Intel's Next-Gen Desktop Platform Intros Socket LGA1851, "Meteor Lake-S" to Feature 6P+16E Core Counts

[Tomorrow]

Updated numbers. AM4 sales are dominating even LGA1700 and other combined with 5800X3D leading the pack with even higher numbers: https://nitter.net/TechEpiphany/status/1586640088850747392

But supposedly no one is upgrading on the same socket and everyone is keeping their for the entire lifetime of the socket (the Intel narrative).

 

[Tomorrow]

I've no idea what this screenshot is, where it comes from and what it represents. The word "official" doesn't mean some random twitter by God knows whom.

AMD fans continue to prove they have a very particular view of world. I'm not against it, it would be great if you were aware of it.

Your second post with "updated numbers" is absolutely the same.

I trust GB5 more than that.

The numbers are from Germany. Mindfactory.de and last week (week 43).
These do not apply globally (amazon is a better indicator for global sales).

I dont trust gb numbers at all.

 

[N/A]

But supposedly no one is upgrading on the same socket and everyone is keeping their for the entire lifetime of the socket (the Intel narrative).

Those 5800 X3 were clearing stock, now are gone. some lucky people did give another chance to their aging AM4 systems by getting the best CPU possible.

And what it really means they are avoiding AM5.

The numbers are from Germany. Mindfactory.de and last week (week 43).

And they sell locally in this country only. and they are all predominantly leaning towards AMD for whatever reason just like a religion no explanation how it took control.

With only 6 P-Cores rather than 8, this means Redwood cores need to be at least 33.3% faster than Raptor cores just to keep up in multi-threaded workloads, I really can't see this happening. Meteor Lake is starting to look like another Rocket Lake car-crash from Intel!

Because it's 8 core, the hi-res image is available 6 months ago. The 6core rumour is probably based on the image above and looks like meteor lake -p.

 

[JustBenching]

Updated numbers. AM4 sales are dominating even LGA1700 and other combined with 5800X3D leading the pack with even higher numbers: https://nitter.net/TechEpiphany/status/1586640088850747392

But supposedly no one is upgrading on the same socket and everyone is keeping their for the entire lifetime of the socket (the Intel narrative).

You know why i don't believe the numbers? Because AMD just slashed the 3d price by a lot. That just does not happen when you are selling like crazy. It just does not make sense

 

[john_]

Well, congrats to everyone out there cheering for Intel. Congrats to all Tech sites out there, swallowing Intel's Hybrid design and never really being negatively criticizing it. You wanted it, you have it. Just wait AMD getting in the Hybrid design and we all will be cheering for the next 4 P cores i7 and R7 CPUs.

Intel is upgrading both the P cores and E cores. obviously the P cores will be faster and probably clocking at 6GHz or higher. So, Meteor Lake will be faster compared to both Raptor and Zen 4. Probably even Zen4+, if we see something like that from AMD.
There you have it, Intel beating the competition in low core count applications.

As for multithreading? Obviously the new E cores will be faster and combined with the 6 higher performing P cores, Meteor Lake will be winning both Raptor and Zen 4 there also.
There you have it, Intel beating the competition in higher core count applications.

At least the new cores look fast enough for Intel to have enough optimism to decide to cut 2 P cores in this generation. Unfortunately people will have to pay extra for Arrow lake to get those extra P cores. Probably at a higher price also.

 

[JustBenching]

Well, congrats to everyone out there cheering for Intel. Congrats to all Tech sites out there, swallowing Intel's Hybrid design and never really being negatively criticizing it. You wanted it, you have it. Just wait AMD getting in the Hybrid design and we all will be cheering for the next 4 P cores i7 and R7 CPUs.

Why would you negatively criticise something that is entirely positive? I think whoever doesnt like ecores is losing the plot - you must have a fundamental misunderstanding on why they even exist

 

[Broken Processor]

I wonder if the P-core limit is to allow for a HEDT return.

 

[john_]

Why would you negatively criticise something that is entirely positive? I think whoever doesnt like ecores is losing the plot - you must have a fundamental misunderstanding on why they even exist

Yeah, I am sure you only see positives in replacing P cores with E cores on desktop systems. I am pretty sure that everyone here like you wish for a future in desktop CPUs like the current situation in Android phones, like on an 8 core CPU to only have 2 P cores, to win single core benchmarks and reach high frequencies to stare at CPUz, while the rest of the cores being older, simpler just to full the average consumer that they are buying a typical 8 core CPU. I will be sincere. I usually don't really care about the types of cores in my Andoid phone. Just read the Antutu score in Kimovil and use it as an indication. Most consumers probably do the same for PCs. See a Cinebench and a 3DMark and that's all they care and understand. But it happens in PCs that I do care and supporting a future where Intel or AMD will be selling me an i5 or an R5 with only 4 P cores and the rest Marketing cores, no thank you.

You know, I saw your reply while in Private mode in firefox, then gone to reply, then couldn't find your post. I remembered that I had blocked you because you just promote Intel, so, post whatever you want. I wouldn't reply. You are going back to my block list (I know you don't care, just explaining why I don't stay to have a chat with someone who just promotes one perspective).

E cores positive for desktop use....funny.....

 

[Tigerfox]

Especially when such myth is not honored - and hastily reconsidered at the very last minute because the competition just butchered their value proposition entirely. I will never forgive or forget AMD's treatment of X370 buyers.

And because of that you will buy Intel, who pulled such stunts like

- Z87/Z97: exactly the same chipset, just slight modifications to voltage regulation on the boards, but no Broadwell for any 8-series board, while Broadwell was an overall disappointment either way

- Z270 and Z370 or S1151 vs. S1151v2: Again exactly the same chipset, Intel just wanted new mainboards for Coffe Lake because, you know, tow "generations" is enough (Kaby Lake was just Skylake with better TIM). Modders even managed to run on OC Coffe Lake on Z170/Z270 with modded BIOS

- Comet Lake on S1200 without benefits, S1200 made for Rocket Lake: Comet Lake was really just Coffe Lake with two Cores added and soldered IHS, it should have been made for S1151v2 because it obviously wasn't what S1200 was made for, which only was Rocket Lake. S1200 offered PCIe4.0 from CPU and additional 8 Lanes from CPU (4 for NVMe, 4 for DMI 3.0x8). Z490-Boards were mostly prepared for PCIe4.0 and M.2-Slot from CPU, both only usable with Rocket Lake. In Addition, Rocket Lake couldn't split CPU Lanes three ways into 8/x4/x4 anymore (well, it does x8/x8/x4 with M.2 included). All in all, apart from PCIe5.0 Rocket Lake is exactly like Alder Lake and Raptor Lake regarding PCIe-Lanes, but nothing like Comet Lake. In Contrast, Z490 is exactly the same Z390 with no added benefit, while Z590 at least offered USB3.2 Gen2x2 and DMI x8.
So it would have been better to make Comet Lake S1151v2, skip S1200 and start S1700 with Rocket Lake. But no, strictly two generations per Socket, come what may.


I will go for AM5 at the beginning of next year (waiting for a PSU and perhaps Ryzen 7000X3D), even though I am very disappointed with the mainboards because they all offer 4xM.2 or more, but only 2-3 PCIe-Slots (PEG included) and mostly only 4xSATA. I use 6xSATA HDDs of various capacities plus one ODD atm and will have to buy bigger HDDs. Plus I want to be able to use 10GbE AND TB4 AND a soundcard, while having a PCIe5.0x16, which is not possible with any X650E/X670E-Board. Beast I can do is USB-Sound an 10GbE@Gen3x2 plus TB4@Gen3x4.

 

[john_]

I will go for AM5 at the beginning of next year (waiting for a PSU and perhaps Ryzen 7000X3D), even though I am very disappointed with the mainboards because they all offer 4xM.2 or more, but only 2-3 PCIe-Slots (PEG included) and mostly only 4xSATA. I use 6xSATA HDDs of various capacities plus one ODD atm and will have to buy bigger HDDs. Plus I want to be able to use 10GbE AND TB4 AND a soundcard, while having a PCIe5.0x16, which is not possible with any X650E/X670E-Board. Beast I can do is USB-Sound an 10GbE@Gen3x2 plus TB4@Gen3x4.

Yes that M.2 craze is stupid. M.2s can be installed vertically on typical PCIe slots and the adapters only cost 2-3 euros/dollars. Offering typical PCIe 4X slots would be saving space on the motherboard while being more versatile. But I guess manufacturers expect consumers to build systems in cases with windows, systems that wouldn't need anything more than what is already integrated(if they need better integrated stuff, they will just have to pay a few hundred euros/dollars more for the premium model), systems that need to look nice when looking through that glass.
There are some cheaper boards that do come with extra PCIe X1 slots.

You could try some external USB 3.x cases for your extra hard disks. Just so to have more options when choosing a new motherboard.

 

[aQi]

Dropping core count might be the reason of injecting / introducing all new IGP architecture. Not so needful as most of us will use extra P cores and do not rely on IGP after all.

 

[pressing on]

Dropping core count might be the reason of injecting / introducing all new IGP architecture. Not so needful as most of us will use extra P cores and do not rely on IGP after all.

I think it's been reasonably established that only the mobile Meteor Lake parts will have 6 P cores. It is being suggested by some sources that the main reason for the 6 P core limit in this arena is to get the maximum performance per watt. This would fit in with the new LPE (Low Power Efficient) cores that also give Intel three types of cores like ARM. Mobile Meteor Lake should also see the use of Intel's patented DLVR technology. Intel has always had a more powerful IGP on its notebook and laptop CPUs than the desktop. With Meteor Lake mobile the plan is to have an Arc-based Graphics Tile fabricated on TSMC's N5 process. TSMC will also be manufacturing the SOC Tile (N6) and the IO Tile (also N6). Intel will only make the silicon interposer on which the Tiles are fixed and the Compute Tile.

Some of the Desktop Tiles will also be manufactured by TSMC. I would not expect to see the LPE cores on the desktop, and it will be interesting to see if the Graphics Tile is limited to some form of IGP or whether there might also be a more capable unit similar to the mobile sector for some chips. I would expect Intel to carry on with its F and KF series of CPUs which have no graphics functionality with the Desktop range of Meteor Lake.

 

[Dr. Dro]

And because of that you will buy Intel, who pulled such stunts like

I'm gonna give it to you straight: Yes, and happily so, at least they're not making promises they did not intend to keep. AMD's treatment of TRX40 buyers in fact is far more scandalous than any of these examples brought forward, and I dare say even considering the updated VRD specs between HSW/BDW and SKL+KBL/CFL's two generations, because while the fix was simple - at least in LGA 1151 v2's case by doing a jump from two points in the LGA with a piece of tape - Intel had actually done some hardware level changes. In socket AM4's case, the problem was only AGESA - from the original Excavator chip Athlon X4 970 chip to the 5950X - the electrical specification of the socket was kept intact.

Actually, write this down and charge me on it; if Zen 5 or Zen 6 end up heavily outperforming Meteor/Arrow Lake, X670 motherboards won't be updated citing <insert excuse here>, just as I was for opting for a high-end X370 over a B450 board at the time I first built my rig. If you heard even half of the utter nonsense I was spouted at, such as "Crosshair VI Hero and Extreme have such poor VRM designs that a $60 B450M board will beat them!" or "smh just don't be poor and upgrade your motherboard" (and hell, I did, because otherwise I would be forced to delay my upgrade to Zen 3 by over a year), you'd understand why I feel this way.

Unlike GPU, I do not upgrade my CPU every generation, I used my Core i7-990X from 2011 to 2017, my i7-4770K from 2013 to 2019 - and I only upgraded from Zen 2 to Zen 3 because my brother was on Sandy Bridge(!) and no one deserves to be on Sandy Bridge to this day. He is happily enjoying my old 3900XT now.

 

[watzupken]

Very much looking forward to Arrow lake. I'm mostly skipping this generation of CPUs and GPUs because of so many first-gen teething, power and price issues with the current gen. But I'll be in the market for an upgrade again around end-2024 when the next generation of GPUs drops.

Unfortunately, unless someone decides that the power metrics is more important than performance, otherwise it is unlikely for you to see power consumption drop. Each chip company will push their chip close to its limits to compete while advertising increase in power efficiency. Furthermore, node shrink is slowing down significantly and will not be able to deliver the kind of generational performance gain with modest power increase we used to see in the past.

 

[c2DDragon]

This is why I don’t get the whole Alder Lake / Rocket Lake DDR4 and DDR5 argument. If you buy a DDR4 version today, you will still have to upgrade motherboard, RAM and CPU if you want to upgrade to Meteor Lake in 2024.

I upgraded this month seeing the 13700K launched with a clown price in Europe, saw a test before there was one on TPU and was like : Ok so this thing is power hungry, it is pretty hot and with just 4 E-Core for the price, it is better than a 12700K, with DDR5, on shitty PC ports AND with a 4090 or some other "not really available graphic card" with insane price tag lol or else it's almost the same in most of the games and I use my computer for gaming.

Then I looked at the DDR5 price and Z790 chipsets with DDR5, clown prices again, I saved hundreds of euros and I will keep this setup for 5+ years (not the GPU).
Last time I upgraded my CPU before this month, it was from a 3570K to a 6700K just before the 7700K (same clown price at launch) came and I kept it for almost 6 years.

I know people who still use a 2500K and it still meets their needs.
Look at PC specs of people here from time to time, most people will not throw away their 1-2 year build to unzip faster with WinRAR or 10 FPS in some videogames I guess.
DDR4 is good enough and cheap because old, DDR5 is truely expensive compared to it and motherboards using DDR5 are not cheap at all. DDR6 should arrive soon too lol.

 

[pressing on]

I get it that the DDR4 Z690s work perfectly fine with Intel 12th Gen and currently are a significantly more economic route than DDR5 Z790. The BIOS update and supporting chipset driver is available to give an option to update to 13th Gen (Raptor Lake) although the case for this on performance grounds does not look particularly strong. But at least the possibility is there.

Given the state of the economy in most countries I also have an impression that people who might well have been upgrading next year or the year after are doing it this year while they can still afford it.

 

[dyonoctis]

And they sell locally in this country only. and they are all predominantly leaning towards AMD for whatever reason just like a religion no explanation how it took control.


Because it's 8 core, the hi-res image is available 6 months ago. The 6core rumour is probably based on the image above and looks like meteor lake -p.

Mind factory sells in all of Europe. If you are french is worth buying from them, hardware is much more expensive in France atm.

 

[Konceptz]

This is why you don't get the whole PC industry in general. The vast majority of people do not upgrade their CPUs every generation, in fact the vast majority doesn't even do it every 2/3 generations.

The platform/socket longevity as an advantage is a myth AMD fans have created. Let's keep it this way.



If E-cores are just 15% faster for MTL it's enough to make MTL faster than RPL even if MTL P-Cores are exactly the same as RPL P-Cores.

Raptor lake will be the first machine I've built for myself since 2013 (Piledriver).
Other than maybe picking up a GPU off eBay, I have no plans on upgrading again for the next 10 years or so.

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah, I am sure you only see positives in replacing P cores with E cores on desktop systems. I am pretty sure that everyone here like you wish for a future in desktop CPUs like the current situation in Android phones, like on an 8 core CPU to only have 2 P cores, to win single core benchmarks and reach high frequencies to stare at CPUz, while the rest of the cores being older, simpler just to full the average consumer that they are buying a typical 8 core CPU. I will be sincere. I usually don't really care about the types of cores in my Andoid phone. Just read the Antutu score in Kimovil and use it as an indication. Most consumers probably do the same for PCs. See a Cinebench and a 3DMark and that's all they care and understand. But it happens in PCs that I do care and supporting a future where Intel or AMD will be selling me an i5 or an R5 with only 4 P cores and the rest Marketing cores, no thank you.

You know, I saw your reply while in Private mode in firefox, then gone to reply, then couldn't find your post. I remembered that I had blocked you because you just promote Intel, so, post whatever you want. I wouldn't reply. You are going back to my block list (I know you don't care, just explaining why I don't stay to have a chat with someone who just promotes one perspective).

E cores positive for desktop use....funny.....

As I've said, you are missing the plot entirely

The existence of ecores allows the existence of beefy huge cores like the pcores to even fit in the deisgn.

 

[dyonoctis]

Yeah, I am sure you only see positives in replacing P cores with E cores on desktop systems. I am pretty sure that everyone here like you wish for a future in desktop CPUs like the current situation in Android phones, like on an 8 core CPU to only have 2 P cores, to win single core benchmarks and reach high frequencies to stare at CPUz, while the rest of the cores being older, simpler just to full the average consumer that they are buying a typical 8 core CPU. I will be sincere. I usually don't really care about the types of cores in my Andoid phone. Just read the Antutu score in Kimovil and use it as an indication. Most consumers probably do the same for PCs. See a Cinebench and a 3DMark and that's all they care and understand. But it happens in PCs that I do care and supporting a future where Intel or AMD will be selling me an i5 or an R5 with only 4 P cores and the rest Marketing cores, no thank you.

You know, I saw your reply while in Private mode in firefox, then gone to reply, then couldn't find your post. I remembered that I had blocked you because you just promote Intel, so, post whatever you want. I wouldn't reply. You are going back to my block list (I know you don't care, just explaining why I don't stay to have a chat with someone who just promotes one perspective).

E cores positive for desktop use....funny.....

I mean those e-core managed to put AMD in a dicey situation where the 7600x and 7700x are losing in their price bracket: the 13600k can compete (even beat) with the 7700x while being cheaper, and the 13700k is far better in MT than the 7700x just for 50$ more.

And you are already talking about a doom situation where we will have 2P-core, while conveniently forgetting that arrow lake will use 8 P-core, Wich doesn't match your narrative. You want more P-core while forgetting that manufacturing get more expensive, larger die are more expensive, and the e-core are space efficient. If you watched laptops reviews you've seen already that the e-core are not groundbreaking when it comes to battery life, on that aspect AMD still rules over intel...but Intel rules in absolute performance since the e-cores allow them to have more threads.

That's the main benefits of the e-cores: more threads on smaller die, and since the die is smaller, it's cheaper. That's why AMD used chiplets on the first place, but now it doesn't look like they can fit more chiplet on AM5...But you know what can fit more cores per die area? zen 4c. The same thing that allowed them to make 128 cores epyc when the regular epyc tops at 96 cores.

 

[Zareek]

Why would you negatively criticise something that is entirely positive? I think whoever doesnt like ecores is losing the plot - you must have a fundamental misunderstanding on why they even exist

I was totally going to post that I agree, and then I looked it up on Amazon again today. The price has jumped up by nearly 14% in the last week! With the price approaching $300($339), I was leaning towards grabbing one a week ago. Now it is back near $400($392) again.

 

[Dr_b_]

Disturbing trend, keep the ecores shut down, only care about the P Cores, and now fewer P Cores?

 

[john_]

I mean those e-core managed to put AMD in a dicey situation where the 7600x and 7700x are losing in their price bracket: the 13600k can compete (even beat) with the 7700x while being cheaper, and the 13700k is far better in MT than the 7700x just for 50$ more.

And you are already talking about a doom situation where we will have 2P-core, while conveniently forgetting that arrow lake will use 8 P-core, Wich doesn't match your narrative. You want more P-core while forgetting that manufacturing get more expensive, larger die are more expensive, and the e-core are space efficient. If you watched laptops reviews you've seen already that the e-core are not groundbreaking when it comes to battery life, on that aspect AMD still rules over intel...but Intel rules in absolute performance since the e-cores allow them to have more threads.

That's the main benefits of the e-cores: more threads on smaller die, and since the die is smaller, it's cheaper. That's why AMD used chiplets on the first place, but now it doesn't look like they can fit more chiplet on AM5...But you know what can fit more cores per die area? zen 4c. The same thing that allowed them to make 128 cores epyc when the regular epyc tops at 96 cores.
View attachment 267986

AMD's problem is pricing. And AMD will fix that problem by copying Intel's idea of using two different type of cores, like what Intel is doing. And AMD can do this easily. They can build a CCD with more and smaller, or just older cores and put those as a second chiplet in their CPUs. Mendocino is an example of combining old tech (Zen 2), made at a newer node (6nm) with a newer architecture (RDNA2). Intel and AMD win, we lose. Why? Because until recently 16 cores meant 16 equal P cores. We where paying 16 P cores and we where getting 16 P cores. In the future 16 cores will mean "X number of P cores needed to win most benchmarks, plus 16-X number of slower/older cores to advertise a high core count on the box and the marketing material". The final price of course will be that of 16 P cores.

The 2 P cores example is already happening today. The mobile Intel i7 1260U is a 10 CORE and 12 Threads CPU. It's an i7 with 2 P cores. 10 years ago a mobile i7 with only 2 cores/4 threads was considered a scam. It shouldn't be called an i7. Today it is not a scam, because it also integrates 8 Efficiency cores. So it is OK, because it is somewhat fast at multicore benchmarks, fast in situations where only 2 cores are used and comes with 10 cores. Let's focus on the number of cores. 10 cores, many cores, so let's call it i7.

The thing is that, what we see today in laptops, we might see it tomorrow in desktops. Well, we definitely will see in desktops. And in a way we already see it, but at high end, that's why no one is complaining. The 24 Cores 13700K comes with 16 Efficiency cores, more E cores than P cores. But should we applause because it beats 7950X, or just worry about what will come next? And what comes next is here already. We see Intel cutting 2 P cores in it's next design. So instead of offering all the performance to the consumer with Meteor Lake, it chooses to cut 2 cores so it can make Arrow Lake look more of a valid upgrade when that series becomes available. Meteor Lake will obviously be faster in everything, but still this is the wrong direction in my opinion.

 

[aQi]

I think it's been reasonably established that only the mobile Meteor Lake parts will have 6 P cores. It is being suggested by some sources that the main reason for the 6 P core limit in this arena is to get the maximum performance per watt. This would fit in with the new LPE (Low Power Efficient) cores that also give Intel three types of cores like ARM. Mobile Meteor Lake should also see the use of Intel's patented DLVR technology. Intel has always had a more powerful IGP on its notebook and laptop CPUs than the desktop. With Meteor Lake mobile the plan is to have an Arc-based Graphics Tile fabricated on TSMC's N5 process. TSMC will also be manufacturing the SOC Tile (N6) and the IO Tile (also N6). Intel will only make the silicon interposer on which the Tiles are fixed and the Compute Tile.

Some of the Desktop Tiles will also be manufactured by TSMC. I would not expect to see the LPE cores on the desktop, and it will be interesting to see if the Graphics Tile is limited to some form of IGP or whether there might also be a more capable unit similar to the mobile sector for some chips. I would expect Intel to carry on with its F and KF series of CPUs which have no graphics functionality with the Desktop range of Meteor Lake.

I kinda like the idea here because the notebook market is still emerging with establishment of performance per watt. That being said the IGP might be an interesting article to explore coming from the newly developed XE architecture.

 

[dyonoctis]

AMD's problem is pricing. And AMD will fix that problem by copying Intel's idea of using two different type of cores, like what Intel is doing. And AMD can do this easily. They can build a CCD with more and smaller, or just older cores and put those as a second chiplet in their CPUs. Mendocino is an example of combining old tech (Zen 2), made at a newer node (6nm) with a newer architecture (RDNA2). Intel and AMD win, we lose. Why? Because until recently 16 cores meant 16 equal P cores. We where paying 16 P cores and we where getting 16 P cores. In the future 16 cores will mean "X number of P cores needed to win most benchmarks, plus 16-X number of slower/older cores to advertise a high core count on the box and the marketing material". The final price of course will be that of 16 P cores.

The 2 P cores example is already happening today. The mobile Intel i7 1260U is a 10 CORE and 12 Threads CPU. It's an i7 with 2 P cores. 10 years ago a mobile i7 with only 2 cores/4 threads was considered a scam. It shouldn't be called an i7. Today it is not a scam, because it also integrates 8 Efficiency cores. So it is OK, because it is somewhat fast at multicore benchmarks, fast in situations where only 2 cores are used and comes with 10 cores. Let's focus on the number of cores. 10 cores, many cores, so let's call it i7.

The thing is that, what we see today in laptops, we might see it tomorrow in desktops. Well, we definitely will see in desktops. And in a way we already see it, but at high end, that's why no one is complaining. The 24 Cores 13700K comes with 16 Efficiency cores, more E cores than P cores. But should we applause because it beats 7950X, or just worry about what will come next? And what comes next is here already. We see Intel cutting 2 P cores in it's next design. So instead of offering all the performance to the consumer with Meteor Lake, it chooses to cut 2 cores so it can make Arrow Lake look more of a valid upgrade when that series becomes available. Meteor Lake will obviously be faster in everything, but still this is the wrong direction in my opinion.

The core i7 13700k got 8P-core and 8 e-core. It's a 16 cores/24 threads CPU, not 24 cores.

The U series has always been an outlier on intel's side, and a market where they did poorly against AMD. When AMD managed to cram 8 zen cores on a 5800u, Intel could only put 6 and lost both in MT and in power efficiency. The P series replace the old u series and max out at 4 p-cores 8 e-cores, but Ryzen still trounce them on perf/watts. But those are meant for really small and light laptops, where power efficiency and thermal management is key.

Nothing to do with the desktop where both Intel and AMD have been pushing the power consumption to ludicrous level just to get a few more %. To get back on the 13700k: 8 e-cores takes as much place as 2 P-cores. Turning the core i7 into a full 10 P-core CPU might have bring little improvement in real life. Even a 12 core ZEN 4 got trouble dealing with it in MT. Yhea it's a shame that meteor lake might have a lower core count, but until we see a slide saying 6-p cores max on desktop it's not settled yet. We just started to make assumptions based on the schematics on that one slide, but intel hasn't relieved the line up yet. According to the rumors the full line up looks like this, Wich is really odd:

• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 125W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 65W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 22 (6P + 16E) / 4 Xe Cores / 35W TDP
• Meteor Lake-S 14 (6P + 8E) / 4 Xe Cores / 65WTDP
• Meteor Lake-S 14 (6P + 8E) / 4 Xe Cores / 35WTDP

AMD Ryzen 7 6800U and Intel Core i7-1260P Review | TechSpot