Thursday, October 1st 2026

Intel Core Ultra 4000 "Nova Lake-S" Lineup Leaks With 28-Core 4970K BFC

A new leak by @laurentschoice lists seven desktop Nova Lake-S processors under what looks like Intel's new four-digit Core Ultra 4000 naming, led by a Core Ultra 9 4970K BFC. It apparently has 8 P-cores, 16 E-cores, and 4 LPE cores for 28 in total, plus bLLC (big last-level cache), a 125 W rating, and a 32 EU iGPU. That puts it above the Core Ultra 9 4950K, which first surfaced in a CPU-Z leak in August as a 28-core chip. This list shows the 4950K with 24 cores (8 P-cores and 16 E-cores), without LPE cores or bLLC.

The rest of the list follows a similar pattern. The Core Ultra 7 4870K BFC has 24 cores and bLLC, while the 4850K gets 20 cores without it. There is also a Core Ultra 9 4900 BFC with 22 cores, bLLC, and a 65 W rating. We currently don't know what BFC stands for, although the models carrying it appear to be the ones with bLLC, which Intel is introducing as its answer to AMD's 3D V-Cache. Intel hasn't confirmed any of these names, so they may well change before Nova Lake's official launch.
Earlier reports said the single compute tile models would arrive before the 52-core flagship, and the 28-core bLLC chip was reportedly set to pull up to 296 W at PL2 despite its 125 W rating. Regardless, Nova Lake's launch is inching closer and closer, with qualification samples now showing up in programs like HWiNFO. Earlier reports point to a Q1 2027 launch window for Nova Lake-S CPUs, with the 52-core flagship arriving later.
Sources: LC Tech Leaks on X, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

103 Comments on Intel Core Ultra 4000 "Nova Lake-S" Lineup Leaks With 28-Core 4970K BFC

#1
JIWIL
I'm so confused, why do Ultra 7s (4850k 4870k) have two more Pcores than an Ultra 9 (4900)? Is it because of the BigboyCache?

Why are the Ultra 7's named 48xx instead of 47xx? Same thing for the Ultra 5's being 46xx instead of 45xx? Is it to avoid confusion with Haswell or something? By making it more confusing? Or is to adhere to the 'Ultra X' moniker that's already confusing. Or just because. I just confused myself typing this.

I swear red and blue are having some sort of contest to see who can out bamboozle each other.
Posted on Reply
#2
oxrufiioxo
JIWILI'm so confused, why do Ultra 7s (4850k 4870k) have two more Pcores than an Ultra 9 (4900)? Is it because of the BigboyCache?
The BFC (Big Fu%**%g $) lineup is their flagship CPUs now is my guess, irrespective of core counts.


Naming has been @$$ for a long time now lol.,
Posted on Reply
#3
Airisom
Backwards compatible with Haswell lol. Depending on how well those p-cores + bbc cache perform, I might jump ship from ryzen 3d. But it's crazy how narrow-minded these naming conventions are to the point where we've come full circle multiple times from multiple brands.
Posted on Reply
#4
Darmok N Jalad
JIWILI'm so confused, why do Ultra 7s (4850k 4870k) have two more Pcores than an Ultra 9 (4900)? Is it because of the BigboyCache?

Why are the Ultra 7's named 48xx instead of 47xx? Same thing for the Ultra 5's being 46xx instead of 45xx? Is it to avoid confusion with Haswell or something? By making it more confusing? Or is to adhere to the 'Ultra X' moniker that's already confusing. Or just because. I just confused myself typing this.

I swear red and blue are having some sort of contest to see who can out bamboozle each other.
I guess it probably is to differentiate from Haswell when someone does a versus search, so they don’t see results like this:
Posted on Reply
#5
Hyderz
yay can't wait to see how these will perform, hope the nova lake puts up a fight in gaming benchmarks...
Posted on Reply
#6
Wirko
AirisomBackwards compatible with Haswell lol.
I smell Intel has another surprise ready for us, they will cut the last digit from chipset model numbers!
Posted on Reply
#7
freeagent
Sweet!

Moving back to Intel :)
Posted on Reply
#8
Apocalypsee
We're back to 2013 boys with Haswell naming, I still got i5 4670k delidded in my drawer. Well Intel why don't you bring HEDT platform back? Yeah you have absurd number of cores but bring back quad channel memory.
Posted on Reply
#9
phints
What happened to Panther Lake? Man Intel's naming is unbelievably bad.
Posted on Reply
#10
Darmok N Jalad
phintsWhat happened to Panther Lake? Man Intel's naming is unbelievably bad.
Panther Lake was mobile-only.
Posted on Reply
#11
Auxityne
I can't wait to see what the 52-core SKU draws at whatever its PL2 is gonna be. Noctua's forced-quantum-beige-quark-cooling might be mandatory.
Posted on Reply
#12
Dr. Dro
Dumbass marketing department just call the blasted thing a Core Ultra 9 486 DX and ship it with commemorative packaging claiming this is Intel's finest work to date and all boomers will bite
Posted on Reply
#13
azrael
I guess BFC means the same thing as BFG, just with 'cache' replacing 'gun'. IYKYK. :p
Posted on Reply
#14
ZoneDymo
PC hardware comes across as dead these days tbh, all seems so pointless thanks to the AI focus
Posted on Reply
#15
AusWolf
Huh? We're back to four digits now to get even more confused about the naming scheme? And I thought AMD's laptop lineup was bad in this regard.
Posted on Reply
#16
tsurugi
JIWILI'm so confused, why do Ultra 7s (4850k 4870k) have two more Pcores than an Ultra 9 (4900)? Is it because of the BigboyCache?

Why are the Ultra 7's named 48xx instead of 47xx? Same thing for the Ultra 5's being 46xx instead of 45xx? Is it to avoid confusion with Haswell or something? By making it more confusing? Or is to adhere to the 'Ultra X' moniker that's already confusing. Or just because. I just confused myself typing this.

I swear red and blue are having some sort of contest to see who can out bamboozle each other.
Similar to low-power products in series like suffix T, this series should also include ultra7 with 4p+8e+4lpe, etc., which usually has nothing to do with most DIY consumers.
Posted on Reply
#17
JustBenching
oxrufiioxoThe BFC (Big Fu%**%g $) lineup is their flagship CPUs now is my guess, irrespective of core counts.


Naming has been @$$ for a long time now lol.,
Can't wait to see the name for the 52 core blc. Is it going to be VBFC? (Very Big Fu $)
Posted on Reply
#18
AusWolf
azraelI guess BFC means the same thing as BFG, just with 'cache' replacing 'gun'. IYKYK. :p
I think it's "Beesus F*ing Christ" - what you murmur while facepalming after you've looked at this new naming scheme.
Posted on Reply
#19
N/A
No it's probably a 9 instead of 7, for a 4990K BFC and 4890K BFC big fracking cache.
Posted on Reply
#20
docnorth
AirisomBackwards compatible with Haswell lol. Depending on how well those p-cores + bbc cache perform, I might jump ship from ryzen 3d. But it's crazy how narrow-minded these naming conventions are to the point where we've come full circle multiple times from multiple brands.
To be more precise, backwards compatible with Sandy Bridge... :D. This naming scheme is Haswell.
AusWolfHuh? We're back to four digits now to get even more confused about the naming scheme? And I thought AMD's laptop lineup was bad in this regard.
This means competitive, they have to surpass AMD on every sector, even on bad naming scheme:slap:.
Posted on Reply
#21
Grimling
The Naming scheme is a real disappointment!
I expected ULTRA MEGA HYPER TURBO MAX
or MEGA ULTRA COSMIC OVERDRIVE
or HYPER GIGA OMEGA MAXIMUM
or ULTRA SUPER MEGA INFINITE
or TITANIC ULTRA HYPER OVERKILL
and so on!
But now all we get is just a single tiny ULTRA.
Man, that sucks!
Posted on Reply
#22
Tinchouru1
I like the idea of them taking a step like AMD did with this bLLC (Big Last-Level Cache) feature; another point worth mentioning is that they’re keeping the same socket for future processors.
Posted on Reply
#23
AusWolf
N/ANo it's probably a 9 instead of 7, for a 4990K BFC and 4890K BFC big fracking cache.
The 4990K BFC is not a big enough improvement. I'll just wait for the refresh 4995B(ig) KFC instead, with curly fries and a shake.
Posted on Reply
#24
MikOnTopGG
Hmmm, they changed the naming... Again?
Posted on Reply
#25
Wirko
MikOnTopGGHmmm, they changed the naming... Again?
Intel's intel service collected some intel indicating that AMD is releasing five-digit processors soon. You can't fight that with three-digit processors, much less if they lack the "X" at the end.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 11th, 2026 17:20 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts