Wednesday, July 24th 2024

CPU-Z Screenshot of Alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake" ES Surfaces, Confirms Intel 4 Process

A CPU-Z screenshot of an alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processor engineering sample is doing rounds on social media, thanks to wxnod. CPU-Z identifies the chip with an Intel Core Ultra case badge with the deep shade of blue associated with the Core Ultra 9 brand extension, which hints at this being the top Core Ultra 9 285K processor model, we know it's the "K" or "KF" SKU looking at its processor base power reading of 125 W. The chip is built in the upcoming Intel Socket LGA1851. CPU-Z displays the process node as 7 nm, which corresponds with the Intel 4 foundry node.

Intel is using the same Intel 4 foundry node for "Arrow Lake-S" as the compute tile of its "Meteor Lake" processor. Intel 4 offers power efficiency and performance comparable to 4 nm nodes from TSMC, although it is physically a 7 nm node. Likewise, the Intel 3 node is physically 5 nm. If you recall, the main logic tile of "Lunar Lake" is being built on the TSMC N3P (3 nm) node. This means that Intel is really gunning for performance/Watt with "Lunar Lake," to get as close to the Apple M3 Pro as possible.
"Arrow Lake" features the same "Lion Cove" P-cores and "Skymont" E-cores as "Lunar Lake," but connected differently. In "Lunar Lake," the P-core complex sits on its own tiny ringbus with an exclusive L3 cache; with the E-core clusters being separated into low-power islands. The two core types talk to each other over the chip's high bandwidth fabric. In "Arrow Lake," however, the "Lion Cove" P-cores and "Skymont" E-core clusters share a ringbus and L3 cache, like the two core types do on current "Raptor Lake" chips. Intel will innovate with the way the P-cores and E-core clusters are physically arranged along the ringbus, and you can read all about it in our older article.

Back to the CPU-Z screenshot, and we're shown a clock speed of 5.00 GHz. This is likely being read off the first "Lion Cove" P-core. The P-cores have 48 KB of L1 Data (L1D) and 64 KB of L1 Instructions (L1I) caches; while the E-cores have 32 KB of L1D and 64 KB of L1I caches. We've known since the "Lunar Lake" technical deep-dive from Intel's comments, that the "Lion Cove" P-cores on "Arrow Lake" will get 3 MB of dedicated L2 caches, compared to 2.5 MB per core on "Lunar Lake." Each of the four "Skymont" E-core clusters of "Arrow Lake" shares 4 MB of L2 cache among the four cores in the cluster.

The total L2 cache on "Arrow Lake-S" is 40 MB. This is from eight 3 MB caches from the P-cores, and four 4 MB caches from the E-core clusters (24 MB + 16 MB). We are now learning that the shared L3 cache size remains 36 MB on "Arrow Lake."

Since the "Lion Cove" P-cores lack HyperThreading, "Arrow Lake-S" is a 24-core/24-thread processor. The generational performance gain over the current Core i9-14900K will boil down to the ~14% IPC gain of "Lion Cove" over "Redwood Cove" (which in-turn was within 2% of "Raptor Cove"); and the massive 38-68% IPC improvement of the "Skymont" E-core over the "Crestmont" E-core (which in turn was +8% over "Gracemont.").

Intel is expected to debut the Core Ultra 200 series "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processors, and the LGA1851 platform led by the Intel Z890 chipset, around late-September or early-October, 2024.
Sources: wxnod (Twitter), HXL (Twitter)
Add your own comment

57 Comments on CPU-Z Screenshot of Alleged Intel Core Ultra 9 285K "Arrow Lake" ES Surfaces, Confirms Intel 4 Process

#1
fevgatos
Will these be out by the end of the year?
Posted on Reply
#2
dj-electric
fevgatosWill these be out by the end of the year?
If only there was some information about when these could possibly come out... somewhere :)
Intel is expected to debut the Core Ultra 200 series "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processors, and the LGA1851 platform led by the Intel Z890 chipset, around late-September or early-October, 2024.
Posted on Reply
#3
fevgatos
Sorry, still drinking coffee.
Posted on Reply
#4
AusWolf
So the maximum clock multiplier starts with 5, not 6. Does this mean that Intel has finally opted for safe speeds and voltages in this generation? If so, that's a big thumbs up from me, although I'm still miles more interested in Bartlett Lake than this chip.
Posted on Reply
#5
ARF
AusWolfSo the maximum clock multiplier starts with 5, not 6. Does this mean that Intel has finally opted for safe speeds and voltages in this generation?
Unless the IPC has been tremendously improved, there is no way this will compete with AMD's Ryzen 9950X with its 32 logical processors.
Posted on Reply
#6
fevgatos
AusWolfSo the maximum clock multiplier starts with 5, not 6. Does this mean that Intel has finally opted for safe speeds and voltages in this generation? If so, that's a big thumbs up from me, although I'm still miles more interested in Bartlett Lake than this chip.
I'd rather it started with a 6 and then users can tone it down a notch then it being at 5 and users having to oc it. Well "having", you don't have to do anything, im just saying it's easier to leash a chip then unleash it as an end user.
ARFUnless the IPC has been tremendously improved, there is no way this will compete with AMD's Ryzen 9950X with its 32 logical processors.
It doesn't need to. Originally the 13900k launched as a 7900x competitor, and it gave it a thorough spanking.

The stack according to both amd's and intel's naming scheme is i5 13600k vs R5 7600x , i7 13700k vs R7 7700x and i9 13900k vs r9 7900x. Those cpus launched at very similar (actually, besides the 900k, they were identical) MSRPs and names.

Now with the new naming schemes i'm kinda confused about what's what so we have to see
Posted on Reply
#7
ARF
fevgatosIt doesn't need to.
It needs to. Because intel is about to lose the performance crown.
fevgatosOriginally the 13900k launched as a 7900x competitor
Wrong. Core i9-13900K has launched as the Ryzen 9 7950X competitor, as was trading blows with it..
Posted on Reply
#8
fevgatos
ARFWrong. Core i9-13900K has launched as the Ryzen 9 7950X competitor, as was trading blows with it..
No, not really. From this very websites review


If the name (xx900x vs x900x) isn't enough to tell you what's competing with what, then just check the msrps. It's kinda obvious, no?
Posted on Reply
#9
ARF
fevgatosIf the name (xx900x vs x900x) isn't enough to tell you what's competing with what, then just check the msrps. It's kinda obvious, no?
Don't compare names. It simply is that intel was in a mood to undercut AMD's greedy pricing.
Read more, write less, especially about things which you don't understand.

I played around with the Intel Core i9-13900K to see how it stacks up against the latest AMD Ryzen 7000 Series – specifically the flagship AMD Ryzen 9 7950X – to give you a better understanding of which CPU comes out on top, and which one you should invest in.
www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k
Posted on Reply
#10
fevgatos
ARFDon't compare names. It simply is that intel was in a mood to undercut AMD's greedy pricing.
Read more, write less, especially about things which you don't understand.

I played around with the Intel Core i9-13900K to see how it stacks up against the latest AMD Ryzen 7000 Series – specifically the flagship AMD Ryzen 9 7950X – to give you a better understanding of which CPU comes out on top, and which one you should invest in.
www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k
I'm saying 2 cpus released at the same time, with the same naming scheme and very similar msrps are competitors. You are saying they aren't. Okay.
Posted on Reply
#11
AusWolf
fevgatosI'd rather it started with a 6 and then users can tone it down a notch then it being at 5 and users having to oc it. Well "having", you don't have to do anything, im just saying it's easier to leash a chip then unleash it as an end user.
I disagree. If you know your way around tuning, you can OC all you want, but a regular user who wants something plug-and-play shouldn't be required to possess any technical knowledge to tone things down.
Posted on Reply
#12
fevgatos
AusWolfI disagree. If you know your way around tuning, you can OC all you want, but a regular user who wants something plug-and-play shouldn't be required to possess any technical knowledge to tone things down.
Oh for sure but I think they'll still have the non k CPUs for those folks. Don't think they are going away.
Posted on Reply
#13
AusWolf
fevgatosOh for sure but I think they'll still have the non k CPUs for those folks. Don't think they are going away.
Better be safe than assume things. There's no label on the box of the K version that says "only for extreme overclockers and undervolters". Like I said: if you like tuning, do it. If you don't, you should still be able to feel safe whichever CPU you buy.
Posted on Reply
#14
usiname
"CPU-Z identifies the chip with an Intel Core Ultra case badge with the deep shade of blue associated with the Core Ultra 9 brand extension"
No, i5 (u5 now) also have deep blue shade

And this screenshot is on the new i5, otherwise, the author of this fake screenshot wouldn't work so hard to hide every clue that this is i5
Posted on Reply
#15
fevgatos
AusWolfBetter be safe than assume things. There's no label on the box of the K version that says "only for extreme overclockers and undervolters".
Oh that is easily fixed. There is enough room in the box for such a label. Especially those big boxed on the i9s with the plastic wafers on them :D :D

But I mean come on, before you buy any product you should make a bit of research.
AusWolfLike I said: if you like tuning, do it. If you don't, you should still be able to feel safe whichever CPU you buy.
Well that's different, nobody says the CPUs should be unsafe. What i'm saying is the K cpus should and traditionally have targeted performance and not efficiency. If it's efficiency you are after (out of the box i mean) you go for the normal non k chips. You might even save a few bucks.

I think the issue is intel isn't sending those chips to reviewers, god knows why, cause I think non k would be way more appealing to the majority of the end users.
Posted on Reply
#16
Dristun
I wish these pointless leaks stopped and instead someone said "oops a sample fell off the truck somewhere!" and just did full benches months ahead of release.
Posted on Reply
#17
AusWolf
fevgatosOh that is easily fixed. There is enough room in the box for such a label. Especially those big boxed on the i9s with the plastic wafers on them :D :D

But I mean come on, before you buy any product you should make a bit of research.

Well that's different, nobody says the CPUs should be unsafe. What i'm saying is the K cpus should and traditionally have targeted performance and not efficiency. If it's efficiency you are after (out of the box i mean) you go for the normal non k chips. You might even save a few bucks.
I didn't say a single word about efficiency in my original post. It was all about safety.

Naturally, I always go for the non-K version because I care more about the few bucks saved than having 1% higher boost when power limits are unlocked. But this doesn't mean that K variants shouldn't be safe and stable at stock.
Posted on Reply
#18
fevgatos
usiname"CPU-Z identifies the chip with an Intel Core Ultra case badge with the deep shade of blue associated with the Core Ultra 9 brand extension"
No, i5 (u5 now) also have deep blue shade

And this screenshot is on the new i5, otherwise, the author of this fake screenshot wouldn't work so hard to hide every clue that this is i5
Yeap, I think this is an i5.
Posted on Reply
#19
Rus4kova
It's funny how we get more and more Intel leaks the closer we get to Ryzen 9000 release. Almost like someone is trying to get people to ignore Ryzen 9000 CPUs.
Like saying .. no you must wait .. something MUCH better is coming. Then when it finally comes, it turns out to be nothing special,
Posted on Reply
#20
fevgatos
Rus4kovaIt's funny how we get more and more Intel leaks the closer we get to Ryzen 9000 release.
Because we are also getting closer to the intel ultra release?
Posted on Reply
#21
Klemc
fevgatosOh that is easily fixed. There is enough room in the box for such a label. Especially those big boxed on the i9s with the plastic wafers on them :D :D

But I mean come on, before you buy any product you should make a bit of research.

Well that's different, nobody says the CPUs should be unsafe. What i'm saying is the K cpus should and traditionally have targeted performance and not efficiency. If it's efficiency you are after (out of the box i mean) you go for the normal non k chips. You might even save a few bucks.

I think the issue is intel isn't sending those chips to reviewers, god knows why, cause I think non k would be way more appealing to the majority of the end users.
You know it's like chromatic ugly aberration or DOF ingames...that have been set ON, it shouldn't be impossible to turn it OFF.

It works in the other way, advert OC guys they'll have to DIY. K does not mean overclocker, it's unlocked.
Posted on Reply
#23
jaresk
It might be showing the process node of the soc die and not the cpu chiplet, it might even just be tsmc 7nm soc.
Posted on Reply
#24
Vincero
Still no AVX-512 support...
Not that I care - it's just funny how much of a noise they made about it then had to drop it...
Are they using the gracemont E cores in this or newer crestmont ones? I thought Intel said they were gonna bring it back with the next E core range....
Posted on Reply
#25
Daven
Wasn’t the Arrow Lake compute tile suppose to be 20A?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 5th, 2024 18:39 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts