• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Bartlett Lake LGA1700 Q3 2025

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
25,981
https://wccftech.com/intel-bartlett...nch-2025-up-to-8-16-hybrid-12-p-core-flavors/


https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/12-core-gaming-cpu


intel-12-core-bartlett-lake-s-presentation-leak.jpg


GSiLV5AXcAEeRud.jpeg


Looks like this is happening might good bandaid for previous LGA1700 chips.
 
Last edited:
wandplus said:
The i5 would be cool.
Click to expand...
That won't exist. It's a Core 5 now. Or maybe a Core 5 "non-ultra" to differentiate it from a Core Ultra 5, like we had to do with NV cards back in the early 2000s to keep people from getting confused. Oh, crap, I just realized Intel has created non-nons. Along with the new "non-ultra" we still have to deal with "non-K" occasionally, and they're going to stack. So we'll have Core 5 non-ultra non-k once in a while.

I don't see these amounting to much for gaming unless Intel can price them aggressively. I can't see them beating AMD X3D unless the ADL/RPL die bit is BS and they're making serious changes like a die shrink to Intel 3 & maybe switch to LGA 1851. OTOH Intel can keep up in gaming if you limit what you're looking at stuff that's cheaper than X3D. So basically I think these things could be well received if they're cheap enough, especially if they can price the Core 5 like the i5-14600K. $200 for 8 p-cores.
 
Comixbooks said:
https://videocardz.com/newz/core-5-120-cpus-for-lga-1700-socket-listed-starting-from-216


New Chips but slower I5 but they are LGA 1700 and Alder Lake maybe they will have some I7s down the road.
Click to expand...
Literally posted the day after I ordered an Intel i5-12400.

Nah, just kidding. I decided I was going to order the 12400 anyway because I had already purchased a Gigabyte B760M-DS3H motherboard and 32GB Kingston RAM. I did it because I'm not ready to embrace hybrid CPUs yet. In any case, I guess I'm really paying for it terms of bias because I saw the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 is only $110 Canadian at newegg.ca So I ended up paying like $80 more for perceived desktop snappiness. (I had a $5 coupon which reduced the $195 price.)
EDIT: There is another link to this news (odd pricing though, more expensive for now)
https://www.techpowerup.com/339573/intel-core-5-120-and-120f-6-core-lga1700-processors-priced
EDIT: I made a mistake, the 5500 has no onboard graphics. So, maybe I paid $30 more than the 5500 GT which is not bad.
 
Last edited:
I like E-cores.
Eg. when I install a game via Steam it populates my E-cores but my P-cores are free to do my user stuff, so my system doesn't slow down or feels sluggish.
Picture is me doing a game download and install under Steam.
Top is 8 P-cores with HT for 16 threads bottom is 16 E-cores for 16 threads.
1757242849221.png


Games like CyberPunk also differentiate between cores so I would like to see actual benchmarks before popping any champagne.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
I like E-cores.
Eg. when I install a game via Steam it populates my E-cores but my P-cores are free to do my user stuff, so my system doesn't slow down or feels sluggish.
Picture is me doing a game download and install under Steam.
Top is 8 P-cores with HT for 16 threads bottom is 16 E-cores for 16 threads.
View attachment 752576

Games like CyberPunk also differentiate between cores so I would like to see actual benchmarks before popping any champagne.
Click to expand...
I'll never believe in the point of ecores as a gamer. Just give me 16 or 20 real pcores and it's going to use as much power as needed to complete whatever task it is. If it's not as computationally demanding the pcores should just use some of it's power. The difference is savings isn't worth all the scheduleing ups and downs probably affecting latency for games. If all my cores were pcores yea the power would go up but I don't mind. I'd just cool it aggressively. A lot of enthusiasts like me would love all pcores chips.
 
xDiVolatilX said:
I'll never believe in the point of ecores as a gamer. Just give me 16 or 20 real pcores and it's going to use as much power as needed to complete whatever task it is. If it's not as computationally demanding the pcores should just use some of it's power. The difference is savings isn't worth all the scheduleing ups and downs probably affecting latency for games. If all my cores were pcores yea the power would go up but I don't mind. I'd just cool it aggressively. A lot of enthusiasts like me would love all pcores chips.
Click to expand...
Benchmarks will show if your assement is correct or not.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Benchmarks will show if your assement is correct or not.
Click to expand...
It'll be hit and miss.

As long as the threads end up on the right cores what you really want for a game is a small number of stupid fast cores plus enough more cores to handle all the not so performance critical threads. Of course that's the problem - lots of games don't do any sort of thread management at all and just leave it up to the OS to figure it out. Then the OS gets it wrong sometimes.

Games generally just have a few hot threads. Main graphics thread, main game thread, maybe a couple others. If you could swap 8 p-cores for 4 that clocked significantly higher and kept all the e-cores on a 14th gen i7 or i9 it would be worth the trade as long as the game had appropriate optimizations for a hybrid CPU. I've pinned plenty of threads at work over the years. It's easy and there's a Windows API that tells you if a core/thread is a p-core or e-core. Well, sort of. It just gives you a number that tells your program which cores are faster. At any rate you just call that API, loop over the results to make a list of the fastest cores, and set affinity on your hot threads to only run on those cores.

As long as big-little sticks around it'll become less and less of an issue, especially if this leak/rumor is true and an upcoming console will have 3 full size Zen 6 cores and 8 compact cores. As e-cores improve it'll turn into "don't care" for older games because even an e-core is plenty fast to run it, and the newer ones will hopefully stop being stupid. Any game that came out a decent amount of time after Alder Lake that doesn't have e-core optimizations is stupidly implemented IMHO, primarily because it's just so easy to do.

Another thing that'll be interesting about a 12 p-core chip is seeing what happens if you turn HT off. A while ago I watched this video where they compared 40 games with HT & e-cores on or off. I think this is it. All 4 combinations had games that like it the best, and overall the e-cores enabled settings had the best overall average. I tried a few of the games that liked HT on & e-cores off on my i9-10980XE rig, so 18 cores on a monolithic die. All of them ran better with HT disabled. It'll probably still be hit and miss on running better without HT with just 12 threads, but I wouldn't expect as many train wrecks as 8 threads gets you. The 9600X in my portable rig seems to do fine with SMT on & 12 threads so 12 p-cores with HT/SMT off might actually be workable. Maybe not worth it for general gaming, but could work if you play a lot of e-sports stuff. Even if 12 p-core Intel Bartlet Lake-S chips never come out we'll probably find out when Zen 6 comes out.
 
That looks like some New leaks but if the CPU ever comes out for the consumer level. I don't even think I would upgrade unless the performance jump was really good.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting because more and more games are using more threads as time goes on. So more PCores could scale better with newer games. Very interested to see if just dropping this into my system would be worth while buying another 3 years of longevity perhaps. Says Q3 of 2025 but no other leaks?
 
xDiVolatilX said:
It's interesting because more and more games are using more threads as time goes on. So more PCores could scale better with newer games. Very interested to see if just dropping this into my system would be worth while buying another 3 years of longevity perhaps. Says Q3 of 2025 but no other leaks?
Click to expand...
The caveat there is more and more games are being properly optimized to deal with e-cores, compact cores (AMD laptop chips) and dual CCDs. It's not hard to do. I write code for a living and we do stuff like this at work all the time. You don't need a bunch of p-cores to run a game. Usually they only have a handful of hot threads. The rest are just getting work done can be shoved off onto an e-core, compact core or the other CCD in a Ryzen 9. The problem is if the game devs don't handle it the OS and hardware have to figure out what goes where, so games that aren't e-core or multi-CCD aware can get messed up. My point here is that it'll likely help less with new AAA stuff than with older titles.
 
I hope so yet if its not a furnace chip it would be a good time to release this chip in a DDR3 climate.
 
xDiVolatilX said:
Wait so it's single core performance is worse than a 14400 and 14500?
Click to expand...
Passmark's scores aren't really meaningful until there a good number of samples for a given processor, and to their credit they say that score has a high margin of error.
I'd expect this to perform just like a RPL at the same frequency, but even better at OC'ing since they dumped the e-cores weighing everything down.
 
twin_savage said:
Passmark's scores aren't really meaningful until there a good number of samples for a given processor, and to their credit they say that score has a high margin of error.
I'd expect this to perform just like a RPL at the same frequency, but even better at OC'ing since they dumped the e-cores weighing everything down.
Click to expand...
But last I heard this is going to be a locked processor non-k series
 
xDiVolatilX said:
But last I heard this is going to be a locked processor non-k series
Click to expand...
oooh, this is going to be a missed opportunity if true (which kind of makes sense since it's embedded).
I'm trying to think of the last embedded Intel CPU that was unlocked, I know there use to be some.
 
Barlett Lake will be another Intel's failure.
Here because given current memory prices there is an actual need for DDR4 platform which people could upgrade to.
The LGA1700 is a good DDR4 platform with or without Barlett Lake but releasing new consumer CPUs and with interesting more futureproofing characteristics it would bring attention to this platform and the idea of using LGA1700 for its DDR4 capabilities.
Many reviewers would not miss the obvious here.

But yeah, Intel even if they made the bloody thing won't release it as actual product for people and it will likely remain locked curiosity.

Is it me or does Intel management use this "decision making process"?
1768923418649.png
 
XoR_ said:
Barlett Lake will be another Intel's failure.
Here because given current memory prices there is an actual need for DDR4 platform which people could upgrade to.
The LGA1700 is a good DDR4 platform with or without Barlett Lake but releasing new consumer CPUs and with interesting more futureproofing characteristics it would bring attention to this platform and the idea of using LGA1700 for its DDR4 capabilities.
Many reviewers would not miss the obvious here.

