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

Page 583 - 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:

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,510
4,004
126
Different business model. Note that ARM never made any chips, and doesn't plan to make them afaik. They are selling designs. Intel was forced to license x86 to AMD to meet a supply contract for someone, I no longer remember who, so both companies would be able to make actual chips. Then AMD came up with x64 that Intel is licensing and they are locked in this weird duopoly, though there are few other companies that have/had x86 license like VIA. Since both AMD and INTEL were able to produce the actual CPUs it made little sense for them to share that cake with others back then.
It was IBM that forced the weird agreement.

IBM had a requirement for a secondary supplier for all components. That way, if one supplier had an issue, IBM's business is not severely impacted. Lots of companies have this requirement. In order to sell to IBM, which was to be a huge deal for Intel, Intel needed to find a secondary supplier of x86. So, Intel gave everything over to AMD: rights to use x86, microcode to run the chips, how to make and design the chips, etc. The whole secret sauce.

Over the years, there have been court battles. The main result is that courts have decided that the original agreement was a reciprocal agreement. Meaning that both Intel and AMD had to at least have the option to share the technology that either company develops. What isn't shared is trademarks. That is why we went from numbers (8086, 486, etc.) to marketing names.

Intel also only needed one secondary supplier. Thus, AMD's agreement to use Intel's technology is non-transferrable. Although ARM is showing that it can be quite profitable to just sit back and skim off the profit when other companies take the financial risk to make and sell ARM chips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS_AT

511

Senior member
Jul 12, 2024
547
382
96
x86 is just complex IP Licencesing agreement It was monopoly for a short time lol it's a duopoly now we had multiple company having x86 license before via iirc also Noyce and Sanders were friend one of the reason they got x86 licence

On a sidenot Will have a secondary CUDA Supplier when will this monopoly be broken 🤣 won't the customers force Hand of Huang?
 

Wolverine2349

Senior member
Oct 9, 2022
428
132
86
Different business model. Note that ARM never made any chips, and doesn't plan to make them afaik. They are selling designs. Intel was forced to license x86 to AMD to meet a supply contract for someone, I no longer remember who, so both companies would be able to make actual chips. Then AMD came up with x64 that Intel is licensing and they are locked in this weird duopoly, though there are few other companies that have/had x86 license like VIA. Since both AMD and INTEL were able to produce the actual CPUs it made little sense for them to share that cake with others back then.

Why doesn't VIA make any X86 chips? Or at least any that are worth while or powerful.

They had the Cyrix like 20 years ago I remember, but it was weak at a time of Athlon 64 ad Northwood P4.
 

GTracing

Member
Aug 6, 2021
104
225
86
Different business model. Note that ARM never made any chips, and doesn't plan to make them afaik. They are selling designs. Intel was forced to license x86 to AMD to meet a supply contract for someone, I no longer remember who, so both companies would be able to make actual chips. Then AMD came up with x64 that Intel is licensing and they are locked in this weird duopoly, though there are few other companies that have/had x86 license like VIA. Since both AMD and INTEL were able to produce the actual CPUs it made little sense for them to share that cake with others back then.
Random thought I had reading this. Is x86_64 the last instruction extension from AMD? If so, since the patent on that has expired, could Intel license out newer instructions extensions like AVX2?
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,965
4,493
136
Random thought I had reading this. Is x86_64 the last instruction extension from AMD? If so, since the patent on that has expired, could Intel license out newer instructions extensions like AVX2?
It's the same reason no one makes unlicensed binary-compatible ARM32 cores despite there being a substantial market for that. These companies have other patents that cover the normal way of implementing certain features.
 

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
246
567
96
Why doesn't VIA make any X86 chips? Or at least any that are worth while or powerful.

They had the Cyrix like 20 years ago I remember, but it was weak at a time of Athlon 64 ad Northwood P4.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/zhaoxins-zx-f-kx-7000-kh-40000-and-beyond.2564975/ if I am not mistaken they are in joint venture with VIA.
Random thought I had reading this. Is x86_64 the last instruction extension from AMD? If so, since the patent on that has expired, could Intel license out newer instructions extensions like AVX2?
Probably someone more knowledgeable would need to jump in here, but since x64 was introduced AMD and Intel entered into multiple cross-licensing agreements so if you are asking if AVX2 could be licensed by Intel to AMD for additional fee, it is already licensed via these. If you mean could they license AVX2 to anyone? I don't know, but AVX2 seems too tied into x64 to be useful without it.