Intel "Arrow Lake-S" to See a Rearrangement of P-cores and E-cores Along the Ringbus

[Dr. Dro]

Intel using this ringbus thing since Nehalem. What a shame on their R&D not to bring any lowlatency, lowenergy & low silicon budget solution till this day.

...and what does a ring bus design have to do with this? If you're talking latency, Intel wins. Power scaling? Intel wins at idle and low load due to Ryzen's chiplet design, and is competitive at iso power until a certain point. By low silicon I presume you mean small dies? They're the size they gotta be, tbh. That goes for both companies.

Yes, but Intel did a bad job with the pre-Alder generations, I consider this to be back on the train tracks where it should have been the norm. That's why it's not a wow effect for me.

So bad that they reused the same core from 2015 to 2019 shamelessly! And it still compelled a lot of people to call it a worthwhile upgrade.

 

[Denver]

This has never been nor never will be a reason to justify anything. The implications that someone exists that believes it is appropriate to make this statement is startling. Tyranny of the majority (mob) does not prove one correct, it just proves there are like minded individuals and they are apparently participating in intimidation tactics.

You're not adding anything to the discussion and didn't understand my point. Historically, all Intel products, especially those aimed at laptops, consume MUCH more than their stipulated TDP(including PL2).
An Intel CPU with a supposedly 35W TDP can easily reach 50-60W under high load. This leads me to question the abnormally low numbers obtained here.

 

[fevgatos]

You're not adding anything to the discussion and didn't understand my point. Historically, all Intel products, especially those aimed at laptops, consume MUCH more than their stipulated TDP(including PL2).
An Intel CPU with a supposedly 35W TDP can easily reach 50-60W under high load. This leads me to question the abnormally low numbers obtained here.

Definitely not true. Intel cpus are notorious for sticking to their pl2 limits. You literally cannot exceed the pl2 limit. Even spikes are limited to the pl4.

So an Intel cpu with a 35w PL2 limit will stick to 35 watts.

 

[Denver]

Definitely not true. Intel cpus are notorious for sticking to their pl2 limits. You literally cannot exceed the pl2 limit. Even spikes are limited to the pl4.

So an Intel cpu with a 35w PL2 limit will stick to 35 watts.

Only In your head. I just showed the i9 hitting 400w in the anandtech Review.

 

[fevgatos]

Because you and everyone else knows you don’t measure efficiency by how much something costs.

Thanks, totally agreed. That's why current pricing efficiency comparisons are silly.

But 2 cpus released at the same time, with the same msrp and the same name (I mean amd deliberately chose the intel naming scheme to make direct comparisons straightforward) are as direct competitors as they could possibly ever be. What much more do you need to directly compare 2 cpus?

And the funny thing is I'm not in disagreement with you. Yes, exactly as you already mentioned, an 8core cpu has no chance in hell even under ln2 to match a 16 core cpu in MT performance. That's PRECISELY the problem, and precisely the reason intel wins in Mt efficiency. Because they simply offer more cores at each given msrp.

It's not unfair comparing these 2 cpus, what's unfair is amd releasing 8core chips and pretending they are i7 competitors and asking i7 prices. They are not. They aren't even i5 competitors. And they don't seem to have learned the lesson, if rumors are true the 9700X is going for 399 again. 399!!! A cpu that most probably will be losing to a freaking 2 generations old 13700k.... Yes, most likely it will be even be losing in efficiency. Is it unfair as well to compare a 2 year old i7 to a brand new R7 in ISO efficiency? I mean come on..

Only In your head. I just showed the i9 hitting 400w in the anandtech Review.

Because it runs with unlimited (4096w) power limits. Have you actually tried one or are we going with "trust me bro"?

This is a tech forum man. I get you people hate intel but please, please, can we at least TRY to stick to facts? It's really not that hard. Stop spreading missinformation, please.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Only In your head. I just showed the i9 hitting 400w in the anandtech Review.

My i9-13900KS has never disrespected the power limit configuration that I have set. These processors can not and will not draw 400 W and/or heat to 115°C unless they are manually configured to do so.

 

[Denver]

Thanks, totally agreed. That's why current pricing efficiency comparisons are silly.

But 2 cpus released at the same time, with the same msrp and the same name (I mean amd deliberately chose the intel naming scheme to make direct comparisons straightforward) are as direct competitors as they could possibly ever be. What much more do you need to directly compare 2 cpus?

And the funny thing is I'm not in disagreement with you. Yes, exactly as you already mentioned, an 8core cpu has no chance in hell even under ln2 to match a 16 core cpu in MT performance. That's PRECISELY the problem, and precisely the reason intel wins in Mt efficiency. Because they simply offer more cores at each given msrp.

It's not unfair comparing these 2 cpus, what's unfair is amd releasing 8core chips and pretending they are i7 competitors and asking i7 prices. They are not. They aren't even i5 competitors. And they don't seem to have learned the lesson, if rumors are true the 9700X is going for 399 again. 399!!! A cpu that most probably will be losing to a freaking 2 generations old 13700k.... Yes, most likely it will be even be losing in efficiency. Is it unfair as well to compare a 2 year old i7 to a brand new R7 in ISO efficiency? I mean come on..


Because it runs with unlimited (4096w) power limits. Have you actually tried one or are we going with "trust me bro"?

This is a tech forum man. I get you people hate intel but please, please, can we at least TRY to stick to facts? It's really not that hard. Stop spreading missinformation, please.

That one is stock with PL2: 253w. And no, I'm not going to buy it just to prove something. It's the height of alienation to expect someone to buy everything you talk about just to try it out.

The only thing you're right about is that I don't want an intel CPU, not even for free.

 

[sethmatrix7]

My i9-13900KS has never disrespected the power limit configuration that I have set. These processors can not and will not draw 400 W and/or heat to 115°C unless they are manually configured to do so.

If by "manually configured" you mean left at stock settings, then yes.

 

[fevgatos]

That one is stock with PL2: 253w. And no, I'm not going to buy it just to prove something. It's the height of alienation to expect someone to buy everything you talk about just to try it out.

The only thing you're right about is that I don't want an intel CPU, not even for free.

Let me get this straight. You are actually suggesting that, even if you put a lets say 35 watt pl2 limit on an Intel cpu, it will still be drawing up to 400 watts. That's what you are actually suggesting?

This is some userbenchmark level arguments. It's just not the case. Intel cpus respect their Pl limits, in fact a lot more than amd cpus do, cause amd chips don't have an actual controller on the die, it's on the motherboard. If anandtech showed a 35w pl2 intel cpu pulling 400w then they are full of bs, but I don't think they did. I think you are simply making it up. Please provide the link.

If by "manually configured" you mean left at stock settings, then yes.

View attachment 353598

These are not stock settings. It even says so right there in the charts. W1z removed the temperature limit manually because he didn't want to thermal throttle. He even says so in the freaking review man.

Again, I'll ask you as well, very politely. You can hate intel all you want, but can you stop hating facts and reality? Please?

 

[Dr. Dro]

If by "manually configured" you mean left at stock settings, then yes.

View attachment 353598

Remember that W1zzard has deliberately removed all power and thermal limits for his reviews - I can only speak for my experience, the stock settings my motherboard comes with are 253 W PL2 with a 100°C temperature limit. This is the spec that Intel has recommended for both the 13th and 14th generation i9 KS processors. It has always been this way, so at least for this combination, MSI has respected the Intel recommendation from day one.

I don't believe any motherboard is setting 4096 W with ICCMax unlimited bit as default regardless of SKU, but now that Intel has published recommended guidelines and BIOS updates are underway to ensure compliance, I think at this point the misinformation can pretty much go.

 

[fevgatos]

Remember that W1zzard has deliberately removed all power and thermal limits for his reviews - I can only speak for my experience, the stock settings my motherboard comes with are 253 W PL2 with a 100°C temperature limit. This is the spec that Intel has recommended for both the 13th and 14th generation i9 KS processors. It has always been this way, so at least for this combination, MSI has respected the Intel recommendation from day one.

I don't believe any motherboard is setting 4096 W with ICCMax unlimited bit as default regardless of SKU, but now that Intel has published recommended guidelines and BIOS updates are underway to ensure compliance, I think at this point the misinformation can pretty much go.

Well I'm not sure about out of the box but a lot of motherboards are removing all power and Amp limits when you choose the water cooler option. Probably every Z mobo, or at least the vast majority. I'm not currently aware of any motherboards that removes the 100c temperature limit. Probably doesn't exist, that would be beyond stupid for a mobo manafacturer either as default or even as custom settings. You can only do that manually.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Well I'm not sure about out of the box but a lot of motherboards are removing all power and Amp limits when you choose the water cooler option. Probably every Z mobo, or at least the vast majority. I'm not currently aware of any motherboards that removes the 100c temperature limit. Probably doesn't exist, that would be beyond stupid for a mobo manafacturer either as default or even as custom settings. You can only do that manually.

Key being: when you choose the water cooler option, which is not the default setting. I think it's fair to say it's misleading if people consider closed loop AIOs to be water cooling, they may be liquid-based cooling solutions but... they are to be treated as high-end air at best; not even the best of the 420 mm AIOs are going to perform anywhere near a true watercooling setup with block, pump, reservoir etc.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Let me get this straight. You are actually suggesting that, even if you put a lets say 35 watt pl2 limit on an Intel cpu, it will still be drawing up to 400 watts. That's what you are actually suggesting?

This is some userbenchmark level arguments. It's just not the case. Intel cpus respect their Pl limits, in fact a lot more than amd cpus do, cause amd chips don't have an actual controller on the die, it's on the motherboard. If anandtech showed a 35w pl2 intel cpu pulling 400w then they are full of bs, but I don't think they did. I think you are simply making it up. Please provide the link.


These are not stock settings. It even says so right there in the charts. W1z removed the temperature limit manually because he didn't want to thermal throttle. He even says so in the freaking review man.

Again, I'll ask you as well, very politely. You can hate intel all you want, but can you stop hating facts and reality? Please?

I think AMD blindness did not see the power limits removed bit.

As i have said before, so much anti Intel crap on this forum. Looking forward to Arrow lake proving them all wrong.............................again

 

[Zendou]

You're not adding anything to the discussion and didn't understand my point. Historically, all Intel products, especially those aimed at laptops, consume MUCH more than their stipulated TDP(including PL2).
An Intel CPU with a supposedly 35W TDP can easily reach 50-60W under high load. This leads me to question the abnormally low numbers obtained here.

Historically AMDs calculation for TDP does not even involve measuring power. Intel does not decide the individual power draw on the product. They create the spec for the device and companies like Dell, HP, MSI, Asus, etc.. all overclock the chip to say there device is better than the competition. Intel CPUs always have a base wattage and then they have a turbo window and then drop to base wattage. If the manufacturer of a laptop set the BIOS to never drop out of PL2 then that is not Intel's fault. Intel has always made more power efficient chips then AMD. AMD has basically abandoned the low-end. They used an Intel Atom chip on the Mars rover because it was so power efficient. I question why you this so abnormal with a new node shrink. Also you did not add anything to the discussion with the comment you made saying that essentially leads to might makes right, so I would avoid throwing stones as it appears you are also in a glass house.

 

[Outback Bronze]

This will be interesting if we see a more even spread of temperatures over the P & E cores now.

The P cores have always been warmer than the E cores (out the box) on my samples of 12,13 & 14th gen but in saying that they do clock a lot higher.

I wonder if that's because the E cores on the new gen are getting a 50% increase in IPC, which although, remains to be seen.

"Intel unwraps Lunar Lake architecture: Up to 68% IPC gain for E-cores, 14% IPC gain for P-Cores​

The resulting Lunar Lake mobile chips employ an entirely new design methodology that focuses on ensuring power efficiency as a first-order priority, and this base architecture will be used as the building block for Intel’s future products, like Arrow Lake and Panther Lake"

 

[Noyand]

Only In your head. I just showed the i9 hitting 400w in the anandtech Review.

Because of TVB, which pushes the CPU beyond the rated Turbo boost speed, which is exclusive to the I9. The I7 and below cannot exceed the set PL2. And you can even turn it off if you want to. You should not judge the behavior of every Intel CPU by basing yourself on the I9. Those SKUs have been using exclusive automatic overclocking tech for a while now.

Anandtech also said that the firmware of those boards seems to be problematic. The 14600k behave in a radically different way by pulling less power than the rated PL2 (181w)

Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost (Intel® TVB)​

Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost allows the processor IA core to opportunistically and automatically increase the Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 frequency speed bins whenever processor temperature and voltage allows.

The Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost feature is designed to increase performance of both multi-threaded and singlethreaded workloads.

Note:Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost (Intel® TVB) may not be available on all SKUs.

 

[dragontamer5788]

This will be interesting if we see a more even spread of temperatures over the P & E cores now.

If so that's a very good reason to mix them up like they did here.

Cooler parts (cache, rarely-used logic, etc. etc.) are supposed to be well-mixed with hot-parts (ex: multipliers, AVX-parts, etc. etc.) because the cool parts help cool off the hot-parts.

Its really obvious when its stated like that but... I mean... look at the original design! All the hot-P cores are sitting next to each other, heating each other up.

 

[Daven]

Where do you get your numbers?

View attachment 353576

By us you know I meant TPU readers since I literally said TPU readers in many of my posts and referenced the TPU frontpage poll from last August and took a screen capture.

Are you using an AMD Ryzen X3D CPU with 3D V-Cache?

We're wondering how many people have bought a X3D processor so far

www.techpowerup.com

I also talked about TPU reviews being the basis for its readership purchasing decisions. Reviews that you are paid to proofread for god’s sake!

Also TPU and all other sites conclude that the non k or T cpus are the most efficient CPUs humanity has ever laid eyes upon.

No wonder Intel’s revenue, margins, stock and marketshare is falling. Their supporters and brand loyalists aren’t challenging the company so Intel thinks it has no reason to compete. Hopefully for competition sake, Intel never reads these posts and realized what extreme trouble they are in.

Again, Intel architectures are in last place behind all others (ARM, AMD, GPGPU) in IPC, efficiency and value. AMD has gone from 2% data center market share to 33% in five years and Intel supporters are talking about ISO. Lololololol!!!!!

 

[Imsochobo]

Intel's chiplets being physically closer together should also help latency. I'm not sure how the two cores on Intel's low power island will interact with the whole setup but I assume they will only be in use in non-demanding scenarios and thus won't impact any demanding app latency.

Looks pretty promising.

Physical distance isn't what drives latency, it'll never have any measurable impact on latency unless you really take it to some extreme that has never really been done on a single board.
The lowest latency dram we've ever had for a "word" didn't have integrated memory controller.
Intel Core 2 FSB platform, it's down to 25ns, that's extremely fast.

from cpu, out to chipset, then out to memory modules (lga 775,the top chipset is where memory controller and pci-e is)

What drives latency is interconnect protocols, buffering, error correction and translating, abstractions making development faster, less buggy etc.

 

[kondamin]

I wonder if we are going to see more "exotic" setups like 5P 7E cores because small damages

 

[wolf]

Where do you get your numbers?

As expected and admitted to, it's from a TPU poll, which as we know has a near zero correlation with actual facts and market data. People just vote however they want based on whatever they want, with zero controls on the validity of their vote or ensuring a truly representative sample.

TPU polls are more of a how do you feel? what do you want (to be true)? type of question than anything that anyone should hang their hat on beyond those notions.

AMD is very popular among a relatively small population of highly engaged and vocal enthusiasts, who clearly (especially according to what they readily admit), let personal biases and factors beyond the actual specs, nuances and facts of the products themselves, affect why they buy them.

 

[fevgatos]

No wonder Intel’s revenue, margins, stock and marketshare is falling. Their supporters and brand loyalists aren’t challenging the company so Intel thinks it has no reason to compete. Hopefully for competition sake, Intel never reads these posts and realized what extreme trouble they are in.

Again, Intel architectures are in last place behind all others (ARM, AMD, GPGPU) in IPC, efficiency and value. AMD has gone from 2% data center market share to 33% in five years and Intel supporters are talking about ISO. Lololololol!!!!!

Yeap, im a firm intel supporter, sitting here with - let me count - , 4 AMD CPUs, 3 of them being newly released, and a single 3 year old Intel cpu.

I just don't let my feelings affect how I perceive reality. Intel is the king in desktops. Low idle - low load power draw, top ST and MT performance and great efficiency either out of the box (with the non k and t lineup) or after power limiting with the K cpus. AMD on desktops is what Intel was back in 2012. Stale. Stuck in 6 cores, reduced the amount of cores at each segment. People like you and denver, who himself admitted no way in hell is getting an Intel CPU is the whole reason amd is stale. You are buying their bs products no matter what, so here we are.

 

[Minus Infinity]

This will be interesting if we see a more even spread of temperatures over the P & E cores now.

The P cores have always been warmer than the E cores (out the box) on my samples of 12,13 & 14th gen but in saying that they do clock a lot higher.

I wonder if that's because the E cores on the new gen are getting a 50% increase in IPC, which although, remains to be seen.

"Intel unwraps Lunar Lake architecture: Up to 68% IPC gain for E-cores, 14% IPC gain for P-Cores​

The resulting Lunar Lake mobile chips employ an entirely new design methodology that focuses on ensuring power efficiency as a first-order priority, and this base architecture will be used as the building block for Intel’s future products, like Arrow Lake and Panther Lake"

That 68% IPC gain is compared to the LP-E cores not the regular Crestmont E-cores. They have been sneaky in comparing to a garbage grade core only used for backgrounds task while PC is idle. They have not given us IPC of Skymont vs real Crestmont. And before you whinge, I think the path Intel is taking is a good move and definitely looking forward to how both Lunar Lake and Arrow lake perform.

I buy what is best, I'm not a slave to any brand.

 

[Launcestonian]

...
I just don't let my feelings affect how I perceive reality. Intel is the king in desktops. Low idle - low load power draw, top ST and MT performance and great efficiency either out of the box (with the non k and t lineup) or after power limiting with the K cpus. AMD on desktops is what Intel was back in 2012. Stale. Stuck in 6 cores, reduced the amount of cores at each segment. People like you and denver, who himself admitted no way in hell is getting an Intel CPU is the whole reason amd is stale. You are buying their bs products no matter what, so here we are.

Not having to change sockets as often as Intel has the last decade (considering your date of 2012 from then on) with AMD is a thing too you know, something buyers factor in when purchasing a system & longevity with upgrading options in mind. How long is AM4 still going? How many socket changes did Intel do since AM4 came out? MT solves the problem of limited cores, core limitation is just not a thing like it use to be - 12 threaded bottom of the line for AM5. The later socket will once again prove longevity like AM4 (maybe not 8 yrs but then who knows at this point in time) but a heck of a lot better than Intel. 3 gens on 1700 & then BUST

 

[stimpy88]

If only AMD had a good IF design and memory controller. There would be no need for the cash grab L3 bolt-on.