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

Tigerick · Aug 22, 2022

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

Model	Code-Name	Date	TDP	Node	Tiles	Main Tile	CPU	LP E-Core	LLC	GPU	Xe-cores
Core Ultra 100U	Meteor Lake	Q4 2023	15 - 57 W	Intel 4 + N5 + N6	4	tCPU	2P + 8E	2	12 MB	Intel Graphics	4
?	Lunar Lake	Q4 2024	17 - 30 W	N3B + N6	2	CPU + GPU & IMC	4P + 4E	0	8 MB	Arc	8
?	Panther Lake	Q1 2026 ?	?	Intel 18A + N3E	3	CPU + MC	4P + 8E	4	?	Arc	12

Comparison of die size of Each Tile of Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake, Lunar Lake and Panther Lake

	Meteor Lake	Arrow Lake (20A)	Arrow Lake (N3B)	Arrow Lake Refresh (N3B)	Lunar Lake	Panther Lake
Platform	Mobile H/U Only	Desktop Only	Desktop & Mobile H&HX	Desktop Only	Mobile U Only	Mobile H
Process Node	Intel 4	Intel 20A	TSMC N3B	TSMC N3B	TSMC N3B	Intel 18A
Date	Q4 2023	Q1 2025 ?	Desktop-Q4-2024 H&HX-Q1-2025	Q4 2025 ?	Q4 2024	Q1 2026 ?
Full Die	6P + 8P	6P + 8E ?	8P + 16E	8P + 32E	4P + 4E	4P + 8E
LLC	24 MB	24 MB ?	36 MB ?	?	8 MB	?
tCPU	66.48
tGPU	44.45
SoC	96.77
IOE	44.45
Total	252.15

Intel Core Ultra 100 - Meteor Lake

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.)

SiliconFly · Jun 5, 2024

lightisgood said:
So, Pollack's law says that Zen 5 should achieve ~=12% IPC gain.
This means Zen 5 IPC may be inferior to Skymont IPC... OMG?

OH MY GOD!!! If true, there's gonna be a massive uprising against Lisa Su! God save the poor soul!

invisible_city · Jun 5, 2024

Abwx said:
It is not, Computerbase provided a comparison at same frequency, and in all cases excepted CBR20 Zen 4 has better MT IPC than the P cores used in the 12900K, how is this possible if ST IPC was lower by 10%..?..

And before one comes for a theorical better SMT scaling of Zen 4 that s just moot, because 5% better ST IPC cant be compensated in MT by marginaly better SMT yield, let alone with 10% better ST IPC as proven by the estimation below.

If a core has say 100 ST IPC and 30% SMT yield it will perform at 130 in MT.
A core that has just 5% better IPC and only 25% SMT yield is at 131.5 in MT.
Now a core at 110 with only 25% SMT yield would do 137.5.

SMT yields of AMD and Intel are not as far apart as in this exemple, so it s obvious that Intel having better IPC is just an urban legend that doesnt pass the most basic examination, actually it s the contrary.

Cinebench R20 uses AVX512

H433x0n · Jun 5, 2024

SiliconFly said:
Like I always say, it's time for the fat/power hungry P cores to die.

The Lion Cove P cores in LNL may not be as big as you’d think. The removal of HT was said to reduce core area by 15%. The removal of unused AVX512 for client cores is also going to cut down on core area.

invisible_city · Jun 5, 2024

The real test of the p-core team is what they can achieve within the next 2 years, because by then e-cores will likely be as performant as lion cove at much lower area and power

deasd · Jun 5, 2024

FlameTail said:
Because SPEC is best.

Ahhh. This reply reminds me of a very shocking reading from several months ago.

Page 2 - Discussion - What is the best CPU benchmark?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Industry group invalidates 2,600 official Intel CPU benchmarks — SPEC says the company's compiler used unfair optimizations to boost performance

It mostly affects Sapphire Rapids benchmarks.

www.tomshardware.com

SPEC sometimes is not reliable. It heavily relies on the person who do the test, which means results may vary terribly.
But I find it more terrible is even being get caught, today Intel use SPEC as if nothing has happened before..?

Abwx · Jun 5, 2024

invisible_city said:
Cinebench R20 uses AVX512

It doesnt, and as said it s the only bench where Intel s P cores do better than Zen 4.

There lots of reviews at Computerbase, not only straight comparison at same frequencies but in the the benches there s also a 12900K with e cores disabled and with all the 241W power budget allocated to the P cores.

Despite higher all cores frequency it barely match a 88W 7700, RPL could have slightly better IPC than the 12900K P cores but this was lost on MTL wich is the comparison for Intel s next big core.

gdansk · Jun 5, 2024

deasd said:
Ahhh. This reply reminds me of a very shocking reading from several months ago.

Page 2 - Discussion - What is the best CPU benchmark?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Industry group invalidates 2,600 official Intel CPU benchmarks — SPEC says the company's compiler used unfair optimizations to boost performance

It mostly affects Sapphire Rapids benchmarks.

www.tomshardware.com

SPEC sometimes is not reliable. It heavily relies on the person who do the test, which means results may vary terribly.
But I find it more terrible is even being get caught, today Intel use SPEC as if nothing has happened before..?

The rule of thumb is look for gcc.

eek2121 · Jun 5, 2024

inf64 said:
Raptor cove is around 2-3% faster than Zen 4, while RWC is around ~3% slower than Raptor cove (so RWC and Zen 4 are ~even). Zen 5 should end up having a slight edge over Lion Cove if both IPC projections are confirmed in reality. In AVX512 optimized stuff Zen 5 should have a big advantage though.

Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

Multicore? Hah we’ll see, it will come down to power and how accurate Intel has been with reveals. I am expecting Intel to walk all over AMD for multicore as well.

Of course X3D will change things up a bit.

Hitman928 · Jun 5, 2024

deasd said:
Ahhh. This reply reminds me of a very shocking reading from several months ago.

Page 2 - Discussion - What is the best CPU benchmark?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Industry group invalidates 2,600 official Intel CPU benchmarks — SPEC says the company's compiler used unfair optimizations to boost performance

It mostly affects Sapphire Rapids benchmarks.

www.tomshardware.com

SPEC sometimes is not reliable. It heavily relies on the person who do the test, which means results may vary terribly.
But I find it more terrible is even being get caught, today Intel use SPEC as if nothing has happened before..?

Vendor compilers have been overly optimizing (i.e., cheating) on SPEC for many years. You shouldn't pay attention to those, just look at the ones compiled with GCC or LLVM based that have reasonable compiler flags. Anandtech had been pretty consistent with this for years, though after Andrei and Ian left, we haven't been as blessed.

Hitman928 · Jun 5, 2024

eek2121 said:
Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

Multicore? Hah we’ll see, it will come down to power and how accurate Intel has been with reveals. I am expecting Intel to walk all over AMD for multicore as well.

Of course X3D will change things up a bit.

Where do you get 20% from?

deasd · Jun 5, 2024

gdansk said:
The rule of thumb is look for gcc.

Hitman928 said:
Vendor compilers have been overly optimizing (i.e., cheating) on SPEC for many years. You shouldn't pay attention to those, just look at the ones compiled with GCC or LLVM based that have reasonable compiler flags. Anandtech had been pretty consistent with this for years, though after Andrei and Ian left, we haven't been as blessed.

Now I understand why not all vendor preview use SPEC as a metric. Third party SPEC test is important. Wait until hit the shelves.

inf64 · Jun 5, 2024

eek2121 said:
Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

Multicore? Hah we’ll see, it will come down to power and how accurate Intel has been with reveals. I am expecting Intel to walk all over AMD for multicore as well.

Of course X3D will change things up a bit.

Based on what exactly (20%)? Is that your hopium/copium or you base that on some benchmarks? We already have a chart from intel that shows Lunar Lake vs RWC (which has lower IPC than RPC) and the chart is ~14% average, with even a regression in some benchmarks.

From AMD, we have a very vague average with very conservative workload selection that shows 16% improvement. I'm very confident that Zen 5 will have no problem beating Arrow Lake in ST stuff and gaming, while MT stuff remains open due to E cores and huge uplift they bring.

inf64 · Jun 5, 2024

H433x0n said:
ARL-S P cores are slightly different with more L2$ and HT present (although maybe not enabled).

Based on the disparity of how transparent IPC was calculated for both - I would wait for 3rd party reviews before saying anything conclusively.

If you check intel's presentation, they even mentioned that they gained ST IPC due to removal of HT related structures. If ARL-S has a form of HT, even if disabled, I don't see how that can help ST IPC, on the contrary. Bigger L2 can help but not much - maybe a percent or two at best.

Hitman928 · Jun 5, 2024

deasd said:
Now I understand why not all vendor preview use SPEC as a metric. Third party SPEC test is important. Wait until hit the shelves.

Vendors don't have to use their own compilers, they could present numbers with independent compilers as well, but even then, you should always take vendor provided numbers with a grain of salt. BTW, I should have been a little more careful with my wording earlier as Intel and AMD have vendor compilers based on LLVM now.

H433x0n · Jun 5, 2024

inf64 said:
I'm very confident that Zen 5 will have no problem beating Arrow Lake in ST stuff and gaming, while MT stuff remains open due to E cores and huge uplift they bring.

How do you get to that math? What 1T benchmarks?

Hulk · Jun 5, 2024

The 38% Integer and 68% Floating Point IPC improvements Intel is touting are a comparison against the Low Power Island E cores in Meteor Lake, not the E cores that have access to the L3 cache.

Do we know what the cache structure of the Meteor Lake LPE island is and how the IPC of the LPE island compares to the Crestmont clusters in Meteor Lake in order to put some context into these 38% and 68% improvements?

What is the sizes of the Skymont/Lion Cove L1 Instructions caches? I assume unchanged?

Will LL and ARL be considered 15th generation?

TwistedAndy · Jun 5, 2024

Fortunately, there's a better slide comparing Skymont to Raptor Cove.

If that chart is real, it will be a good question about which core should be called P

Det0x · Jun 5, 2024

eek2121 said:
Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

How do you come to this number ?
Like i showed in my previous post, Arrow Lake need a IPC increase of minimum +30% to reach this number (best case)

Do you expect Arrow Lake to have over +30% ST IPC increase compared to Raptor Lake ?

Det0x said:
Going by the latest leak from wccftech (i know)

Thats a 9% or 13% clockspeed deficitt depending on if you compare against 14900K or the KS, that you need to overcome with purely IPC

For the 285K to reach +20% ST performance over 13900K they need a IPC increase of ~31%

For the 285k to reach +20% ST performance over 13900KS they need a IPC increase of ~35%

*edit*

If the 285k runs at 5.7ghz ST:

..then it need a IPC increase of ~26% to reach the 14900K +20%

...then it need a IPC increase of ~30% to reach the 14900KS +20%

inf64 · Jun 5, 2024

H433x0n said:
How do you get to that math? What 1T benchmarks?

I get it based on what AMD shared (albeit very limited set of benchmarks) and what intel shared (~14% vs RWC). Mainly SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017 1T and GB 6.3 1T.

SiliconFly · Jun 5, 2024

eek2121 said:
Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

Multicore? Hah we’ll see, it will come down to power and how accurate Intel has been with reveals. I am expecting Intel to walk all over AMD for multicore as well.

Of course X3D will change things up a bit.

Zen5 & ARL should have similar ST. And top-end X3D will be matched by ARL desktop Ultra 9 KS or equivalent. There shouldn't be much of a difference in ST.

And it's definitely a completely different ballgame in MT. ARL 8+32 is not just gonna crush top-end Zen5 X3D in MT, it's gonna be a complete bloodbath.

Unquestioned leadership in MT.

coercitiv · Jun 5, 2024

SiliconFly said:
ARL 8+32 is not just gonna crush top-end Zen5 X3D in MT, it's gonna be a complete bloodbath.

What ARL 8+32 are yout talking about?

SiliconFly · Jun 5, 2024

coercitiv said:
What ARL 8+32 are yout talking about?

ARL-S 8+32 on N3B.

inf64 · Jun 5, 2024

SiliconFly said:
ARL-S 8+32 on N3B.

I haven't seen one credible leak pointing to such SKU thus far. Can you share the source?

ondma · Jun 5, 2024

eek2121 said:
Arrow Lake should be around 20% faster than Raptor Cove for single core stuff. That is more than enough to beat Zen 5 in many benchmarks.

Multicore? Hah we’ll see, it will come down to power and how accurate Intel has been with reveals. I am expecting Intel to walk all over AMD for multicore as well.

Of course X3D will change things up a bit.

Dont forget there will be a clock speed regression of 5-10% at least, and a IPC 20% seems a bit high. So final result, I would think 10% faster than RC ST would be an acceptable result. As for MT, if the E cores are as good as the predictions, there should be plenty of horsepower for a good MT performance. It will depend on temps and power usage, i.e. what clocks they can hold in full core load.

H433x0n · Jun 5, 2024

inf64 said:
I get it based on what AMD shared (albeit very limited set of benchmarks) and what intel shared (~14% vs RWC). Mainly SPECint2017 and SPECfp2017 1T and GB 6.3 1T.

There was no specint or specfp figure provided by AMD. Nor was there any GB5 or GB6 1T number provided.

You may be right that it ends up being close in Specint & Specfp. If you take their numbers at face value for the popular client 1T benchmarks (WebXprt, Speedometer & CB R23), it won't be that close in those metrics.

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

Senior member

Attachments

Golden Member

Member

Golden Member

Member

Senior member

Lifer

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Member

Attachments

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Golden Member