Core Configurations of Intel Core Ultra 200 "Arrow Lake-S" Desktop Processors Surface

[btarunr]

Intel is giving its next-generation desktop processor lineup the Core Ultra 200 series processor model numbering. We detailed the processor numbering in our older report. The Core Ultra 200 series would be the company's first desktop processors with AI capabilities thanks to an integrated 50 TOPS-class NPU. At the heart of these processors is the "Arrow Lake" microarchitecture. Its development is the reason the company had to refresh "Raptor Lake" to cover its 2023-24 processor lineup. The company's "Meteor Lake" microarchitecture topped off at CPU core counts of 6P+8E, which would have proven to be a generational regression in multithreaded application performance over "Raptor Lake." The new "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processor has a maximum CPU core configuration of 8P+16E, which means consumers can expect at least the same core-counts at given price-points to carry over.

According to a report by Chinese tech publication Benchlife.info, the introduction of "Arrow Lake" would see Intel's desktop processor model numbering align with that of its mobile processor numbering, and incorporate the Core Ultra brand to denote the latest microarchitecture for a given processor generation. Since "Arrow Lake" is a generation ahead of "Meteor Lake," processor models in the series get numbered under Core Ultra 200 series.



Intel will likely debut the lineup with overclocker-friendly K and KF SKUs. The lineup is led by the Core Ultra 9 285K (and possibly the 285KF), which comes with an 8P+16E core configuration, a processor base power value of 125 W, and a maximum P-core boost frequency of 5.50 GHz. This is followed by the Core Ultra 7 265K (and 265KF), with an 8P+12E core configuration; and the Core Ultra 5 245K, with a 6P+8E core-configuration.

There are also some 65 W non-K models in the middle, although these don't have similar processor model numbers to the K/KF parts. There's the Core Ultra 9 275 (8P+16E, 65 W); the Core Ultra 7 255 (8P+12E, 65 W); and the Core Ultra 5 240 (6P+4E, 65 W).

"Arrow Lake" is a chiplet-based processor, just like "Meteor Lake." Its compute tile, the piece of silicon with the CPU cores, packs up to 8 "Lion Cove" performance cores (P-cores), and up to 16 "Skymont" efficiency cores (E-cores). The processor is also expected to feature a 50 TOPS-class NPU for on-device AI acceleration, and a truncated version of the Xe-LPG iGPU the company is using with "Meteor Lake," which could be branded differently from the Arc Graphics branding Intel is using on the Core Ultra 100 series mobile chips. "Arrow Lake" is also expected to debut a new CPU socket on the desktop platform, the LGA1851, with more I/O capabilities than the LGA1700 and "Raptor Lake."

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[dgianstefani]

Good specs.

 

[G777]

So apparently, at least some of the 6P+8E compute tiles will be manufactured on Intel 20A. I wonder if they will using the same tiles for desktop and mobile (Arrow Lake-H) since they’ll have the same core configurations. That would one of the advantages of going the disaggregated route.

It’s also possible that if 20A underperforms in efficiency, they will use TSMC N3B for the mobile chips instead.

 

[Crackong]

188W or 253w ?

 

[john_]

So, I guess it's 4.5GHz with Intel Baseline Profile for the top model?


I wonder if that 5.5 is final. And at what wattage. If Intel stays at 5.5 for the final top product, then they either can't go higher, don't need to go higher thanks to IPC gains, or knew that their silicon was having instability and degrading issues at 6.x GHz and decided this time to stay at safer frequencies. Of course it is a new chip, new architecture, new node, anything can be a reason.

 

[Asni]

We already know E-cores are pointless in a non-battery powered device.
This time Amd has the chance to prove that SMT/HT is more important than additional, fake, cores.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Hmmm....So let me get this straight no more Hyper Threading U9 will have "only" 8 performance cores but 16 efficient cores there are rumors around the net that we could expect better improvements in IPC from 5% to 15% with P-cores 'tho some people claim it will be much better improvements when it comes to the E-cores then again U9 285 have in total 24 Threads compared to the I9 14900k that have 32 Threads....hmmm is it going to be better in multithreads apps at all??? ....I mean most likely is going to be much more efficient when it comes to the power draw and probably great for gaming especially for games that don't use more than 8c.....Hmm I don't know it does not look so promising + I personally never liked when some company have need to put in product name something like "ultra" ...."extra"..."mega"..."superb"......

 

[bug]

We already know E-cores are pointless in a non-battery powered device.
This time Amd has the chance to prove that SMT/HT is more important than additional, fake, cores.

I can always appreciate a love-filled post, but you may want to check again which CPU manufacturer got sued for selling fake cores yet. Heterogeneous != fake.

 

[Tomgang]

Hmm pretty much what the current line up is for 14 gen as well. Yawn. Nothing new or existing there.

If the current rumors are true, the p-cores will not offer hyper threading this time as well. How that impact performance i am curious to know.

And rumored lower max clock as well.

Intel need a significant ipc boost to compensate for the loss of ht and lower core clocks.

 

[Assimilator]

Only 100MHz frequency boost over Raptor Lake at the same base power, yet no HT. Not a good look.

188W or 253w ?

Given the base power is the same as RPL, I'd expect the latter.

 

[Dristun]

They have to beat the X3D parts all around the board. I want to believe!

 

[john_]

I can always appreciate a love-filled post, but you may want to check again which CPU manufacturer got sued for selling fake cores yet. Heterogeneous != fake.

AMD through that putting 1.51 cores would round up to 2 cores so they can advertise 2 cores instead of 1.51 cores. Because those modules was more or less that. A way to compete with Intel Hyper Threading and at the same time advertise more cores instead of more threads. Of course Bulldozer architecture was a failure anyway, AMD's idea of a Pentium 4 because we all know what a great architecture Pentium 4 was. So many mistakes in just one product line, it much be a record.

Intel now. Well Intel advertises cores and it works great. I guess by removing Hyper Threading capability they can make P cores smaller, meaning more room for more P cores or more room for more E cores or more room for both. It's probably the correct thing to do, from a marketing perspective at least. In games or applications that see more than 8 threads, I wonder if those E cores will be enough to keep up. If not, buyers of these processors will have an extra reason to upgrade later, because I am expecting (weren't there rumors?) to see Intel CPUs with 12 P cores in the future.

 

[R0H1T]

you may want to check again which CPU manufacturer got sued for selling fake cores yet.

They decided to settle because they didn't want it to drag on needlessly, probably for bad PR. Meanwhile Intel's still not paid an effin dime for their OEM bribes in the EU, 20 odd years back

 

[dgianstefani]

AMD through that putting 1.51 cores would round up to 2 cores so they can advertise 2 cores instead of 1.51 cores. Because those modules was more or less that. A way to compete with Intel Hyper Threading and at the same time advertise more cores instead of more threads. Of course Bulldozer architecture was a failure anyway, AMD's idea of a Pentium 4 because we all know what a great architecture Pentium 4 was. So many mistakes in just one product line, it much be a record.

Intel now. Well Intel advertises cores and it works great. I guess by removing Hyper Threading capability they can make P cores smaller, meaning more room for more P cores or more room for more E cores or more room for both. It's probably the correct thing to do, from a marketing perspective at least. In games or applications that see more than 8 threads, I wonder if those E cores will be enough to keep up. If not, buyers of these processors will have an extra reason to upgrade later, because I am expecting (weren't there rumors?) to see Intel CPUs with 12 P cores in the future.

It's more that with 24 cores, you don't need HT, which is a security hole, makes cores more complex, and was introduced to help low core count CPUs.

In the age of massive core counts HT/SMT is not needed. Without it you can clock higher, use less voltage, and design more secure processors.

 

[R0H1T]

Without it you can clock higher, use less voltage, and design more secure processors.

Pretty much all of it's speculation.

 

[john_]

It's more that with 24 cores, you don't need HT, which is a security hole, makes cores more complex, and was introduced to help low core count CPUs.

In the age of massive core counts HT/SMT is not needed. Without it you can clock higher, use less voltage, and design more secure processors.

I think it's more about space. Everything you said is correct, but I think it's about cores becoming too big and needing to eliminate some stuff to keep them smaller. Intel was never advertising threads anyway, if I am not wrong. Always cores.

 

[RogueSix]

We already know E-cores are pointless in a non-battery powered device.

If by "we", you mean you and your uninformed friends, then YES .

Others know that the E-cores contribute a lot in multithreading scenarios and even in gaming when it comes to shader compilation. Where AMD users with a measly eight core 7800X3D have to wait for an hour or two for shaders to compile in The Last of Us Remastered, it takes all of 10 minutes max on a 13900K/14900K thanks to 32 very fast threads.

 

[R0H1T]

Right, tell me did you update to the latest BIOS & take a (slight?)performance hit on that or just chugging along with a slow poison pill probably killing your chip in the long run?

 

[phanbuey]

excited for the drop off of HT and latency improvement

 

[john_]

Others know that the E-cores contribute a lot in multithreading scenarios and even in gaming when it comes to shader compilation. Where AMD users with a measly eight core 7800X3D have to wait for an hour or two for shaders to compile in The Last of Us Remastered, it takes all of 10 minutes max on a 13900K/14900K thanks to 32 very fast threads.

I would love a link where 4 times the cores(and only 2 times the threads) means 6-12 times faster processing.

 

[pressing on]

Hmm pretty much what the current line up is for 14 gen as well. Yawn. Nothing new or existing there.

Yes, a leak that the specs are the same as Raptor Lake does not add up to much. Taking existing mobile Meteor Lake numbers like 155, 165 and 185 and adding 100 to them to create 255, 265 and 285 for desktop Arrow Lake seems unlikely. It's more probable that Intel will have a sequence like 240, 250, 260, 270 and 290 with a mixture of F, K and KF variants to align with the existing numbering.

 

[Daven]

Good specs.

Looks like Intel is regressing here in some areas. In this regard, very bad specs.

It looks like flagship 285K will perform similar to a 13700K for traditional CPU tasks at the same power consumption. Threads are dropping from 32 to 24. Clock speeds are dropping from 6.2Ghz to 5.5Ghz and if Meteor lake is anything to go by, P core IPC will probably drop as well.

That being said AI, E core and iGPU performance will probably all go up. If these types of processes benefit your workload then it might interest you.

I predict bases on rumors that the Ryzen 9 9950X will be on average 30-40% faster for traditional computing tasks. Finally, the immature 20A process node will help with efficiency but limit the size and speeds of these chips.

Edit: And one more thing, Intel could have a surprise up its sleeve such as 3D cache for gaming.

 

[tabascosauz]

Looks like Intel is regressing here in some areas. In this regard, very bad specs.

It looks like flagship 285K will perform similar to a 13700K for traditional CPU tasks at the same power consumption. Threads are dropping from 32 to 24. Clock speeds are dropping from 6.2Ghz to 5.5Ghz and if Meteor lake is anything to go by, P core IPC will probably drop as well.

That being said AI, E core and iGPU performance will probably all go up. If these types of processes benefit your workload then it might interest you.

I predict bases on rumors that the Ryzen 9 9950X will be on average 30-40% faster for traditional computing tasks. Finally, the immature 20A process node will help with efficiency but limit the size and speeds of these chips.

Edit: And one more thing, Intel could have a surprise up its sleeve such as 3D cache for gaming.

So you basically went off the assumption that 2 generations of development and a new node will.......result in 0 efficiency gains and 0 IPC gains?

The way you described Meteor Lake makes me think you don't really understand what IPC is. The worst it can do is stay the same due to no radical arch changes. It doesn't and didn't "drop" due to a clock deficit.

That said, yes I agree, if Intel wants to compete with X3D they will have to leverage tiling to get significantly more cache. Trying to get a bit more traditional L3 or relying on Pcore arch alone isn't going to cut it.

 

[R0H1T]

That's not the worst case scenario, there's always Dozer to look at & pretty sure at least one new gen from Intel in the last 30 odd years would've had a performance regression. But there's a good chance it will come with an IPC increase here, overall performance could still be lower though as clocks may nosedive & of course less threads overall.

Also I wonder if the recent BIOS "updates" will make the upcoming chips suddenly look better

I hope the next set of desktop reviews include the inflated numbers from these factory OCed 13/14 gen chips, the new normal & then the next gen core ultra or whatever they release.

 

[phanbuey]

That's not the worst case scenario, there's always Dozer to look at & pretty sure at least one new gen from Intel in the last 30 odd years would've had a performance regression. But there's a good chance it will come with an IPC increase here, overall performance could still be lower though as clocks may nosedive & of course less threads overall.

Also I wonder if the recent BIOS "updates" will make the upcoming chips suddenly look better

That's a good point... I didn't even think of that. Perfect timing for sure.

In any case i have a feeling gaming performance will be much better than last gen, just turning off HT on a chip designed for HT nets you 5-7% and double digits in some games if they can address caching, that by itself is going to be huge -- add in an IPC increase and further tweaks and we are looking at really solid fps increases. Even if multicore performance will be roughly the same.