Friday, June 27th 2025
Some Intel Nova Lake CPUs Rumored to Challenge AMD's 3D V-Cache in Desktop Gaming
Looking to challenge AMD's gaming CPU supremacy, Intel is reportedly developing Nova Lake processors with enhanced cache technology that could rival the popular 3D V-Cache found in X3D chips. According to leaker @Haze2K1, Intel plans to add "bLLC" (big Last Line Cache) to at least two Nova Lake models. This improved L3 cache is similar to AMD's 3D V-Cache, which has made X3D chips the top pick for enthusiast gamers since 2022. The new processors with bLLC will have 8 P-cores and 4 LP-E-Cores. One version will include 20 E-cores, while another will have 12 E-cores. Both are expected to keep a 125 W TDP rating.
Intel's bLLC technology already exists in Clearwater Forest server processors where local cache integrates into the base tile positioned beneath active tiles. This structural approach mirrors AMD's current 9000-series X3D design, where V-Cache attaches to the bottom of CPU dies—a significant improvement over earlier generations that placed cache on top, causing thermal issues and clock speed limitations. Yet, Intel said no to consumer plans for a technology similar to AMD's 3D V-Cache. In November 2024, Intel's Tech Communications Manager Florian Maislinger told YouTubers der8auer and Bens Hardware that they didn't plan such a desktop version. The Nova Lake-S family is set to hit the market in late 2026 or early 2027, with at least six desktop models using new LGA 1954 packaging. The lineup will start from the top-end Core Ultra 9 485K with 52 cores and 150 W TDP and go down to the basic Core Ultra 3 415K offering 12 cores at 125 W TDP.
Sources:
TechSpot, @Haze2K1 on X
Intel's bLLC technology already exists in Clearwater Forest server processors where local cache integrates into the base tile positioned beneath active tiles. This structural approach mirrors AMD's current 9000-series X3D design, where V-Cache attaches to the bottom of CPU dies—a significant improvement over earlier generations that placed cache on top, causing thermal issues and clock speed limitations. Yet, Intel said no to consumer plans for a technology similar to AMD's 3D V-Cache. In November 2024, Intel's Tech Communications Manager Florian Maislinger told YouTubers der8auer and Bens Hardware that they didn't plan such a desktop version. The Nova Lake-S family is set to hit the market in late 2026 or early 2027, with at least six desktop models using new LGA 1954 packaging. The lineup will start from the top-end Core Ultra 9 485K with 52 cores and 150 W TDP and go down to the basic Core Ultra 3 415K offering 12 cores at 125 W TDP.
140 Comments on Some Intel Nova Lake CPUs Rumored to Challenge AMD's 3D V-Cache in Desktop Gaming
285K is more expensive than, and slower than a 9800X3D. I wouldn't buy a 9950X for gaming either, because it's also more expensive than, and slower than a 9800X3D.
If you move the goalposts, any argument can be countered.
It's also a dumbster fire in performance / $ for non gaming but whatever, doesn't matter here.
Intel really needs a new architecture, separating the memory controller from the die with Arrow Lake resulted in very high RAM latency, only mitigated with expensive high speed RAM and lots of tuning to only match 14th gen. Maybe they'll fix the RAM latency with Nova Lake, but Intel needs to start with a new architecture optimized for a split core design.
Here in the UK it's about £525 for the 285K and £420 for the 9800X3D.Oh look, you've moved the goalposts again. Now you're comparing to lesser CPUs than the 285K because the graph you linked has the 9800X3D absolutely whooping the 285K at $2.9/frame instead of $3.9/frame.
You should really learn not to keep moving goalposts when trying to make a point. It makes you look like a flustered fanboy struggling to bring reasoning skills or logic to the table. I know you can use reasoning and logic - I've seen you do it before in plenty of other threads. Why are you not doing that here? Ignore your emotions, look at the facts, and ask yourself if the 285K is really a better gaming CPU than the 9800X3D, and then ask yourself why every single review on the web shows the exact opposite - of the 9800X3D out-gaming the 285K at a lower price.
What are you trying to prove and why?
If bad performance / $ in gaming makes a CPU a gaming dumbsterfire then the 9800x 3d is a dumbsterfire in gaming. Period. Stop moving the goalposts.You are the one with emotions here. Im using just straight up logic. Yes obviously the 9800x 3d is a better gaming CPU than the 285k but that doesn't mean every other CPU is a dumbsterfire. Especially with the metric you used - the performance / $- that freaking metric completely negates your argument since 9800x 3d sucks at it. It's horribly expensive resulting in very poor gaming performance / $
I said "It's a dumpster-fire in terms of performance/$ for gaming" in response to the 285K and 9950X that you brought to the discussion, not me.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the 285K and 9950X but they're not the CPUs I was discussing, they're not relevant to this thread, and even if I entertain your daft suggestion that the 285K or 9950X is a better gaming CPU than the 9800X3D, you're not making any sense because the 'evidence' you're posting shows the 9800X3D being vastly superior.
This is a thread about gaming performance on upcoming CPUs with more cache. Can you please focus on that instead of digging yourself into a hole?
And I have a difficult time on believing reddit posts from Intel fans saying AMD cpu's are bad because of a latency issue, if it were true to the extent some people insist, then every reviewer would be complaining of games stuttering. Arrow Lake needs expensive CUDIMMs and overclocking to match 13th & 14th gen, while having higher power consumption than a 9800X3D. I personally couldn't care less about overclocking anymore so having a CPU that boosts on its own making OC's pointless is a good thing.The comparison was with the 9800X3D, which is also a faster and cheaper CPU than the 285k, you're the one moving goalposts,lol.
Christ dude, give it up already. It's not even on topic. At least talk about CPUs with extra cache or something.What does that have to do with this thread?
Gaming? No.
Extra L3 cache? No.
....aaaaand now you're adding two more completely unrelated CPUs to the discussion, an 8C vs 20C processor where the 20C processor wins in multithreaded workloads? Wow, what an unexpected result that never needed proving in the first place.... :kookoo:
The fact the 9800X3D beats the 285K for less money makes the 285K a dumpster fire for gaming. It's worse in absolute performance, relative performance, performance/Watt, performance/$.
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-265k/24.html
But all of the Raptor Lake failures probably turned away quite a few users, given how Intel handled it.