But yeah, Intel even if they made the bloody thing won't release it as actual product for people and it will likely remain locked curiosity.

Is it me or does Intel management use this "decision making process"?
View attachment 780313
Click to expand...
Releasing new CPU using a DDR4 platform is not the answer. It will more then likely kneecap upcoming CPUs from both AMD and Intel. Not to menton DDR4 been steadily rising in price also. All the major ram chip manufacturers been phasing out DDR production for more DDR5. Spinning up DDR4 platforms is not the saving grace you people seem to think it will be.
 
vegeta535 said:
Releasing new CPU using a DDR4 platform is not the answer. It will more then likely kneecap upcoming CPUs from both AMD and Intel. Not to menton DDR4 been steadily rising in price also. All the major ram chip manufacturers been phasing out DDR production for more DDR5. Spinning up DDR4 platforms is not the saving grace you people seem to think it will be.
Click to expand...
New CPUs for DDR4 platform would be the answer to anyone stuck on DDR4 who missed the upgrade.
As it is memory prices are crazy high and nothing indicates the situation will change anytime soon.

That said I would sooner expect AMD to release another AM4 CPU than Intel make anything interesting.
Barlett Lake could be something which is mildly interesting but Intel won't make it in to interresting product. Heck, so far nothing indicates this will be a product that anyone will be able to buy.
 
XoR_ said:
New CPUs for DDR4 platform would be the answer to anyone stuck on DDR4 who missed the upgrade.
As it is memory prices are crazy high and nothing indicates the situation will change anytime soon.

That said I would sooner expect AMD to release another AM4 CPU than Intel make anything interesting.
Barlett Lake could be something which is mildly interesting but Intel won't make it in to interresting product. Heck, so far nothing indicates this will be a product that anyone will be able to buy.
Click to expand...
Upgrades for people with DDR4 rigs is where it makes sense. The most logical move in that space is for mainboard vendors to just make more DDR4 LGA1700 boards. The CPUs are still in production and the chipset is the same as the DDR5 version, so it's just more of a PCB they already make for B760.

It's also possible AMD could order up another batch of AM4 X3D chips. That may depend on whether the related EPYC X3D CPUs are still being made. I'd have to dig into that. Other than that I figure the most likely restart is DDR4 Z790 boards. Again, same chipset, so a mainboard maker can probably just do it if they see a market and still have the tooling.

I don't see anything that's really new coming out using DDR4 ram. Rehash of what we've already seen with a different model number sure, but nothing really new. So no DDR4 Arrow Lake or Zen 5. AM4 chip with a different model number? Sure, why not. Or maybe a new variation of an Intel LGA 1700 DDR4 board using the same PCB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XoR_
like this
it is niche, use for more than 8 p-core while no use for large e-cores count, some networking/industrial/real time application that require very constant and pre-known performance must love having all the core on the same L2 cache and simple scheduling, and love more cores.

AVX-512 could be simpler with a single type of core going on has well, for regular customer desktop maybe there is little point to them (at least until 10-12 p-core in games become a big deal)
 
For those looking for a budget machine (if that will exist with RAM/SSD prices), I found there's going to be a Core 3 201E CPU. It's 4 cores, 8 threads, 4.8GHz with a 12MB cache.
 
wandplus said:
For those looking for a budget machine (if that will exist with RAM/SSD prices), I found there's going to be a Core 3 201E CPU. It's 4 cores, 8 threads, 4.8GHz with a 12MB cache.
Click to expand...
So, an Intel 14100 reboot?
 
DogsofJune said:
So, an Intel 14100 reboot?
Click to expand...
Same cpu its seem but with more fancy remote control enabled for their embedded use case, absent from regular desktop 14100:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-12m-cache-up-to-4-80-ghz/specifications.html
Intel® Active Management Technology (AMT) ‡
Yes
Intel® Remote Platform Erase (RPE) ‡
Yes
Intel® One-Click Recovery ‡
Yes
Intel® Secure Key
Yes

both should be same price, maybe lower boost clock on the 201E has well..

I think the 201E has been out for a while now,
 
Last edited:
Looking at DDR5 vs DDR4 prices I wonder how much money Intel is loosing on not releasing these CPUs as standalone upgrade/side grade products and not advertising as solution to memory price crisis.
If I was buying PC right now the only sensible options would be either LGA1700 with DDR4 or AM4.
12 P-core Barlett Lake in especially K variant along with DDR4 would be an amazing option for new PC.

Especially since Intel has all this 10nm capacity in their fabs which they don't utilize and especially given a lot of users are looking to get away from RPL and its degrading silocon issues. New replacement CPU and especially well priced would sell like hot cakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top