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

Page 71 - 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
4,524
2,515
136
8 core RKL was a diff situation. The cores were physically too big. What are the chances that Intel thought yields would just be bad enough to have to cancel the 8+16 die, but just good enough that they would be able to only have to disable 2 P-cores?

We don't know that ML desktop was cancelled because of yields, or limited clock speed, or it was always supposed to be mobile only or some other reasons or combination of reasons.

Based on Intel node history I am under the assumption that it's not only yields affecting ML desktop but more frequency scaling. I believe that Intel 4 is hitting acceptable clocks for mobile with good efficiency, but up against Raptor Lake, which hit's 6GHz it's simply not enough to be competitive with that part on the desktop.

You are right in that the interesting thing about this is if ML was initially planned as 8+16 and frequency scaling and/or yields are preventing it from hitting the desktop then perhaps Intel is fusing off cores to make it 6+16 or whatever they need.

Ultimately I think the simplest explanation is the most accurate. I think ML was supposed to be 6+16 with 15% better IPC from the Coves and as much or more IPC improvement from the Monts. Assuming equal clocks to RL this would put the P's as a package down about 10% from RL. But, and this is important ST performance would be better than RL, actually 15% better up to 6 cores, which is all most applications use that can't "dig" into the E's.

So if clocks are on par with RL for applications like gaming, video, and photo editing ML would bench faster than RL. And the E's would be 15% more performant than the RL E's. Further assuming P's and E's each represent about half of total MT performance in an app like Cinebench, then this theoretical ML clocking near RL levels could be faster in mainstream applications only hitting 6 cores hard and in highly MT applications.

For this to happen Intel 4 clocks on ML would have to be in the 5.4 to 5.5 range and perhaps Intel was hoping they'd get there but knew if they didn't RL would still be useful as a mobile only release.

If ES parts are hitting 4GHz then that's over 1GHz from where they need to be. Even 5GHz might not be enough to beat RL so Intel pulled back on the ML desktop release and went with their "plan B," which was ready to go all along. Mobile ML.

I don't see how they could have gotten here any other way as these giant companies don't change direction easily. Then again I'm extrapolating on a lot of rumors, which is never a reliable way to make predictions.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
We don't know that ML desktop was cancelled because of yields, or limited clock speed, or it was always supposed to be mobile only or some other reasons or combination of reasons.

Based on Intel node history I am under the assumption that it's not only yields affecting ML desktop but more frequency scaling. I believe that Intel 4 is hitting acceptable clocks for mobile with good efficiency, but up against Raptor Lake, which hit's 6GHz it's simply not enough to be competitive with that part on the desktop.

You are right in that the interesting thing about this is if ML was initially planned as 8+16 and frequency scaling and/or yields are preventing it from hitting the desktop then perhaps Intel is fusing off cores to make it 6+16 or whatever they need.

Ultimately I think the simplest explanation is the most accurate. I think ML was supposed to be 6+16 with 15% better IPC from the Coves and as much or more IPC improvement from the Monts. Assuming equal clocks to RL this would put the P's as a package down about 10% from RL. But, and this is important ST performance would be better than RL, actually 15% better up to 6 cores, which is all most applications use that can't "dig" into the E's.

So if clocks are on par with RL for applications like gaming, video, and photo editing ML would bench faster than RL. And the E's would be 15% more performant than the RL E's. Further assuming P's and E's each represent about half of total MT performance in an app like Cinebench, then this theoretical ML clocking near RL levels could be faster in mainstream applications only hitting 6 cores hard and in highly MT applications.

For this to happen Intel 4 clocks on ML would have to be in the 5.4 to 5.5 range and perhaps Intel was hoping they'd get there but knew if they didn't RL would still be useful as a mobile only release.

If ES parts are hitting 4GHz then that's over 1GHz from where they need to be. Even 5GHz might not be enough to beat RL so Intel pulled back on the ML desktop release and went with their "plan B," which was ready to go all along. Mobile ML.

I don't see how they could have gotten here any other way as these giant companies don't change direction easily. Then again I'm extrapolating on a lot of rumors, which is never a reliable way to make predictions.
We know RPL was never supposed to exist, and only exists because MTL got delayed. It makes sense that MTL would have had both desktop and mobile, especially since Intel doesn't usually launch mobile only if their nodes are working right.
MTL also is a die shrink architecture. Initial die shrink architectures are always just straight up die shrinks of the previous architecture. Cannon Lake, Ivy Bridge, etc etc all follow it. Low IPC gains.
If IPC was originally supposed to be higher, than the IPC would have been higher. I heard that they estimate IPC in design goals, but jumping from ~15% to low single digits just doesn't make sense. Low single digits is a die shrink, ~15% is a GLC level revamp.
I could see an argument that maybe MTL was originally supposed to be 8+8 following ADL, but 6+16 just sounds too weird.
Also who came up with the 6+16 rumor again? I'm curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
I wish I had started a website just to review Rocket Lake and title the review

"Rocket Lake: Failure to Launch"

Or

"Rocket Lake" Misses Orbit and Splashes Down"
I would love to pick up some old hardware for cheap and just start looking into answers for questions that people just don't go over in reviews and stuff.
Like PPC scaling for GLC vs RPL vs Zen 4
Mesh vs ringbus latency and effect on gaming
Just a comprehensive list of PPC in multiple applications over the past couple generations
RPL vs GLC efficiency (how much does L2 cache help?)
Palm Cove IPC
Tiger Lake 11980HK, on those chinese motherboads, overclocked
Cypress Cove vs Sunny Cove vs Willow Cove energy + frequency scaling
A bunch of other stuff too. Alas maybe someday :c
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
@Hulk According to reliable sources, Meteorlake is single digit % gains. Raichu is joking that it may even be 1%. 15% is MLID, and maybe even RGT level nonsense. 15% is a drastic architectural change and improvement.

#dontforget29%Zen4

Obviously if it wasn't delayed Meteorlake would have been coming to desktop. But you are talking them releasing it instead of Raptorlake. Raptorlake wasn't supposed to exist. It was supposed to be Alder/Meteor not Alder/Raptor.

Also based on leaks and rumors, a 14900K that's 3-5% faster but say 30% lower power is very mediocre. It needs Arrowlake to face Zen 5 period. They did something really good with Raptorlake despite the issues. You don't want to lose that momentum.

Sure, a refresh of an emergency part does not look good. However, it accelerates the big picture, which is not delaying process technology.

Also who came up with the 6+16 rumor again? I'm curious.

It's not a rumor. It was in planning. It was leaked several months ago. And according to that leak it's

-High End Desktop: 8+16 Arrowlake
-Low/Medium Desktop: 6+16 Meteorlake

That's a difficult thing differentiating between rumors and leaks. Just the sheer amount of garbage on the internet doesn't help either. What/where/when to look for all matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
@Hulk According to reliable sources, Meteorlake is single digit % gains. Raichu is joking that it may even be 1%. 15% is MLID, and maybe even RGT level nonsense. 15% is a drastic architectural change and improvement.

#dontforget29%Zen4

Obviously if it wasn't delayed Meteorlake would have been coming to desktop. But you are talking them releasing it instead of Raptorlake. Raptorlake wasn't supposed to exist. It was supposed to be Alder/Meteor not Alder/Raptor.

Also based on leaks and rumors, a 14900K that's 3-5% faster but say 30% lower power is very mediocre. It needs Arrowlake to face Zen 5 period. They did something really good with Raptorlake despite the issues. You don't want to lose that momentum.



It's not a rumor. It was in planning. It was leaked several months ago. That's a difficult thing differentiating between rumors and leaks. Just the sheer amount of garbage on the internet doesn't help either. What/where/when to look for all matter.
Ok fine, where was the leak from?
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
We know RPL was never supposed to exist, and only exists because MTL got delayed. It makes sense that MTL would have had both desktop and mobile, especially since Intel doesn't usually launch mobile only if their nodes are working right.
MTL also is a die shrink architecture. Initial die shrink architectures are always just straight up die shrinks of the previous architecture. Cannon Lake, Ivy Bridge, etc etc all follow it. Low IPC gains.
If IPC was originally supposed to be higher, than the IPC would have been higher. I heard that they estimate IPC in design goals, but jumping from ~15% to low single digits just doesn't make sense. Low single digits is a die shrink, ~15% is a GLC level revamp.
I could see an argument that maybe MTL was originally supposed to be 8+8 following ADL, but 6+16 just sounds too weird.
Also who came up with the 6+16 rumor again? I'm curious.

Intel has already launched mobile only with Tiger Lake in 2020. It wasn't exceptional and it wasn't bad either.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
Intel has already launched mobile only with Tiger Lake in 2020. It wasn't exceptional and it wasn't bad either.
Yup. But they only launched that as mobile only because 10nm was still not ready at that point . IIRC Tiger Lake launched as 4 core parts first and then 8 core parts, and never had exceptional volume until a while after launch too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BorisTheBlade82

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Yup. But they only launched that as mobile only because 10nm was still not ready at that point . IIRC Tiger Lake launched as 4 core parts first and then 8 core parts, and never had exceptional volume until a while after launch too.

Same might be happening with Intel 4 is my guess.

Maybe thats the reason they're stuck with MTL 6+8
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geddagod

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
That assumes 20a is healthy enough for desktop parts (or really, anything). Intel may be forced to use N3 for more than just GPU tiles.

Has nothing to do with node health. It's impossible to change nodes so late in the cycle. If they wanted the ARL cpu tile to be in TSMC N3, they would have started the design back in 2021/2022 itself. But Intel clearly mentioned ARL cpu is only Intel 20A then. No one (including Intel itself) never ever mentioned that they're working on a TSMC N3 ARL cpu. And it can't happen anymore because it's too late. No time left. It has to be 20A or no ARL!
 

BorisTheBlade82

Senior member
May 1, 2020
680
1,069
136
Yeah, 6+16 would be an odd chip, but I don't think it's entirely out of the question that they planned for it at one point. It would sort of make sense as a stopgap for Arrow Lake a bit earlier, and as an option for high end mobile. But that's pretty weak positioning all said. I think the lack of a compelling gaming advantage would hurt the most. And given Intel's pretty drastic cost cutting, makes sense if it were canceled.
Well, my line of thinking is, that when they decided for only 6P cores, they assumed them to be much more powerful than their predecessors and competition. But from what we hear, this was just a miserable failure.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
it was by someone on twitter who posted these slides but later deleted them

View attachment 78025View attachment 78026

It's hard to cite this as evidence considering the source is not easily traceable. But the same time, it's also never a good idea to say MTL 6+16 is fake cos there are no good leaks about them. Your info maybe true. Or maybe not. No one know yet. Gotta wait and watch.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Well, my line of thinking is, that when they decided for only 6P cores, they assumed them to be much more powerful than their predecessors and competition. But from what we hear, this was just a miserable failure.

Actually no. MTL's Redwood Cove can be upto 20% faster than RPL's Raptor Cove at the same power due to node jump. It's waaaay superior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
Wait a minute. Wasn't the rumor that Meteor Lake would be mobile only because Intel couldn't get frequencies to ramp up on the new node? If TMSC is doing the CPU tiles then what's the deal with the node? It's not even Intel's node?
That was most certainly just speculation, especially as mobile parts are also high frequency parts.

Intel will likely be using MTL to ramp up production of their new node. Because of this capacity will be limited at first.
No it wasn't, there is no serious rumor like that. Some people may speculate this is the reason but this is just a guess. Also there is no confirmation about no MTL for desktop.

6+8 was confirmed on an official Intel slide at one point IIRC. Not a leaked one either.

Meteor Lake coming to desktop is actually a pretty safe bet. The question is when, and in what capacity. Tiger Lake came to desktop, but not in the form of a regular release. One of the reasons I suspect Intel won't bring it to desktop for something like an i7 part is because it would look way better than the corresponding Raptor Lake Refresh i9 part in terms of power consumption. The other big one I mentioned above: Capacity. Intel has to be able to sell millions of these things to OEMs. What I think we will see first is (purely my speculation based on data Intel has provided):

Desktop: Raptor Lake Refresh
Laptop: A mix of Raptor Lake Refresh chips and Meteor Lake chips, with MTL-S likely targeting ultrabooks and other low power devices.

Next year, after Arrow Lake drops, we'll see MTL-S make it's way to desktop in some form of fashion, likely in a NUC or similar device. I suspect the mainstream core series will be Arrow Lake, however. They COULD mix it up (they kinda did with ADL-S and RPL-S), but there is really no benefit to doing so.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
If they wanted the ARL cpu tile to be in TSMC N3, they would have started the design back in 2021/2022 itself. But Intel clearly mentioned ARL cpu is only Intel 20A then. No one (including Intel itself) never ever mentioned that they're working on a TSMC N3 ARL cpu.

And you think they're telling you everything? Intel 4 has been troubled for awhile, and nobody is leaking any news (positive or negative) on the actual health of 20a or 18a. Unless Intel is insane, they started work on compute tiles on 20a and N3.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,524
2,515
136
@Hulk According to reliable sources, Meteorlake is single digit % gains. Raichu is joking that it may even be 1%. 15% is MLID, and maybe even RGT level nonsense. 15% is a drastic architectural change and improvement.

Why would Intel rename Raptor Cove to Redwood Cove for a 1% improvement? I'm not denying the claim just curious as I would think the one thing that Intel would know with clarity early in the design process through simulations is how one core will compare against another. I remember watching a video with Geller I believe saying simulations are amazingly accurate these days.

1% improvement or on the order of a few percent is usually just tweaking memory things or perhaps OoO logic (Broadwell), no architectural changes. On one hand this makes sense as they generally don't make big changes when going to a node. But on the other hand why would Intel plan a ML desktop released with less cores that are no more performant than the predecessor?

ML is "feeling" more like it was intended to be mobile only from the start. "Start" of course is hard to define as Intel has been off-schedule since Cannon Lake so it hard to define a new starting point.

@Hulk
Obviously if it wasn't delayed Meteorlake would have been coming to desktop. But you are talking them releasing it instead of Raptorlake. Raptorlake wasn't supposed to exist. It was supposed to be Alder/Meteor not Alder/Raptor.

Also based on leaks and rumors, a 14900K that's 3-5% faster but say 30% lower power is very mediocre. It needs Arrowlake to face Zen 5 period. They did something really good with Raptorlake despite the issues. You don't want to lose that momentum.

Why would 6+16 ML be coming to desktop if IPC flatlined but cores and clocks decreased? How would Intel bring a less performant new generation of processors to market in terms of... well marketing? And as I wrote above Intel knew Redwood Cove ~ Raptor Cove going in. Perhaps large increase in the monts to offset the loss of 2 P cores?

Also I think we can establish that efficiency on the desktop is pretty far down the "to-do" list. They're fighting for their lives against AMD in terms of performance and economics (die size). I have a feeling they'll revisit desktop efficiency when (if ever) they get some breathing room in the performance dept.

I can't wait for solid information on the state of Meteor Lake, Raptor Refresh, and what the original plan was supposed to be.
 

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
And you think they're telling you everything? Intel 4 has been troubled for awhile, and nobody is leaking any news (positive or negative) on the actual health of 20a or 18a. Unless Intel is insane, they started work on compute tiles on 20a and N3.

It's not possible cos I don't think Intel would work on their cpu tile on two different nodes at the same time! It's unprecedented. Never happened before!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: igor_kavinski

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,541
897
96
Why would Intel rename Raptor Cove to Redwood Cove for a 1% improvement? I'm not denying the claim just curious as I would think the one thing that Intel would know with clarity early in the design process through simulations is how one core will compare against another. I remember watching a video with Geller I believe saying simulations are amazingly accurate these days.

1% improvement or on the order of a few percent is usually just tweaking memory things or perhaps OoO logic (Broadwell), no architectural changes. On one hand this makes sense as they generally don't make big changes when going to a node. But on the other hand why would Intel plan a ML desktop released with less cores that are no more performant than the predecessor?

ML is "feeling" more like it was intended to be mobile only from the start. "Start" of course is hard to define as Intel has been off-schedule since Cannon Lake so it hard to define a new starting point.



Why would 6+16 ML be coming to desktop if IPC flatlined but cores and clocks decreased? How would Intel bring a less performant new generation of processors to market in terms of... well marketing? And as I wrote above Intel knew Redwood Cove ~ Raptor Cove going in. Perhaps large increase in the monts to offset the loss of 2 P cores?

Also I think we can establish that efficiency on the desktop is pretty far down the "to-do" list. They're fighting for their lives against AMD in terms of performance and economics (die size). I have a feeling they'll revisit desktop efficiency when (if ever) they get some breathing room in the performance dept.

I can't wait for solid information on the state of Meteor Lake, Raptor Refresh, and what the original plan was supposed to be.

The MTL's Redwood Cove cores are getting a 20% PPW boost due to the node jump from Intel 7 -> Intel 4. Even if they're gonna use some of the gains (say 10%) for power efficiency, they'll still be left with 10% performance gain per core. And knowing Intel, they always prioritize performance over power consumption. So, MTLs cores are gonna be quite faster than RPL cores!
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,524
2,515
136
The MTL's Redwood Cove cores are getting a 20% PPW boost due to the node jump from Intel 7 -> Intel 4. Even if they're gonna use some of the gains (say 10%) for power efficiency, they'll still be left with 10% performance gain per core. And knowing Intel, they always prioritize performance over power consumption. So, MTLs cores are gonna be quite faster than RPL cores!

I'm not following. Are you saying ML clocks will be 10% higher than Raptor Lake?
That would be fantastic but I can't see Intel 4 clocks matching Intel 7 for years, if ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski