Tuesday, July 16th 2024
Intel Planning P-core Only "Bartlett" LGA1700 Processor for 2025
In a surprising development, Intel plans to extend the longevity of its Socket LGA1700 platform even as the newer LGA1851 platform led by the Core Ultra 200 "Arrow Lake" remains on track for a late-Q3/early-Q4 2024 debut. This, according to a sensational leak by Jaykihn. It plans to do this with a brand-new silicon for LGA1700, codenamed "Bartlett." This should particularly interest gamers for what's on offer. Imagine the "Raptor Lake-S" die, but with four additional P-cores replacing the four E-core clusters, making a 12-core pure P-core processor—that's "Bartlett." At this point we're not sure which P-core is in use—whether it's the current "Raptor Cove," or whether an attempt will be made by Intel to backport a variant of "Lion Cove" to LGA1700.
This wouldn't be the first pure P-core client processor from Intel after its pivot to heterogeneous multicore—the "Alder Lake" H0 die has six "Golden Cove" P-cores, and lacks any E-core clusters. Intel is planning to give launch an entire new "generation" of processor SKUs for LGA1700 which use the newer client processor nomenclature by Intel, which is Core 200-series, but without the "Ultra" brand extension. There will be SKUs in the Core 3, Core 5, Core 7, and Core 9 brand extensions. Some of these will be Hybrid, and based on the rehashed "Raptor Lake-S" 8P+16E silicon, and some "Alder Lake-S" 8P+8E; but "Bartlett" will be distinctly branded within the series, probably using a letter next to the numerical portion of the processor model number. There will not be any Core 3 series chips based on "Bartlett," but Core 5, Core 7, and Core 9.
The Core 5 "Bartlett" series will feature an 8-core configuration. That's 8 P-cores, and no E-cores. The Core 7 "Bartlett" will be 10-core, no E-core. The Core 9 "Bartlett" will draw the most attention, as being 12-core. If Intel is using "Raptor Cove" P-cores, these should be 8-core/16-thread, 10-core/20-thread, and 12-core/24-thread, respectively. Depending on the K- or non-K SKUs, these chips feature a processor base power value of 125 W, or 65 W, or even 45 W.
Intel is planning to launch these non-Ultra Core Socket LGA1700 processors in Q1-2025, but the "Bartlett" silicon won't arrive before Q3-2025.
Source:
Jaykihn (Twitter)
This wouldn't be the first pure P-core client processor from Intel after its pivot to heterogeneous multicore—the "Alder Lake" H0 die has six "Golden Cove" P-cores, and lacks any E-core clusters. Intel is planning to give launch an entire new "generation" of processor SKUs for LGA1700 which use the newer client processor nomenclature by Intel, which is Core 200-series, but without the "Ultra" brand extension. There will be SKUs in the Core 3, Core 5, Core 7, and Core 9 brand extensions. Some of these will be Hybrid, and based on the rehashed "Raptor Lake-S" 8P+16E silicon, and some "Alder Lake-S" 8P+8E; but "Bartlett" will be distinctly branded within the series, probably using a letter next to the numerical portion of the processor model number. There will not be any Core 3 series chips based on "Bartlett," but Core 5, Core 7, and Core 9.
Intel is planning to launch these non-Ultra Core Socket LGA1700 processors in Q1-2025, but the "Bartlett" silicon won't arrive before Q3-2025.
140 Comments on Intel Planning P-core Only "Bartlett" LGA1700 Processor for 2025
even better to have 8 cores to not have any surprises. If AMD or Intel comes with a good chip with a fair idle, it will be an exciting choice, the
extens of the lga 1700 comes as a big surprise..
I hope both companies start releasing at the latest before winter a clear look of tech specs as i must admit amd chips
become very exciting and make me skip the wait for intel
7800X3D is going to go in my standby system for if my primary system needs to be rma or somthing...
Not sure what to do with my 5950X but I already have too many systems lol....
It does give your mind some peace that with e cores light tasks are outsourced to it, but look at my pc until today just 4 cores...
Same with a a dual vcache 16 core cpu not becuase I think it'll be magically be significantly better than the current setup but becuase I want to get the hardware in hand and decide myself if it's worth any price premium etc.
A 12pcore chip will barely be faster than a 13700k, that's a 2 year old chip. Now let's see how much that 12pcore chip will cost and then tell me how great it is.
(i bookmarked this to future check this, stay tuned)
look at the 12900.. it isnt in the overview, the 12600 is first in row which has 'e cores'
The 16-core draws less power than the lower-core-count CPUs.
At iso power the new 12pcore will be losing massively to the 14900k and the 14700k. Might be competitive with the 13700kBecause every chip can be limited to draw as much power as the company making it wants. Amd wanted the 5950x to draw as much as the 5800x so here you go
where your luck, the 13400 has e cores, but the 13100 has None, as such it depends what the workload is the cpu does e.g. a game with background tasks, how is the chip designed
to rout the tasks, if a smart non e core chip, with well concipitated p cores as e.g. 13100 can be that much good that e cores become negligble and do not warrant the overall performance trade ins.
As your take in filling up a chip is not that simple
Also while 125w is enough for gaming, the performance hit is too much for what is supposed to be the flagship product, Intel needs to at least do a recall on the 13900k and 14900k.For most people power draw is efficiency, and 8 cores is more than enough for most things, even gaming. Having performance cores that are also efficient is why AMD is beating out Intel at about half the power draw.
(if anyone reads this what version of 13400 would you recommend stepped or not stepped b0 or c0 if im correct?)
Again, power draw isn't efficiency. If you wanna compare efficiency you put 2 cpus at the same power and compare the results. When you do that you'll realize that amd is lagging behind in most segments in both ST and MT efficiency. Let's not go over this again. It's just a fact, ComputerBase has done the work for us, lets just accept it and move on.
Also things like tjmax, and safety protection settings shouldnt be optional in the first place, at what point does it make sense to allow the tjmax to be risen above the safety threshold.
This here is more like to specific conditions during testing, because the order is chaotic and mostly reversed upside down.