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.

 

[Hulk]

I seem to be getting wildly different results with 18.03Beta and the current release?

 

[poke01]

I seem to be getting wildly different results with 18.03Beta and the current release?
View attachment 138026

My GUI screenshots are below. You are testing x86 v18.03 and x64 v25.01. If you test x64 v18.03 the difference won't be as big for GUI 7zip bench.

 

[Thunder 57]

Keep in mind the bench on 7-Zip varies among versions. I just tested the latest against 18.03 Beta and the newer one produces much higher scores. I don't know if the algorithms are better, the compression index is less, or a combination of both, but something is different.

Based on what they say it sounds very version dependant:

The LZMA benchmark shows a rating in MIPS (million instructions per second). The rating value is calculated from the measured speed, and it is normalized with results of Intel Core 2 CPU with multi-threading option switched off, and measured with old version of 7-Zip.

 

[Abwx]

its not that big of a difference between versions on the same OS. Its Linux that produces a higher score likely due to better complier and optimisation.

v25.01 is 8708 MIPS in my testing on Windows 11
v18.03 is 8484 according to NBC on windows 11


View attachment 138024

You have likely faster RAM than NBC s stock 5600, there s only 2.6% difference though.

 

[Abwx]

Based on what they say it sounds very version dependant:

I tested with the 9.2 version wich is very old and the 18.03 one doesnt make a big difference, what is sure is that with 7-Zip all those IPC improvements claimed for the last 15 years fall litteraly flat, as i pointed it Haswell has 65% better IPC than C2D in Cinebench but in 7-zip it s barely 13%, the same for AMD with only 25% better IPC for Zen vs FX8350 despite 60% in CB.

No wonder that 10-15 years old PCs still work relatively well nowadays for basic usages despite quite slower RAM, best progress here was mainly brought by higher CPUs frequencies.

 

[DavidC1]

I tested with the 9.2 version wich is very old and the 18.03 one doesnt make a big difference, what is sure is that with 7-Zip all those IPC improvements claimed for the last 15 years fall litteraly flat, as i pointed it Haswell has 65% better IPC than C2D in Cinebench but in 7-zip it s barely 13%, the same for AMD with only 25% better IPC for Zen vs FX8350 despite 60% in CB.

No wonder that 10-15 years old PCs still work relatively well nowadays for basic usages despite quite slower RAM, best progress here was mainly brought by higher CPUs frequencies.

Where is Haswell 60% faster than Core 2 in Cinebench? You are including Hyperthreading in there. Haswell is 25-30% better. 7-zip is also underestimating Haswell gain, and likely Zen as well. 7-zip itself is too memory bandwidth bound, also not a realistic benchmark.

Cinebench is BETTER overall. It's barely affected by memory which is true for vast majority of lightly threaded applications, you can't boost significantly by bigger caches despite that, and it really doesn't care about anything other than basic FP, meaning SSE/AVX is useless. This is for ST by the way. In MT it has bigger flaws, but still better than vast majority of other tests. THE single most important metric today is still the scalar integer performance. Both Cinebench and Spec does pretty good job at it. Now I said it's not perfect. It comes close enough to the overall average.

 

[Abwx]

Where is Haswell 60% faster than Core 2 in Cinebench? You are including Hyperthreading in there. Haswell is 25-30% better. 7-zip is also underestimating Haswell gain, and likely Zen as well. 7-zip itself is too memory bandwidth bound, also not a realistic benchmark.

Cinebench is BETTER overall. It's barely affected by memory which is true for vast majority of lightly threaded applications, you can't boost significantly by bigger caches despite that, and it really doesn't care about anything other than basic FP, meaning SSE/AVX is useless. This is for ST by the way. In MT it has bigger flaws, but still better than vast majority of other tests. THE single most important metric today is still the scalar integer performance. Both Cinebench and Spec does pretty good job at it. Now I said it's not perfect. It comes close enough to the overall average.

Cinebench is not better, tell me wich are the consumers apps that rely on FP rather than on INT, you wont find a single one.

As for comparison of HW and C2D in ST here its is, beside there s Fritzchess in the comparison wich is also INT and is heavy for branching, if you take account of the frequency difference between the G1820 and the C2D you end with quite low numbers for the INT apps.