Tom's editorial on Arrow lake "big gains in productivity and power efficiency, but not in gaming"

[dirtyferret]

not so great

Intel Launches Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200S — big gains in productivity and power efficiency, but not in gaming

Gaming looks to be a letdown.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Vincero]

not so great

Intel Launches Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200S — big gains in productivity and power efficiency, but not in gaming

Gaming looks to be a letdown.

www.tomshardware.com

Maybe not for headline gaming peak performance numbers, but both AMD and Intel have often had 'best band for buck' gaming products that sit in the middle of the product stack, e.g. Ryzen 5600X or i5-12600K, where anything beyond that point is diminishing returns (usually because the increased power use / TDP starts imposing performance limiting or the base platform not being able to exploit the extra core bandwidth).

I'm expecting the Arrow Lake platform to move that performance point forward for gamers, so not a massive waste of time in that sense - primarily because the IPC/IPS vs TDP is going to be a lot better thus not butting up against those limits quite as soon. Effectively, more cores maybe maintaining a better frequency for less power use/wastage means that average baseline gaming performance will be higher.

So basically, outside of the X3D chips, and the 14900K's, etc., this might make Intel more of a mid-low end default gamers choice.

 

[dirtyferret]

this might make Intel more of a mid-low end default gamers choice.

I'm hoping for great value. I cheer on both sides, competitive markets equal lower prices ( as long as they are not in collusion)

 

[Vincero]

I'm hoping for great value. I cheer on both sides, competitive markets equal lower prices ( as long as they are not in collusion)

Maybe... I expect AM5 price reductions if overlapping product segment performance favours Intel and they have chosen similar/matching/slightly lower MSRPs...

 

[R0H1T]

Not too much, as long as they're selling AM4 chips!

 

[Vincero]

Not too much, as long as they're selling AM4 chips!

There's still time for a 'new' AM4 product launch...

 

[Bobaganoosh]

My only question at this point on 285K is does it overclock? The 14th gen was pegged out already and had huge power draws by default, so the fact that they've dropped the power draw (and temps) may mean that there's some headroom there?

I also noticed that the 14900k was tested in gaming benchmarks in baseline performance mode (which is a 125W-PL1, 188W-PL2 limited profile?) even though their own table they published for "Intel Recommendations: 'Intel Default Settings'" says "Intel recommends using the 'Extreme' Power Delivery Profile if supported by the voltage regulator and motherboard design", which would actually be the 253W-limit for 14900k. It even says "Intel does not recommend Baseline power delivery profiles for 13th and 14th Gen K Sku processors unless required for compatibility".

Maybe I'm missing something, but that certainly seems pretty shady...it may explain why the 14900k numbers they posted are lower than the review numbers for it.
Edit: Digging through https://edc.intel.com/content/www/u...marks/intel-core-ultra-processors-series-2_1/, it looks like they set the 14900k at PL1=PL2=253W for their benchmark tests and the 285K was at 250W...but they did their power efficiency tests with the 285K set at 125W and the 14900k at 253W lol

 

[R0H1T]

but they did their power efficiency tests with the 285K set at 125W and the 14900k at 253W lol

Still surprised, by Intel

 

[Vincero]

@R0H1T , this and many other things hopefully will be covered when reviewed - especially if @W1zzard (or whoever reviews it) does the normal efficiency charts.

With Raptor Lake performance scaled pretty poorly as PL was raised upto and past 200W - it may still be a similar story for Arrow Lake in terms of being in the 200W zone, however potentially they may have better scaling from the 100-150W power window compared to Raptor Lake (which locked to lower <95W power limits was actually pretty efficient especially considering Intel 7/10nm process - which is why in terms of bang for buck the Core i3 Alder/Raptor lake CPUs were not pure trash).

 

[Steevo]

They can call a silicon Interposer whatever they like but AMD did it first....

 

[Vincero]

They can call a silicon Interposer whatever they like but AMD did it first....

You're comparing the foveros to AMD chiplet or HBM or something else?

 

[Steevo]

My only question at this point on 285K is does it overclock? The 14th gen was pegged out already and had huge power draws by default, so the fact that they've dropped the power draw (and temps) may mean that there's some headroom there?

I also noticed that the 14900k was tested in gaming benchmarks in baseline performance mode (which is a 125W-PL1, 188W-PL2 limited profile?) even though their own table they published for "Intel Recommendations: 'Intel Default Settings'" says "Intel recommends using the 'Extreme' Power Delivery Profile if supported by the voltage regulator and motherboard design", which would actually be the 253W-limit for 14900k. It even says "Intel does not recommend Baseline power delivery profiles for 13th and 14th Gen K Sku processors unless required for compatibility".
View attachment 366971

Maybe I'm missing something, but that certainly seems pretty shady...it may explain why the 14900k numbers they posted are lower than the review numbers for it.
Edit: Digging through https://edc.intel.com/content/www/u...marks/intel-core-ultra-processors-series-2_1/, it looks like they set the 14900k at PL1=PL2=253W for their benchmark tests and the 285K was at 250W...but they did their power efficiency tests with the 285K set at 125W and the 14900k at 253W lol

Just like AMD it's node process limited. The thermal density they have a upper hand with a thinner IHS I'm sure. Putting Ecores between P cores to further enhance Delta was a good move too.

 

[Onasi]

Honestly, probably a good trade off for the majority of the market. Gaming performance is really relevant to a very small portion of the market, most people will be GPU limited and I don’t think that many are going to see the 600 to 700 FPS increase in their CS matches. Just a hunch. Better MT performance and energy efficiency are universally useful though.

 

[Steevo]

You're comparing the foveros to AMD chiplet or something else?

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-56/images/memory.jpg

2017 AMD was using a silicon interposer.

As much hate/dislike/distain anyone may have they did a LOT first and have moved the needle for consumers.
Here are their firsts.

Tessellation
GPU compute
X64
Chiplet
Interposer
3D stacking
HBM
SSD on GPU
HDR


Intel was the pioneer of HT/SMT. They have made huge advances in paying off companies in monopolistic practices and been fined a pittance for trying to eliminate competitive companies. Nvidia has a great PR and spin team and a lot of money.