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

Page 537 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tigerick

Senior member
Apr 1, 2022
702
632
106






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

ModelCode-NameDateTDPNodeTilesMain TileCPULP E-CoreLLCGPUXe-cores
Core Ultra 100UMeteor LakeQ4 202315 - 57 WIntel 4 + N5 + N64tCPU2P + 8E212 MBIntel Graphics4
?Lunar LakeQ4 202417 - 30 WN3B + N62CPU + GPU & IMC4P + 4E012 MBArc8
?Panther LakeQ1 2026 ??Intel 18A + N3E3CPU + MC4P + 8E4?Arc12



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

Meteor LakeArrow Lake (N3B)Lunar LakePanther Lake
PlatformMobile H/U OnlyDesktop & Mobile H&HXMobile U OnlyMobile H
Process NodeIntel 4TSMC N3BTSMC N3BIntel 18A
DateQ4 2023Desktop-Q4-2024
H&HX-Q1-2025
Q4 2024Q1 2026 ?
Full Die6P + 8P8P + 16E4P + 4E4P + 8E
LLC24 MB36 MB ?12 MB?
tCPU66.48
tGPU44.45
SoC96.77
IOE44.45
Total252.15



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.)



 

Attachments

  • PantherLake.png
    283.5 KB · Views: 24,014
  • LNL.png
    881.8 KB · Views: 25,501
Last edited:

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,651
996
96
Zen 5's new ideas allow them to have new knobs to adjust for optimization.
Thanks to Jim Keller, this is the first time in Intel's history they have a shifted to industry standard design tools, made the core designs modular and node agnostic. The results of the new knobs should start showing soon. Possibly starting with Panther Lake or Nova Lake.

While a future "P core" might do better, I wouldn't be surprised if that's because like the rumors, the E core team takes over being the top dog.
The E core team had a clean slate. The P core team has just found their footing. They should be able to follow suit from now on.

Agree, but they are also making inroads into laptops I believe.
True. The availability has increased a bit. For the first time, I got a Ryzen laptop. It offered more perf per dollar.

For games that thrive on cache (most of them), Zen 5 X3D will likely provide a very comfortable lead for AMD (not 5%. You are dreaming). I would bet quadruple that.
5% sounds a bit low. But 20% sounds a bit too high.

Pretty good showing for Intel in general. In the desktop and laptop market, cost of goods count though. Intel is indeed besting AMD with its latest release; however, it is doing so by paying more for the chips.
Intel still control ~80% of the market in clients. With that kinda volume, EOS (economies of scale) comes into play. Significantly reduces the cost per unit. They aren't paying as much as some youtubers say.

Of course the big question is if the Intel 18A parts will be out in time or not .... and if Intel can produce them at a good yield and at a low enough price to compete with AMD on a TSMC process node.
Intel did mention recently that 18A will ramp up significantly in 2026H1.

One of those sweeping changes applies to the schedulers, which have been reorganized with a view towards scalability. Since the Pentium Pro from 1995, Intel has served both integer and FP/vector operations with a unified scheduler. Scaling a large unified scheduler can be difficult, so Intel split the scheduler over time. Skylake put memory address generation ops on a separate scheduler. Sunny Cove split the memory scheduler, and Golden Cove revised the memory scheduler split.


Lion Cove finally splits the unified math scheduler into separate ones for integer and floating point/vector ops. Intel also split register renaming for floating point and integer operations. That’s not visible from software, but it does suggest Intel’s core is now laid out a lot like AMD’s Zen. Both do register renaming separately for integer and vector operations, and use separate schedulers for those operations."
Imho, I think what he's trying to say is that LNC didn't bring any great new ideas. Mostly minor upgrades rather than sweeping changes.

For comparison, Zen 5 didn't bring in any major performance uplift this gen, but the excellent ground work they've laid should help them immensely moving forward.

Intel has been spending way too much time and energy porting their existing designs to newer tool and design methodologies. But now they're on solid foundation and should be able to slice and dice easily to bring in sweeping changes next gen onwards.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,184
11,890
136
It’s well known most ‘real world’ applications people use scale well with the number of cores
Even if there are limitations on how many threads can be assigned to a given workload, power users can always find other applications to load up excess cores while multitasking. Having more cores just means not having to close programs as aggressively.
 

AMDK11

Senior member
Jul 15, 2019
438
360
136
Imho, I think what he's trying to say is that LNC didn't bring any great new ideas. Mostly minor upgrades rather than sweeping changes.

For comparison, Zen 5 didn't bring in any major performance uplift this gen, but the excellent ground work they've laid should help them immensely moving forward.

Intel has been spending way too much time and energy porting their existing designs to newer tool and design methodologies. But now they're on solid foundation and should be able to slice and dice easily to bring in sweeping changes next gen onwards.

He clearly wrote that LionCove is not contributing anything new, just like GoldenCove was not contributing anything to SunnyCove etc. And that is a lie.

The OoO engine in LionCove has been radically redesigned with future generations in mind, as has modular decoding in Zen 5.

These are fundamental changes for Intel and AMD that, to the average user who has no idea, will be nothing more than an evolution in the final performance of the LionCove and Zen5 generations.

"Unlike AMD Zen 5’s clustered decoder, all eight decode slots on Lion Cove can serve a single thread. Lion Cove can therefore sustain eight instructions per cycle as long as code fits within the 64 KB instruction cache."

Test Comment Lion Cove IPC Redwood Cove IPC Zen 5 IPC
XOR r,r Commonly used to zero registers. The exclusive-or of two identical values is always zero 7.31 5.7 5.01
XOR xmm, xmm Same as above but for a vector/FP register 7.31 5.71 4.99
Dependent MOV r,r >1 indicates move elimination 7.02 5.56 6.65
Independent MOV r,r Easy 7.25 5.71 5.01
Dependent increment Actual math, normally would create a dependency chain limiting the test to 1 IPC 5.6 5.53 1
Dependent add immediate As above but adding small numbers up to 20 instead of just 1 4.36 5.47 1

"Core Summary

All those caches help feed Lion Cove’s core, which has huge upgrades over Redwood Cove. The pipeline is wider, structures are larger, and a reorganized out-of-order engine helps Intel achieve higher scheduling capacity.

Much like Redwood Cove, Lion Cove is a wide and high clocked out-of-order design. But it’s easily the biggest change to Intel’s performance oriented architecture since Golden Cove. After Redwood Cove’s minor changes over Raptor Cove, and Raptor Cove barely doing anything over Golden Cove, it’s great to see Lion Cove’s sweeping changes.

Intel must have put a lot of effort into Lion Cove’s design. Compared to Redwood Cove, Lion Cove posts 23.2% and 15.8% gains in SPEC CPU2017’s integer and floating point suites, respectively. Against AMD’s Strix Point, single threaded performance in SPEC is well within margin of error. It’s an notable achievement for Intel’s newest P-Core architecture because Lunar Lake feeds its P-Cores with less L3 cache than either Meteor Lake or Strix Point. A desktop CPU like the Ryzen 9 7950X3D only stays 12% and 10.8% ahead in the integer and floating point suites respectively. Getting that close to a desktop core, even a last generation one, is also a good showing."

"Final Words

P-Cores have been Intel’s bread and butter long before the company started calling them P-Cores. Progress with Intel’s performance oriented cores hasn’t always been fast. Redwood Cove was only a slight tweak over Golden Cove. Skylake filled out five generations of Intel designs the same architecture. Going back further, Intel used the P6 architecture on the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III with just minor tweaks and clock speed increases in between.

Lion Cove is a much improved architecture compared to Redwood Cove, and shows Intel still has potent engineering muscle despite recent setbacks. Traditionally Intel delivered significant architecture changes during a “tock” in a tick-tock cycle. That reduces risk by separately handling process node and architecture changes. Lunar Lake not only combines a new architecture with a move to a new node, but also drops system level changes on top. At a time when Intel’s facing increased pressure from all sides, a move like Lunar Lake is a sign that Intel can adapt and survive.

Intel’s upcoming Arrow Lake desktop CPU will let Lion Cove stretch its legs with more cache and a larger power budget. Lower latency DDR5 should improve performance even further. After seeing Lion Cove perform well in a mobile form factor, I’m optimistic about what the same architecture can do on desktop. Recently Intel has been sitting on a rather unstable foundation with Raptor Lake, and Arrow Lake’s release will be a great time to put the company’s high performance chips back on stable footing."
 
Last edited:

jdubs03

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2013
1,079
746
136
For comparison, Zen 5 didn't bring in any major performance uplift this gen, but the excellent ground work they've laid should help them immensely moving forward.
It depends on what uplift you’re referring to.

For productivity Zen 5 does bring a solid improvement; not outstanding but still 15% isn’t a disappointment. And that will be roughly equal to what Intel will have done over the past 2 years (and they will have a slight node advantage). We’ll see soon as to whether Intels’ ST advantage will get eaten into compared to 13th-14th gen/Zen4. I think that will. With MT it’s a little less clear, but my guess is AMD will gain a bit.

For gaming, yeah it’s been a pretty disappointing, especially when considering the previous 2 generations. And their marketing clearly didn’t help the situation, plus the firmware updates.

But bottom line for me is: I think this year each product will be competitive. And that’s a good thing.
 

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,038
897
106
Almost every program today is multithreaded. Every program scale to as many threads as far programmers ability goes - limited by Amdahl's law. So when making benchmark that tries to simulate that result is something like GB6. Single thread speed ain't most important today, most commonly used workloads scale to multiple threads but not infinite threads. GB6 MT result reflects also gaming performance much better than something with unlimited scaling like CB or spec nt.
Are we forgetting old programs ? Cause many people use older stuff and not everything is MT

Single Thread is important as well even Today

What GB6 fails to show is to make badly performing cpu with many cores to have good result. That seems to be a great problem for many.
You mean good cpu shown with bad performance?
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
962
829
136
Are we forgetting old programs ? Cause many people use older stuff and not everything is MT

Single Thread is important as well even Today

Single thread is important - but not by alone. Purely single threaded jobs are those old or so light that they perform well anyway on modern cpus. For heavier jobs programmer surely has tried to multithread program as good as they could. There performance is still mostly single-thread speed driven but cpus different hardware implementation leads to diffferent MT scaling. Most important benchmark is to measure that MT scaling. GB6 tries to do that - it's not perfect but pretty much best available.
 

DavidC1

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2023
1,211
1,932
96
The E core team had a clean slate. The P core team has just found their footing. They should be able to follow suit from now on.
The E cores didn't need a clean slate, because they are basically turning over tables every generation or two, which the P core team in their best days only managed to do when forced to such as with Netburst vs Core.

In Gracemont they entirely removed the L2 predecode cache that existed since Goldmont Plus, with a replacement called OD-ILD, which is a much more area efficient and permanent solution over ever increasing the size of the cache, which won't target large workloads. They did all that while delivering 30% per clock gains.

The thing is, it was a risk that performance could be lost significantly because one of the reason for eliminating the L2 predecode is to be area efficient with a newer solution, but they did it and successfully replaced it. But just a core ago, they introduced a novel decoding concept called clustered decode.

The team executes well enough to completely eliminate an idea to replace with a better one while improving the rest dramatically. They are aggressive, yet they execute.
Imho, I think what he's trying to say is that LNC didn't bring any great new ideas. Mostly minor upgrades rather than sweeping changes.

For comparison, Zen 5 didn't bring in any major performance uplift this gen, but the excellent ground work they've laid should help them immensely moving forward.
Exactly is my point. But even that is shadowed by the very fact that AMD does just as good in performance, while keeping SMT, while behind in process(bit in performance, significantly in density), while being smaller!

All the theories don't matter. Real world results trump all. Which is that AMD is doing it far smaller, cheaper, and with less compromises.
 
Last edited:

jdubs03

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2013
1,079
746
136
The E cores didn't need a clean slate, because they are basically turning over tables every generation or two, which the P core team in their best days only managed to do when forced to such as with Netburst vs Core.
Looks like your E core team consuming the P core team idea might have some legs.
Intel has recently begun work on a “unified core” to essentially merge both P and E cores together. Stephen Robinson, the Atom lead, is apparently leading the effort, so the core has a good chance to be based on Atom’s foundation.
 

511

Golden Member
Jul 12, 2024
1,038
897
106
The E cores didn't need a clean slate, because they are basically turning over tables every generation or two, which the P core team in their best days only managed to do when forced to such as with Netburst vs Core.

In Gracemont they entirely removed the L2 predecode cache that existed since Goldmont Plus, with a replacement called OD-ILD, which is a much more area efficient and permanent solution over ever increasing the size of the cache, which won't target large workloads. They did all that while delivering 30% per clock gains.

The thing is, it was a risk that performance could be lost significantly because one of the reason for eliminating the L2 predecode is to be area efficient with a newer solution, but they did it and successfully replaced it. But just a core ago, they introduced a novel decoding concept called clustered decode.

The team executes well enough to completely eliminate an idea to replace with a better one while improving the rest dramatically. They are aggressive, yet they execute.

Exactly is my point. But even that is shadowed by the very fact that AMD does just as good in performance, while keeping SMT, while behind in process(bit in performance, significantly in density), while being smaller!

All the theories don't matter. Real world results trump all. Which is that AMD is doing it far smaller, cheaper, and with less compromises.
Yeah their cores are better and scalable Intel's are not that all round it is the better solution P core team is not doing good work considering the competition otherwise LNL P cores would have to be like 10% faster at the same Power considering the node advantage they have vs Strix we will see with ARL
 
Last edited:

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,346
4,545
136
Seems like Intel have figured out how to achieve their +20% performance for Arrow Lake
Just lower the performance of Raptor Lake until you hit your targets

its a strange coincidence that right before Arrow Lake launches, we get the final 13 & 14th gen fix, but this time the performance is hurting accoring to chiphell 🤷‍♀️
This has also been confirmed from the BIOS release notes by various motherboard vendors, which have released the 0x12B BIOS update for their LGA 1700. But as far as the performance goes, the Intel Core i9 13900K saw a noticeable 6.5% drop in performance in Cinbench R15. As seen in the screenshot, the Intel Core i9 13900K usually achieves 330-340 points in single-core performance with a similar configuration but with the latest 0x12B patch, the score dropped to 314 points.
 
Last edited:

cannedlake240

Senior member
Jul 4, 2024
207
111
76
If that's true, Arctic Wolf is probably the last separate effort before moving onto the unified one, if they just "started working on it".
Can they really get it done for the 2028 lake? Realistically they'll probably have to do another refresh of Nova lake before the new core is ready for the 2029 lake
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,137
2,153
136
Even if there are limitations on how many threads can be assigned to a given workload, power users can always find other applications to load up excess cores while multitasking. Having more cores just means not having to close programs as aggressively.
This is obvious: users should target the applications they want to run. No other benchmark will give them the exact answer they need. And this applies to all benchmarks beyond Geekbench. Cinebench is utterly non-representative in the way it scales, except for users who do rendering. Running games at very low resolutions is also completely stupid. Does this mean they are useless?

That being said, what CPU benchmark do you know launches multiple completely unrelated benchmarks to mimic what we users do (running a game with browser running, etc.)?

My point was you blaming Geekbench for not representing how *you* use your computer applies to all benchmarks. The problem is too many users pick aggregated scores of some random benchmarks and think this will represent the speed up they will get in their everyday use. And then you have people who dismiss some benchmark results because that doesn't fit their narrative about what CPU is better, but that's another discussion.
 

Magio

Member
May 13, 2024
104
111
76
If this unified core rumor is true, which is already a long shot, I feel like it would most likely take form in a progressive transormation of the E cores rather than the "unification" taking place in one fell swoop at some point in the future. I don't think it would be current-Intel's style to bet it all on a moonshot 4 or 5 years away, iterative improvements to the E cores until they're ready to take over are probably a less risky endeavor.

Darkmont I think has been suggested to be a minor refresh of Skymont, but Arctic Wolf could already be something more than that.
 
Reactions: SiliconFly

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,581
3,409
106
My problem is if one buys top end Arrow lake there won't be a update till Nova Lake and is Nova Lake going to be on lga 1851? If its not then its not good.

This doesn't matter if you keep your CPUs for 4+ years but people who buy i9, R9s and soon Ultra 9s want the best chip and they update often.
 

AMDK11

Senior member
Jul 15, 2019
438
360
136
Maybe this new core will be asymmetric? For example, one part will contain a single wide decoder and the other part will contain a cluster decoder. The cluster part could take over the second thread or support the main thread in ST.
 

CouncilorIrissa

Senior member
Jul 28, 2023
575
2,256
96
This is obvious: users should target the applications they want to run. No other benchmark will give them the exact answer they need. And this applies to all benchmarks beyond Geekbench. Cinebench is utterly non-representative in the way it scales, except for users who do rendering. Running games at very low resolutions is also completely stupid. Does this mean they are useless?
Part of the blame is on the reviewers who have conditioned the audience to measure CPU performance in non-gaming workloads in Cinebench/other rendering benchmarks over the years. I'm truly baffled as to why I have to struggle to find browser benchmarks whenever a new CPU comes out when it's the single most relevant workload for most people. Everyone is using Chrome or have Discord (Electron)/Spotify (Chrome embedded framework) open in the background, but techtubers turn a blind eye to it.
 

Nothingness

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2013
3,137
2,153
136
Maybe this new core will be asymmetric? For example, one part will contain a single wide decoder and the other part will contain a cluster decoder. The cluster part could take over the second thread or support the main thread in ST.
That doesn't work well. Targeting high-performance and power-performance with the very same basic design will just result in cores that are not good at either target. I'm considering adding a car analogy, but won't
 
Reactions: Tlh97 and coercitiv

SiliconFly

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2023
1,651
996
96

I thought I read it wrong. But it seems Intel is trying to constrain regular desktop parts (non-K variants) with a 65W TDP. Thats a new level of efficiency. But makes no sense as it may hurt performance.

He clearly wrote that LionCove is not contributing anything new, just like GoldenCove was not contributing anything to SunnyCove etc. And that is a lie.
Sorry. Should have read it more thoroughly.

But bottom line for me is: I think this year each product will be competitive. And that’s a good thing.
Agreed. Thing is, Zen 5 is superior, Zen 5 is awesome, Zen 5 is next-level, Intel is bad, Intel is c**p, Intel is inferior... those days are just gone. They're both now are on ~equal footing. And thats a good thing.

You mean good cpu shown with bad performance?
ST is more important than ever. Apple Silicon has shown that to the world.

Almost every program today is multithreaded. Every program scale to as many threads as far programmers ability goes - limited by Amdahl's law. So when making benchmark that tries to simulate that result is something like GB6. Single thread speed ain't most important today, most commonly used workloads scale to multiple threads but not infinite threads. GB6 MT result reflects also gaming performance much better than something with unlimited scaling like CB or spec nt.
Not really.

Almost all apps today are multi-threaded. But for different reasons rather than extreme performance. Except for a few, almost no apps scale well with multi-threading. Even browsers are multi-threaded and they scale well. But they benefit more from ST rather than MT during normal usage.

Even today, ST is a lot more important than MT.

All the theories don't matter. Real world results trump all. Which is that AMD is doing it far smaller, cheaper, and with less compromises.
Not sure on the metrics... performance-per-transistor? performance-per-mm2? performance-per-area? AMD seems to be better in that. And naturally in area-efficiency too (power/area). But Intel isn't far behind anymore. They're close.

If that's true, Arctic Wolf is probably the last separate effort before moving onto the unified one, if they just "started working on it".
New cores take a long time. 2028/2029 seems optimistic. Maybe Titan Lake or later?

Seems like Intel have figured out how to achieve their +20% performance for Arrow Lake
Just lower the performance of Raptor Lake until you hit your targets

its a strange coincidence that right before Arrow Lake launches, we get the final 13 & 14th gen fix, but this time the performance is hurting accoring to chiphell 🤷‍♀️
Trolling yet again? Try this... At least, RPL doesn't have nasty root access vulnerabilities (like sinkclose) like in AMD cpus. Dunno why anyone even bothers to use such inferior products.

Core Ultra 285 non-K coming. 65W TDP complete with GB6 scores. Can anyone run 9950X at 65W to compare? Be interesting to see how the 3nm scales down with power compared to the 4nm.

An Ultra 9 285 @ 65W sounds very very amazing. But somehow I feel it's a bit restricted. Not sure though.

If this unified core rumor is true, which is already a long shot, I feel like it would most likely take form in a progressive transormation of the E cores rather than the "unification" taking place in one fell swoop at some point in the future. I don't think it would be current-Intel's style to bet it all on a moonshot 4 or 5 years away, iterative improvements to the E cores until they're ready to take over are probably a less risky endeavor.

Darkmont I think has been suggested to be a minor refresh of Skymont, but Arctic Wolf could already be something more than that.
If you're right, Arctic Wolf might be first step towards an unified core. Makes more sense. It fits.

Maybe this new core will be asymmetric? For example, one part will contain a single wide decoder and the other part will contain a cluster decoder. The cluster part could take over the second thread or support the main thread in ST.
Is it even possible to keep a single wide decoder & a cluster decoder in the same core? Seems unlikely. The front-end will become a mess.
 
Reactions: AcrosTinus

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,761
14,684
136
Ouch. The one size fits all strikes back.
I have a really hard time believing this, especially as a rumor casually disseminated in the AMD subreddit, on a topic about Zen 5 3D.

What could make sense though would be branching out the E core design into future P and E projects, with similar building blocks in the form of an "unified architecture". That would imply a P core reset, but not an unified core as the size and perf. targets would still be complementary. It would be funny in a way, since it seems to me that AMD is doing the same thing, only starting from their P core instead.
 

Gideon

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,842
4,379
136
What could make sense though would be branching out the E core design into future P and E projects, with similar building blocks in the form of an "unified architecture". That would imply a P core reset, but not an unified core as the size and perf. targets would still be complementary. It would be funny in a way, since it seems to me that AMD is doing the same thing, only starting from their P core instead.
I was thinking of the same thing. And looking at the changes in lion Cove:

Like the separate schedulers for INT and FP., the removal of AVX-512 and HT in client processors, et ... it seems the two designs are already becoming more and more similar (for the client SKUs atl east).
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |