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

#76
XeonsNOpterons
Cool, I really hope there is a great lower-budget gaming chip for people this generation from Intel! Looks like it may be the case! I wonder how much L3 Cache per core Intel portioned with the bLLC chips like this. I know Lion Cove has a standard 4MB/core of L3 and 3MB/core of L2 (which is massive by the way). Coyote Cove is supposedly a derivative of Pather Cove-X for HEDT/server, so once we see the cache of Nova Lake, we may have a glimpse into the future chips too.
Posted on Reply
#77
Tek-Check
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, legendary high power usage.
Posted on Reply
#78
BoggledBeagle
Tek-CheckYes, legendary high power usage.
For a 48 core CPU? May I remind you that 16 core AMD CPUs consume 220-250W?
Posted on Reply
#79
Tek-Check
BoggledBeagleFor a 48 core CPU? May I remind you that 16 core AMD CPUs consume 220-250W?
Sure, but compute tiles for new CPUs will be etched on N2 node.
Posted on Reply
#80
Dr. Dro
Tek-CheckYes, legendary high power usage.
I have a i9 KS and a RTX 5090, this isn't going to scare me lol. I could do without the fires though :laugh:

Besides, I paid for a Titanium 1200 W power supply and a Titanium 1200 W power supply I shall use :rockout: :roll:
Posted on Reply
#81
JustBenching
BoggledBeagleFor a 48 core CPU? May I remind you that 16 core AMD CPUs consume 220-250W?
If power draw is the only thing thing people find to attack Intel it means intel is winning. Power draw is the most useless spec since its' completely arbitarry, can be changed in 3 seconds and has nothing to do with the CPU itself. Case in point, intel has the T lineup with 35w chips. Did anyone ever say amd is garbage cause their cpus consume 250w while intels consume 35? No. Cause we got a brain and know that amd can also release 35w chips if they want to. Well, they can't due to the very high IO die power draw and all that, but still they could do 50.
Posted on Reply
#82
Tyler-98-W68
AMD's chips idle with more power than intel's T series cpus do under load.....ouch!
Posted on Reply
#83
TumbleGeorge
JustBenchingIf power draw is the only thing thing people find to attack Intel it means intel is winning. Power draw is the most useless spec since its' completely arbitarry, can be changed in 3 seconds and has nothing to do with the CPU itself. Case in point, intel has the T lineup with 35w chips. Did anyone ever say amd is garbage cause their cpus consume 250w while intels consume 35? No. Cause we got a brain and know that amd can also release 35w chips if they want to. Well, they can't due to the very high IO die power draw and all that, but still they could do 50.
AMD have GE series with 35W in AM4 and AM5 socket too.
Posted on Reply
#84
JustBenching
Tyler-98-W68AMD's chips idle with more power than intel's T series cpus do under load.....ouch!
Ah not more, but roundabout the same. 30-35w if you try to push VSOC for high memory speeds on a 9800x 3d. I assume dual ccds would be higher but I don't know, never had one
TumbleGeorgeAMD have GE series with 35W in AM4 and AM5 socket too.
But those are low core chips with low cache. They are the mobile parts that don't need 30w for idle. Those are great, I have some on my laptops. But the desktop parts, oh boy, they really like their power.
Posted on Reply
#85
Hecate91
Intel users with $3000+ graphics cards sure care a lot about idle power use, if you can't find the irony in that I'm not sure what to say,lol.
I personally care more about power use when actually using the system, and it's nice to not need to tinker in the UEFI to get load power use under control.
Posted on Reply
#86
Dr. Dro
TBH those GE CPUs are more honest than chips like the 13900T, 35 W but the P-cores are rated 1.1 GHz and the E-cores 800 MHz, lol

Do 13900T's run way faster? Yeah, especially if it's allowed the 106 W PL2 burst, and of course these chips are quite adequate for low-power designs, but I can't quite ignore that it clearly relies on the extended wattage range to get the bulk of its performance back
Posted on Reply
#87
JustBenching
Dr. DroTBH those GE CPUs are more honest than chips like the 13900T, 35 W but the P-cores are rated 1.1 GHz and the E-cores 800 MHz, lol

Do 13900T's run way faster? Yeah, especially if it's allowed the 106 W PL2 burst, and of course these chips are quite adequate for low-power designs, but I can't quite ignore that it clearly relies on the extended wattage range to get the bulk of its performance back
Yes but - Intel chips do in fact peak in efficiency at 35w. You can try it on yours - efficiency will keep rising the more you drop wattage down to 35w. Now try doing that on a dual ccd ryzen, it ain't happening. You will start losing efficiency below 50-60w

EG1. Talking about stock voltage curve, no UV and stuff.
Posted on Reply
#88
Tek-Check
Dr. DroI have a i9 KS and a RTX 5090, this isn't going to scare me lol. I could do without the fires though :laugh:
Fingers crossed that your GPU cable does not melt.
Posted on Reply
#89
Dr. Dro
JustBenchingYes but - Intel chips do in fact peak in efficiency at 35w. You can try it on yours - efficiency will keep rising the more you drop wattage down to 35w. Now try doing that on a dual ccd ryzen, it ain't happening. You will start losing efficiency below 50-60w

EG1. Talking about stock voltage curve, no UV and stuff.
Yes that's true, I tried to run my old 5950X at 45 W once. The IOD by itself already eats 20 W of the PPT, so it was violating the power limit all the time and also ran very poorly
Tek-CheckFingers crossed that your GPU cable does not melt.
Too late mate it already did LMAO

I got an anti-meltdown cable for the second 5090 🙏
Posted on Reply
#90
Aerpoweron
Tyler-98-W68AMD's chips idle with more power than intel's T series cpus do under load.....ouch!
Not entirely true. That only applies if you run XMP / Expo settings. With Jedec settings the IF gets clocked down too, and the power loss over the interposer drops.
I am curious how Zen6 will be constructed.
Posted on Reply
#91
Tyler-98-W68
AerpoweronNot entirely true. That only applies if you run XMP / Expo settings. With Jedec settings the IF gets clocked down too, and the power loss over the interposer drops.
I am curious how Zen6 will be constructed.
So techpowerup's power testing is not accurate?
Hecate91Intel users with $3000+ graphics cards sure care a lot about idle power use, if you can't find the irony in that I'm not sure what to say,lol.
I personally care more about power use when actually using the system, and it's nice to not need to tinker in the UEFI to get load power use under control.
Tell me you are poor/jealous without saying you are poor and jealous. So it's alright when your Halo company has cpu's that are not competitive from a power standpoint in idle, but when intel has poor power efficiency in any metric we must always point that out. Why is it always about money with you. We get it you hate everything intel, don't like expensive things because you can't afford it, but let others who are more successful in life enjoy the nice things you won't ever have
Posted on Reply
#92
XeonsNOpterons
Tek-CheckYes, legendary high power usage.
Yeah, legendary because of the core count. 474W is actually pretty good considering it has more than double the cores of a 285K/270K Plus which have 250W draws. On top of the fact it will have noticeably higher IPC and likely clock speeds, it appears more impressive. I bet it still idles lower than the presumptive 24-core Ryzen 9 11950X. Do not expect either flagship to be low power consumtion this time arround. The 11950X likely will be 320-340W given extrapolation.
Posted on Reply
#93
Tek-Check
Dr. DroI tried to run my old 5950X at 45 W once. The IOD by itself already eats 20 W of the PPT, so it was violating the power limit all the time and also ran very poorly
Why did you run this CPU at 45W?
XeonsNOpteronsYeah, legendary because of the core count. 474W is actually pretty good considering it has more than double the cores of a 285K/270K Plus which have 250W draws. On top of the fact it will have noticeably higher IPC and likely clock speeds, it appears more impressive. I bet it still idles lower than the presumptive 24-core Ryzen 9 11950X. Do not expect either flagship to be low power consumtion this time arround. The 11950X likely will be 320-340W given extrapolation.
Sure, but that would still be miles lower than 474W. The top Intel SKU does have a double core count, but it's produced on far more efficient N2 node. Never forget that. 474W is not good on a desktop system in any books. Once the generation is out and tested, we will find out why Intel is pushing the halo CPU to this absurd level of power.
Posted on Reply
#94
Dr. Dro
Tek-CheckWhy did you run this CPU at 45W?
Testing power scaling.
Posted on Reply
#95
Red Hood
Tyler-98-W68So techpowerup's power testing is not accurate?


Tell me you are poor/jealous without saying you are poor and jealous. So it's alright when your Halo company has cpu's that are not competitive from a power standpoint in idle, but when intel has poor power efficiency in any metric we must always point that out. Why is it always about money with you. We get it you hate everything intel, don't like expensive things because you can't afford it, but let others who are more successful in life enjoy the nice things you won't ever have
Resorting to personal attacks and assuming you're richer than others says a lot about you

It will be interesting to see how these nova lake chips compare to arrow lake and zen 5
Posted on Reply
#96
AusWolf
Tyler-98-W68So techpowerup's power testing is not accurate?


Tell me you are poor/jealous without saying you are poor and jealous. So it's alright when your Halo company has cpu's that are not competitive from a power standpoint in idle, but when intel has poor power efficiency in any metric we must always point that out. Why is it always about money with you. We get it you hate everything intel, don't like expensive things because you can't afford it, but let others who are more successful in life enjoy the nice things you won't ever have
Power is not about money. It's about heat and cooling requirements. Not everybody wants or needs a custom loop with a 420 mm rad.
Posted on Reply
#97
Hecate91
Tyler-98-W68Tell me you are poor/jealous without saying you are poor and jealous. So it's alright when your Halo company has cpu's that are not competitive from a power standpoint in idle, but when intel has poor power efficiency in any metric we must always point that out. Why is it always about money with you. We get it you hate everything intel, don't like expensive things because you can't afford it, but let others who are more successful in life enjoy the nice things you won't ever have
This isn't about money, you clearly missed the irony of purchasing a used car priced GPU yet some complain of 10-20W more on idle like it's affecting anything.
Complaining about idle power draw is irrelevant, power draw at load is what matters, and as mentioned it's the heat and cooling requirements that become a concern with power hungry CPU's.
I'd rather not need to turn up the AC to keep the room cool, or need an E-ATX case for a high performance CPU.
Posted on Reply
#98
iameatingjam
Hecate91This isn't about money, you clearly missed the irony of purchasing a used car priced GPU yet some complain of 10-20W more on idle like it's affecting anything.
Complaining about idle power draw is irrelevant, power draw at load is what matters, and as mentioned it's the heat and cooling requirements that become a concern with power hungry CPU's.
I'd rather not need to turn up the AC to keep the room cool, or need an E-ATX case for a high performance CPU.
Does it? My cpu spends a lot more time on light loads than under heavy load. I'm not gonna do the math but I'd say it depends on person, their needs and preferences. Besides wasn't the wattage at idle only brought up once somebody brought up how much power these not yet released cpus supposedly use?

Can't we just.... not talk about amd in this thread for once and stay on topic? Healthy competition is good for everyone.
Posted on Reply
#99
Tek-Check
Dr. DroTesting power scaling.
And? Was it worse than the then competition?
iameatingjamCan't we just.... not talk about amd in this thread for once and stay on topic? Healthy competition is good for everyone.
When TPU published previous article about PL2 at 474W for the top NVL SKU, strangely, there were several members who didn't actually want to talk about it, distracting entire thread again and again, despite reminders from mods and others.

In telation to this SKU, I can only say that diversity of SKUs on offer will be significant and many are looking forward to see how extended L3 cache would perform.

It might be a treacherous journey both for Intel and AMD if new generations of CPUs land in this sick PC market. Sales would be much lower due to absurd memory prices.
Posted on Reply
#100
Hecate91
iameatingjamDoes it? My cpu spends a lot more time on light loads than under heavy load. I'm not gonna do the math but I'd say it depends on person, their needs and preferences. Besides wasn't the wattage at idle only brought up once somebody brought up how much power these not yet released cpus supposedly use?

Can't we just.... not talk about amd in this thread for once and stay on topic? Healthy competition is good for everyone.
In light loads perhaps, I assumed others were talking about full idle. The annoyance with the constant talk about idle is it's always brought up to defend Intel for having high power use on full load. The high end Nova Lake CPU apparently draws 474W at PL2, it could be 237W with a 22 core which is still a lot, and of course it will still get the defense of adjusting power limits yourself, despite the reality of a majority of people not tinkering in the UEFI not even gamers building their own PC's.
I'm looking forward to how Nova Lake and Zen 6 perform, but not to what launch prices are going to be, although AMD and Intel are going to need to be more aggressive on pricing due to the cost of RAM and SSD's, the desire to buy new platforms from enthusiasts has dropped quite a bit. Competition is nice, but Intel still has 80% marketshare, it's not like they're a failing company.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 12th, 2026 06:33 PST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts