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	12 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 (N3B)	Lunar Lake	Panther Lake
Platform	Mobile H/U Only	Desktop & Mobile H&HX	Mobile U Only	Mobile H
Process Node	Intel 4	TSMC N3B	TSMC N3B	Intel 18A
Date	Q4 2023	Desktop-Q4-2024 H&HX-Q1-2025	Q4 2024	Q1 2026 ?
Full Die	6P + 8P	8P + 16E	4P + 4E	4P + 8E
LLC	24 MB	36 MB ?	12 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.)

poke01 · Oct 13, 2024

Australian pricing

285k -$1099. Same as 9950X despite using a newer node. Nice to see that.
265k -$699.
245k -$539

265kf -$679
245kf -$499

Buy Intel Core Ultra Processors | PC Case Gear

At PC Case Gear, we have a large variety of different Intel 1851 Core Ultra products to choose from to buy online.

www.pccasegear.com

I would definitely pick the 265k and 245k over the 9700X and 9600X for productivity.

Thunder 57 · Oct 13, 2024

OneEng2 said:
Chips and Cheese is oddly optimistic about Lion Cove. But they have been for all the cores. The author is a glass half full guy.

I think they have to be to get those interviews. I lost some faith in them though recently. They just moved to Substack, which everyone told them NOT to. They did it anyway. If they always planned on it, why ask?

AMDK11 said:
Bloated because it can run at 5.7 GHz. look at Zen4c which while maintaining the same IPC as Zen4, is much smaller than Zen4.

The same applies to Skymont, which has a much simpler design and achieves lower clock speeds, thanks to which it can occupy a much smaller area. In other words, Skymont has a much denser logical packing per mm2.

And now Skymont from a different angle. Gracemont without HT and at a much lower clock speed has roughly the IPC of Skylake from 2015. Skymont has 32% higher IPC INT and 70% higher FP after 9 years of catching up to GoldenCove from 2021! Do you still say it's a breakthrough?

The year is 2024 and Skymont is at the level of the 2021 GoldenCove IPC, with a much lower clock speed and no HT.

I don't think it's as groundbreaking as you make it out to be. Sure, Skymont with 16 cores + 8 P-Core cores gives a very efficient processor in total. But painting Skymont as a revolution is a bit weak. Wait for ArrowLake's independent testing and then we'll make our final assessment.

However, despite some leaks, I believe that E-Core and P-Core will be consistent and adapted to specific geometries in the future.

Zen 4/5 (not c) is smaller than their Intel eqivalents. I believe all Zen cores have been smaller than the competition. If not, at least since Alder Lake.

OneEng2 · Oct 13, 2024

DavidC1 said:
And what did those dramatically larger structures resulting in 50% larger core size give Lion Cove over Zen 5?

Nothing. Nada. Zero. Results>>>specs

Clearly there are low level details that make Zen 5 better than high level. You keep bringing up the cache changes, but it doesn't prevent the E core from performing 32%/72% better than the predecessor.

As enthusiasts don't we always look for Apples vs. Apples comparisons? Whatever cripples Lion Cove would also cripple Skymont.

An architecture that introduced novel decoder to address x86's fundamental weakness and a few years after the competitor is adopting is not far off from being dramatically better. "Revolutionary" architectures hardly work out in practice. Itanium was revolutionary. Bulldozer wasn't but a huge departure from the past. So was Netburst.

It isn't always about what is best for the first iteration of a new design. It is more frequently about the capability of the framework created in the architecture and its ability to scale and improve for the next 3 or so iterations prior to a new framework.

Comparing Lion Cove to Itanium or Netburst is crazy. Ryzen 1 did not bring AMD the performance crown over Core 7XXX or even Core 6XXX for that matter. It was a huge jump up from Bulldozer, but was a far cry (no pun intended) from unseating Intel. It wasn't even close in most benchmarks (it did win a few though ..... but not single threaded ones). Does that mean that the Ryzen architecture was poorly thought out?

DavidC1 said:
I don't really care about winning arguments. I care about truth.

They are actually quite close in size. But Lion Cove is on N3B, which is substantially denser than N4P. I don't know the exact differences. But 50% is a good figure.

What does Intel get from a core that's 50% larger?

Also Skymont's 1.15mm2 core size is quite a bit smaller than Zen 5C even normalized to process I would say.

I never said you did. I simply pointed out that you found a good hole in my argument. My aren't we a grumpy bear today!

While the density charts do show that N4P being basically an N5 enhanced node (albeit maybe 6% more dense) is indeed half the transistor density of N3B (the most dense of all N3 nodes), I am certain that this is not true for the entire core in general as much of the area is covered by L1, L2 and L3 Cache which doesn't scale nearly as well as that 50% figure would have you believe.

Still, you point is well taken. It looks like Zen 5 full manages to perform on-par (or nearly so) to Lion Cove cores using a much lower transistor budget.

Skymont, which looks to be a bit larger than 1/4th of a Lion Cove core, is quite a bit smaller than Zen 5c. What I can find is that Skymont is 1.73mm2 as compared to Zen 5c's 3.07mm2 (1.7 times smaller). I am guessing that Zen 5c would still be larger even if it were on N3B. Still, Zen 5c has SMT and I am guessing general performance that is better than Skymont.

Thunder 57 said:
I think they have to be to get those interviews. I lost some faith in them though recently. They just moved to Substack, which everyone told them NOT to. They did it anyway. If they always planned on it, why ask?

Zen 4/5 (not c) is smaller than their Intel eqivalents. I believe all Zen cores have been smaller than the competition. If not, at least since Alder Lake.

Zen 5 4.15mm2 vs Redwood Cove 5.05mm2. Bigger, but not much bigger and on a node that is approximately the same density I believe.

Doug S · Oct 13, 2024

Hulk said:
The discussion regarding P and E cores is interesting.
Is Lion Cove a failure because it only achieves an average 9% IPC increase?

Doesn't it have a lot to do with expectations? There were some hyping Zen 5 seeing a 40% increase in IPC, and when it only hit managed the 15% AMD had actually promised it was a "failure" because of the inflated expectations. On the other hand there was a lot of talk that Apple was washed up after GW III and friends left and some people were claiming they would get a 0% IPC increase - just keep re-using basically the same core, running on a better process to get more frequency as the only performance increase. Then M4 hit (early) and it was seen here as anything but a failure, because of those very low expectations.

A few months ago there wasn't much faith Intel's next core would increase performance much (but it wouldn't matter anyway because Zen 5's 40% IPC gain would make it irrelevant) Then rumors started hitting about how much of a performance gain was coming in the E core, so expectations were raised to the point where a 9% IPC increase is now seen as a "failure" by some. Especially because too many on this board believe gaming performance is the only thing that really matters, and were horrified to discover it cut frequency and their precious games wouldn't get any faster! As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, Intel is targeting laptops and dense servers, because that's where the money is, the gaming market is an afterthought financially.

GTracing · Oct 13, 2024

OneEng2 said:
Zen 5 4.15mm2 vs Redwood Cove 5.05mm2. Bigger, but not much bigger and on a node that is approximately the same density I believe.

Where did you see 5.05mm for redwood cove? The only place i see that is a reddit post that doesn't cite a source. The one die shot annotation I've seen says 5.33mm^2 for redwood cove in meteor lake. That's 28% or 22% bigger depending on which number is correct. Even 22% is a sizeable difference. Plus Strix Point has a decent performance lead over Meteor Lake.

Any way you slice it, Intel's P cores have bad PPA.

511 · Oct 13, 2024

poke01 said:
Australian pricing

285k -$1099. Same as 9950X despite using a newer node. Nice to see that.
265k -$699.
245k -$539

265kf -$679
245kf -$499

Buy Intel Core Ultra Processors | PC Case Gear

At PC Case Gear, we have a large variety of different Intel 1851 Core Ultra products to choose from to buy online.

www.pccasegear.com

I would definitely pick the 265k and 245k over the 9700X and 9600X for productivity.

No doubt about it.It will not suck as much power as RPP as well i am pretty sure we can Power Limit U5 to 125W without losing more than 5% performance

Thunder 57 · Oct 14, 2024

OneEng2 said:
It isn't always about what is best for the first iteration of a new design. It is more frequently about the capability of the framework created in the architecture and its ability to scale and improve for the next 3 or so iterations prior to a new framework.

Comparing Lion Cove to Itanium or Netburst is crazy. Ryzen 1 did not bring AMD the performance crown over Core 7XXX or even Core 6XXX for that matter. It was a huge jump up from Bulldozer, but was a far cry (no pun intended) from unseating Intel. It wasn't even close in most benchmarks (it did win a few though ..... but not single threaded ones). Does that mean that the Ryzen architecture was poorly thought out?

I never said you did. I simply pointed out that you found a good hole in my argument. My aren't we a grumpy bear today!

While the density charts do show that N4P being basically an N5 enhanced node (albeit maybe 6% more dense) is indeed half the transistor density of N3B (the most dense of all N3 nodes), I am certain that this is not true for the entire core in general as much of the area is covered by L1, L2 and L3 Cache which doesn't scale nearly as well as that 50% figure would have you believe.

Still, you point is well taken. It looks like Zen 5 full manages to perform on-par (or nearly so) to Lion Cove cores using a much lower transistor budget.

Skymont, which looks to be a bit larger than 1/4th of a Lion Cove core, is quite a bit smaller than Zen 5c. What I can find is that Skymont is 1.73mm2 as compared to Zen 5c's 3.07mm2 (1.7 times smaller). I am guessing that Zen 5c would still be larger even if it were on N3B. Still, Zen 5c has SMT and I am guessing general performance that is better than Skymont.

Zen 5 4.15mm2 vs Redwood Cove 5.05mm2. Bigger, but not much bigger and on a node that is approximately the same density I believe.

I think you need to read up on Zen 1. It competed with Intel's 6900k which was HEDT at the time BTW. In gaming and more single threaded things Intel still had the upper hand beacuse they had Skylake and Kaby Lake out. Those were generations ahead of Broadwell that Zen 1 competed against. Zen just wasn't great at gaming until Zen 2, and truly until Zen 3.

DavidC1 · Oct 14, 2024

Thunder 57 said:
I think you need to read up on Zen 1. It competed with Intel's 6900k which was HEDT at the time BTW. In gaming and more single threaded things Intel still had the upper hand beacuse they had Skylake and Kaby Lake out. Those were generations ahead of Broadwell that Zen 1 competed against. Zen just wasn't great at gaming until Zen 2, and truly until Zen 3.

The original Zen was significant, and put AMD on the map again. Zen 2 made it better, and the mobile variants are still making an impact today with the Steam Deck.

@OneEng2 Yes and Lion Cove doesn't do anything special. Skymont has far more room to grow.

And it has nothing to do with me being grumpy. You said I could have "pounded you more" correct? No, you were incorrect and I merely corrected you.

Because while 9% gain itself is okay, they aren't operating in a vacuum. It's competing against AMD, which has a significantly smaller core and achieves the same thing. I would think very much so the engineers and managers are not happy needing N3B to do something the competition could do with cheaper and easier to design N4P. At least in the Raptorlake generation it had a clock advantage!

It's competing with the team within the same company, and the core that was merely an "Atom" core and almost considered a meme is now threatening it's very existence.

And it's competing with the ever growing ARM threat. Compared to the off the shelf ARM cores it's merely equal to Cortex X3 or X4, and that isn't even their latest.

The excuses continue to grow though. Way way back, the excuse was that ARM couldn't reach x86 levels of performance, because it's meant for "low power". It's beating x86 cores per clock, and some are beating it in absolute performance against everything except the 125W -S chips. What excuses are there now?

What about the excuse that the x86 and ARM ecosystems are different? It's even hard to accept this because x86 has been living in it's own RDoF, the same field that Apple enthusiasts are said to have. And it has been protected many many times by flawed law and lawyers. You want true competition? Then x86 should have opened up completely 30 years ago. That's competition.

Aren't some people saying already the Windows compatibility doesn't really matter and WoA will just take over the market? Look at the Qualcomm thread, that's what they claim!

Intel/AMD both need to wake up and realize their cushy x86 bubble will not last. P cores, especially Intel P cores is a laughable attempt.

511 · Oct 14, 2024

DavidC1 said:
The original Zen was significant, and put AMD on the map again. Zen 2 made it better, and the mobile variants are still making an impact today with the Steam Deck.

@OneEng2 Yes and Lion Cove doesn't do anything special. Skymont has far more room to grow.

And it has nothing to do with me being grumpy. You said I could have "pounded you more" correct? No, you were incorrect and I merely corrected you.

Because while 9% gain itself is okay, they aren't operating in a vacuum. It's competing against AMD, which has a significantly smaller core and achieves the same thing. I would think very much so the engineers and managers are not happy needing N3B to do something the competition could do with cheaper and easier to design N4P. At least in the Raptorlake generation it had a clock advantage!

It's competing with the team within the same company, and the core that was merely an "Atom" core and almost considered a meme is now threatening it's very existence.

And it's competing with the ever growing ARM threat. Compared to the off the shelf ARM cores it's merely equal to Cortex X3 or X4, and that isn't even their latest.

The excuses continue to grow though. Way way back, the excuse was that ARM couldn't reach x86 levels of performance, because it's meant for "low power". It's beating x86 cores per clock, and some are beating it in absolute performance against everything except the 125W -S chips. What excuses are there now?

What about the excuse that the x86 and ARM ecosystems are different? It's even hard to accept this because x86 has been living in it's own RDoF, the same field that Apple enthusiasts are said to have. And it has been protected many many times by flawed law and lawyers. You want true competition? Then x86 should have opened up completely 30 years ago. That's competition.

Aren't some people saying already the Windows compatibility doesn't really matter and WoA will just take over the market? Look at the Qualcomm thread, that's what they claim!

Only time will tell x86 is the one of the most complex IP structure if i have to say I don't think it's anything in particular that's holding x86 back from competition it's the design choices if any

DavidC1 said:
Intel/AMD both need to wake up and realize their cushy x86 bubble will not last. P cores, especially Intel P cores is a laughable attempt.

Yes Intel P cores are laughable more so when I think that Pat Gel singer the chief Architect of i486 is the CEO he should put some sense into their Design team especially the P core team

igor_kavinski · Oct 14, 2024

511 said:
he should put some sense into their Design team especially the P core team

He needs some sense first to do that. I think he lost it when he pushed for Larrabee and hasn't gotten it back since. Just grandiose claims, no matter the consequences or costs.

poke01 · Oct 14, 2024

igor_kavinski said:
He needs some sense first to do that. I think he lost it when he pushed for Larrabee and hasn't gotten it back since. Just grandiose claims, no matter the consequences or costs.

The fact that Pat killed Royal core was something. That team was the only team at Intel who could have matched Apple's P core in one generation.

But nooo kill that team. Now, that group founded a RISC-V start up.

igor_kavinski · Oct 14, 2024

poke01 said:
But nooo kill that team. Now, that group founded a RISC-V start up.

Trust me. I feel your frustration. And look at how funny it is that back when they had anemic Atoms, they flooded the market with them. All I would see is laptops with N4020 or N5030 in my Amazon laptop searches. But they got Gracemont and Raptormont and now Skymont but they aren't churning them out by the millions. Seems to me that these faster "Atoms" are much more expensive for them to manufacture so they can't put them in cheap laptops. There are people using Gracemont with 32GB RAM in mini PCs acquired off Aliexpress but go look for i3-N305 laptops and I swear there isn't a single even 16GB laptop to be found. I mean, Pat. Just die. Sorry but just die please and let someone with more sense take over.

No wishing death on anyone on these forums.

esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

DrMrLordX · Oct 14, 2024

igor_kavinski said:
There are people using Gracemont with 32GB RAM in mini PCs acquired off Aliexpress but go look for i3-N305 laptops and I swear there isn't a single even 16GB laptop to be found.

How much do those mini PCs cost?

511 · Oct 14, 2024

igor_kavinski said:
Trust me. I feel your frustration. And look at how funny it is that back when they had anemic Atoms, they flooded the market with them. All I would see is laptops with N4020 or N5030 in my Amazon laptop searches. But they got Gracemont and Raptormont and now Skymont but they aren't churning them out by the millions. Seems to me that these faster "Atoms" are much more expensive for them to manufacture so they can't put them in cheap laptops. There are people using Gracemont with 32GB RAM in mini PCs acquired off Aliexpress but go look for i3-N305 laptops and I swear there isn't a single even 16GB laptop to be found. I mean, Pat. Just die. Sorry but just die please and let someone with more sense take over.

The only reason they are not churning out Crestmont/Skymont is fab capacity when 18A ramps we will have 8 core Darkmont should be relatively cheap also skymont is N3B they churn out Atoms to keep fab filled something other vendors can't do easily
getting competitive Fabs is tied to their dominating Industry they need enough external customers to justify Fabs

SteinFG · Oct 14, 2024

igor_kavinski said:
go look for i3-N305 laptops and I swear there isn't a single even 16GB laptop to be found

i3 N300 is kind of a niche thing, N100 and N95 is bread and butter of ADL-N

511 · Oct 14, 2024

So True
OG Tweet

https://twitter.com/x/status/1845773303018823828

cannedlake240 · Oct 14, 2024

511 said:
View attachment 109416So True
OG Tweet

https://twitter.com/x/status/1845773303018823828

Intel was already on this path before his tenure. They'd already missed the mobile train and fabs were struggling as well with 14nm 1 year delay and poor yields. Weren't making much progress in AI/HPC

511 · Oct 14, 2024

cannedlake240 said:
Intel was already on this path before his tenure. They'd already missed the mobile train and fabs were struggling as well with 14nm 1 year delay and poor yields. Weren't making much progress in AI/HPC

They could have corrected it at this time all was not lost FWIW after craig Beretta it has been a downhill there won't be someone on the same level as Intel Trinity tbh

Hulk · Oct 14, 2024

Wow, lots of hating on Intel suddenly. Pat was the lead architect for the 486, he knows a lot about microprocessor design, no doubt about that. Intel is huge and has a lot of moving parts. I'm sure there are huge tradeoffs/risks to be had at every decision to be made. I would be careful armchair quarterbacking and being so sure you are somehow wiser than Pat and others at Intel. Rerunning the plays correctly is always easier after they've been run. Also, keep in mind that when negative inside information comes out about a company it's usually from disgruntled employees so I'd take it with a grain of salt. In addition, it's not like Pat was handed a company in good shape and at the top of their game, it was after 5 or so years of Skylakes and ++++++++++ processes. Since he's been there, we've seen Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, Raptor Lake Refresh (yes I know that's not really an accolade), Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake, and now Arrow Lake. I realize most of those were in the pipe long before he got there but there has been quite a bit of architectural "action" since he got there.

Before we shovel the dirt into Intel's grave and write about all of the stupid things they did that were obviously stupid and how we could have done better let's wait for ARL reviews.

511 · Oct 14, 2024

I completely agree with Hulk Pat was given a mess to solve what Pat started was getting Foundry back in place and outsource design to best foundry two things that are core to buisness and selling less valuable buisness ( the only one I didn't like was Optans) he has tried streamlining we saw he was able to get their Nodes together in like quite a while Intel 3 was launched on time first node on time in 10 years should be an achievement

AcrosTinus · Oct 14, 2024

Hulk said:
Wow, lots of hating on Intel suddenly. Pat was the lead architect for the 486, he knows a lot about microprocessor design, no doubt about that. Intel is huge and has a lot of moving parts. I'm sure there are huge tradeoffs/risks to be had at every decision to be made. I would be careful armchair quarterbacking and being so sure you are somehow wiser than Pat and others at Intel. Rerunning the plays correctly is always easier after they've been run. Also, keep in mind that when negative inside information comes out about a company it's usually from disgruntled employees to I'd take it with a grain of salt. In addition, it's not like Pat was handed a company in good shape and at the top of their game, it was after 5 or so years of Skylakes and ++++++++++ processes. Since he's been there we've seen Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, Raptor Lake Refresh (yes I know that's not really an accolade), Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake, and now Arrow Lake. I realize most of those were in the pipe long before he got there but there has been quite a bit of architectural "action" since he got there.

Before we shovel the dirt into Intel's grave and write about all of the stupid things they did that were obviously stupid and how we could have done better let's wait for ARL reviews.

I was about to write something similar, but you did a better job.

Josh128 · Oct 14, 2024

So the current rumblings are that Intel has not secured an 2nm capacity from TSMC, and means that one of two things: Success or total failure. Pat really did mean it when he said he bet the company on 18A, and not securing some 2nm as an emergency backup in case it falls behind is very clear evidence of that. Wonder if at this time its really on track, or there is some real panic happening internally. This could really be it for Intel if 18A fails/falls behind schedule.

AcrosTinus · Oct 14, 2024

Josh128 said:
So the current rumblings are that Intel has not secured an 2nm capacity from TSMC, and means that one of two things: Success or total failure. Pat really did mean it when he said he bet the company on 18A, and not securing some 2nm as an emergency backup in case it falls behind is very clear evidence of that. Wonder if at this time its really on track, or there is some real panic happening internally. This could really be it for Intel if 18A fails/falls behind schedule.

There is information asymmetry and the entire speculative market, we know nothing really. 20A was a internal node that should yield some error correction, they deemed it redundant due to the accelerated progress of 18A, a good sign.
They also split 18A into two versions, one with lowered and spec and one that arrives later, realizing the entire spec, a good de-risking scheme.

I am quite positive on this node, it will be the next high volume node that will be here for many years like 14nm, 10nm, Intel 7.

Wolverine2349 · Oct 14, 2024

DavidC1 said:
The original Zen was significant, and put AMD on the map again. Zen 2 made it better, and the mobile variants are still making an impact today with the Steam Deck.

@OneEng2 Yes and Lion Cove doesn't do anything special. Skymont has far more room to grow.

And it has nothing to do with me being grumpy. You said I could have "pounded you more" correct? No, you were incorrect and I merely corrected you.

Because while 9% gain itself is okay, they aren't operating in a vacuum. It's competing against AMD, which has a significantly smaller core and achieves the same thing. I would think very much so the engineers and managers are not happy needing N3B to do something the competition could do with cheaper and easier to design N4P. At least in the Raptorlake generation it had a clock advantage!

It's competing with the team within the same company, and the core that was merely an "Atom" core and almost considered a meme is now threatening it's very existence.

And it's competing with the ever growing ARM threat. Compared to the off the shelf ARM cores it's merely equal to Cortex X3 or X4, and that isn't even their latest.

The excuses continue to grow though. Way way back, the excuse was that ARM couldn't reach x86 levels of performance, because it's meant for "low power". It's beating x86 cores per clock, and some are beating it in absolute performance against everything except the 125W -S chips. What excuses are there now?

What about the excuse that the x86 and ARM ecosystems are different? It's even hard to accept this because x86 has been living in it's own RDoF, the same field that Apple enthusiasts are said to have. And it has been protected many many times by flawed law and lawyers. You want true competition? Then x86 should have opened up completely 30 years ago. That's competition.

Aren't some people saying already the Windows compatibility doesn't really matter and WoA will just take over the market? Look at the Qualcomm thread, that's what they claim!

Intel/AMD both need to wake up and realize their cushy x86 bubble will not last. P cores, especially Intel P cores is a laughable attempt.

Why is it that so many can make ARM chips when ARM is owned by ARM.

Where as only intel and AMD can make X86 chips.

I mean Qualcomm and Apple and others can make ARM chips despite ARM arch being owned by ARM, X86 was owned only by intel and AMD hacked it and somehow got a license through the courts with Intel.

Why does ARM license and willing to so many other companies than Intel or AMD will allow X86 to go?

MS_AT · Oct 14, 2024

Wolverine2349 said:
Why is it that so many can make ARM chips when ARM is owned by ARM.

Where as only intel and AMD can make X86 chips.

I mean Qualcomm and Apple and others can make ARM chips despite ARM arch being owned by ARM, X86 was owned only by intel and AMD hacked it and somehow got a license through the courts with Intel.

Why does ARM license and willing to so many other companies than Intel or AMD will allow X86 to go?

Different business model. Note that ARM never made any chips, and doesn't plan to make them afaik. They are selling designs. Intel was forced to license x86 to AMD to meet a supply contract for someone, I no longer remember who, so both companies would be able to make actual chips. Then AMD came up with x64 that Intel is licensing and they are locked in this weird duopoly, though there are few other companies that have/had x86 license like VIA. Since both AMD and INTEL were able to produce the actual CPUs it made little sense for them to share that cake with others back then.

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

Senior member

Attachments

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Platinum Member

Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Platinum Member

Lifer

Lifer

Golden Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Member

Senior member

Member

Senior member

Senior member