Intel has finally caught up (in almost all areas). That in itself is a massive feat! They're both almost at par now. A few percent points difference shouldn't be considered a big win.

Things may actually change a lot depending on how both the companies execute in the future. But not anytime now imho.

Based on LNC/Zen5 leaks, it looks like 2024 is gonna be the year of the equals.
I think its early to call that. We have no reviews of new products from either company. Also, server seems to still be squarely in AMDs court, but until reviews come out, its all up in the air. Marketing info from both say NOTHING but try to make themselves look good.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,519
136
It's hard to make predictions for overall performance when the architectures are so different, meaning all big cores vs. a big/little design.

I think we need to look at specific software. For example, I made this comparison of 9950X vs ARL 8+16 for CB R23 MT using performance from the previous generation and then bumping up for new gen cores based on manufacturer early data. +17% for Zen 5 vs Zen 4 and I think it was +14% for Lion Cove over Raptor Cove and Skymont IPC = Raptor Cove. Assumption was Zen 4 clocks will equal Zen 5 clocks. ARL clocks assumed 5.4 nT for Lion Cove and 4.5GHz for Skymont.

My calcs show Zen 5 around 45,000 and ARL just under 48,000. Maybe a 5 or 6% advantage for this one particular "ridiculously" parallel threaded application. With the estimates I have made for final clocks (they may be high for ARL and low for Zen 5) we are within the margin of error.

So defenders of Intel and AMD be not worried! Zen 5 and ARL will be close enough in performance to sustain fruitful discussions for years to come! I am predicting there will be no clear winner in performance. This makes sense because Intel knew where AMD was going 3 years ago and AMD knew the same about Intel. They will both be hitting each others performance targets perfectly! Yes, I know I am being cynical to the extreme.

As far as efficiency I think Intel will do better on the new node but if I had to bet I think AMD may still have the advantage.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
115
101
76
It's hard to make predictions for overall performance when the architectures are so different, meaning all big cores vs. a big/little design.

I think we need to look at specific software. For example, I made this comparison of 9950X vs ARL 8+16 for CB R23 MT using performance from the previous generation and then bumping up for new gen cores based on manufacturer early data. +17% for Zen 5 vs Zen 4 and I think it was +14% for Lion Cove over Raptor Cove and Skymont IPC = Raptor Cove. Assumption was Zen 4 clocks will equal Zen 5 clocks. ARL clocks assumed 5.4 nT for Lion Cove and 4.5GHz for Skymont.

My calcs show Zen 5 around 45,000 and ARL just under 48,000. Maybe a 5 or 6% advantage for this one particular "ridiculously" parallel threaded application. With the estimates I have made for final clocks (they may be high for ARL and low for Zen 5) we are within the margin of error.

So defenders of Intel and AMD be not worried! Zen 5 and ARL will be close enough in performance to sustain fruitful discussions for years to come! I am predicting there will be no clear winner in performance. This makes sense because Intel knew where AMD was going 3 years ago and AMD knew the same about Intel. They will both be hitting each others performance targets perfectly! Yes, I know I am being cynical to the extreme.

As far as efficiency I think Intel will do better on the new node but if I had to bet I think AMD may still have the advantage.
I don't know, you might be right but AMD could only catch up due to architecture and node being tightly linked on the Intel side. With the option to outsource and the cores using industry standard tools for design, the teams can run as fast as they can while having TSMC as a security. The core technology (Hardware + Software) is miles ahead of AMD, the bottleneck in my humble opinion was the node and laziness due to zero competition from AMD in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,519
136
I don't know, you might be right but AMD could only catch up due to architecture and node being tightly linked on the Intel side. With the option to outsource and the cores using industry standard tools for design, the teams can run as fast as they can while having TSMC as a security. The core technology (Hardware + Software) is miles ahead of AMD, the bottleneck in my humble opinion was the node and laziness due to zero competition from AMD in the past.
That is a really good point. If it just comes down to putting designs on paper and then sending them to TMSC to make them work then Intel does have the resources to out spend/out design AMD. Lunar Lake may be the first example of that happening. Intel can easily put a huge team on the P cores, another on the E cores, another on the AI cores, another on GPU, etc.. while having a bunch of other teams working on future projects. Someone at Intel realized that and made the move to use TMSC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AcrosTinus

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
428
132
86
I don't know, you might be right but AMD could only catch up due to architecture and node being tightly linked on the Intel side. With the option to outsource and the cores using industry standard tools for design, the teams can run as fast as they can while having TSMC as a security. The core technology (Hardware + Software) is miles ahead of AMD, the bottleneck in my humble opinion was the node and laziness due to zero competition from AMD in the past.

Well if Intel has caught up on node shoulder they be superior to AMD.

Afterall intel on a node behind was equal or a little better than Zen 4 in IPC. Though power usage much higher and stability issues 13th and 14th Gen kind of negated that.

But if Intel is better on node shouldn't they be better and superior given they were equal on inferior node despite power and stability issues om the 10nm inferior node.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
115
101
76
That is a really good point. If it just comes down to putting designs on paper and then sending them to TMSC to make them work then Intel does have the resources to out spend/out design AMD. Lunar Lake may be the first example of that happening. Intel can easily put a huge team on the P cores, another on the E cores, another on the AI cores, another on GPU, etc.. while having a bunch of other teams working on future projects. Someone at Intel realized that and made the move to use TMSC.
You get it, I think Pat knows what is he is doing, everything is about de-risking and building resilience while pushing forward so that the past cannot repeat itself. Proof is the "I bet the company on 18A" in reality there is 20A that generates insight and corrections for 18A before it goes into volume. Again, I might be a bit too hopeful due to buying the intel dip but everything is alright as of now.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
115
101
76
Well if Intel has caught up on node shoulder they be superior to AMD.

Afterall intel on a node behind was equal or a little better than Zen 4 in IPC. Though power usage much higher and stability issues 13th and 14th Gen kind of negated that.

But if Intel is better on node shouldn't they be better and superior given they were equal on inferior node despite power and stability issues om the 10nm inferior node.
If Intel stays awake it will work out. I cannot estimate the impact of the new transistors and backside power at the moment. These features seem to be a milestone in manufacturing that should unlock a new level in efficiency and clocks/power.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
How do you figure ARL will "wipe out" 9950 in MT? Lets do some speculative math. Assume Lion cove and 9xxx big cores are equal if both have hyperthreading. I think this should be a fairly accurate guess. 9950x has 16 "big cores" all with HT.
ARL has 8 big cores without HT so assuming 25% gain from HT, that is equivalent to 6 AMD cores.
ARL has 16 E cores. They lack hyperthreading and will have a clock speed disadvantage as well. So in "equivalent" AMD cores, that is 16*.75(no HT)*.85(clockspeed disadvantage) = 10.2. So we have 6+10 AMD core equivalents. MT performance should be about equal at best, because I am not even considering the the E cores will have an IPC deficit as well against AMD big cores.
Not how I did it, my method was prob uselessly more complicated lol but whatever, agree with the end conclusion that ARL will be around Zen 5 MT perf.
Also, server seems to still be squarely in AMDs court,
How? Same core counts, Zen 5 will have prob have a ~15% per core IPC advantage and prob a similar margin of perf/watt advantage as well. AVX-512 prob better with Zen 5, running AI workloads is almost certainly going to be better with Intel (if they use their accelerators). That doesn't sound like it's still "squarely in AMDs court". AMD still has a marginal advantage sure, but Intel is in a dramatically more competitive position.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,167
15,315
136
Not how I did it, my method was prob uselessly more complicated lol but whatever, agree with the end conclusion that ARL will be around Zen 5 MT perf.

How? Same core counts, Zen 5 will have prob have a ~15% per core IPC advantage and prob a similar margin of perf/watt advantage as well. AVX-512 prob better with Zen 5, running AI workloads is almost certainly going to be better with Intel (if they use their accelerators). That doesn't sound like it's still "squarely in AMDs court". AMD still has a marginal advantage sure, but Intel is in a dramatically more competitive position.
This is not the place for that discussion. I had an opinion, leave it at that. When benchmarks come out, I will find the right thread to discuss them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: controlflow