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

Page 377 - 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:

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
And I have to wonder why there's so much love towards SMT in this forum. Most desktop users won't benefit at all from SMT but would from reverse SMT - rentable units of whatever - which would use unused cores/parts of them to boost single-thread performance.
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,089
2,083
136
Just like Intel demonstrated, they have 115% single-thread performance at same power with their single-thread optimzed core as SMT-core running one thread.
They didn't demonstrate anything: they made a claim with a footnote saying ""All figures based on hypothetical comparison of HT-capable P-core vs Optimized P-core".
 

SarahKerrigan

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
735
2,035
136
And I have to wonder why there's so much love towards SMT in this forum. Most desktop users won't benefit at all from SMT but would from reverse SMT - rentable units of whatever - which would use unused cores/parts of them to boost single-thread performance.

And I can't understand why you've made it your life's mission to turn an Intel marketing slide into a permanent anti-SMT crusade.

They didn't demonstrate anything: they made a claim with a footnote saying ""All figures based on hypothetical comparison of HT-capable P-core vs Optimized P-core".

This. There was no real discussion of methodology whatsoever. It has no value. It has about as much technical value as a slide saying "SarahKerrigan is the most awesomest in the whole world!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and KompuKare

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
They didn't demonstrate anything: they made a claim with a footnote saying ""All figures based on hypothetical comparison of HT-capable P-core vs Optimized P-core".

That's how cpu's are designed - in simulations. That's Intel demonstration of different design approaches and it's effect on cpu performance and efficiency is actually by far the best we have seen in years coming from cpu manufacturers. But those same simulations and their actual comparisons to silicon implementations are demonstrated from other manufacturers too - and when simulation and silicon implementation differs from each other don't expect great performance from actual silicon.
 

SarahKerrigan

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
735
2,035
136
That's how cpu's are designed - in simulations. That's Intel demonstration of different design approaches and it's effect on cpu performance and efficiency is actually by far the best we have seen in years coming from cpu manufacturers. But those same simulations and their actual comparisons to silicon implementations are demonstrated from other manufacturers too - and when simulation and silicon implementation differs from each other don't expect great performance from actual silicon.

Other manufacturers, a lot of them, have said there are huge gains from SMT. Look at what Marvell says. They went into more detail than Intel did.

If Intel wants to provide methodology in a paper or an ISSCC presentation, I'll listen to it. A marketing slide is worthless. Years paying close attention to Intel's marketing claims, both on IPF and x86, have made me look at them critically; it is not the word of God to me.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
And I can't understand why you've made it your life's mission to turn an Intel marketing slide into a permanent anti-SMT crusade.
Actually Intel put on their slides those exact points I have made in this forum years. I actually thought that those Intel points would made my point stronger but resistance in this forum is strong :D
 

SarahKerrigan

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
735
2,035
136
Actually Intel put on their slides those exact points I have made in this forum years. I actually thought that those Intel points would made my point stronger but resistance in this forum is strong :D

And because it confirms your biases, you take it as gospel and ignore Marvell saying they get 28%-121% increase in throughput perf, depending on workload, for an area cost of 5%.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
Other manufacturers, a lot of them, have said there are huge gains from SMT. Look at what Marvell says. They went into more detail than Intel did.

If Intel wants to provide methodology in a paper or an ISSCC presentation, I'll listen to it. A marketing slide is worthless. Years paying close attention to Intel's marketing claims, both on IPF and x86, have made me look at them critically; it is not the word of God to me.

You are missing a point. Intel P-cores aim to be 1T performance king. Competition is though nowadays - 1T performance crown won't come easily. SMT isn't a free lunch anymore, core to target 1T need to drop it and only AMD seems to disagree now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
And because it confirms your biases, you take it as gospel and ignore Marvell saying they get 28%-121% increase in throughput perf, depending on workload, for an area cost of 5%.

Those Marvell cpu's did so well - specially on 1T. Yeah SMT has it's strong points but those aren't found in todays desktop or mobile cpus.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Just like Intel demonstrated, they have 115% single-thread performance at same power with their single-thread optimzed core as SMT-core running one thread. At that same power level SMT-cores both combined threads execute 130% instructions compared to that same core with single thread - performance from two combined threads aren't directly comparable to single threads as splitting work to two threads will decrease efficiency. They even know that and put it that way that it's technically correct - newer compare multiple threads performance to single thread directly.
Nicely said. 15% more ST at same power when HT is completely removed. Thats should be reason enough to remove HT completely. Let the gazillion E cores handle MT.
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,089
2,083
136
That's how cpu's are designed - in simulations.
Really? /s

That's Intel demonstration of different design approaches and it's effect on cpu performance and efficiency is actually by far the best we have seen in years coming from cpu manufacturers. But those same simulations and their actual comparisons to silicon implementations are demonstrated from other manufacturers too - and when simulation and silicon implementation differs from each other don't expect great performance from actual silicon.
They don't even talk about simulations. They talk about "hypothetical comparison". It would be an interesting exercise to read the footnotes of their previous marketing announcements of CPU. I bet they never used the word "hypothetical".

If you were working in a CPU design team, you'd be surprised by how inaccurate power projections (yes, projections, because you can't fully do power simulations, that's extraordinary expensive) can be. I'm not saying it's the case for Intel, they have a lot more experience than the teams I've worked with in that domain. But I doubt their power projection results would be as accurate as you think.

EDIT: BTW I'm not defending SMT.
 

SarahKerrigan

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
735
2,035
136
You are missing a point. Intel P-cores aim to be 1T performance king.

Intel aims for a lot of things. How many of them have they hit i the last five years?

Competition is though nowadays - 1T performance crown won't come easily. SMT isn't a free lunch anymore, core to target 1T need to drop it and only AMD seems to disagree now.

Z is overwhelmingly single-thread prioritized... and it has SMT.

Still haven't seen any actual methodology for what you're claiming beyond "Intel sez."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
I'm not too concerned about SMT. In ideal conditions, it can provide nearly 15-20% higher CB R23 score.

On the other hand, SMT increases power consumption, increases the die area, and can decrease the performance in some cases. Actually, Intel engineers admitted that they even disable SMT dynamically in some applications.

From my perspective, it's more efficient to scale the MT performance by increasing the number of E-cores. But from the other side, I can hardly imagine how I can load 24 cores.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
I'm not too concerned about SMT. In ideal conditions, it can provide nearly 15-20% higher CB R23 score.

On the other hand, SMT increases power consumption, increases the die area, and can decrease the performance of many applications. Actually, Intel engineers admitted that they even disable SMT dynamically in some applications.

From my perspective, it's more efficient to scale the MT performance by increasing the number of E-cores. But from the other side, I can hardly imagine how I can load 24 cores.
Assuming removing HT offers 15% ST gains, shouldn't this gain also offset the MT loss due to removing HT?

Net should be roughly ~15% ST gains and ~10% MT loss (for a single P core without any trace of HT).

Sounds good I'd say.

How many of them have they hit i the last five years?
Intel has hit almost all milestones in client since ADL. Missed a few years, didn't we?
 

SarahKerrigan

Senior member
Oct 12, 2014
735
2,035
136
Actually would like to see Z spec results. IBM did shout about single-thread performance leadership few years ago but not anymore - pretty sure that they too faced some pretty serious competition from non-smt rival designs.

Z single-thread perf is superb. I can't provide you SPEC results, though I've run them, but it's the real deal.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
903
786
136
Z single-thread perf is superb. I can't provide you SPEC results, though I've run them, but it's the real deal.

See that there isn't any extreme performance-oriented SMT-less design out yet. Intel seems to be first - if have to bet I would say that's Keller effect there and in AMD too, staying with SMT. Apple might target higher performance levels too.
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,191
1,487
136
What we currently only have is Intel marketeers going on about how removing SMT is so great.

Not any technical papers being presented at a technical show, or similar.

Until proven otherwise, I am inclined to think that the explainion is indeed what @Abwx speculated:

For Intel's hybrid approach to really work well, they needs the two type of cores to be as close to each other as possible. Dropping AVX-512 - after all the years of hype - and how SMT make the most sense in this context.

They also seem to have really pushed their synthesised design tools prowess so it is possible that some server chips addressing a certain market may get AVX-512 or some other "niche" feature anyhow.

Although the longer mainstream doesn't have the feature, the less chance of that IMO as While everyone is margins crazy, high volume with more modest margins is hugely important - and mainly why TSMC doing billions of ARM chips managed to be so successful. Intel of yore with the cast-off Atom stepchild attitude did not want to do higher volume, lower margins. Ironic of we consider how the cludge which is x86 ended up beating everyone else in the 80s and 90s - volume, volume, volume.
 

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,798
2,156
136
Actually would like to see Z spec results. IBM did shout about single-thread performance leadership few years ago but not anymore - pretty sure that they too faced some pretty serious competition from non-smt rival designs.
Spec dot org has results for the E1050 96 core. Just do a search on google for spec results for ibm power processors and it's one of the first entries.

To give you some perspective:
IBM Power E1050 (2.95 - 3.90 GHz, 96 core, AIX) - [768 instances, 4 chips, SMT8, only 2 threads per core in use) SpecRate2017IntBase=1220 , Peak=1580
IBM Power E1080 (3.55 - 4 GHz, 120 core, AIX) - [120 cores, 8 chips, 960 instances] = SpecRate2017IntBase=1700 , Peak=2170
Kaytus KR1280E2 (AMD EPYC 9754) (256 cores/512 instances) - SpecRate2017IntBase=1930 , Peak=2100
Kaytus KR1280E2 (AMD EPYC 9654) (192 cores/384 instances) - SpecRate2017IntBase=1800 , Peak=1920
Dell PowerEdge R6625 (AMD EPYC 9754 128-Core Processor)- (256 cores/512 instances) = SpecRate2017IntBase=1820 , Peak=1980
Dell PowerEdge R6625 (AMD EPYC 9684X 96-Core Processor) - (192 cores/384 instances) = SpecRate2017IntBase=1790 , Peak=1870
ZTE R8500G5 Server System (1.90 GHz, Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H) - (240 cores/480 instances) = SpecRate2017IntBase=2000 , Peak=2050
HPE Compute Scale-up Server 3200 (1.90 GHz, Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H) - (960 cores/1920 instances) - SpecRate2017IntBase=7310 , Peak=[Not submitted]

IBM Power10 can be configured in a performance competitive manner, but, it doesn't look like they are competitive on a "per-core-throughput" basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
...after all the years of hype - and how SMT make the most sense in this context.
HT made sense (in client) when there were fewer cores and a high power budget. Not these day when we have tons of cores. And a significant increase in ST is more important than a minor drop in MT.

Thank god Intel killed HT in client.

... Intel of yore with the cast-off Atom stepchild attitude did not want to do higher volume, lower margins. Ironic of we consider how the cludge which is x86 ended up beating everyone else in the 80s and 90s - volume, volume, volume.
Hilarious! When you say "volume, volume, volume", AMD is not even in the radar compared to Intel. :tearsofjoy:
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,191
1,487
136
Hilarious! When you say "volume, volume, volume", AMD is not even in the radar compared to Intel. :tearsofjoy:
And I keep saying the same thing about AMD, especially their GPUs.
What's the point of developing a new design with huge fixed costs, overpricing it at launch getting poor reviews, poor sales, and in the end reducing the price when that generation is almost gone?

But my point about Intel and why they failed so long with Atom, did not want the iPhone SOC business, etc., still stands: avoiding volume in a quest for margins is a very dangerous thing. And that the disciplineyou onlyget by making mass market products is very important but easy for bean counters to miss.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
And I keep saying the same thing about AMD, especially their GPUs.
What's the point of developing a new design with huge fixed costs, overpricing it at launch getting poor reviews, poor sales, and in the end reducing the price when that generation is almost gone?
The point is, it's the same strategy used by many companies for ages. Even Nvidia does it, and it's a multi-trillion dollar company.

But my point about Intel and why they failed so long with Atom, did not want the iPhone SOC business, etc., still stands: avoiding volume in a quest for margins is a very dangerous thing. And that the disciplineyou onlyget by making mass market products is very important but easy for bean counters to miss.
You're forgetting that Intel was run by bean counters during the iPhone SoC/Atom debacle. Those paper pushers didn't even realize what they were up against. Now that intel has an engineer at the helm (like amd & nvidia) who can see things better, I think the future should be better too.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,518
136
While I'm interested in the increased performance of ARL and Zen 5 and the tech behind it, honestly my 14900K desktop is quite "healthy" for my heavy workloads.

What I'm really interested in is a LNL laptop to replace my seriously outdated MS Surface Laptop 2 rocking 4 low frequency Skylake cores (8250u).