Wednesday, July 24th 2024

CPU-Z Screenshot of Alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake" ES Surfaces, Confirms Intel 4 Process

A CPU-Z screenshot of an alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processor engineering sample is doing rounds on social media, thanks to wxnod. CPU-Z identifies the chip with an Intel Core Ultra case badge with the deep shade of blue associated with the Core Ultra 9 brand extension, which hints at this being the top Core Ultra 9 285K processor model, we know it's the "K" or "KF" SKU looking at its processor base power reading of 125 W. The chip is built in the upcoming Intel Socket LGA1851. CPU-Z displays the process node as 7 nm, which corresponds with the Intel 4 foundry node.

Intel is using the same Intel 4 foundry node for "Arrow Lake-S" as the compute tile of its "Meteor Lake" processor. Intel 4 offers power efficiency and performance comparable to 4 nm nodes from TSMC, although it is physically a 7 nm node. Likewise, the Intel 3 node is physically 5 nm. If you recall, the main logic tile of "Lunar Lake" is being built on the TSMC N3P (3 nm) node. This means that Intel is really gunning for performance/Watt with "Lunar Lake," to get as close to the Apple M3 Pro as possible.
"Arrow Lake" features the same "Lion Cove" P-cores and "Skymont" E-cores as "Lunar Lake," but connected differently. In "Lunar Lake," the P-core complex sits on its own tiny ringbus with an exclusive L3 cache; with the E-core clusters being separated into low-power islands. The two core types talk to each other over the chip's high bandwidth fabric. In "Arrow Lake," however, the "Lion Cove" P-cores and "Skymont" E-core clusters share a ringbus and L3 cache, like the two core types do on current "Raptor Lake" chips. Intel will innovate with the way the P-cores and E-core clusters are physically arranged along the ringbus, and you can read all about it in our older article.

Back to the CPU-Z screenshot, and we're shown a clock speed of 5.00 GHz. This is likely being read off the first "Lion Cove" P-core. The P-cores have 48 KB of L1 Data (L1D) and 64 KB of L1 Instructions (L1I) caches; while the E-cores have 32 KB of L1D and 64 KB of L1I caches. We've known since the "Lunar Lake" technical deep-dive from Intel's comments, that the "Lion Cove" P-cores on "Arrow Lake" will get 3 MB of dedicated L2 caches, compared to 2.5 MB per core on "Lunar Lake." Each of the four "Skymont" E-core clusters of "Arrow Lake" shares 4 MB of L2 cache among the four cores in the cluster.

The total L2 cache on "Arrow Lake-S" is 40 MB. This is from eight 3 MB caches from the P-cores, and four 4 MB caches from the E-core clusters (24 MB + 16 MB). We are now learning that the shared L3 cache size remains 36 MB on "Arrow Lake."

Since the "Lion Cove" P-cores lack HyperThreading, "Arrow Lake-S" is a 24-core/24-thread processor. The generational performance gain over the current Core i9-14900K will boil down to the ~14% IPC gain of "Lion Cove" over "Redwood Cove" (which in-turn was within 2% of "Raptor Cove"); and the massive 38-68% IPC improvement of the "Skymont" E-core over the "Crestmont" E-core (which in turn was +8% over "Gracemont.").

Intel is expected to debut the Core Ultra 200 series "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processors, and the LGA1851 platform led by the Intel Z890 chipset, around late-September or early-October, 2024.
Sources: wxnod (Twitter), HXL (Twitter)
Add your own comment

57 Comments on CPU-Z Screenshot of Alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake" ES Surfaces, Confirms Intel 4 Process

#51
theouto
There are so many leaks for generations so far into the future (core 300 leaking) that I'm somewhat lost as to what intel gen we are currently on.
And they slanted AMD for their naming scheme.
Posted on Reply
#52
N/A
The one you should be on the lookout for is nova lake. That is to be completely reworked from the ground up and properly implementing the rentable units, 50% IPC compared to rocket lake or raptor lake, ultra 500 I guess.

And one more thing, intel 4 and 3 seem to be nodelets of 7nm, but tsmc N4 and N3 are full nodes so I don't understand what was intel thinking. They wanted to be king of consolidated around the same metrics but then not so much. I'm overall a little disappointed, we should be getting that high NA and backside power delivery at this point.
Posted on Reply
#53
AnotherReader
N/AThe one you should be on the lookout for is nova lake. That is to be completely reworked from the ground up and properly implementing the rentable units, 50% IPC compared to rocket lake or raptor lake, ultra 500 I guess.

And one more thing, intel 4 and 3 seem to be nodelets of 7nm, but tsmc N4 and N3 are full nodes so I don't understand what was intel thinking. They wanted to be king of consolidated around the same metrics but then not so much. I'm overall a little disappointed, we should be getting that high NA and backside power delivery at this point.
50% IPC increase at the same clocks is unprecedented for a P core. That would be akin to the uplift from the original Pentium to the Pentium Pro. Do you have a source to backup that claim?
Posted on Reply
#54
AusWolf
N/AAnd one more thing, intel 4 and 3 seem to be nodelets of 7nm, but tsmc N4 and N3 are full nodes so I don't understand what was intel thinking. They wanted to be king of consolidated around the same metrics but then not so much. I'm overall a little disappointed, we should be getting that high NA and backside power delivery at this point.
It's all about you and I having to do some research to see what these node numbers actually mean, while the average consumer thinks they're the same as TSMC N4 and N3. Marketing.
Posted on Reply
#55
Vincero
AusWolfIt's all about you and I having to do some research to see what these node numbers actually mean, while the average consumer thinks they're the same as TSMC N4 and N3. Marketing.
To be fair that marketing goes both ways e.g. TSMC 12nm wasn't equal to Intel 12nm. I remember back in the day reading that TSMC/Samsung/GlobalFoundries were some way off the same transistor density as Intel could achieve (and no doubt there probably was some other chip features that were not equal either).
Sure TSMC have 3nm before Intel, Samsung, etc., but that's not to say it will actually be the best example of it - the transistors are usually several times bigger than 3nm for example.
For sure, TSMC are making some chip features smaller, but due to the limits of the metals in use you can only make the size of the components in the chip so small.

What I'm most impressed about is that despite moving to smaller processes, the leakage current is actually being very well controlled - the idle power numbers for example of these chips going down to low single digits whilst having billions of transistors - a while ago there were some who thought this would end up making moving to some smaller processes less desirable.
Posted on Reply
#56
AusWolf
VinceroTo be fair that marketing goes both ways e.g. TSMC 12nm wasn't equal to Intel 12nm. I remember back in the day reading that TSMC/Samsung/GlobalFoundries were some way off the same transistor density as Intel could achieve (and no doubt there probably was some other chip features that were not equal either).
Sure TSMC have 3nm before Intel, Samsung, etc., but that's not to say it will actually be the best example of it - the transistors are usually several times bigger than 3nm for example.
For sure, TSMC are making some chip features smaller, but due to the limits of the metals in use you can only make the size of the components in the chip so small.
Yes, but Joe Consumer doesn't know all this. ;)
Posted on Reply
#57
close
fevgatosI'd rather it started with a 6 and then users can tone it down a notch then it being at 5 and users having to oc it. Well "having", you don't have to do anything, im just saying it's easier to leash a chip then unleash it as an end user.


It doesn't need to. Originally the 13900k launched as a 7900x competitor, and it gave it a thorough spanking.

The stack according to both amd's and intel's naming scheme is i5 13600k vs R5 7600x , i7 13700k vs R7 7700x and i9 13900k vs r9 7900x. Those cpus launched at very similar (actually, besides the 900k, they were identical) MSRPs and names.

Now with the new naming schemes i'm kinda confused about what's what so we have to see
Takes a brave (euphemistically speaking) man to be so confident about how good 13th gen Intel CPUs are these days. Aren't 13900s dying from all that spanking they gave? Live fast die young isn't really a good characterization for a CPU.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 12:22 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts