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

[Tigerick]

Wildcat Lake (WCL) Preliminary Specs

Intel Wildcat Lake (WCL) is upcoming mobile SoC replacing ADL-N. 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 Q2/Computex 2026. In case people don't remember AlderLake-N, I have created a table below to compare the detail specs of ADL-N and WCL. Just for fun, I am throwing LNL and upcoming Mediatek D9500 SoC.

		Intel Alder Lake - N	Intel Wildcat Lake	Intel Lunar Lake		Mediatek D9500
Launch Date		Q1-2023	Q2-2026 ?	Q3-2024		Q3-2025
Model		Intel N300	?	Core Ultra 7 268V		Dimensity 9500 5G
Dies		2	2	2		1
Node		Intel 7 + ?	Intel 18-A + TSMC N6	TSMC N3B + N6		TSMC N3P
CPU		8 E-cores	2 P-core + 4 LP E-cores	4 P-core + 4 LP E-cores		C1 1+3+4
Threads		8	6	8		8
Max Clock		3.8 GHz	?	5 GHz
L3 Cache		6 MB	?	12 MB
TDP		7 W	Fanless ?	17 W		Fanless
Memory		64-bit LPDDR5-4800	64-bit LPDDR5-6800 ?	128-bit LPDDR5X-8533		64-bit LPDDR5X-10667
Size		16 GB	?	32 GB		24 GB ?
Bandwidth			~ 55 GB/s	136 GB/s		85.6 GB/s
GPU		UHD Graphics		Arc 140V		G1 Ultra
EU / Xe		32 EU	2 Xe	8 Xe		12
Max Clock		1.25 GHz		2 GHz
NPU		NA	18 TOPS	48 TOPS		100 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.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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]

@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]

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!

 

[SiliconFly]

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]

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.

 

[A///]

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"

Intel's Premature E... never mind. Family forum.

 

[BorisTheBlade82]

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.

ICL-U was indeed only and exclusively a 4c part mobile-only.
TGL was firstly launched as a much improved 4c part. Much much later it was launched as an 8c NUC only part.

 

[uzzi38]

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?

New designs get a new codename, that's all. Doesn't really matter how large the changes are. See: Willow Cove vs Sunny Cove, or Golden Cove vs Raptor Cove.

Redwood Cove does bring changes, but the overall performance improvement per clock will be tiny.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Actually no. MTL's Redwood Cove is 20% faster than RPL's Raptor Cove at the same power. It's waaaay superior.

Average or up to?

I think on average it might be no more than 10-12% faster.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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!

Lots of things that have never happened before are happening (or will happen) at Intel. Like using TSMC for anything.

Plus Intel almost directly ported Nehalem over to 32nm as Gulftown, so while I doubt the work was done simultaneously, there was probably some overlap.

 

[Hulk]

New designs get a new codename, that's all. Doesn't really matter how large the changes are. See: Willow Cove vs Sunny Cove, or Golden Cove vs Raptor Cove.

Redwood Cove does bring changes, but the overall performance improvement per clock will be tiny.

So they basically "ticked" Raptor Lake to create Meteor and Arrow will be the "tock?"

 

[Geddagod]

So they basically "ticked" Raptor Lake to create Meteor and Arrow will be the "tock?"

I think it's a tick on GLC. RPL was also a tick of GLC. I think RPL stole some of the benefits that MTL was supposed to have (increased L2 cache, more cores) to be a better refresh lol

 

[SiliconFly]

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.

What I find very surprising is the fact that most people tend to forget the performance gains when an cpu core (logic) is moved from an old node to a more advanced node.

For example, Zen 3 was on TSMC N7P. And Zen 4 is on TSMC N4. Thats a one full node jump (slightly more actually). That gave Zen 4 upto 25% performance increase or upto 50% reduction in power (but not both) over Zen 3 due to the node jump alone. So, AMD chose 10% to 15% of the PPW budget for performance increase for Zen 4 and used the remaining PPW budget for power efficiency.

The increase in Zen 4 performance over Zen 3 is mostly not because of architectural changes, but mainly due to the node jump from TSMC N7 to N4.

What people forget is, the exact same advantage applies to Intel too.

Meteor Lake is shifting from Intel 7 to Intel 4. And it's a complete "full" node jump. Intel 4 offers upto 20% performance increase or upto 40% reduction in power (but not both) over Intel 7. If Intel uses the PPW budget properly, Meteor Lake will end up with 10% performance increase over RPL at a given frequency & will be 20% more power efficient than RPL.

Meaning, when it comes to IPC, Meteor Lake cpu @ 5.4GHz will be as fast as RPL cpu @ 6.0GHz.

MTL doesn't even have to hit 6GHz to beat RPL. It just has to be at 5.5GHz or slightly above. Thats all!

 

[igor_kavinski]

MTL doesn't even have to hit 6GHz to beat RPL. It just has to be at 5.5GHz or slightly above. Thats all!

Good luck to Intel doing that on the first iteration of Intel 4.

 

[SiliconFly]

Lots of things that have never happened before are happening (or will happen) at Intel. Like using TSMC for anything.

Plus Intel almost directly ported Nehalem over to 32nm as Gulftown, so while I doubt the work was done simultaneously, there was probably some overlap.

If I remember right, they skipped both nehalem & westmere and jumped straight to sandy bridge for desktop & laptop cpus

 

[DrMrLordX]

What I find very surprising is the fact that most people tend to forget the performance gains when an cpu core (logic) is moved from an old node to a more advanced node.

Not all node improvements increase clockspeed. Look at what happened with Intel went from 32nm to 22nm, or 14nm++(+?) to 10nm+. Clockspeed regression.

 

[Hulk]

What I find very surprising is the fact that most people tend to forget the performance gains when an cpu core (logic) is moved from an old node to a more advanced node.

I don't understand? Are you referring to IPC increases due to the new architecture having more transistors, which are in turn allowed do to the increased transistor density of the new node?

Or due to frequency increase of the new node.

32nm Sandy Bridge to 22nm Ivy Bridge was a clock speed regression.

22nm Haswell to 14nm Broadwell was a clock speed regression.

14nm Comet Lake to 10nm Canon Lake, Ice Lake, and Tiger Lake was also a clock speed regression. It took quite a few "+'s" for Intel to get the clocks ramped up at 10nm. Actually they started in 2015 and now in 2023 they're still at it with 10nm.

It doesn't seem like node changes are the instantly result in less power, more frequency, and greater transistor density that used to be the case when shrinking a node. As we approach atomic sized features that pesky quantum physics is causing problems that take time to be worked around.

Meaning, when it comes to IPC, Meteor Lake cpu @ 5.4GHz will be as fast as RPL cpu @ 6.0GHz.

MTL doesn't even have to hit 6GHz to beat RPL. It just has to be at 5.5GHz or slightly above. Thats all!

Assuming Intel's first whack at Intel 4 could hit 5.5GHz you are also assuming a 9% IPC increase for ML compared to RL. IntelUser2000 a few posts above already wrote it looks like ML IPC gains will be really small, perhaps 1%.

It's all possible of course but it seems hard to believe Intel 4 will be hitting 5.5GHz in 2023.

 

[SiliconFly]

Not all node improvements increase clockspeed. Look at what happened with Intel went from 32nm to 22nm, or 14nm++(+?) to 10nm+. Clockspeed regression.

Clock speed regression is always expected in a new node. Thats why I mentioned:

MTL doesn't even have to hit 6GHz to beat RPL. It just has to be at 5.5GHz.

And if they manage to bring in any new uArch performance improvements, that also adds up.

Even if they bring in a meager 5% uArch performance improvement to MTL over RPL, Meteor Lake will beat RPL at 5.2GHz

Intel has something excellent in its hand right now. Just wondering they don't eff it up like before!

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel has something excellent in its hand right now.

Not sure what's so excellent. Maybe you know more than you are letting on.

 

[SiliconFly]

I don't understand? Are you referring to IPC increases due to the new architecture having more transistors, which are in turn allowed do to the increased transistor density of the new node?

Or due to frequency increase of the new node.

32nm Sandy Bridge to 22nm Ivy Bridge was a clock speed regression.

22nm Haswell to 14nm Broadwell was a clock speed regression.

14nm Comet Lake to 10nm Canon Lake, Ice Lake, and Tiger Lake was also a clock speed regression. It took quite a few "+'s" for Intel to get the clocks ramped up at 10nm. Actually they started in 2015 and now in 2023 they're still at it with 10nm.

It doesn't seem like node changes are the instantly result in less power, more frequency, and greater transistor density that used to be the case when shrinking a node. As we approach atomic sized features that pesky quantum physics is causing problems that take time to be worked around.




Assuming Intel's first whack at Intel 4 could hit 5.5GHz you are also assuming a 9% IPC increase for ML compared to RL. IntelUser2000 a few posts above already wrote it looks like ML IPC gains will be really small, perhaps 1%.

It's all possible of course but it seems hard to believe Intel 4 will be hitting 5.5GHz in 2023.

1% IPC gains is just plain wrong.

And yes, clock speed regression is expected.

When a foundry mentions 20% PPW they say performance increase due to additional logic and caches in the die due to increase in logic density alone. And not just due to frequency increase itself.

Like I said, if Intel does it right, MTL @ 5.5GHz will beat RPL @ 6GHz

If you include a meager single digit 5% uArch improvement, MTL @ 5.2GHz will comfortably beat RPL @ 6GHz

 

[Hitman928]

Clock speed regression is always expected in a new node. Thats why I mentioned:

MTL doesn't even have to hit 6GHz to beat RPL. It just has to be at 5.5GHz.

And if they manage to bring in any new uArch performance improvements, that also adds up.

Even if they bring in a meager 5% uArch performance improvement to MTL over RPL, Meteor Lake will beat RPL at 5.2GHz

Intel has something excellent in its hand right now. Just wondering they don't eff it up like before!

How will MTL at 5.5 GHz beat RPL at 6 GHz without any architecture performance improvements? That makes zero sense.

 

[nicalandia]

Based on leaks and rumors, a 14900K that's 3-5% faster but say 30% lower power is very mediocre.

According to my sources The 14900K is a refresh Raptor Cove design on Intel Super 7+, Highly binned to extract the most out of the process

 

[Hulk]

According to my sources The 14900K is a refresh Raptor Cove design on Intel Super 7+, Highly binned to extract the most out of the process

Wouldn't this mean that only the 13900 sku's would need the new process because the lower bins could have increased clocks off the "old" Intel 7 process.

14600K could move to 5.3GHz all core, 14700K could be 5.6GHz all core and 14900K perhaps 5.9GHz all core. If that's all the Refresh turns out to be I hope they don't slap a "14" on it.

 

[Hulk]

If I remember right, they skipped both nehalem & westmere and jumped straight to sandy bridge for desktop & laptop cpus

Nehalem was desktop and mobile. Westmere was Nehalem without the Integrated Memory Controller (performance suffered as expected) and was also desktop and mobile.

 

[nicalandia]

Wouldn't this mean that only the 13900 sku's would need the new process because the lower bins could have increased clocks off the "old" Intel 7 process.

Correct, Lower SKUs will be rehash Raptor Lake