Intel Core Ultra "Meteor Lake-H" Partial Lineup Leaked

[T0@st]

An Intel Core Ultra 7 155H chip was first spotted via a Geekbench entry this morning (as tested in an HP Spectre x360 2-in-1 laptop), followed by several other purported mobile "Meteor Lake" SKUs published by Golden Pig Upgrade's Bilibili account. The aforementioned Core Ultra 7 155H was listed, alongside the additions of higher end Core Ultra 9 185H and Core Ultra 7 165H models. Intel has reportedly been playing around with their naming conventions—engineering samples bearing 1002H and 1003 designations were leaked earlier this summer. A lower end Core Ultra 5 125H chip has also emerged from another new Geekbench registration, sitting inside a next-gen HP OMEN Transcend Gaming Laptop.

Laptop-oriented Meteor Lake processors are expected to arrive with an updated iGPU technology—very likely Xe-LPG (Alchemist), with a designation of up to 128 EU cores—but the latest Geekbench entries are missing specific information about any graphics processing units, integrated or discrete, utilized by the evaluated HP laptops. Two Geekbench Core Ultra 7 155H entries confirm a base clock of 3.8 GHz with a boost capability upping the ante to around 4.8 GHz. We see counts of 16 cores and 22 threads—the internal configuration seems to consist of 6 P-Cores, 8 E-Cores and 2 lower power cores housed within its SoC die. The best set of Geekbench 6.1 scores posted by the Core Ultra 7 155H comprised 2294 points in single-core and 12749 points in multi-core. A VideoCardz evaluation places this plucky mobile chip in good company: "its single-core score puts it above AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and Intel Core 13400 desktop CPUs. The multi-core performance is actually higher than Core i9-12900 non-K or Threadripper PRO 3955WX."




VideoCardz has compiled the quartet of leaked Meteor Lake-H mobile chips into a handy chart:



Wccftech has generated a comparison chart that features the multi-score tallies of leaked Core Ultra 7 155H and Core Ultra 5 125H processors lined up against some competition:



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[P4-630]

If they are all more power efficient than the mobile ryzen 7 part then we got a winner...

 

[dir_d]

If they are all more power efficient than the mobile ryzen 7 part then we got a winner...

That's going to be hard metric to win.

 

[R0H1T]

Yup, admittedly this isn't the most efficient chip AMD has nor Intel for that matter but it's a good reference point ~

 

[JustBenching]

From the above review

 

[Battler624]

From the above review

View attachment 312379

From the same review in the video you can see that in terms of Power Efficiency, the Ryzens obliterate the intel.

Its just that the way TDP is calculated is different between Intel and AMD (Which in my opinion, is very stupid), Anyway intel is very good & efficient in encoding & decoding, much better than AMD which is what we can see from the image you sent

 

[JustBenching]

From the same review in the video you can see that in terms of Power Efficiency, the Ryzens obliterate the intel.

Then we watched a different review? Ryzens were 3% more efficient at 130w and 13% more efficient at 65w. If 3 and 13% is "obliterated" then sure, okay, whatever buddy.

 

[Battler624]

Then we watched a different review? Ryzens were 3% more efficient at 130w and 13% more efficient at 65w. If 3 and 13% is "obliterated" then sure, okay, whatever buddy.

Is this not the one you watched?

Look at AMD at 65W, is scores 36% better than intel "per watt"

 

[JustBenching]

Is this not the one you watched?

Look at AMD at 65W, is scores 36% better than intel "per watt"

That is at one application? On average it's 3% at 130w and 13% at 65w. Why do you feel the need to cherry pick?

 

[Battler624]

That is at one application? On average it's 3% at 130w and 13% at 65w. Why do you feel the need to cherry pick?

Thats because that one application specifically uses the CPU not the accelerators?

What do you think TPU tests the efficiency using? accelerators? its the same thing, they use cinebench because its good at this.

Intel Core i9-13900K Review - Power-Hungry Beast - Power Consumption & Efficiency | TechPowerUp

 

[JustBenching]

Thats because that one application specifically uses the CPU not the accelerators?

What do you think TPU tests the efficiency using? accelerators? its the same thing, they use cinebench because its good at this.

Intel Core i9-13900K Review - Power-Hungry Beast - Power Consumption & Efficiency | TechPowerUp

But TPU isn't testing at the same watts.

This guy does. Ryzen obliterates again, 10% difference at 125w and 1% at 65w. Total domination

 

[Battler624]

But TPU isn't testing at the same watts.

This guy does. Ryzen obliterates again, 10% difference at 125w and 1% at 65w. Total domination

Well yea mobile and desktop products are different, AMD scores 29K at 65W on their mobile processors.

 

[JustBenching]

Well yea mobile and desktop products are different, AMD scores 29K at 65W on their mobile processors.

That is incorrect. The dragonrange series is not monolithic. In fact, the 7945hx and the hx3d are basically the desktop CPUs put into a laptop. They do not score 29k at 65w, they score 29k at 65w TDP. which is 90w power draw.

Every amd cpu that doesn't have the 680m or the 780m is not monolithic, it's a port from the desktop parts

 

[Battler624]

That is incorrect. The dragonrange series is not monolithic. In fact, the 7945hx and the hx3d are basically the desktop CPUs put into a laptop. They do not score 29k at 65w, they score 29k at 65w TDP. which is 90w power draw.

You can see that even in your reply I had already removed the monolithic part (I removed it less than a minute later, the heck are you doing)

Anyway In the same video you can see the TDP differences section @15:32 and the power draw sections @ 16:05.

 

[JustBenching]

You can see that even in your reply I had already removed the monolithic part (I removed it less than a minute later, the heck are you doing)

Anyway In the same video you can see the TDP differences section @15:32 and the power draw sections @ 16:05.

If they have the 7940hx scoring 29k at 65w power draw then their numbers are just plain wrong, lol.

 

[trsttte]

What the hell are the 2 SoC cores? are they counting the security co processor to advertise an higher number (didn't amd settle a class action for something similar-ish) or will they further complicate task schedulling with 2 even dumber cores?

 

[Minus Infinity]

What the hell are the 2 SoC cores? are they counting the security co processor to advertise an higher number (didn't amd settle a class action for something similar-ish) or will they further complicate task schedulling with 2 even dumber cores?

No they are ultra low power cores that will handle background tasks when the computer is essentially asleep. Thye won't be used when the computer is awake.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Oh God, they ruined the naming convention for their mainstream CPUs too. I think their Xeon marketing team did a number on those too.

I never understand why do you have TO COMPLICATE things where and when is not required???
WTF is this garbage naming??