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.

 

[Det0x]

Not sure if this already have been posted, but this is not looking good..
Hopefully it will get alot better when we get closer to launch

 

[Hitman928]

Not sure if this already have been posted, but this is not looking good..
Hopefully it will get alot better when we get closer to launch
View attachment 107659

Doesn't seem to be published anymore (at least that I can find) but there is a 265KF that scores slightly higher. There are also 285Ks that score in the 3420 - 3450 range, which puts it basically in line with the 9950x. It seems the 285K has a noticeable advantage in pts/GHz over the 265K in Geekbench which is different than say the 9700x to 9950x, though maybe memory speeds come into play as well.

 

[OneEng2]

Lunar Lake is on N3B. Arrow Lake is likely on a higher performance variant of N3. Lunar Lake should make much more money for Intel than Arrow Lake, being that its going into premium laptops that command higher margins and is a lot less silicon area than Arrow Lake.

Arrow Lake will likely be expensive, so I have my doubts AMD will lower Zen 5 desktop prices due to Arrow Lake. Zen 5 desktop is AMDs second least profitable business, only consumer /desktop GPU is less profitable. They would rather sell the silicon in EPYC, Instinct/MI, or laptop at higher prices than sell desktop at lower prices.

Undoubtably true. High margin chips are definitely where AMD would choose to sell; however, the ZEN 5 Turin will be produced on the N3E (I believe). While the desktop processor shares the same core architecture, it doesn't share fab lines therefore they can't really utilize the Turin dies to sell in the desktop/laptop or vise versa. Note, AMD does have an interesting follow-on product with an N3E version of their ZEN 5 desktop processor.

AFAIK Intel still doesn't have anything in the server space that will compete with Turin, so I doubt AMD will be hurting in the profit department overall. To that end, I agree with you that AMD is unlikely to lower their desktop and laptop processor prices even though their cost is likely much lower than Intel's to produce. I am not sure that AMD would want to give up the desktop and or laptop market share to Intel, but that would be a strategic decision on their part if the price and performance pressure from Intel forces them into lowering price to keep market share.

I do agree that Arrow Lake will likely have to be more expensive than Zen 5 for desktop and laptop parts due to the more expensive process node being used.

 

[Henry swagger]

Not sure if this already have been posted, but this is not looking good..
Hopefully it will get alot better when we get closer to launch
View attachment 107659

You concern trolling stop it

 

[Hitman928]

Undoubtably true. High margin chips are definitely where AMD would choose to sell; however, the ZEN 5 Turin will be produced on the N3E (I believe). While the desktop processor shares the same core architecture, it doesn't share fab lines therefore they can't really utilize the Turin dies to sell in the desktop/laptop or vise versa. Note, AMD does have an interesting follow-on product with an N3E version of their ZEN 5 desktop processor.

AFAIK Intel still doesn't have anything in the server space that will compete with Turin, so I doubt AMD will be hurting in the profit department overall. To that end, I agree with you that AMD is unlikely to lower their desktop and laptop processor prices even though their cost is likely much lower than Intel's to produce. I am not sure that AMD would want to give up the desktop and or laptop market share to Intel, but that would be a strategic decision on their part if the price and performance pressure from Intel forces them into lowering price to keep market share.

I do agree that Arrow Lake will likely have to be more expensive than Zen 5 for desktop and laptop parts due to the more expensive process node being used.

Only Turin-D uses N3E, regular Turin uses N4P like desktop Zen 5. I personally haven’t heard about a desktop N3E version of Zen 5.

 

[Nothingness]

Doesn't seem to be published anymore (at least that I can find) but there is a 265KF that scores slightly higher. There are also 285Ks that score in the 3420 - 3450 range, which puts it basically in line with the 9950x. It seems the 285K has a noticeable advantage in pts/GHz over the 265K in Geekbench which is different than say the 9700x to 9950x, though maybe memory speeds come into play as well.

The result might be here. But it looks like the search engine DB is updated once a day (or even less often), so too recent results can't be found unless you have a direct link.

 

[OneEng2]

Everything is N3B. In the final stage before being cancelled, the 20A tile was a small volume 6+8. ARL + LNL generation was always planned to be manufactured on TSMC N3 process.

Thanks.

So Intel is paying for the most expensive TSMC process while AMD is paying for N5 which is arguably 2 steps less good than N3B (in density and performance).

 

[SiliconFly]

.

 

[Hitman928]

Thanks.

So Intel is paying for the most expensive TSMC process while AMD is paying for N5 which is arguably 2 steps less good than N3B (in density and performance).

AMD is using N4P for consumer products and Turin (regular), which is really close in performance and efficiency to N3B (listed as just N3 in the chart below). There is a significant logic density advantage for N3B, but across the whole chip and with the way Intel designs seem to go, the density advantage doesn't translate all that well to an area advantage for Intel.

 

[511]

Thanks.

So Intel is paying for the most expensive TSMC process while AMD is paying for N5 which is arguably 2 steps less good than N3B (in density and performance).

Yes and No it depends on the contract negotiatied and the volume Intel's volume is way larger and second only to Apple according to estimates Chiplets are cost effective as well anyway it wull erode their CCG Margin

 

[9949asd]

Not sure if this already have been posted, but this is not looking good..
Hopefully it will get alot better when we get closer to launch
View attachment 107659

We have 285k 5.7 st 3450, so 265k 5.5 should be 3320.

 

[OneEng2]

Only Turin-D uses N3E, regular Turin uses N4P like desktop Zen 5. I personally haven’t heard about a desktop N3E version of Zen 5.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[OneEng2]

Yes and No it depends on the contract negotiatied and the volume Intel's volume is way larger and second only to Apple according to estimates Chiplets are cost effective as well anyway it wull erode their CCG Margin

Interesting point. So they will be bidding against Apple for process time.

 

[511]

Interesting point. So they will be bidding against Apple for process time.

Nope no one is bidding against Apple with TSMC they both co develop the nodes but Intel's Volume of Silicon is Nuts

 

[OneEng2]

AMD is using N4P for consumer products and Turin (regular), which is really close in performance and efficiency to N3B (listed as just N3 in the chart below). There is a significant logic density advantage for N3B, but across the whole chip and with the way Intel designs seem to go, the density advantage doesn't translate all that well to an area advantage for Intel.

View attachment 107663

Thanks.

Really close in power, but considerably different in transistor density (ie cost to produce a chip). The performance figures seem strange to me though.

How can N4P be 22% better in power or 11% better in performance while N3 is 25-30% lower in power or 10-15% better in performance? It was my understanding that when they quote power, they assume the same performance and when they quote performance, them assume at the same power level as the previous node?

It still looks like N3 is a considerably better process node than N4P .... just more expensive.

I am also confused why Intel is not using N3E which is supposed to be superior in performance and power than N3(B), and less expensive but at the expense of die size .... unless the die size cost outweighs the less expensive price per area of the N3E process over N3B.

Also, it seems a dubious strategy for Intel to hook its wagon to the N3B process and fight for capacity with Apple on a dead process node as it seems no one else is likely to sign up for N3B moving forward as other better 3nm process nodes are now available that are less expensive and better in most ways than N3B.

 

[OneEng2]

Nope no one is bidding against Apple with TSMC they both co develop the nodes but Intel's Volume of Silicon is Nuts

More nuts than Apple?

 

[OneEng2]

We have 285k 5.7 st 3450, so 265k 5.5 should be 3320.

Do you happen to know what 9550 scores are in comparison?

 

[Josh128]

Undoubtably true. High margin chips are definitely where AMD would choose to sell; however, the ZEN 5 Turin will be produced on the N3E (I believe). While the desktop processor shares the same core architecture, it doesn't share fab lines therefore they can't really utilize the Turin dies to sell in the desktop/laptop or vise versa. Note, AMD does have an interesting follow-on product with an N3E version of their ZEN 5 desktop processor.

AFAIK Intel still doesn't have anything in the server space that will compete with Turin, so I doubt AMD will be hurting in the profit department overall. To that end, I agree with you that AMD is unlikely to lower their desktop and laptop processor prices even though their cost is likely much lower than Intel's to produce. I am not sure that AMD would want to give up the desktop and or laptop market share to Intel, but that would be a strategic decision on their part if the price and performance pressure from Intel forces them into lowering price to keep market share.

I do agree that Arrow Lake will likely have to be more expensive than Zen 5 for desktop and laptop parts due to the more expensive process node being used.

Only the Zen 5C variants are thought to use 3nm, the non C EPYCs will use 4nm just like desktop and top out at 96 to 128 core.

Also, its never been confirmed that AMD uses N4P or N4X for Zen 5, afaik.

 

[Hitman928]

Thanks.

Really close in power, but considerably different in transistor density (ie cost to produce a chip). The performance figures seem strange to me though.

That is logic density only (does not include cache or analog/PHY density) and the improvement is significantly less when looking at overall chip density. Additionally, Intel pushes for high frequency designs which will also nullify some of that density advantage when looking at competing designs. That's why I said Intel's chips don't really show a chip area advantage compared to the competition, despite being on N3B versus N4P. The N3B node being significantly more expensive is obviously also not great.

How can N4P be 22% better in power or 11% better in performance while N3 is 25-30% lower in power or 10-15% better in performance? It was my understanding that when they quote power, they assume the same performance and when they quote performance, them assume at the same power level as the previous node?

Yes, it is better power at the same performance or better performance at the same power, you don't get both simultaneously.

It still looks like N3 is a considerably better process node than N4P .... just more expensive.

It's only considerably better in logic density, but I covered that in the first part of the reply.

I am also confused why Intel is not using N3E which is supposed to be superior in performance and power than N3(B), and less expensive but at the expense of die size .... unless the die size cost outweighs the less expensive price per area of the N3E process over N3B.

Also, it seems a dubious strategy for Intel to hook its wagon to the N3B process and fight for capacity with Apple on a dead process node as it seems no one else is likely to sign up for N3B moving forward as other better 3nm process nodes are now available that are less expensive and better in most ways than N3B.

Story is that Intel had to commit to buying significant wafers from TSMC far in advance to get access to a leading edge node because TSMC didn't want to be a "crutch" for Intel and get the rug pulled out if Intel decided to stick with their own fabs. So, Intel had to make a choice to either commit to buying significant amounts of N3B (just N3 at the time) or risk relying solely on their own fabs and potentially having another 10 nm fiasco on their hands. They decided to commit to buying N3B wafers.

Do you happen to know what 9550 scores are in comparison?

Roughly the same. Depends on the memory config, but with decent memory (i.e., DDR5-6000 or higher and decent timings) it scores basically the same.

 

[511]

More nuts than Apple?

If only Apple than probably Yes.i am not sure though it may be close

 

[9949asd]

Do you happen to know what 9550 scores are in comparison?

Almost the same, but you need to know zen5’s avx512 will bump up the score about 100-150.

 

[Hitman928]

Almost the same, but you need to know zen5’s avx512 will bump up the score about 100-150.

No, AVX512 has basically no effect on Zen GB6 scores.

Page 609 - Discussion - Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)

Page 609 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[Det0x]

Do you happen to know what 9550 scores are in comparison?

This one is mine, but it is overclocked so its prob not a valid comparison (but if that 285k was running cudimms @ 9000MT/s i would say it is)

*edit*

Here are one more 285K score
I really hope its just the MSI motherboard that's underperforming here

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ultra-7-265kf-arrow-lake-cpus-geekbench-scores-featuring-msi-z890-pro-motherboard-have-been-leaked

 

[jdubs03]

This one is mine, but it is overclocked so its prob not a valid comparison (but if that 285k was running cudimms @ 9000MT/s i would say it is)

*edit*

Here are one more 285K score
I really hope its just the MSI motherboard that's underperforming here
View attachment 107668

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-ultra-9-285k-and-ultra-7-265kf-arrow-lake-cpus-geekbench-scores-featuring-msi-z890-pro-motherboard-have-been-leaked

That would be very underwhelming. But it also is much lower than 3 previous leaks which all perform much better, and to me would be more representative of performance.

 

[alcoholbob]

This looks like maybe 10% ST and 5% better MT than a 14900K?