Friday, July 3rd 2026

Intel Readies Two 22-Core "Nova Lake-S" SKUs with 108 MB bLLC Cache for Gaming

by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (279 Comments)
According to well-known Intel leaker Jaykihn, Intel is preparing two "Nova Lake-S" CPU models with a 22-core configuration, enhanced by the big Last Level Cache (bLLC). These processors are part of the Core Ultra 5 400S family, and Intel is developing two mid-range configurations, each with 22 cores. Both models will feature 6 "Coyote Cove" P-Cores, 12 "Arctic Wolf" E-Cores, and 4 LPE-Cores. This design includes a single compute die aimed at mid-range gaming rigs. Alongside the 22 cores, Intel plans to add an extra 108 MB of bLLC cache to boost gaming performance, similar to AMD's approach with its Ryzen X3D gaming CPUs, which currently lead in gaming performance. Intel aims to match raw CPU compute power with newer CPU cores and use bLLC to improve latency-sensitive tasks like gaming. The only difference between the two new models is that one is an unlocked 125 W TDP version, part of the "K" overclockable family, while the other is a 65 W base TDP model.

Recently, it has been observed that Intel's upcoming Z9x0 platform for "Nova Lake-S" will support up to 52 cores in a single LGA-1954 socket. Some early rumors suggest a PL2 power draw of 474 W, which is a significant increase over previous designs. This is understandable, considering that the design brings workstation-like core counts into the consumer sector for the first time. Regarding the socket, Intel's LGA-1954 has been pictured with a 2-lever independent loading mechanism (ILM), similar to what Intel's HEDT sector uses. This is typically reserved for larger CPU packages, and with the pin count now nearing 2,000 socket pins, it is a necessary choice for Intel. Importantly, the first "Nova Lake-S" CPU SKUs are scheduled for release in just a few months, likely leading to more rumors as we approach the final launch.
Source: Jaykihn on X

Related News

Add your own comment

279 Comments on Intel Readies Two 22-Core "Nova Lake-S" SKUs with 108 MB bLLC Cache for Gaming

#1
N/A
8 p cores or forget it. Fine.
Posted on Reply
#2
BoggledBeagle
N/A8 p cores or forget it. Fine.
What if those new e cores are more powerful than Arrow or Raptor lake P cores? You would be getting 12 P and 6 superP cores then.
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
BoggledBeagleWhat if those new e cores are more powerful than Arrow or Raptor lake P cores? You would be getting 12 P and 6 superP cores then.
They are not. Maybe they are on a level of 10th gen cores. Which is not bad but far from newer generations P cores.
Posted on Reply
#4
efikkan
BoggledBeagleWhat if those new e cores are more powerful than Arrow or Raptor lake P cores? You would be getting 12 P and 6 superP cores then.
They wouldn't be, thanks to shared L2 cache and a weak front-end. Useless for anything latency sensitive, but fine for async loads in the background. Don't let synthetic benchmarks fool you.
Posted on Reply
#5
kondamin
oh, that is nice. More a gamer chip than the 56 core monstrosity.
Posted on Reply
#6
Hakker
BoggledBeagleWhat if those new e cores are more powerful than Arrow or Raptor lake P cores? You would be getting 12 P and 6 superP cores then.
If that would have been the case the CPU would be 3x more expensive than they would be now.
Posted on Reply
#7
BoggledBeagle
I have no idea how exactly will the new CPUs be built and how will they perform, what if adding 2 more P cores would bring just negligible performance gains in gaming and only in some circumstances? What if people with "normal GPUs" will not see any benefit from 8 P cores compared to 6 at all???
Posted on Reply
#8
RinSenpai
RejZoRThey are not. Maybe they are on a level of 10th gen cores. Which is not bad but far from newer generations P cores.
Raptor Lake E-cores are already on par with Ryzen 5000/11th gen Intel from my testing. I played games which can leverage all 12 E-cores and compared to my laptop Ryzen 5 5600H (6c/12t), I get the same average performance but lack a bit of cache compared to the latter so it's a bit more unstable (or it's just my feeling of getting 80-120fps on a 165Hz monitor being weird af).
Posted on Reply
#9
zus
BoggledBeagleI have no idea how exactly will the new CPUs be built and how will they perform, what if adding 2 more P cores would bring just negligible performance gains in gaming and only in some circumstances? What if people with "normal GPUs" will not see any benefit from 8 P cores compared to 6 at all???
Based on Arrow Lake benchmarks, I guess that's what will happen. 245K (6P+8E), 250K (6P+12E), 265K (8P+12E), 270K (8P+16E), less than 10% difference between the 245K and the 270K. 250K and 265K have the same amount of L3 cache, and their results are pretty much equal, despite the 265K having 8 P-cores.
Posted on Reply
#10
jesdals
Bring it on - lets get so many new SKUs that Intel and AMD has to push lower memory and SSD prices to sell them :D
Posted on Reply
#11
Sol_Badguy
Both models will feature 6 "Coyote Cove" P-Cores, 12 "Arctic Wolf" E-Cores, and 4 LPE-Cores.
And the award for the most moronic naming scheme goes to Intel. Anybody surprised?

The P-core is stronger than the E-core, yes?
The wolf is stronger than the coyote, yes?
And this is an Arctic wolf, therefore bigger than one from a region closer to the Equator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

Then how does this naming scheme make sense? Huh Lip, how?
Spotted hyena P-core or GTFO.

Oh yeah and the 6P approach, wow I can almost smell how future proof that is (crying in next gen console games). Mhm that "10800X3D" won't know what hit it. 🙃:rolleyes:
Get your act together you goddamn amateurs.
I'm getting that gut feeling that you're going to fuck up this launch like you did with Arrow Lake. All hype and then no bite.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dr. Dro
RejZoRThey are not. Maybe they are on a level of 10th gen cores. Which is not bad but far from newer generations P cores.
Arctic Wolf is supposed to be about as fast as Zen 4. I guess we'll just have to wait but unless there is an extreme regression it's way ahead of Comet Lake-level, Arrow Lake's E-cores already are.
Posted on Reply
#13
Let3r
I’m still so annoyed that I bought into LGA 1851 and then they only gave it one generation.
😭 Wish I had gone with AM5.
Posted on Reply
#14
Geofrancis
they are finally doing another 5775c, it only took them 11 years.
Posted on Reply
#15
Dr. Dro
Geofrancisthey are finally doing another 5775c, it only took them 11 years.
I'm interested in the full fat 16+32+4 2x bLLC model

Hope they call it Core Ultra 9 486DX, it will be legendary
Posted on Reply
#16
Sol_Badguy
The only difference between the two new models is that one is an unlocked 125 W TDP version, part of the "K" overclockable family, while the other is a 65 W base TDP model.
Hmm depends on what MTP the locked version has but it could be slightly limited in some instances.
If it has 121 W like the CU5 235 then maybe not.
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-5-250k-plus/images/power-per-game.png
The 250K has 125 W PBP and 159 W MTP but it can get close to 100 W in some games.
AleksandarKThe only difference between the two new models is that one is an unlocked 125 W TDP version, part of the "K" overclockable family, while the other is a 65 W base TDP model.
These are the situations where the 265K wins against the 250K at 720p:
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/space-marine-2-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/stalker-2-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/cyberpunk-2077-rt-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/indiana-jones-rt-1280-720.png
Not apples to apples though, it's not the same "Plus" silicon, if it were then a 265K Plus would win all the time and with bigger differences.
A more apples to apples 8P vs 6P is 270K vs 250K, although the 270K has various buffs which contribute to the difference:
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/18.html
Posted on Reply
#17
lexluthermiester
N/A8 p cores or forget it. Fine.
That is an unwise perspective. The E-cores are not poor performing cores. The LPEcores are the lesser cores in this model. At the right price it'll be a solid value model.
Posted on Reply
#18
A&P211
BoggledBeagleWhat if those new e cores are more powerful than Arrow or Raptor lake P cores? You would be getting 12 P and 6 superP cores then.
Intel can call them, 12 P, 6 PP cores, or Big PP cores.
Posted on Reply
#19
TumbleGeorge
Dr. DroI'm interested in the full fat 16+32+4 2x bLLC model

Hope they call it Core Ultra 9 486DX, it will be legendary
Yes so many cores and same misery 2 channel RAM.
Posted on Reply
#20
Dr. Dro
TumbleGeorgeYes so many cores and same misery 2 channel RAM.
These 2 memory channels are faster than my 22-core Broadwell Xeon's four channels get, by almost a factor of two... it'll be alright

Posted on Reply
#21
zus
Sol_BadguyThese are the situations where the 265K wins against the 250K at 720p:
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/space-marine-2-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/stalker-2-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/cyberpunk-2077-rt-1280-720.png
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/images/indiana-jones-rt-1280-720.png
Not apples to apples though, it's not the same "Plus" silicon, if it were then a 265K Plus would win all the time and with bigger differences.
Makes sense, although I don't really know what's the difference between Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake Plus. I know that Intel Binary Optimization Tool only works on Arrow Lake Plus, and that they're tuned closer to the 200S Boost profile out of the box, but that's about it.
Sol_BadguyA more apples to apples 8P vs 6P is 270K vs 250K, although the 270K has various buffs which contribute to the difference:
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/18.html
It's a pretty small difference still. I don't even know if we can attribute it to P-cores, or if it's due to the slight increases in clock and L3 cache. Back on topic, I believe 6P+12E will be good enough for a midrange gaming CPU, and it will be probably the most efficient option too. Surely Intel will make a CPU with 8 P-cores too, I would be very disappointed if they didn't.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheinsanegamerN
lexluthermiesterThat is an unwise perspective. The E-cores are not poor performing cores. The LPEcores are the lesser cores in this model. At the right price it'll be a solid value model.
This is incorrect. The LPE cores are identical to normal E cores, but are located on the memory controller die, instead of in a separate cluster, allowing them to run more efficiently, like a lunar lake core.
Posted on Reply
#23
[crs]
so the big question is: Will this be a good upgrade from my 9800X3D?
Posted on Reply
#24
TheEndIsNear
I don't think people know exactly what's coming. This is not little consumer market time it's enterprise time. The consumer market market is the size of cute. I'm not investing and getting 1000 percent returns because of the consumer market. That's going to be how it is for a while. I don't know what the consumer electronics or computer sites are going to deal with nobody being able to buy what they review.
Posted on Reply
#25
Wirko
efikkanThey wouldn't be, thanks to shared L2 cache and a weak front-end. Useless for anything latency sensitive, but fine for async loads in the background. Don't let synthetic benchmarks fool you.
L2 is only shared if more than one E core in a cluster is active - hopefully this is how the OS thread scheduler distributes the load before loading the second/third/fourth core in each cluster.

Apart from that, L2 on E clusters is *big*. AMD should counter that, at least in X3D chips, by putting expanded L2 in addition to L3 on the cache die.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 12th, 2026 07:35 PST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts