Intel has launched its first wave of Bartlett Lake processors, introducing hybrid-core models specifically designed for embedded systems, with pure performance-core (P-core) variants scheduled to follow later. The initial release, unveiled at CES, showcases the processors through congatec's new COM-HPC modules. The flagship Core 7 251E leads the embedded lineup with 24 cores (8P + 16E) and impressive clock speeds reaching 5.6 GHz boost. Intel claims this processor outperforms the i7-14700 by 6% in single-core and 8% in multi-core benchmarks, despite maintaining a modest 65 W TDP. The series also includes the Core 5 211E with 10 cores (6P + 4E) and the Core 3 201E featuring 4 P-cores. However, the more intriguing development lies ahead.
Earlier sources indicate that Intel plans to release pure P-core variants of Bartlett Lake in Q3 2025, targeting desktop users. These processors will introduce a more traditional approach by replacing E-core clusters with additional P-cores, resulting in configurations of up to 12 P-cores in the upcoming Core 9 series. The pure P-core models will maintain compatibility with existing LGA1700 motherboards, potentially offering an attractive upgrade path for current Intel platform users. The lineup is expected to include 8-core, 10-core, and 12-core variants under the Core 5, 7, and 9 brands respectively, with TDP options ranging from 45 W to 125 W. While the current embedded models focus on specialized applications like medical imaging and edge computing, the future P-core variants seem positioned to appeal to gamers. The processors are expected to utilize Raptor Cove cores, though rumors suggest Intel might consider backporting Lion Cove architecture to the platform.
79 Comments on Intel "Bartlett Lake" Appears as a P/E-Core Hybrid, P-Core Only CPUs Could Soon Follow
Intel seems to wake up finally so I guess the pressure from AMD is finally doing its job now :p
Just really, shame that it came too late and I'm already happy with a new AMD platform. I would have definitely bought BTL a year or two ago, but not now.
The only benefit that more Pcores have is the odd application (maybe games included) that scale above 8 cores but not above say 14. In those cases, a 12P core cpu will be faster than an 8+16. But that's a fringe scenario, in most cases the 8+16 will be faster. A lot faster. While pulling less power. It's still a long time till reviews are out but I can guarantee you - lock them both to same power and the 8+16 config of the 14900k will absolutely scorch a 12P core CPU. 12P core will probably end up sandwiched between a 13700k and a 14700k in MT performance.
So i think nobody minds if they would even try out different chiplet designs, as realistically speaking they have the opportunity to make a legendary cpu for this platform.
If the performance is good a fair consumer price could be as high as ~300 Dollar/Eur. Releasing the most potent chip i would definitely suggest try to delay well into 2026,
as coming 2 years actually will be interesting to gauge how long current cpu computing power availabilities are reasonably priced or affordable for consumers for gaming in triple aaa games. Was kind of surprised to read that for certain upcoming titles for a minimum of 60fps a 13700k is recommended.
For the one who noticed the reason i mention an octa p core as i think this is the consumer cpu what will work well into 2035+, as we now are abandoning for gaming 4corep and can do well with souped up 6core p, the 8core p will be very solid base to improve game design programming performance etc.
Also, do keep in mind that leaks also claimed the newly released chips (201E, 211E, 251E) would be Raptor Lake S, and that the Q3 P-core only variants might house Lion Cove cores instead of Raptor Cove cores. I have no idea how this would improve efficiency or performance (or whether it would cause Arrow Lake style regression), but it is something to consider when comparing hypothetical 10/12P chips with existing 12-14th gen chips.
For example, if we suppose that an e-core eats as much as 0.4 p-cores, then 0.4 * 4 = 1.6, that means an e-core cluster eats 1.6 times more than a single p-core.
It's just my theory, though (based on the 12-13-14900K's insane unlocked MT power consumption figures), but I'm curious to find out.
Also even if it is the case and it eats less power, the problem is - it's still slower. Why does it matter that it eats less power when you can just lock the 900k to the same power and still end up faster?
What I'm saying is, you take an unlocked CPU, give it a MT task, and you'll see lower power consumption on it than you would on a 14900K. Sure, lower performance, too. How much lower is the true question. Yes, because of the mess around thread scheduling which I'd prefer to avoid, even if it comes with lower overall performance.
The default scheduler is also a bit whacked, so e.g. if any p-core is awake, it locks e-cores to max turbo clock which also raised v-core. Luckily I figured that out early, and my CPU isnt doing it now as I changed the hidden scheduler setting for it.
My plan is to keep some things I learned and have all of the background service stuff on 2-4 cores between them, so 8 cores will be idle for gaming use. Similar to what I am doing now with e-cores but without the occasional scheduling headache.
As an example some apps are heavy on background cycles, but also are interactive, so my preference is to make sure they on an e-core, but then the interactive side feels slower, that headache is gone on a 12 p core chip.
As you know from my previous posts the last couple of years, power itself is irrelevant for me. I wanna know what it can do with the same amount of power. And I think in this one the 900k will be the obvious winner.
There aren't any particular thread scheduling issues to speak off. Since 2021 there was just one very old game not playing ball and another one that had worse performance with ecores on (Warhammer) That's it as far scheduling is concerned. You'll see much more scheduling issues caused by the presence of HT actually than by ecores. You can even test it on your 7800x 3d, despite the lack of core counts, a lot of games will run faster with HT off.
My biggest scheduling issue is that you need software to make it work better - software made for Windows (I'm on Linux). Not to mention, CPUs should be controlled by the BIOS, not software, imo.