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

Page 389 - 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:

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
113
101
76
Until CPU-z corrects the design of its benchmark to respect the CPPC scheduling of Ryzen, the results will be a wildcard because it always forces to core 0, which could be any random quality core boosting to any unknown frequency below or up to max singlethread boost.

Comparing any two samples of Ryzen will give you unpredictable results due to this.

Comparing Ryzen ST results to intel is also disingenuous because it will schedule properly on Intel to the fastest core.
Interesting, where can I read about this scheduling issue in CPU-Z ?
 

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,513
2,464
136
Interesting, where can I read about this scheduling issue in CPU-Z ?
I am telling you as someone who is in possession of multiple generations of Ryzen and Intel systems I have verified this for myself. In fact, I re-verified it just a week or two ago on the latest OS/driver/CPU-z versions to make sure it wasn't fixed.

Attempts to correct the affinity for Ryzen are not fruitful, the benchmark does a sequence of MT then ST, and even if you set affinity during the MT portion it will force it back to core 0 when ST begins.
I have attempted to use Process Lasso to automate the affinity but it doesn't give a good result due to taking some time after the ST bench has begun (and run for some time on a slower core) before it corrects affinity, providing still artificially low scores.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
113
101
76
Let's call spade a spade. CPU-Z is for information, and the benchmark is for laughs. It's the AFV of benchmarking. They decided to get onto a different bandwagon and couldn't be some boring "information provider" anymore.

"Passive aggressive" What is this, Psychology 101 class?

We are ALL telling you CPU-Z sucks. It's a laughingstock. The burden is on YOU to prove that it's a good benchmark.
It is passive aggressive. If you want to dismiss a product as a laughingstock, present the evidence, you have to prove the positive otherwise we can just have differing opinions, I don't subscribe to a default negative opinion.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,991
4,568
136
It is passive aggressive. If you want to dismiss a product as a laughingstock, present the evidence, you have to prove the positive otherwise we can just have differing opinions, I don't subscribe to a default negative opinion.

Chips & Cheese provided the evidence. You just seem to ignore it or say its "50% crap". Not smart for a new member if they want to gain anyones respect.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
113
101
76
So then maybe SPEC?



OK well now you are just being disingenuous because Zen 2 was around just after. Sure CFL (AKA SKL) beat Zen in some areas. But like I said it made 8 core CPU's cost way less than $1000+. What are you trying to prove?
Yes, SPEC is great.

I am trying to prove nothing, I just made the claim that SKL is faster than Zen1 and you want me to somehow praise AMD for competing and making CPUs cheaper after a decade of shame ? , well good for them.

Another hypothetical if their bulldozer succeeded wouldn't we have cheaper CPUs earlier ? The opposite is true as well, due to AMD failure to compete 4C CPUs were sold for a long time.
 

AcrosTinus

Member
Jun 23, 2024
113
101
76
Chips & Cheese provided the evidence. You just seem to ignore it or say its "50% crap". Not smart for a new member.
I did not say that it is crap, I only call 50% BS on the reasoning that CPU-Z should be totally dismissed due to the instructions mix and how branch light it is. That is all. I think all benches have their place, just put the appropriate weights on it while calculating performance increase.
 

FlameTail

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2021
3,950
2,376
106
Forgive me if this question sounds stupid...
ARROW-LAKE-Z890.jpg
So in a desktop motherboard, there is the "Processor" and the "Chipset", as shown in the above diagram.

Is this true for laptop motherboards too? My understanding is that in laptops, the Chipset and Processor are integrated into one SoC. Is that so?
 

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,147
551
146
Forgive me if this question sounds stupid...

So in a desktop motherboard, there is the "Processor" and the "Chipset", as shown in the above diagram.

Is this true for laptop motherboards too? My understanding is that in laptops, the Chipset and Processor are integrated into one SoC. Is that so?
Except for the HX series, the chipset is moved on-package (regular MCM)

iUnAZuA42cL8cQG72QGnoS.jpg
 

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,005
1,528
136
Nobody is making a 50% IPC gain in a single generation, that's simply not possible.

It also doesn't make sense they'd use TSMC N2 when 18A is supposed to be ready before it (if not 14A!) and they keep claiming they are going to achieve process leadership. That article reads like someone's wet dream about what they want to happen, much like how people here were building up all this hype for Zen 5 to gain 40% or more IPC.
I wouldn't call it "not possible". Zen did it over Bulldozer, and Skymont is in the ballpark of 50% increase. Granted, both are coming vs a much weaker baseline than intel's big cores. And as other posters said, it was probably based on a 2 or 3 generation leap. I am not saying it will happen, admittedly, it is very unlikely.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,677
14,272
136
So in a desktop motherboard, there is the "Processor" and the "Chipset", as shown in the above diagram.

Is this true for laptop motherboards too? My understanding is that in laptops, the Chipset and Processor are integrated into one SoC. Is that so?
Most laptop designs that aim to have decent battery life will have the chipset on package or on-die, because it affects idle power consumption. Speaking specifically about Intel, historically they preferred to have the chipset on package for low power SKUs and kept it separate for 45W+ products. Here's a screenshot with Skylake packages for different form factors:

SKY_Dies.jpg

Obviously as we move towards the modern implementations like MTL and LNL, integration became tighter. The "discrete" chipset is probably on it's way out even for higher performance products from Intel.
 

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,005
1,528
136
Until CPU-z corrects the design of its benchmark to respect the CPPC scheduling of Ryzen, the results will be a wildcard because it always forces to core 0, which could be any random quality core boosting to any unknown frequency below or up to max singlethread boost.

Comparing any two samples of Ryzen will give you unpredictable results due to this.

Comparing Ryzen ST results to intel is also disingenuous because it will schedule properly on Intel to the fastest core.
Not saying CPU-Z is a valid benchmark or not, but to be fair, Acros did state that it was useful for Intel vs Intel.
 

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
It's pretty weird to see 20-30% IPC claims. Intel has given us some first-party numbers:

1719904836862.png

It makes sense to expect similar numbers for P-cores in Arrow Lake vs. Raptor Lake.

Also, if we take a closer look at Lion Cove's performance/power curve, we will see that it's steeper at the beginning and "saturates" faster. There are fewer reasons to push the power limits higher. Probably, the PL2 for Arrow Lake will be decreased to a more reasonable 180-200W. PL1 is expected to be 125W for ARL-S.
 

Tup3x

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2016
1,086
1,084
136
It's pretty weird to see 20-30% IPC claims. Intel has given us some first-party numbers:

View attachment 102235

It makes sense to expect similar numbers for P-cores in Arrow Lake vs. Raptor Lake.

Also, if we take a closer look at Lion Cove's performance/power curve, we will see that it's steeper at the beginning and "saturates" faster. There are fewer reasons to push the power limits higher. Probably, the PL2 for Arrow Lake will be decreased to a more reasonable 180-200W. PL1 is expected to be 125W for ARL-S.
Well, some test can very well show 20-30% improvement as Intel showed but average is not going to be like that.
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,191
1,487
136
There are fewer reasons to push the power limits higher. Probably, the PL2 for Arrow Lake will be decreased to a more reasonable 180-200W. PL1 is expected to be 125W for ARL-S.
And that's the best thing IMO.
What I would call a return to sanity after all these pushed to the limit (or beyond) parts Intel released the last few years.
IPC 15% ± 5% or whatever we end up at the end is great but what had made Intel an automatic no for me the last few years was the power usage.
 

TwistedAndy

Member
May 23, 2024
159
150
76
Well, some test can very well show 20-30% improvement as Intel showed but average is not going to be like that.

Intel Lion Cove has 33% more peak throughput than Raptor Cove (8-wide vs. 6-wide), but in the real apps, the IPC increase will be closer to the values presented by Intel (10-20%).

Obviously, some apps will be able to utilize all the throughput and show ~30% increase in performance (as we see on the Intel's chart), but it will be rather an exception than a rule.

What I would call a return to sanity after all these pushed to the limit (or beyond) parts Intel released the last few years.

Yes, leaks were suggesting that Arrow Lake desktop CPUs will have 125W PL1 and 177W PL2. It looks pretty reasonable.

As for the mobile ones, ARL-HX will have the same 55W PL1 and 115W PL2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulk

DavidC1

Senior member
Dec 29, 2023
939
1,469
96
Obviously as we move towards the modern implementations like MTL and LNL, integration became tighter. The "discrete" chipset is probably on it's way out even for higher performance products from Intel.
The big picture reason for Intel taking forever to integrate the PCH is because they used it to fill their older fabs. It is the same reason why they took forever to integrate the memory controller too. They had the CPU, MCH and the IOH, and competitive pressure made them integrate most of the MCH into CPU and rest into PCH.

Now with Foveros and Tiles they have zero reason not to do so. Of course the cost isn't free, but it's much better in terms of communication speeds and power. For high performance such as CPUs and GPUs it might be difficult to do it fully and always a compromise but PCH should be easier and have integration benefits.
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,191
1,487
136
The big picture reason for Intel taking forever to integrate the PCH is because they used it to fill their older fabs. It is the same reason why they took forever to integrate the memory controller too. They had the CPU, MCH and the IOH, and competitive pressure made them integrate most of the MCH into CPU and rest into PCH.
I always suspected that filling the old fabs was the reason that Atom was neglected for so long.
Well until years later they panicked and threw dollar bills at anyone willing to make tablets with Intel Atom. Think most of those £50 tablets have ended up in landfill by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126
It's pretty weird to see 20-30% IPC claims. Intel has given us some first-party numbers:

View attachment 102235
Take a look at the graph on the left. It shows an average (maybe median) of +14% IPC. But, that includes two benchmark results with negative IPC changes and two benchmark results with about double the average IPC change (roughly 25% to 30%). So, I don't think it is weird at all to see 20% to 30% IPC claims as long as people clearly state that that is just one benchmark--and it is on the rest of us to acknowledge that one benchmark is not representative of a processor as a whole. No conclusion should ever be made from just one benchmark unless that one benchmark is all you plan on using with that processor.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,186
10,693
136

26.71% single thread improvement over 13900K per CPU-Z i above source.

Though 22% regression in multi threaded performance.

Either HT makes that big a difference, the SKymont cores do not have near the IPC gain as thought over Skymont, they are using the 6+8 or all of the above. Even if 6+8 if Skymont had the IPC increase to put it at Raptor Cove, I would think that should more than make up for lakc of HT and onky 8 E cores if it indeed has 2% better IPC than Gracemont??

But Lion Cove oh my so good and the real real and IPC increase maybe 25% afterall if true and the latency can be good as well. Please Intel 12 P core Arrow Lake CPU.

Tell me you didn’t read the last couple pages of the thread without telling me you didn’t read the last couple of pages. . . ;)