Arrow lake might be a gaming monster?

[phanbuey]

Here's why I think AL is shaping up to be a giant upgrade in terms of FPS:

1. APO showed that there is double-digit performance gains when tweaking the e-core thread scheduling -- much more than just turning them off.
2. HT-off generally improves framerates
3. Reducing latency, or increasing ring throughput improves FPS.

AL is coming with:

• Core designed with no HT +5%
• Reduced latency (rearranged core configuration) +2-5%
• Tweaked thread scheduler and faster e cores - +2-5%+? 10%?

Combine that with any general improvements to IMC and any overclocking headroom gained by running 100W less than the predecessor - the leaks are starting to look exciting (take with a shovel of salt):
Jaykihn on X: "Preliminary Arrow Lake -S QS 250W Benchmarks. ARL-S ES2 and 8+16 Raptor Lake -S SKUs for comparison. https://t.co/aDSqJOcbqO" / X

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake" CPU Blazes Past Core i9-14900KS & Ryzen 9 9950X In Benchmark Leak (wccftech.com)

What do you guys think?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm gonna say we will be lucky if it's 10-15% vs the 14900k.

There are still a lot of unknown how's the memory controller how much is the 4-500mhz clocks gonna negatively impact gaming. How conservative will power limits/voltage be given what happened to Raptorlake.

MT/ST didn't look much better than the 9950X in the current leak and we all know how that games although windows might be the culprit for that to some degree.

Depending on the reviewers game suit it would need to be 6-8% faster to outright beat the 7800X3D on overage so is another 6-7% on top of that exciting other than for fanboys to say a 600 usd (guessing) proccesor beat an old 350 usd ish one.....

I'm gonna be pessimist until reviews hit lol.

 

[Zach_01]

Is ArrowLake going to be fab on a better node than 13/14th?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Is ArrowLake going to be fab on a better node than 13/14th?

Yes, quite a bit better from my understanding but they did have issues with it with meteor lake clock and power limitations seemingly why it was canceled for desktop and we got Raptorlake refresh instead.

 

[phanbuey]

Is ArrowLake going to be fab on a better node than 13/14th?

rumor is N3B for the 9 7 and 20A for the 5

 

[oxrufiioxo]

rumor is N3B for the 9 7 and 20A for the 5

Most recent one I seen was it was still 20A for the i9 The reason people seemed confused is because the igpu uses N3B is my guess.... Could be wrong though I guess we will see soon.


This should be interesting....

"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

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...

www.techpowerup.com

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.

 

[Zach_01]

Can we compare those with any of TSMCs nodes?

I’m asking because I see a 300MHz regression in clocks (5.7GHz max single?). How different will be the all core?

Are they playing it safe?

I understand that better node doesn’t always mean higher clocks.

Allegedly this gen will be more efficient. As it should, always welcomed!
How much of the efficiency is on the clock regression and how much on fab I wonder.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Can we compare those with any of TSMCs nodes?

I’m asking because I see a 300MHz regression in clocks (5.7GHz max single?). How different will be the all core?

Are they playing it safe?

I understand that better node doesn’t always mean higher clocks.

Allegedly this gen will be more efficient. As it should, always welcomed!
How much of the efficiency is on the clock regression and how much on fab I wonder.

if you look at the die and how the tiles are laid out it looks both expensive and complicated to make is my guess on why clocks are going down.

I posted above what proccess node it's similar to TSMC4 above I think Raptor lake was on something similar to TSMC 7 could be wrong though don't really keep track of all that just care how they perform lol.

Raptor Lake/ Arrow Lake

 

[SKRDPTSGL]

It have to be 10-15% better at least,or else goodbye Intel

 

[las]

Intel with node advantage in TSMC 3N, I expect good things and much lower power draw.

Intel did not struggle with performance, but with power usage. Should be fixed with Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake and then 18A is ready for 2025+

10-15% with much lower power usage seems good to me. Especially after AMDs Zen 5 fckup and rebranded chipsets (but somehow still delayed motherboards).

Intel will have K models and Z890 motherboards ready on launch day. Thats how you do a proper CPU launch. Take note AMD.

 

[dirtyferret]

what modern CPU isn't a gaming monster? Even the older Ryzen 5 3600 avg close to 100 fps with a RTX 4090 across a 21 game test bed

 

[Ruru]

The most important thing is that will people even get these after the 13/14th gen fiasco. At least I'm staying with AMD now and in the future.

 

[dirtyferret]

At least I'm staying with AMD now and in the future.

why? I understand not getting a 13/14th but has AMD made some sort of promise to you that they will offer more performance & less issues than Intel for less money or your money back? If so can other people sign up for this?

 

[Chomiq]

what modern CPU isn't a gaming monster? Even the older Ryzen 5 3600 avg close to 100 fps with a RTX 4090 across a 21 game test bed

So a CPU that bottlenecks the GPU is a gaming monster in your definition?

 

[phanbuey]

what modern CPU isn't a gaming monster? Even the older Ryzen 5 3600 avg close to 100 fps with a RTX 4090 across a 21 game test bed

Except you would be getting 180 fps with less stutter with a 7600x3d, for example. I like to game at 200fps when I can — it feels great.

 

[Ruru]

why? I understand not getting a 13/14th but has AMD made some sort of promise to you that they will offer more performance & less issues than Intel for less money or your money back? If so can other people sign up for this?

No reason to upgrade now, and if Zen will continue improving like it's done every time, I don't see a reason to change. Also I'm interested that will Intel continue to consume as much power as HEDT chips did back in the day.

 

[Ayhamb99]

The most important thing is that will people even get these after the 13/14th gen fiasco. At least I'm staying with AMD now and in the future.

It's going to be take a while for Intel to regain trust yet again. Their handling of that fiasco left a sour taste in my mouth to the point that unless Arrow Lake shows absolute reliablilty, i'll still be avoiding and be recommending against Intel.

 

[dirtyferret]

So a CPU that bottlenecks the GPU is a gaming monster in your definition?

no but when you can get an avg 100 FPS across a modern 21 game suite from a five year mid level CPU than the CPU is not what's preventing anyone from achieving high FPS in PC gaming.

 

[phanbuey]

no but when you can get an avg 100 FPS across a modern 21 game suite from a five year mid level CPU than the CPU is not what's preventing anyone from achieving high FPS in PC gaming.

But why would we want 100 fps... if we can have 200-500 fps with fewer stutters?

I can game on my old 6700K and get an average of 60 fps... but that feels like crap and limits my enjoyment of said game compared to the 180 FPS i would otherwise get.

 

[Onasi]

But why would we want 100 fps... if we can have 200-500 fps?

…because diminishing returns? That’s kinda how frame times work by default. For slower single-player games going past 120 is barely relevant and even sweaty MP shooters approach the limit of human reaction at 240, especially taking into consideration that playing online will always have inherent delay. The ridiculous 500+ framerates are only barely relevant for e-sports pros playing CS at LANs. And even there it’s questionable.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm not seeing the supposed big changes in Arrow Lake. Its still an Intel design/core/the basics haven't changed much. They're doing samey things but 'faster & more'. We've seen this before, some dozen iterations of it. The Intel procs already gamed 'faster' because of E cores but the real bottleneck is in feeding the CPU faster, its not just a latency thing, but a capacity thing. I'm not seeing a huge amount of cache, so I'm just simply not convinced there are going to be meaningful shifts in gaming performance. I'm sure 180 FPS can rise to 200. But that's hardly relevant performance. I care about 40 FPS rising to 70, as the X3D's tend to make happen in the gaming workloads that historically struggled on CPUs everywhere. E cores won't do jack shit for a heavy sequential load.

But why would we want 100 fps... if we can have 200-500 fps with fewer stutters?

I can game on my old 6700K and get an average of 60 fps... but that feels like crap and limits my enjoyment of said game compared to the 180 FPS i would otherwise get.

I'll take stable framerates over excessively high ones that fluctuate heavily, any day of the week tbh. Beyond 100-120 its whateverland anyway, diminishing returns kick in hard.

 

[Bloste]

But why would we want 100 fps... if we can have 200-500 fps with fewer stutters?

I can game on my old 6700K and get an average of 60 fps... but that feels like crap and limits my enjoyment of said game compared to the 180 FPS i would otherwise get.

I'm with dirtyferret on this: reaching triple digit frames is an achievement in itself. Are other bigger CPU monsters? Hell yes! But that doesn't mean that a R5 3600, not bottlenecked by the GPU, can give you a very smoooth experience in almost every modern games. And that gives it the title of "gaming monster".

 

[dirtyferret]

Except you would be getting 180 fps with less stutter with a 7600x3d, for example. I like to game at 200fps when I can — it feels great.

ut why would we want 100 fps... if we can have 200-500 fps with fewer stutters?

great, knock yourself out. No one said don't go for it but rather modern CPU performance is not a major player in holding back good FPS across game suites

 

[Crazybc]

There is a lot of pre release hype right now .You can show me benchmarks and all the new stuff making it run but in the end its all hype till real people get a hold of them and test the hell out of them, Remember how all this hype turned out for AMD. Right now all I will say is it could be a flop or it could really give Intel a kick in a good way if it turns out well enough. Who knows ? Right now I'm just waiting for the NDA,s to run out within the next 6 weeks or so.
.

 

[phanbuey]

I'm not seeing the supposed big changes in Arrow Lake. Its still an Intel design/core/the basics haven't changed much. They're doing samey things but 'faster & more'. We've seen this before, some dozen iterations of it. The Intel procs already gamed 'faster' because of E cores but the real bottleneck is in feeding the CPU faster, its not just a latency thing, but a capacity thing. I'm not seeing a huge amount of cache, so I'm just simply not convinced there are going to be meaningful shifts in gaming performance. I'm sure 180 FPS can rise to 200. But that's hardly relevant performance. I care about 40 FPS rising to 70, as the X3D's tend to make happen in the gaming workloads that historically struggled on CPUs everywhere. E cores won't do jack shit for a heavy sequential load.


I'll take stable framerates over excessively high ones that fluctuate heavily, any day of the week tbh. Beyond 100-120 its whateverland anyway, diminishing returns kick in hard.

I'm with dirtyferret on this: reaching triple digit frames is an achievement in itself. Are other bigger CPU monsters? Hell yes! But that doesn't mean that a R5 3600, not bottlenecked by the GPU, can give you a very smoooth experience in almost every modern games. And that gives it the title of "gaming monster".

You guys need to actually game on a 3600 -- i've done it back in the day - it was just 'fine' - and the framerates were not very stable, lots of stutters.

Looking at an averages graph thats skewed by CS:GO and F1 2021 does not really paint the picture of the experience.