Core 200s (Bartlett Lake-S) Announced at CES 2025

[fry]

Early this year, rumors abounded that Intel would release a fourth generation of LGA1700 CPUs. Intel Planning P-Core Only Bartlett LGA1700 Processors for 2025 (Techpowerup) Those CPUs seem to have been announced at CES 2025.

I'm still trying to work my way around what this means, but Intel has announced new (or repackaged) LGA1700 CPUs at CES 2025. The press briefing linked below claims that these CPUs were "Formerly codenamed Bartlett Lake S" (Link 1, Slide 2), and the second link appears to verify this. The processors look closer to Raptor Lake than Arrow Lake, at least.The processors will have hyper-threading (on P cores), and will be "Socket compatible with 12th, 13th, and 14th gen" (Link 2, Footnotes). The chips are mentioned to have E-cores, and although the rumored P-core only Bartlett Lake SKUs haven't been disproven, there is no evidence of their existence.

The chip mentioned in the second link, the Core 7 251E, seems to be an 8 P-core, 16 E-core chip, (P-core boost clocks up to 5.6GHz) in line with rumors that Bartlett Lake S would have an i7 class CPU with an 8p-16e configuration. I am unsure what this means for the previously expected 8-12 P-core chips.

I am also confused as to why I haven't been able to find a clear list of SKUs on Intel's site. Or why there I have been unable to find coverage of these new SKUs beyond a Wccftech article that lists out 22 different SKUs based on 8 different CPUs, and claims a January 13th release date.

I also cannot find an official release date for Core 200s processors on Intel's site, and Wccftech may be confusing Core 200s (Bartlett Lake S) with Core Ultra 200s (Arrow Lake S), as Intel's site does claim that "Intel Core Ultra 200S series 65-watt and 35-watt desktop processors and OEM systems will be available ... beginning Jan. 13, 2025." (Link 4)


Switching from observations to speculation, it is also worth noting that these chips will likely not be particularly accessible. Intel's -E type edge computing processors aren't typically available for consumer purchase. I also have a few theories as to why this launch has gone largely unnoticed, including that it has been obscured by GPU launches at CES 2025, Intel's naming scheme (Core 200s vs Core Ultra 200s), and the lack of recent leaks about (and therefore anticipation for) Bartlett Lake S.


Sourcing:
Edge CES Press Briefing (Intel) (Note slide 2 of this press briefing, which confirms the Core 200s CPUs as Bartlett Lake desktop CPUs)
Intel Core Processors (Series 2) (Intel) (Information published by Intel on the Core 200s CPUs, and the Core 7 251E)
Intel Unveils Arrow Lake-S “non-K” Desktop CPUs; Bartlett Lake-S CPU Lineup Intended For Edge Applications (Wccftech) (Only published article found on Bartlett Lake S's release)
2025 CES Client Computing News (Intel)

 

[Ruru]

Intel's whole lineup is so hella confusing that I wonder how confusing it is to typical consumers.

There were already totally different-gen laptop SKUs existing with similar naming as their desktop "counterparts" and now this?

 

[Dr. Dro]

Still labeled as an Edge product... but sincerely hope they release it on LGA 1700, hopefully with CUDIMM support on high end Z790 motherboards

 

[AusWolf]

Intel's whole lineup is so hella confusing that I wonder how confusing it is to typical consumers.

Exactly what I'm thinking. I was really excited about Bartlett Lake when I read about it in the news, but even if it was released, I would never know because there's just way too much stuff among Intel's products and roadmaps. The whole Intel lineup is just a convoluted mess of random numbers now.

 

[fry]

I've found three definite CPUs so far. It seems that the current Bartlett Lake lineup includes:

Core 7 251E; 8 p-cores @ 5.6/2.1ghz; 16 e-cores @ 4.4/1.6ghz; 32 igpu eus; 65w
Core 5 211E; 6 p-cores @ 4.9/2.7ghz; 4 e-cores @ 3.7/2.0ghz; 24 igpu eus; 65w
Core 3 201E; 4 p-core 4.8/3.6; 24 igpu eus; 60w

None of these are available as individual units to my knowledge, but OEMs are selling package deals.

Bartlett Lake S cores in COM-HPC Client C modules

Congatec has added Intel Core S (Bartlett Lake S) processors to its 120 x 160mm COM-HPC Client Size C modules. "Conga-HPC/cBLS has been specially

www.electronicsweekly.com

 

[AusWolf]

I've found three definite CPUs so far. It seems that the current Bartlett Lake lineup includes:

Core 7 251E; 8 p-cores @ 5.6/2.1ghz; 16 e-cores @ 4.4/1.6ghz; 32 igpu eus; 65w
Core 5 211E; 6 p-cores @ 4.9/2.7ghz; 4 e-cores @ 3.7/2.0ghz; 24 igpu eus; 65w
Core 3 201E; 4 p-core 4.8/3.6; 24 igpu eus; 60w

None of these are available as individual units to my knowledge, but OEMs are selling package deals.

Bartlett Lake S cores in COM-HPC Client C modules

Congatec has added Intel Core S (Bartlett Lake S) processors to its 120 x 160mm COM-HPC Client Size C modules. "Conga-HPC/cBLS has been specially

www.electronicsweekly.com

So rumours of a pure p-core only version are false? Oh man, what a bummer!

 

[Dr. Dro]

So rumours of a pure p-core only version are false? Oh man, what a bummer!

IIRC, it was supposed to be split in 2 types, a rebrand of Raptor Lake-S available at the Core 7 level and below, in addition to a Core 5 8 P-core, Core 7 10 P-core and Core 9 12 P-core model. I suppose there is still a way to go but this is telling me Intel does not intend to sell this chip to consumer channel regardless...

 

[AusWolf]

IIRC, it was supposed to be split in 2 types, a rebrand of Raptor Lake-S available at the Core 7 level and below, in addition to a Core 5 8 P-core, Core 7 10 P-core and Core 9 12 P-core model. I suppose there is still a way to go but this is telling me Intel does not intend to sell this chip to consumer channel regardless...

That would be a shame. It's the first Intel CPU I got excited about since Comet/Rocket Lake.

 

[JustBenching]

That would be a shame. It's the first Intel CPU I got excited about since Comet/Rocket Lake.

But why? I think Intel's innovation (if you wanna call it that) are ecores, if someone wants a pure pcore chip, amd has them. Sure it wouldn't be bad if both vendors had the option, but being excited over it? Oh well.

 

[AusWolf]

But why? I think Intel's innovation (if you wanna call it that) are ecores, if someone wants a pure pcore chip, amd has them. Sure it wouldn't be bad if both vendors had the option, but being excited over it? Oh well.

I'm not a fan of software scheduling, especially if it needs / works better on Windows 11. I'm not a fan of Windows 11.

Also, e-cores aren't really power-efficient, only die area-efficient, so it doesn't matter to me that a CPU has 24-32 cores if it consumes 300+ W on full blast. I'd rather have 8-12 bigger and more powerful cores that consume less.

This is why I'm on AMD now (and that's why I don't like AMD's dual CCD X3D chips, either), but I'm not averse to going back to Intel in the future if they offer something that suits me. It looks like that's not their intention, after all.

 

[JustBenching]

I'm not a fan of software scheduling, especially if it needs / works better on Windows 11. I'm not a fan of Windows 11.

Also, e-cores aren't really power-efficient, only die area-efficient, so it doesn't matter to me that a CPU has 24-32 cores if it consumes 300+ W on full blast. I'd rather have 8-12 bigger and more powerful cores that consume less.

This is why I'm on AMD now (and that's why I don't like AMD's dual CCD X3D chips, either), but I'm not averse to going back to Intel in the future if they offer something that suits me. It looks like that's not their intention, after all.

Ecores are complicated. Yes they are not more power efficient 1:1, but the 1:1 comparison is also flawed. Since you can fit ~4 of them into the same space, they are in fact more efficient. A CPU consuming 300-400-500-500000 watts is a choice. A choice of the manafacturer of said CPU, and the end user who has the option to limit it to whatever power they want. Like sure the 9800x 3d is leaping to 160w but you know, I just limited that thing and it's fine.

 

[AusWolf]

Ecores are complicated. Yes they are not more power efficient 1:1, but the 1:1 comparison is also flawed. Since you can fit ~4 of them into the same space, they are in fact more efficient. A CPU consuming 300-400-500-500000 watts is a choice. A choice of the manafacturer of said CPU, and the end user who has the option to limit it to whatever power they want. Like sure the 9800x 3d is leaping to 160w but you know, I just limited that thing and it's fine.

Sure, you can limit it, that is not my main problem anyway, just a minor thing. My main problem is that it's either Windows 11 with Thread Director, or you get less performance and maybe some scheduling issues as well (tasks being sent to the wrong core type).

Speaking of the 9800X3D, I wasn't really happy with AMD's choice to let it consume twice as much as the 7800X3D does, although placing the cores on top of the cache helps with heat dissipation a bit (I only care about power because of its relation to heat).

 

[JustBenching]

Sure, you can limit it, that is not my main problem anyway, just a minor thing. My main problem is that it's either Windows 11 with Thread Director, or you get less performance and maybe some scheduling issues as well (tasks being sent to the wrong core type).

Speaking of the 9800X3D, I wasn't really happy with AMD's choice to let it consume twice as much as the 7800X3D does, although placing the cores on top of the cache helps with heat dissipation a bit (I only care about power because of its relation to heat).

It's really not bad. Don't know about amds scheduling issues, but I assume it's not bad there either. Realistically with any of these CPUs, you'll be gpu bottlenecked even with a 4090 regardless of what the scheduler decides to do.

Been doing a lot of testing thanks to capframe x which allows to change the scheduling with literally the press of a button, the last year the only game that didn't work properly out of the box was that Warhammer multiplayer game, which was a lot slower when it was allowed access to all cores.

 

[AusWolf]

It's really not bad. Don't know about amds scheduling issues, but I assume it's not bad there either. Realistically with any of these CPUs, you'll be gpu bottlenecked even with a 4090 regardless of what the scheduler decides to do.

That's a good point. Still, I'd rather keep it simple with my PC if I can. No software scheduler, no third-party GPU tuning program, no RGB controller, my fan curve is strictly in the BIOS, and so on. Even for games, I only have Steam and Heroic Launcher installed which is more than enough. If Steam could manage all my non-Steam games as well, I'd do that.

Have I mentioned that I love the concept of plug-and-play? (I know, I'm not your typical PC enthusiast)

 

[docnorth]

Still labeled as an Edge product... but sincerely hope they release it on LGA 1700, hopefully with CUDIMM support on high end Z790 motherboards

I don't think they will add support for CUDIMMs on LGA1700, but indeed it would be nice and very interesting.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Intel's whole lineup is so hella confusing

I don't find AMD's any less. I ran out of fingers and toes long back, but, unless I miscounted, there are 99 AMD processors on this (supposedly) list of "current" AMD processors.

This list shows 39 from 2024 alone but note many from 2023 and 2022 are still available and some are even still production.

I am NOT suggesting one is better (or worse) than the other. I am saying it is easier to keep up on and track stats on all the players in the NFL.

 

[fry]

IIRC, it was supposed to be split in 2 types, a rebrand of Raptor Lake-S available at the Core 7 level and below, in addition to a Core 5 8 P-core, Core 7 10 P-core and Core 9 12 P-core model. I suppose there is still a way to go but this is telling me Intel does not intend to sell this chip to consumer channel regardless...

Yeah. The P-core only models were expected Q3 this year. The fact that the Raptor Lake rebranded models came to market is promising, at least, for the existence of the P-core only models. But you're right, it seems like the P-core CPUs wouldn't be targeted at or accessible to consumers.

I am curious as to whether they'll be Lion Cove or Raptor Cove, though. If there are 8-12 P-core Lion Cove CPUs being produced, I can definitely see someone in the edge computing industry reselling them retail, as the chips would probably be stronger in gaming than Raptor or Arrow Lake.

