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

[Tigerick]

Wildcat Lake (WCL) Specs

Intel Wildcat Lake (WCL) is upcoming mobile SoC replacing Raptor Lake-U. WCL consists of 2 tiles: compute tile and PCD tile. It is true single die consists of CPU, GPU and NPU that is fabbed by 18-A process. Last time I checked, PCD tile is fabbed by TSMC N6 process. They are connected through UCIe, not D2D; a first from Intel. Expecting launching in Q1 2026.

		Intel Raptor Lake U	Intel Wildcat Lake 15W?	Intel Lunar Lake		Intel Panther Lake 4+0+4
Launch Date		Q1-2024	Q2-2026	Q3-2024		Q1-2026
Model		Intel 150U	Intel Core 7	Core Ultra 7 268V		Core Ultra 7 365
Dies		2	2	2		3
Node		Intel 7 + ?	Intel 18-A + TSMC N6	TSMC N3B + N6		Intel 18-A + Intel 3 + TSMC N6
CPU		2 P-core + 8 E-cores	2 P-core + 4 LP E-cores	4 P-core + 4 LP E-cores		4 P-core + 4 LP E-cores
Threads		12	6	8		8
Max Clock		5.4 GHz	?	5 GHz		4.8 GHz
L3 Cache		12 MB		12 MB		12 MB
TDP		15 - 55 W	15 W ?	17 - 37 W		25 - 55 W
Memory		128-bit LPDDR5-5200	64-bit LPDDR5	128-bit LPDDR5x-8533		128-bit LPDDR5x-7467
Size		96 GB		32 GB		128 GB
Bandwidth				136 GB/s
GPU		Intel Graphics	Intel Graphics	Arc 140V		Intel Graphics
RT		No	No	YES		YES
EU / Xe		96 EU	2 Xe	8 Xe		4 Xe
Max Clock		1.3 GHz	?	2 GHz		2.5 GHz
NPU		GNA 3.0	18 TOPS	48 TOPS		49 TOPS

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.

 

[H433x0n]

With the release of Hawk Point, Notebookcheck ran some tests on the new AMD chip against their latest MTL numbers. I'm posting a chart here where they re-did their Cinebench r23 scores over power consumption like they did at MTL's release. I'm only including the Intel MTL vs RPL numbers to compare the latest versus release numbers. Overall it's basically the same as the release situation. The release tests did 28 W - 45 W whereas this is a higher range, but overall the results are basically the same. The 155H is roughly 5 - 10% more efficient than RPL depending on what power level you are running at. So whatever updates have come with the latest laptops/firmwares, it hasn't really affected MTL's positioning in compute performance / efficiency according to this test.

View attachment 93748

Really wish they did a test below 35W. Nonetheless at 35W it’s 12387 vs 11211, or roughly 10.4% perf/watt.

 

[Abwx]

Really wish they did a test below 35W. Nonetheless at 35W it’s 12387 vs 11211, or roughly 10.4% perf/watt.

It s about 20% better perf/watt, you should look at how much power RPL match MTL@35W, that s the perf watt improvement and this has nothing to do with the perf improvement at same power.

Comparisons should be done for a same task performed within a same time, just imagine that car efficency is measured at a same distance over a same speed,

In Europe the standard is the comsumption for 100km at either 90km/h or 120km/hour, so a same amount of work within a same time, that s the same for CPUs.

Now if a car or CPU consume 50% less to provide the same work you can trade this better efficency for higher perfs and increase the speed (at same power) by about 1.4x since power increase at least as a square of speed not only for CPUs but also for cars since Power = (1/2)mv^2 and in the case of CPUs Power = f^2 in the favourable part of the curve.

 

[Hitman928]

Yes, many people have a hard time understanding when someone says there is not high confidence of something that it might not be true--Even those on Reddit. I've seen lists like that plenty of times here. He isn't perfect. But it is ignorant to ignore everything he posts because some things haven't come true. There are saved images of his leaks, no need to store videos. Feel free to give those saved images a proper review if you want (which if you want to exclude someone you should do a proper tally). A lot of his leaks do come true. A lot do not. Below are some of his Meteor Lake images.

Is he correct in everything? Heck no. But 2 and 3 years before the Meteor Lake launch, he actually got some important details right, even in his speculation white font.
Nov 2020:
View attachment 93759
June 2021:
View attachment 93766
June 2022:
View attachment 93757
Nov 2022:
View attachment 93765
Dec 2022:
View attachment 93758
May 2023: View attachment 93763
June 2023:
View attachment 93761

I'm not sure why you posted all these screenshots, none of them really help his case. He was either wrong on the vast majority of this (including his high confidence items) or was just catching up to what other leakers were already reporting. Two easy examples of this are first, that he claimed to have known MTL was RWC for a while, but only after others had already leaked it (which is why he is saying he knew about it for a while but just hadn't reported it). The second example is him claiming his "sources" telling him about two "hidden" E cores and them creating a power island when this had been leaked over a year earlier.

Others call him out on his wrong info all the time as well, so it's not like he can fall back on the excuse that plans changed. One clear example of this is here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1677221251843084289

 

[SiliconFly]

Catch up? I don't think that phrase cuts the mustard. Let us look at the bread and butter.

https://chipsandcheese.com/2023/09/23/intels-ponte-vecchio-chiplets-gone-crazy/

It's has potential, but it's not going to leap frog refined technology on it's first release. In some ways it seems like they bit off more than they can chew.

Thats talking about the outdated PVC. ARL is very different. A generational leap in packaging technologies compared to PVC. And far ahead when compared to even the upcoming Zen5. Zen5's outdated substrate based chiplets connected using the dated infinity fabric architecture is not even a competition when compared to ARL's foveros and NOC interconnect fabric which is light years ahead. Fab 9 is purely dedicated just for foveros to give Intel the required lead in packaging tech.

 

[SiliconFly]

I wish it was primarily Intel silicon but the bulk of ARL is on TSMC N3B. The top ARL SKU on N3B looks like it should be able to reach ~5.4ghz boost clocks.

On its own terms (relative to Golden Cove era) it looks like it’ll do okay.

Many of the tiles are outsourced. But the key components, like the CPU tile & the packaging tech, are all Intel.

 

[SiliconFly]

If Zen 5 loses to ARL in performance or perf/W, it won't be because of advanced packaging or the lack thereof imo. Ultimately, AMD's choice in using a substrate based SerDes interconnect was based on engineering judgement, not a lack of imagination. I'm sure if AMD determined advanced packaging was needed, nothing would prevent them from doing so, especially since TSMC is the leader in it. If anything, the fact that Zen 2 to Zen 5 all successfully use the same interconnection tells you how little it holds back their design in the grand scheme of things.

TSMC is not the leader in packaging tech anymore.

 

[coercitiv]

But the key components, like the CPU tile & the packaging tech, are all Intel.

The bulk of the tiles are N3B according to the last leak I know of. Arrow Lake is supposedly using 20A only for the value desktop parts (6P+8E die).

 

[Tigerick]

Many of the tiles are outsourced. But the key components, like the CPU tile & the packaging tech, are all Intel.

See, someone keep forgetting ARL-S is made by TSMC's N3B process. And Lunar Lake too...

 

[Kepler_L2]

TSMC is not the leader in packaging tech anymore.

TSMC is the only foundry doing mass volume 3D stacking, and their volume of 2.5D packaging is orders of magnitude higher than Intel's.

 

[Kepler_L2]

LNC looks like another dud.

 

[FlameTail]

6 wide -> 8 wide

= 33% uplift.

 

[mikk]

View attachment 93780
LNC looks like another dud.

The IPC numbers sounds like a guess from him. 10-20% is the bare minimum for such a wide change in the core. It could be correct given that basically all Intel tock releases from Sandy Bridge one were in this range. I hope for more though.

 

[dullard]

I'm not sure why you posted all these screenshots, none of them really help his case. He was either wrong on the vast majority of this (including his high confidence items) or was just catching up to what other leakers were already reporting.

First, you claimed that it was not possible to verify his claims. Here are your words, "you can't go back to show how wrong he's been". The screenshots prove you to be wrong, you can readily verify his claims. Heck even if there weren't screenshots, you even contradict yourself "Others call him out on his wrong info all the time as well..." Is it possible to show he is wrong or not? Please make up your mind.

Second, nice change of goalposts. The discussion is about the reliability of his posts, not originality.

So, do you want to analyze his posts from the screenshots or not? If not, why keep making claims about him?

 

[Hitman928]

First, you claimed that it was not possible to verify his claims. Here are your words, "you can't go back to show how wrong he's been". The screenshots prove you to be wrong, you can readily verify his claims. Heck even if there weren't screenshots, you even contradict yourself "Others call him out on his wrong info all the time as well..." Is it possible to show he is wrong or not? Please make up your mind.

You're taking my words out of context. I was talking about how he deletes many of his videos where he got things very wrong, so you can't go back and show how wrong he's been because he deletes his most inaccurate predictions, not that he deletes everything.

Second, nice change of goalposts. The discussion is about the reliability of his posts, not originality.

Umm, what? The point was that he doesn't deserve legitimacy. Saying you got info from "sources" or claiming you are leaking info when others first reported it detracts from his legitimacy. If he says he can independently confirm what others have leaked, then that's fine, but that's not what he was claiming in the examples you showed that I called out. Additionally, if he's only reliable in "confirming" what others have already leaked, what's the point?

So, do you want to analyze his posts from the screenshots or not? If not, why keep making claims about him?

Do you really want me to go through and list everything he got wrong or was behind other leakers on? I mean, I guess if you really want to we can do that. I can also point to multiple posts where others have already called out his innacuracies despite his high confidence predictions if you'd like.

 

[dullard]

You're taking my words out of context. I was talking about how he deletes many of his videos where he got things very wrong, so you can't go back and show how wrong he's been because he deletes his most inaccurate predictions, not that he deletes everything.

Talking about deleting a video is meaningless drivel when the heart of the video is saved and can be discussed. It isn't a discussion about whether he is a coward weasel when pointed out to be wrong. It is a discussion about whether or not leaks are usually accurate or not.

Umm, what? The point was that he doesn't deserve legitimacy... Additionally, if he's only reliable in "confirming" what others have already leaked, what's the point?

If he is legitimately correct on an issue but wasn't first, why discount his posts unilaterally? I'm only calling for people to actually base discussions on data.

What is the point? The whole thread is about talking about what is happening in the future--not bragging rights about what leaker was first. Someone who gathers leaks together is useful towards that end.

Do you really want me to go through and list everything he got wrong or was behind other leakers on? I mean, I guess if you really want to we can do that. I can also point to multiple posts where others have already called out his innacuracies despite his high confidence predictions if you'd like.

Certainly, as long as it is a good faith effort to highlight what was both wrong and right. No twisting of data, no hand wringing. No nitpicking that if a 0.999999 isn't close enough to be 1 so that someone calls a prediction of 1 years ago wrong since it actually is 0.999999. Lets work together on this. Ideally others would join in and track many leakers.

 

[Hitman928]

Talking about deleting a video is meaningless drivel when the heart of the video is saved and can be discussed.

Are you saying that you have screenshots from the referred deleted videos? If so, please post them because none of what you posted appear to be about the subjects of the deleted videos in question.

It isn't a discussion about whether he is a coward weasel when pointed out to be wrong. It is a discussion about whether or not leaks are usually accurate or not.

Never called him a coward, just that he shouldn't be legitimized and if we are talking about whether his leaks are accurate or not, him deleting past inaccurate leak videos absolutely is relevant and should be part of the discussion.

If he is legitimately correct on an issue but wasn't first, why discount his posts unilaterally? I'm only calling for people to actually base discussions on data.

Because he is claiming that he is leaking these things from inside sources when they were already publicly leaked or sometimes officially reported. You don't see how that hurts his credibility, that he takes credit for things others already leaked?

What is the point? The whole thread is about talking about what is happening in the future--not bragging rights about what leaker was first. Someone who gathers leaks together is useful towards that end.

If he wants to be a rumor gatherer then that would be fine and I don't think anyone would have an issue with that, but that is not how he portrays himself nor how you are painting him.

Certainly, as long as it is a good faith effort to highlight what was both wrong and right. No twisting of data, no hand wringing. No nitpicking that if a 0.999999 isn't close enough to be 1 so that someone calls a prediction of 1 years ago wrong since it actually is 0.999999. Lets work together on this. Ideally others would join in and track many leakers.

Alright but I don't expect to change your mind as I'm pretty sure you'll just hand wave away all the things I point out anyway but at least for others who aren't so invested in defending him, they'll see how bad his "leaks" really are.

 

[moinmoin]

@dullard Can you please start a thread dedicated to that topic? This got nothing to do with Intel lakes anymore at this point, and aside you nobody is really interested in that topic.

TSMC is not the leader in packaging tech anymore.

Intel has positioned itself as leader in packaging tech all the time. Unfortunately Intel also seems to be incapable of turning that into a competitive advantage so far, starting with Lakefried (and before that they didn't productize all the tech at all).

 

[SiliconFly]

First, you claimed that it was not possible to verify his claims. Here are your words, "you can't go back to show how wrong he's been". The screenshots prove you to be wrong, you can readily verify his claims. Heck even if there weren't screenshots, you even contradict yourself "Others call him out on his wrong info all the time as well..." Is it possible to show he is wrong or not? Please make up your mind.

Second, nice change of goalposts. The discussion is about the reliability of his posts, not originality.

So, do you want to analyze his posts from the screenshots or not? If not, why keep making claims about him?

I never said he's accurate. His ARL claims sound as much bogus as most other ARL claims that we've come across. The point being, I said he's claimed so and so! Thats all.

 

[SiliconFly]

The bulk of the tiles are N3B according to the last leak I know of. Arrow Lake is supposedly using 20A only for the value desktop parts (6P+8E die).

6P+8E on 20A is the bulk of their volume!

 

[SiliconFly]

See, someone keep forgetting ARL-S is made by TSMC's N3B process. And Lunar Lake too...

ARL-S 6P+8E is on 20A. Not TSMC.

Only low volume products on TSMC.

 

[SiliconFly]

TSMC is the only foundry doing mass volume 3D stacking, and their volume of 2.5D packaging is orders of magnitude higher than Intel's.

Not accurate. Intel is the current market leader in 3D packaging tech with foveros. TSMC has 3D packaging tech, but not many customers. For example, AMD CPUs are 2.5D. Not 3D (except for the X3D variants which are based on a very primitive form of 3D tech thats no where near Intel foveros).

 

[Tigerick]

ARL-S 6P+8E is on 20A. Not TSMC.

Only low volume products on TSMC.

Let's see:-

• ARL-H 6P+8E on N3B
• ARL-HX 8P+16e on N3B
• ARL-S K series 8P+32E, 8P+16E, 8P+12E on N3B
• Lunar Lake 4P+4E on N3B
• ARL-S 6P+8E on 20A

And you claimed: the key components are all Intel. Above CPUs which are key CPU???

• Many of the tiles are outsourced. But the key components, like the CPU tile & the packaging tech, are all Intel.

 

[SiliconFly]

View attachment 93780
LNC looks like another dud.

He "think" 15% is "reasonable" cos he "assumes the range to be 10 to 20%". And he "assumes" clock regression. So he "thinks" 10% ST perf uplift over previous gen. And I already see people assume that the "lord has spoken". This prediction is worse than MLID people.

 

[SiliconFly]

Let's see:-

• ARL-H 6P+8E on N3B
• ARL-HX 8P+16e on N3B
• ARL-S K series 8P+32E, 8P+16E, 8P+12E on N3B
• Lunar Lake 4P+4E on N3B
• ARL-S 6P+8E on 20A

And you claimed: the key components are all Intel. Above CPUs which are key CPU???

6P+8E is volume. Sad, mobile 6P+8E is on N3B.

 

[msj10]

View attachment 93780
LNC looks like another dud.

10% above 14900k would make it 15-20% higher than Zen 4. that would still be competitive with Zen 5.