Friday, July 3rd 2026
Intel Readies Two 22-Core "Nova Lake-S" SKUs with 108 MB bLLC Cache for Gaming
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
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.
279 Comments on Intel Readies Two 22-Core "Nova Lake-S" SKUs with 108 MB bLLC Cache for Gaming
Also it's not a couple of watts. Again, another screenshot from today
This is after a couple of hours of playing assassins creed (streamed to my tablet), 3 hours of browsing looking for furniture for my new house and a bit of youtubing. Average power draw is at 8.5w. An equivalent AMD chip would be at or above 50. To me that's a pretty big difference. If we don't care about these differences then we might as well go back to incandescent light bulbs. And it's fine if you don't care but pretending that im off my mind for caring is really weird to me
I said it because there is an actual threat to x86 that either the fall ( or exit from the x86 market in a possible buy-out situation ) from either player would essentially be a death blow. So whether you prefer amd or intel, I say, root for both, and not because you think that will make your favourite product cheaper, but because it will make your favorite product (and potentially diy computing as we know it) continue existing period.
My habits may not be super common, but they aren't exactly unknown either. I believe the goofballs at Linus Tech Tips noted that they do the same in a semi-recent video. This leave-on-for-remote-access custom is perhaps more relevant nowadays for so-called "gaming rigs" than it is for the generic home computer, because you can use Moonlight/Sunshine or even Steam Remote Play to stream games from your gaming rig to just about any other device, phone/tablet/television/handheld.
And of course, "idle" doesn't actually mean "unattended." There's a solid chance that your CPU is effectively idle for a majority of the time that you're sitting at your machine.
Do I actually care about an extra ~20 Watts at idle? No, not really. It's a very minor point in the grand scheme. I care more about e.g. whether a CPU has an IGP. But if we're in the middle of a discussion about how X CPU consumes 50 or even 100 fewer watts in gaming, then a 20 watt disadvantage at all other times is obviously worth mentioning. And in non-gaming MT workloads? Well, usually I'm happy to spend more power if it saves time.
Core i7 14700 with a YouTube video in 1440p 60 FPS (AV01) playing for around 20 minutes:
If money is so critical that you absolutely cannot afford an extra £2.5 a month for electricity, then how can you afford a £500+ CPU? It's like buying a brand new $30k car just to save 5 bucks on your monthly fuel. It doesn't make any monetary sense.It would not be 50 W. My 9700X eats about 25 W at idle, and maybe 50-55 in gaming. So that average value would be closer to 30-35 W. Sure, it's not 8.5, but we're arguing about a 20-25 W difference, which is about the range that we discussed above: 2-3 quid a month with 8 hours of activity per day. You can say that you don't like the idea of throwing any money away, which is cool, but don't tell me that this difference is a critical deciding factor that makes or breaks buying a new high end CPU.Yes.That's exactly what the discussion is about. :)
Personally, I find it hard to believe that idle power consumption is such an important factor for someone owning a high end CPU.
and
chipsandcheese.com/p/skymont-in-gaming-workloads
chipsandcheese.com/p/skymont-in-desktop-form-atom-unleashed
And if a low idle usage is a 'this is my go-to CPU' situation when you're really looking for a workstation-class CPU in terms of core count, I think those are two very wildly different use cases combined. How many do that in practice? For those that do, sure thing.
I think the real question these CPUs will answer for us is 'Can we have it all at the same time'? Low idle wattage, X3D responsiveness in realtime tasks like gaming WITH low power envelope, and high MT performance where it counts.At least he didn't contra himself :)There is another expression though, which generally makes the rich, richer: 'Every little bit helps'.
By similar rationale we indeed do buy better cars that have higher mileage, electric cars for example are by definition more expensive to get into, but pay back over time. Placing solar is spending half a dozen K to save a hundred a month. Its the exact same picture of cost/benefits too, in a relative sense.
And 2,5 per month over 70-80 months is serious money.
High-performance PCs can achieve high performance, but it does not mean they must do so, high-performance PCs can also watch youtube and use office, the value of multi-purpose is more important than performance itself, your claim that high-performance PCs cannot do these is completely wrong.
The test results from TPU are already clear, the CPU power consumption of 9800x3d during gaming is lower than 270k plus, but about the same as 250k plus. However, the amd overall system has higher outlet power at idle, which shows that although the 9800x3d CPU saves more power during gaming, the total system power consumption is about the same as 270k plus, and inferior to 250k plus, if considering energy saving and lowering indoor temperature, 250k plus is more suitable.
And because people do not just game, it also needs to be weighted based on the proportion of idle/youtube/gaming time. This makes the overall system power of the 270k plus more energy efficient than the 9800x3d as well.In the end, what humans get is the noise index, indoor temperature, and duration. High MT performance brings faster work, thereby reducing indoor temperature rise and noise duration. People who truly use it as a workstation need MT performance even more, which makes any 8-core low-end cpu non-selectable, but anyone can need higher MT performance to complete tasks faster and make waiting easier.
The 9800x3d is not performing better than the 270k plus. Even the 250k plus performs better than the 9800x3d, so this is not a matter of price-to-performance, but a matter of absolute performance. The 270k plus MT performance is comparable to the 9950x3d/9950x.
This makes 270k plus a better value for money compared to 9950x3d2/9950x. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 9800x3d, it is just too bad MT.
This aligns with amd product trends, when amd doesn't have it, it doesn't matter, but when amd has it, it becomes highly valuable, like 12 core compared to 8 core.
AMD cannot do like fsr4. It cannot add to 12 core for 9800x3d, so it cannot be changed, you can only spend money to upgrade. "I don't care about money, as long as the motherboard supports upgrading" is a good argument.
My point stands: you don't buy a high end CPU to save power on Office. There are far cheaper options out there to do that. No, you buy it because you need high performance. And as such, idle power is secondary.Show me a single chart in this very review where the 7800X3D isn't miles ahead of the 9800X3D in efficiency. It applies to single-thread and gaming, too, so it's not about power limits.
As for your first comment about savings, lol. Just lol. Once again you're taking a very weird, pessimistic stance that might apply to YOU but is disproved by the world around you, and not just a little bit either. Literally everyone will put money saved into somethingnelse which means the bottom line has improved; its irrelevant whats being done with it, money saved is simply not spent.
As for maintenance on cars;
www.driveelectrictn.org/maintenance-costs-for-evs-vs-ice-vehicles/
EVs require less maintenance than ICE vehicles.
The U.S. Department of Energy states that, “EVs typically require less maintenance than conventional vehicles because:
- The battery, motor and associated electronics require little to no regular maintenance
- There are fewer fluids, such as engine oil, that require regular maintenance
- Brake wear is significantly reduced due to regenerative braking
- There are far fewer moving parts relative to a conventional gasoline engine.”
Because EVs run on battery power and have fewer internal fluids, they will not be subject to oil changes and do not undergo the amount of maintenance required for ICE vehicles. The Argonne National Laboratory conducted a study in which they found maintenance and repair of an EV transit bus is 40% less than the cost to maintain an ICE vehicle of the same size.If everybody saved or invested every unused penny, the world would be a totally different place. Economy is based on scarcity for a reason. That's how it works.
Besides, we like nice things. We like them more than we like money.
But yeah, we're straying far from the topic (again). :)
Similar things apply to large (wide) GPUs. They tend to run loads more efficiently bc they can simply clock down more readily and therefore save power. More work units, etc. And yes the initial cost is high; but so is its resale value; you can recoup most of the difference in initial cost later down the line.
Net result? Faster part, less power in low load scenario AND more power on tap if you need it, at similar overall cost.