 

[AusWolf]

I don't find AMD's any less. I ran out of fingers and toes long back, but, unless I miscounted, there are 99 AMD processors on this (supposedly) list of "current" AMD processors.

This list shows 39 from 2024 alone but note many from 2023 and 2022 are still available and some are even still production.

I am NOT suggesting one is better (or worse) than the other. I am saying it is easier to keep up on and track stats on all the players in the NFL.

To me, AMD is a million times easier to keep track of. They only release one architecture with one codename every year or two years, and that's it. There are no side projects for laptops, ultrathins, etc. And the codename is easier to follow with a number in it - you know that Zen 4 follows Zen 3. With Intel, you never know which Lake follows which one, or if it's not just a side project of sorts.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, either, just that I personally find AMD's numbers easier to follow.

 

[Bill_Bright]

True but even with AMD, it is not something a person new to the game can simply pickup and understand what's out there, what's similar, what's different about it, or more importantly (IMO) what are the competing products.

With cars for example, even when there are little to no changes from this year to the next, we still know a 2025 Toyota RAV4 is a newer model than a 2024 RAV4 and we know the Honda CRV is its closest rival. Even in other electronics, TVs for example, at least with the major players, you can go by year. Same with cell phones.

IMO, both AMD and Intel could cover all the notebook, PC, and server scenarios with 15 CPUs each (probably even less). I fully believe, if they concentrated their manufacturing and logistical resources into fewer options, that would significantly reduce their costs which then could (and should) reduce consumer costs. Motherboard makers, could, in turn, concentrate all their efforts and resources into few options. Same with the Dell, HP, etc.

Also when a company can concentrate on producing fewer items, they have the opportunity to ensure higher quality across the entire line of products. That reduces RMA costs and produces happy, returning customers.

Oh well. Moving on.

 

[AusWolf]

True but even with AMD, it is not something a person new to the game can simply pickup and understand what's out there, what's similar, what's different about it, or more importantly (IMO) what are the competing products.

Imo, AMD's big problem is actual product naming. We know that the Ryzen 8000 series isn't necessarily better than the 7000, just different (because it's the same generation of cores) but regular Joes may not.

Intel's problem is that they have too many things, too many Lakes, too many different architectures for different scenarios. It's hard to follow, even for me.

With cars for example, even when there are little to no changes from this year to the next, we still know a 2025 Toyota RAV4 is a newer model than a 2024 RAV4 and we know the Honda CRV is its closest rival. Even in other electronics, TVs for example, at least with the major players, you can go by year. Same with cell phones.

Newer, but not necessarily better. The 2012-2016 Ford Fiesta has a 4-cylinder engine with a dry belt that has to be changed roughly every 80k miles. The 2017- Ford Fiesta has a 3-cylinder engine with a wet belt (it's lubricated by the engine oil) that has to be changed every 40-50k miles. That's why I have a 2016 model and I intend to keep it until it rots away under me. But this is a different story.

IMO, both AMD and Intel could cover all the notebook, PC, and server scenarios with 15 CPUs each (probably even less). I fully believe, if they concentrated their manufacturing and logistical resources into fewer options, that would significantly reduce their costs which then could (and should) reduce consumer costs. Motherboard makers, could, in turn, concentrate all their efforts and resources into few options. Same with the Dell, HP, etc.

Also when a company can concentrate on producing fewer items, they have the opportunity to ensure higher quality across the entire line of products. That reduces RMA costs and produces happy, returning customers.

I totally agree!

 

[Ruru]

I don't find AMD's any less. I ran out of fingers and toes long back, but, unless I miscounted, there are 99 AMD processors on this (supposedly) list of "current" AMD processors.

This list shows 39 from 2024 alone but note many from 2023 and 2022 are still available and some are even still production.

I am NOT suggesting one is better (or worse) than the other. I am saying it is easier to keep up on and track stats on all the players in the NFL.

The mobile lineup is hella confusing on AMD's side as well, gotta admit that. If I'd be buying a new laptop, I would need to do some researching of what I'd be actually getting