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

Page 383 - 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:

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
We can simply compare those results:

View attachment 102032

If we use Linux instead of Windows we will get nearly the same results. Geekbench 6 running in Linux or Unix (macOS) shows 10% better results on the same hardware and frequency. The previous version (Geekbench 5) was more consistent in this regard. The difference was 5-6%.
Thats impressive. I'm not sure how significant this is, but LNL GB6 ST score is 10% slower than M3. So, we can say it's very near, but far from equal. Still an impressive feat though!
 

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that Lunar lake needs to clock much higher to even match the M3. I don't know why you don't mention that when you talk efficiency.

Its needs to clock 20% higher than the M3 to achieve the same score so can how lunar be more efficient?

The clocks alone do not matter that much. The thing that really matters is the actual power consumption.

The P-cores in Apple Silicon were initially designed to be wide. M1 is the 8-wide architecture, M3 is 9-wide, and M4 is 10-wide. This approach requires much more complex structures and much more transistors. This approach offers better performance at lower clock speeds because the frequency/power curve is usually steeper at the beginning.

However, this approach has an obvious limitation. When you want to increase frequency, the power consumption will grow much faster compared to more narrow architectures.

As a result, the power consumption of the P-core in M4 more than doubled compared to M1 (8.95W vs 3.92W in SPEC 2017 FP) while being on the newer node. The frequency has increased from 3.2 to 4.5 GHz. I think the P-core in Apple M5 will reach the 5 GHz barrier and will consume 15W.

For comparison, Intel Lion Cove, Skymont, and Zen 5 are 8-wide architectures, which were initially optimized to run on higher clocks while consuming the reasonable amount of power.

I'm talking about multi-threaded performance, as I said ST is a better showing but with the caveat that platform TDP doesn't tell us much about power consumption in single threaded performance.

You missed the phrase "subject of changes".

In both GB 5.5 and CB23 MT, the 17W LNL is 20/30% behind M3.

In the Geekbench 5 ST test Apple M3 scores between 2200-2300, MT is nearly 10000:

1719574428553.png

It's a 10-15% difference (2250 - 2000 / 2250 = 11.1%, 10000 - 8800 / 10000 = 12%). It is not 20-30%.

What is more interesting is that those results were obtained for early Pre-QS samples running on 17W PL1 and 17W PL2. Apple M3 is using ~30W PL2 and throttles down to 20-22W under MT tests.
 
Last edited:

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,802
106
For comparison, Intel Lion Cove, Skymont, and Zen 5 are 8-wide architectures, which were initially optimized to run on higher clocks while consuming the reasonable amount of power.
How'd you even know without testing? imo, your bias against Apple is clearly showing. Doesn't Alder Lake, Meteor Lake and Zen4 consume more power than M4 P core in 1t? What does "reasonable amount of power" of power here mean?
As a result, the power consumption of the P-core in M4 more than doubled compared to M1 (8.95W vs 3.92W in SPEC 2017 FP) while being on the newer node. The frequency has increased from 3.2 to 4.5 GHz.
1719575085541.png
That's what happens when you increase clocks, pwr increases. But at the same clocks( at 4Ghz) M4 power barely consumption increased while performance increased. If power consumption increased at the same clocks then its a problem, but that's not the case with M4.

1719575560954.png
At 4.5GHz, yes power consumption increased but you also get more performance.
However, this approach has an obvious limitation. When you want to increase frequency, the power consumption will grow much faster compared to more narrow architectures.
Not true. This also happens with Intel and AMD.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
The clocks alone do not matter that much. The thing that really matters is the actual power consumption.

The P-cores in Apple Silicon were initially designed to be wide. M1 is the 8-wide architecture, M3 is 9-wide, and M4 is 10-wide. This approach requires much more complex structures and much more transistors. This approach offers better performance at lower clock speeds because the frequency/power curve is usually steeper at the beginning.

However, this approach has an obvious limitation. When you want to increase frequency, the power consumption will grow much faster compared to more narrow architectures.

As a result, the power consumption of the P-core in M4 more than doubled compared to M1 (8.95W vs 3.92W in SPEC 2017 FP) while being on the newer node. The frequency has increased from 3.2 to 4.5 GHz. I think the P-core in Apple M5 will reach the 5 GHz barrier and will consume 15W.

For comparison, Intel Lion Cove, Skymont, and Zen 5 are 8-wide architectures, which were initially optimized to run on higher clocks while consuming the reasonable amount of power.



You missed the phrase "subject of changes".



In the Geekbench 5 ST test Apple M3 scores between 2200-2300, MT is nearly 10000:


It's a 10-15% difference (2250 - 2000 / 2250 = 11.1%, 10000 - 8800 / 10000 = 12%). It is not 20-30%.

What is more interesting is that those results were obtained for early Pre-QS samples running on 17W PL1 and 17W PL2. Apple M3 is using ~30W PL2 and throttles down to 20-22W under MT tests.
Excellent write-up!

(1) if M5's single P core touched 15W, Apple consumers will go berserk! :tearsofjoy:

(2) I'm still coming to terms with LNL being close to M3 (with additional headroom due to PL2).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,802
106
I'm still coming to terms with LNL being close to M3 (with additional headroom due to PL2).
since this is a ES, retail Lunar will be even better. Lunar already has a better software support than Apple CPUs. All my games work with Lunar. What I don't like is setting false expectations regarding battery life vs M3, lets wait for the tests but its looking great so far.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,186
10,693
136
And how many dirt cheap processors can actually do a respectable job of replacing human labor for advise at desk? A kiosk with AI tuned for the specific application is nothing cost wise in comparison.

I would expect they would probably just connect to a server where the processing happens if they need to run some LLM.
 

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
How'd you even know without testing? imo, your bias against Apple is clearly showing. Doesn't Alder Lake, Meteor Lake and Zen4 consume more power than M4 P core in 1t? What does "reasonable amount of power" of power here mean?

Let's do some napkin math.

Apple M3 runs that test with nearly a 28-30W power limit (first run, ~10000-10500 points in GB 5 MT) and then throttles to 20W (~8000) or even lower - to 12W (~6000).

That's why we have so different results for MacBook Air with M3 in Geekbanch 5 database. They vary from 6000 to 10500 points. You can find them here.

According to Geekerwan's charts, M3 P-core at 3.8 GHz consumes 5.3W. If we assume that all the cores are working on that frequency, the whole SoC will consume 5.3*4 + 0.75*4 = 24W + memory and other stuff = 28W. That's what we have during the first run. (Geekerwan has more precise measurements for E-cores, but I'm too lazy to find that).

In the case of Lunar Lake, P-cores probably consume nearly 3W in MT load, and the E-cores - nearly 0.75W. 3 * 4 + 4 * 0.75 = 15W + memory and other stuff = 17W.

If we compare Apple M3 running on 17W PL1 with the pre-QS sample of Lunar Lake running on the same 17W PL1, the Lunar Lake will be 10% faster than M3 (~8000 vs ~8800).

That's what happens when you increase clocks, pwr increases. But at the same clocks( at 4Ghz) M4 power barely consumption increased while performance increased. If power consumption increased at the same clocks then its a problem, but that's not the case with M4.

We got 7% more performance for 4% more power on the newer node. That's fine.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126
I would expect they would probably just connect to a server where the processing happens if they need to run some LLM.
Why on earth would a kiosk run an LLM? I cannot see a single reason that an info desk at an airport needs to be trained on how to plumb your kitchen sink. And vise versa, why would a kiosk at your local hardware store need to be trained on airline routes to Kazakhstan? Large language models have no purpose there. Think small language models specifically tailored to the purpose.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126
what software do you use?
I'm in biotech. I work with data from dozens of instruments: none of which have Apple software. I have 25 years of the software that I programmed to analyze the data--I'm certainly not taking the time to convert those over. Then more mundane things like Solidworks crash and/or have really poor emulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poke01

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126
Why would airports kiosks even need lunar lake????

Lunar is made for client not commercial. It’s not economical. TSMC N3B isn’t cheap
To answer verbal questions relevant to your trip.

Oh and tell that to the kiosk manufacturers using Intel chips.
https://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/press-releases/embrace-the-era-of-ai-pc-together-with-giada/
In 2024, Giada will release its new AI PC adopting Intel Core Ultra processors
https://sodaclick.com/pages/hands-free-solutions/
etc.

I expect we'll here more, including Lunar Lake specific products, at the next AI conference.
 
Last edited:

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,802
106
I'm in biotech. I work with data from dozens of instruments: none of which have Apple software. I have 25 years of the software that I programmed to analyze the data--I'm certainly not taking the time to convert those over. Then more mundane things like Solidworks crash and/or have really poor emulation.
That sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing.
 

Magio

Member
May 13, 2024
88
85
51

Something I'd missed which does change some things, the scores published by this account as being 17W are for a chip with PL1 and PL2 both being 17W.

The 30W numbers are a bit weird right now so it's tough to predict how a 17W PL1/30W PL2 chip (which is all SKUs but one) will behave, but it's a positive for the scores that were a bit underwhelming and super encouraging for those that were already good (for example TimeSpy GPU). Putting the scores in spoiler for context for those who missed the tweet.


 

dttprofessor

Member
Jun 16, 2022
61
16
51
Let's do some napkin math.

Apple M3 runs that test with nearly a 28-30W power limit (first run, ~10000-10500 points in GB 5 MT) and then throttles to 20W (~8000) or even lower - to 12W (~6000).

That's why we have so different results for MacBook Air with M3 in Geekbanch 5 database. They vary from 6000 to 10500 points. You can find them here.

According to Geekerwan's charts, M3 P-core at 3.8 GHz consumes 5.3W. If we assume that all the cores are working on that frequency, the whole SoC will consume 5.3*4 + 0.75*4 = 24W + memory and other stuff = 28W. That's what we have during the first run. (Geekerwan has more precise measurements for E-cores, but I'm too lazy to find that).

In the case of Lunar Lake, P-cores probably consume nearly 3W in MT load, and the E-cores - nearly 0.75W. 3 * 4 + 4 * 0.75 = 15W + memory and other stuff = 17W.

If we compare Apple M3 running on 17W PL1 with the pre-QS sample of Lunar Lake running on the same 17W PL1, the Lunar Lake will be 10% faster than M3 (~8000 vs ~8800).



We got 7% more performance for 4% more power on the newer node. That's fine.
MTL 2 LPE crestmont 2.2GH
LNL 4 LPE skymont 3.7GH
Intel should have different strategy,prefer to 4 skymont cores (maybe 3.0GH max all cores) and shut down 4 arrow lake cores on the ring for battery life.
 
Last edited:

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
Intel should have different strategy,prefer to 4 skymont cores (maybe 3.0GH max all cores) and shut down 4 arrow lake cores on the ring.

That's the main reason why Intel has moved E-cores to a separate island, added SLC (side cache), and increased the performance of those E-cores. Intel wants to keep the P-cores and related stuff turned off for light loads.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,186
10,693
136
To answer verbal questions relevant to your trip.

Oh and tell that to the kiosk manufacturers using Intel chips.
https://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/press-releases/embrace-the-era-of-ai-pc-together-with-giada/

https://sodaclick.com/pages/hands-free-solutions/
etc.

I expect we'll here more, including Lunar Lake specific products, at the next AI conference.

There might be some niche ones that do more, but most everything you see in the general public space is very cheap hardware for customer interfacing. They want things that are low cost, reliable, and very easy to fix if necessary. I'm sure there are companies trying to make things happen, but that doesn't mean it will actually achieve market adoption any time soon. Based on history, when it does happen, it will be because there are cheap, reliable solutions that target the use case.

Maybe you're right, we'll see, but I would be shocked if there is anything outside of maybe of foot note of results from companies buying LNL to drive AI kiosks.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Allegedly, the 890M is bandwidth starved, so it doesn’t scale much higher than it’s performance at 30W, even if you give it more juice.
👍

Long back, I was under the impression that Lunar Lake serves a very small (ULP) market not meant for the majority and I was actually more interested in ARL-H. I was totally wrong. LNL is a lot lot more performant & efficient than I imagined. I now think that LNL final may actually be very close to RTX 3050 in graphics performance & M3 in compute. This is way beyond my wildest expectations. For the first time, I may actually buy an ultra-portable (after some reviews).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126

Brett @ UFD Tech says 30W Lunar Lake beats the latest 54W Ryzen AI 9 HX in graphics!

Doesn't add up! Or is Battlemage that good? :openmouth:
That is what the Golden Pig leak states. Timespy gives 30 W Lunar Lake 4150 points and 54 W Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 gets 4221 points. It is a 1.7% win for AMD over the preliminary Lunar Lake but at almost double the power. The 50 W RTX 3050 gets 4487 Timespy points, which again is a win (8%), but not much of a win for a higher powered discrete GPU.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SiliconFly

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,005
1,528
136
That is what the Golden Pig leak states. Timespy gives 30 W Lunar Lake 4150 points and 54 W Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 gets 4221 points. It is a 1.7% win for AMD over the preliminary Lunar Lake but at almost double the power. The 50 W RTX 3050 gets 4487 Timespy points, which again is a win, but not much of a win for a higher powered discrete GPU.
Artificial benchmarks are not necessarily indicative of gaming performance though. Intel is notorious for having poor drivers for games, although they seem to be devoting more resources to this as their gpus become more competitive.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,186
10,693
136
It might not be Lunar Lake that is the big driver, but AI is coming to kiosks in a big way.

Think about checkouts at stores. AI can identify if a user swapped bar codes, skipped the scanner entirely, or even scanned a cheap item when placing an expensive item in the bag. https://www.wavetec.com/blog/self-s...ficial-intelligence-in-self-checkout-systems/

Think about security at airports. AI for bag screening, facial recognition of TSA approved / flagged passengers. AI for assistance and information all around the airport. Etc. Say goodbye to long lines at the check-in, TSA, baggage claim, and so on. https://www.nextgov.com/artificial-...-improve-security-screening-processes/396398/

Think about shopping via voice at drive throughs, fast food, ATMs, etc. (Soda Click was linked in my post above already)

Think about replacing all the roaming employees throughout any store when you can just ask a question anywhere and get an AI answer.

These are not just random ideas, these are products coming to market now and very soon.

There are already products for most of these things, but unfortunately (or fortunately?) they all suck right now. Kroger's tried AI monitoring at self checkout a couple of times now and has failed miserably. McDonald's tried to roll out AI backed ordering for drive through but that crashed and burned too. I'm sure this stuff will get better over time but it's not there yet. Maybe by the end of the decade it will start to become more common place as software gets better and hardware gets cheaper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57