Arrow Lake 2024 (and beyond)

How do we know these chips will not overlock to 6GHz? Is CPU overclocking basically moot now because of automatic boosting?
 
Blackstone said:
How do we know these chips will not overlock to 6GHz? Is CPU overclocking basically moot now because of automatic boosting?
Click to expand...

If we're talking about what can be achieved on your typical AIO coolers then Intel has been pushing the out of the box performance to the limits for a while now. I expect 5.7Ghz to be the upper limit of what can be achieved with traditional coolers but obviously if you're going to go exotic then of course you can probably push it higher. But if the CPU is going to run at 100C stock and throttle then there's kind of no point to overclocking, in fact I think what people have been doing with Raptor Lake is actually undervolting rather than overclocking.
 
https://wccftech.com/intel-core-ult...core-i9-14900ks-ryzen-9-9950x-benchmark-leak/

It's only one benchmark of course so it doesn't tell the full story, but so far it's only 8% faster in ST vs a 14900KS. A lower single core gain was to be expected since it's running 500Mhz slower vs Raptor Lake, I'm just wondering if it's going to end up not being much faster than a 14900KS/7800X3D in gaming. Zen 5 disappointment was enough already, hoping for ARL to be something worthwhile.
 
MistaSparkul said:
It's only one benchmark of course so it doesn't tell the full story, but so far it's only 8% faster in ST vs a 14900KS.
Click to expand...
That would be 11-12% faster than the more common 14900k ?

If 11-12% faster at geekbench transfer into 5% faster in gaming (using the 14900k-13900k geekbench-game performance gain ratio here which could be all wrong if the cpu are different), should make it faster than the 7800x3d, if those numbers are under a serious cut in power consumption, that could be an ok target for them.

You want the final one a bit better than those ES, but performance wise not sure if they need much more than that (maybe the mental bar for Intel became too low in my mind, but no technical issues and power under control would seem to be a win, anything performance wise as long that it is above zen5 could look as if it is enough to be an win for Intel.... if the platform and price are solid)
 
Last edited:
So if Arrow Lake is more efficient, does that mean the Ultra 9 will be easier to cool than 4900K? I prefer to use a big tower air cooler.
 
Is there any indication they might launch an i9 with more than 8 performance cores anytime soon? Or is that nowhere on the horizon.
 
Blackstone said:
Is there any indication they might launch an i9 with more than 8 performance cores anytime soon? Or is that nowhere on the horizon.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anything about that for Arrow Lake (Core Ultra 200), but there's speculation/leaks about Core 200 (not Core Ultra) being something called Bartlett Lake, another Raptor Lake refresh on Socket 1700, having up to 12 P-cores and no E-cores on some models. There's a thread on it: https://hardforum.com/threads/rumor...nly-lga1700-rpl-refresh-refresh-25q1.2035921/
 
Maybe your prayers will be answered with the new Arrow Lake CPUs. They say they're not affected by the same crashing issues as the 13th/14th gen.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...ity-issue-only-impacts-13th-and-14th-gen-cpus
EDIT: I found a link to the unaffected CPUs...
Intel confirms these currently available processors are not affected by the Vmin Shift Instability issue:
  • 12th Gen Intel Core desktop and mobile processors
  • Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen i5 (non-K) & i3 desktop processors
  • Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen mobile processors – including HX-series processors.
  • Intel Xeon processors – including server and workstation processors.
  • Intel Core Ultra (Series 1) processors
https://community.intel.com/t5/Proc...re-Products/m-p/1627440/highlight/true#M77071
 
Last edited:
Ii have a question. Core 288V Lunar Lake is for a laptops yes? Because i wanna buy 285K Core Ultra for desktop then?
 
Blackstone said:
Is there any indication they might launch an i9 with more than 8 performance cores anytime soon? Or is that nowhere on the horizon.
Click to expand...
According to SKU leaks, they max out at 8 p cores and 16 e cores. The sku leaks are recent enough and close enough to launch, they are likely true.
 
Once the Passmark bench for single thread comes out I can make a decision. Right now the 14900KS is on tops. Just need a Chinese leaker to run some benchmarks pre launch. The thing is my 13700k setup is stable it would just be risky to upgrade.

INTEL-CORE-7-265K-2-e1725434150746.jpg

265 vs: 13700k
 
Last edited:
Blackstone said:
5%? https://wccftech.com/intel-core-ult...pictured-5-percent-faster-benchmark-leak/amp/
Click to expand...

taht one seem slower than a 14700k in ST (5% is for MT)

If valid seem a slow ES:
This specific sample that leaked at Baidu Forums (via HXL) was a QS sample with B0 stepping and there is no word on what motherboard, power limits, or memory configuration it was running with. The CPU can be seen boosting to 5.2 GHz across the P-Cores and 4.6 GHz across the E-Cores.

Final model should reach at least 5.5 according to sku leak

https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Intel-Core-Ultra-7-265K-Arrow-Lake-CPU-_1.jpeg
 
Blackstone said:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...row-lake-goes-with-external-nodes-likely-tsmc
Click to expand...
Now that's some news. I've seen leaks/rumors about Arrow Lake being TSMC or a mix of TSMC and Intel 20A, so it's not surprising. The more believable "both" leaks were the first batch (aka the "K" chips) being TSMC and Intel 20A for much of the rest of the lineup coming next year. This also makes it seem very, very likely that the leaked/rumored Arrow Lake refresh will be shifting over to Intel 18A.

If that's how things are going I expect that Bartlett Lake leak is true and there will be another refresh of Raptor Lake on Intel 7 for desktops marketed as "Core" rather than "Core Ultra". Maybe we'll even get those 12 P-core chips. Intel will want to keep as much on their own processes as they can, so I expect we'll see them competing on price with the "Core" models and building them themselves. I bet we'll also get a Meteor Lake refresh on Intel 4 or Intel 3 for laptops.
 
Arrow Lake brought to you by TSMC - least surprising announcement ever.
 
zandor said:
I've seen leaks/rumors about Arrow Lake being TSMC or a mix of TSMC and Intel 20A, so it's not surprising
Click to expand...
One big clue was... what would have been the reason for Intel to not tell people that 20A was working if it was.... Not saying that close to launch that it was on TSMC because thats embarassing and sound really bad for Intel shift toward a foundry competitor to TSMC is an obvious reason to hide they went with them.... but the other way around, why make it a mysterie and not an big ads for your business ?
 
Comixbooks said:
Once the Passmark bench for single thread comes out I can make a decision. Right now the 14900KS is on tops. Just need a Chinese leaker to run some benchmarks pre launch. The thing is my 13790k setup is stable it would just be risky to upgrade.

View attachment 677340

265 vs: 13700k
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's tested on Intel default RAM speeds (5600MHz?)

I find CPU-Z pretty sensitive to RAM timings. My stock 13700K scores about 830, but if I just tighten my DDR5-6000 TREFI timings from stock XMP and without changing the CPU clockspeed at all, my single core score goes up to 890.
 
So apparently ram speed might hit 9000MHz on some boards?! That is nuts. Probably useless but nice to have that for future upgrades.

Also, is there any way to know if the 16 Skymont E Cores on the Ultra 9, if any particular Skymont core is faster than the cores on my 8700K. I guess what I am asking is, are the efficiency cores faster than my current "performance" cores on my outdated 8700K. I am just trying to get a sense of what the improvement might be. Clearly I am going from six outdated cores (12 threads with HT) to 8 much faster cores, but are the individual efficiency cores also faster as well? I'm just kind of out of the loop on how the new architectures work.
 
Blackstone said:
Also, is there any way to know if the 16 Skymont E Cores on the Ultra 9, if any particular Skymont core is faster than the cores on my 8700K. I guess what I am asking is, are the efficiency cores faster than my current "performance" cores on my outdated 8700K. I am just trying to get a sense of what the improvement might be. Clearly I am going from six outdated cores (12 threads with HT) to 8 much faster cores, but are the individual efficiency cores also faster as well? I'm just kind of out of the loop on how the new architectures work.
Click to expand...
Gracemont (Alder/Raptor Lake) tests approximately on par with Skylake at the same clocks. It is reasonable to assume that Skymont being 2 generations newer will exceed that performance. By how much, we'll have to wait to find out. With Anandtech gone, hopefully someone will do a proper E-core only deep dive test. There's no question that whatever you get is going to outperform your 8700k.
 
Wow, Anandtech is gone! Did not know that. So who is going to be the authority with this kind of testing?

Actually, some of these sites have become sort of irrelvant for me since I have resigned myself for sometime that the best course is to just go for the absolute most beastly processor and GPU that one can afford at any given moment. It was more relevant when I was on a student budget. Also, overclocking seems less and less important. I kind of see how that happened.
 
Blackstone said:
Wow, Anandtech is gone! Did not know that. So who is going to be the authority with this kind of testing?

Actually, some of these sites have become sort of irrelvant for me since I have resigned myself for sometime that the best course is to just go for the absolute most beastly processor and GPU that one can afford at any given moment. It was more relevant when I was on a student budget. Also, overclocking seems less and less important. I kind of see how that happened.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Blackstone said:
Wow, Anandtech is gone! Did not know that. So who is going to be the authority with this kind of testing?

Actually, some of these sites have become sort of irrelvant for me since I have resigned myself for sometime that the best course is to just go for the absolute most beastly processor and GPU that one can afford at any given moment. It was more relevant when I was on a student budget. Also, overclocking seems less and less important. I kind of see how that happened.
Click to expand...
It's the [H] way! I'm hoping my finances will be back on top for TR9000 or the HEDT Xeon 6's.

I'm still hunting for a new place for the technical deep dives that would cover something like this myself, but maybe TechPowerup and Phoronix? So many of the sites and TechTubers are just high-level testing for games and standardized productivity/content creation because that's all they have staff, time, and customer focus for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top