Intel "Nova Lake‑S" Series: Seven SKUs, Up to 52 Cores and 150 W TDP

[dgianstefani]

I guess, depends how well old BIOS are maintained and all that. It is nice that AMD has keep sockets longer and it really helped when AMD was behind or far behind on performance.

If there is so little improvement going forward as we have seen from both companies like in the last few years there are other tech changes i will care about that will require a new MB when I get a new CPU.

AMD had to be bullied to add promised support for new CPU gens to old AM4 motherboards in past, due to BS about can't fit the microcode in BIOS, ignoring the fact they magically managed to after community noticed. All of these companies do exactly the bare minimum they can get away with.

 

[freeagent]

Dammit, I bought an AM5 board for Zen6.. but Ultra 7 or Ultra 9 should be a nice toy..

 

[dgianstefani]

Dammit, I bought an AM5 board for Zen6.. but Ultra 7 or Ultra 9 should be a nice toy..

A year away! So enough time to excuse it to the wife

 

[Dr_b_]

is intel set to deliver more PCIe lanes though? Why not just release a 16P Core SKU for that niche market that wants that without the hybrid problems? AVX512 coming back as well or still MIA?

 

[tfp]

I thought I saw some rumor about 10.2 AVX but I can't remember if that mean AVX512 or not.

 

[AnotherReader]

There were three generations of CPU supporting two generations of DDR, plus more recent rebrands on LGA-1700. During this time core counts jumped massively and ST perf went up around 30%.

Zen 5 already has hybrid SKUs with normal and C CCDs.

Single threaded performance didn't increase by 30%. The 14900K is about 15% faster than the 12900K in single threaded scenarios.

 

[RogueSix]

is intel set to deliver more PCIe lanes though? Why not just release a 16P Core SKU for that niche market that wants that without the hybrid problems? AVX512 coming back as well or still MIA?

Rumor mill is saying "up to 36 PCIe 5.0 lanes".

Minus four lanes for DMI leaves 32 lanes for everything else/actual use, i.e. it would theoretically be possible to have a graphics card at x16 and up to four x4 M.2 slots with no dreaded lane sharing.

This would be glorious if true and I hope that AMD will at least be able to match this with consumer ZEN 6 (plus new boards).

 

[lexluthermiester]

Rumor mill is saying "up to 36 PCIe 5.0 lanes".

I've heard 44 similar to the X299 CPU lineup.

 

[TechLurker]

Can't wait to see how AMD will respond. If this holds these CPUs will be monsters.

AMD would just split it between 16 Full Zen Cores + 32c Zen Cores + 4 NPUs for dedicated basic AI. So technically the same 52 core count; but trading the 4 low power efficiency cores for extra AI optimization.

 

[Dr. Dro]

AMD would just split it between 16 Full Zen Cores + 32c Zen Cores + 4 NPUs for dedicated basic AI. So technically the same 52 core count; but trading the 4 low power efficiency cores for extra AI optimization.

That would be sick

 

[dgianstefani]

Single threaded performance didn't increase by 30%. The 14900K is about 15% faster than the 12900K in single threaded scenarios.

View attachment 403946

That's true. I was remembering the 14900KS "relative performance", and games, where the improved memory controller allowed pretty big gains.

 

[Dr. Dro]

What jacks up the KS's performance is its extremely high clock speeds, though. The 14900KS has particularly aggressive clocks, it's 5.9 all core and 6.2 on the 2 turbos, like 300 MHz faster than the 13th KS (5.6/6.0) - and I can barely keep my 13900KS under nominal temperatures with conventional liquid cooling.

 

[Frizz]

Dammit, I bought an AM5 board for Zen6.. but Ultra 7 or Ultra 9 should be a nice toy..

I'll be switching myself around this time next year, not one to upgrade every release but I'll argue I upgraded at the wrong time lol next CPUs seem to be where the true next milestone is. That said I loved my 285K and wish I never switched to a 9950X3D on a whim.

 

[Melvis]

The Core Ultra 9 285k matched the Zen 5 9950X in fully multi-threaded workloads with an 8 thread deficit (24 vs 32). So yeah, it will translate.

I see it this way, the 9950X matched the Core Ultra 9 285 in fully workloads with a 8 Core deficit (16 vs 24) which is way more impressive since a thread is only 25% of a real core at best.

I think these new Intel CPU's are DOA honestly for mainstream desktops. Software cant even work properly with P and E cores let alone another one mixed in.....and games......well pfft. If this was to go against threadripper then I can see it make more sense, but for mainstream desktop.....nope sorry, pointless! where 8 Cores can do everything you need today and tomorrow.

 

[dyonoctis]

Those are your claims only. I'd much rather wait for actual reviews, than put my bets on some random guy's comments.

Also, I'm talking about general performance here, not the very niche and few workloads that actually fully utilize Intel's P and E cores. Most users don't need or will benefit from all those extra E-cores, hence why it's more of a PR gimmick than anything else.

Lastly, please do blindly trust Intel's judgment of how many cores the average user needs, but don't forget it is the same company that gave you nothing but 4-cores on 7 generations of products.

Eh, it's not about how core many per se, but how parallel your workload is. Intel is increasing the core count, because they expect AMD to do the same. And they can't let them have free rein at the top of the "consumer" market with their 32-core CPU.

And there's also a strong argument about how many people don't need AMD to increase the core count if you look at the current reviews of 32-core TR vs consumer CPUs. But if the core count increases on the mainstream platform, apps might be developed to take advantage of that.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 7000 Content Creation Review

AMD has launched their new Threadripper 7000 series of processors, offering substantial performance improvements across the board. But, exactly how do they compare to Intel's Xeon W-3400 line?

www.pugetsystems.com

Besides, that also means that the high-end core count of today will be the mid-range core count of tomorrow. You don't have to buy the Core Ultra 9. The new Core Ultra 5 seems very solid for most people.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I've heard 44 similar to the X299 CPU lineup.

Only 1954 contacts vs 2066. Not sure that is enough.

 

[Caring1]

No low power version under 65W?
Intel used to make them for workstations, generally 45W chips.

 

[dismuter]

Strix Halo goes up to 256GB/s

Yes, with a 256-bit bus, which is the equivalent of quad-channel. On socketed platforms, that's currently only available with Threadripper or Xeon W.

 

[Degreco]

Personally, I don't need a dozen or even more real P-cores than today's flagship CPUs offer. What I want to see from Intel and AMD is an increased boost in single thread performance in the coming architectures.

A higher core count is great if you are an encoder or crunching or running benchmarks. But my rig (and I assume most profiles too) is not at 100% core load all the time. Even when gaming or working with productivity apps, I feel 'perceived performance' like snappiness in apps and in the OS comes solely from brute single core performance (when using a modern CPU with a high enough core count, of course).

So giving a normal mainstream user (normal productivity, gaming, IMHO 90th percentile of all user profiles) a better performance than today's modern CPUs must come from single thread improvements.

That's what Apple understood years ago.

Just look at the M4 Max and the architecture. A small package but so much horsepower in SC, it's a great design. I hope AMD and Intel don't forget that, because statistically, for most users higher core counts won't dramatically change the contemporary user experience on AM5 or LGA1700/1851 that much (unless, of course and as said above, you crunch for a life). That's all IMHO, and your mileage may vary, depending on what you do with your computer.

 

[AnotherReader]

That's true. I was remembering the 14900KS "relative performance", and games, where the improved memory controller allowed pretty big gains.

The KS doesn't move the needle much compared to the 14900K either. The memory controller is improved, but the 12900K can use DDR5 6400 so I suspect the gap is unlikely to be 30% without handicapping the 12900K.

 

[dgianstefani]

The KS doesn't move the needle much compared to the 14900K either. The memory controller is improved, but the 12900K can use DDR5 6400 so I suspect the gap is unlikely to be 30% without handicapping the 12900K.

Raptor Lake can do 8000 MT, sometimes a little higher.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Personally, I don't need a dozen or even more real P-cores than today's flagship CPUs offer. What I want to see from Intel and AMD is an increased boost in single thread performance in the coming architectures.

A higher core count is great if you are an encoder or crunching or running benchmarks. But my rig (and I assume most profiles too) is not at 100% core load all the time. Even when gaming or working with productivity apps, I feel 'perceived performance' like snappiness in apps and in the OS comes solely from brute single core performance (when using a modern CPU with a high enough core count, of course).

So giving a normal mainstream user (normal productivity, gaming, IMHO 90th percentile of all user profiles) a better performance than today's modern CPUs must come from single thread improvements.

That's what Apple understood years ago.

Just look at the M4 Max and the architecture. A small package but so much horsepower in SC, it's a great design. I hope AMD and Intel don't forget that, because statistically, for most users higher core counts won't dramatically change the contemporary user experience on AM5 or LGA1700/1851 that much (unless, of course and as said above, you crunch for a life). That's all IMHO, and your mileage may vary, depending on what you do with your computer.

Also, note that in Apple’s larger designs, they don’t add more efficiency cores, but rather they add more performance cores. Intel does the opposite. Apple tops out at 6 E cores on M4, and actually offer fewer E cores (4) on M4 Pro and Max.

 

[Degreco]

Also, note that in Apple’s larger designs, they don’t add more efficiency cores, but rather they add more performance cores. Intel does the opposite. Apple tops out at 6 E cores on M4, and actually offer fewer E cores (4) on M4 Pro and Max.

Yep, Apple did their homework. Enhanced single core performance, multi core good enough, and all this with great efficiency.

I want that for x86

 

[AnotherReader]

Raptor Lake can do 8000 MT, sometimes a little higher.

What's the limit for Alder Lake?

 

[matar]

Great now that is an UPGREADE i am buying the 385k 52 cores and with an upgrade to my gpu ( NO not a 5090 ) the best OC edition 4090 because of my fav games use PhysX