Support NeoGAF

[Gubaldo]

Information regarding upcoming Intel Nova Lake-S CPU configurations has been leaked by Chi11eddog. According to the leaker, motherboard makers are very early in the development of their next-gen platforms, which will feature the LGA 1854 socket and 900-series PCH. These boards will feature next-gen technologies and support for really fast memory, with CUDIMM once again taking center stage as the memory of choice for those who want to extract the most performance out of their PCs.

• Core Ultra 9 - 16 P-Cores + 32 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)
• Core Ultra 7 - 14 P-Cores + 24 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 8 P-Cores + 16 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 8 P-Cores + 12 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 6 P-Cores + 8 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 3 - 4 P-Cores + 8 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (65W)
• Core Ultra 3 - 4 P-Cores + 4 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (65W)

Intel Nova Lake-S Desktop CPU SKUs Leak: Up To 52 Cores With 16 P-Cores, 32 E-Cores & 150W TDP, Entry-Level SKUs With 12 Cores

Intel's Nova Lake-S "Core Ultra 400" Desktop CPU SKUs have leaked, which point to up to 52 cores and 150W TDP on the LGA 1854 socket.

wccftech.com

High time intel gave some competition

 

[Mr Moose]

& 150W TDP

So 500W then?

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Information regarding upcoming Intel Nova Lake-S CPU configurations has been leaked by Chi11eddog. According to the leaker, motherboard makers are very early in the development of their next-gen platforms, which will feature the LGA 1854 socket and 900-series PCH. These boards will feature next-gen technologies and support for really fast memory, with CUDIMM once again taking center stage as the memory of choice for those who want to extract the most performance out of their PCs.

• Core Ultra 9 - 16 P-Cores + 32 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)
• Core Ultra 7 - 14 P-Cores + 24 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 8 P-Cores + 16 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 8 P-Cores + 12 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 5 - 6 P-Cores + 8 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (125W)
• Core Ultra 3 - 4 P-Cores + 8 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (65W)
• Core Ultra 3 - 4 P-Cores + 4 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (65W)

Intel Nova Lake-S Desktop CPU SKUs Leak: Up To 52 Cores With 16 P-Cores, 32 E-Cores & 150W TDP, Entry-Level SKUs With 12 Cores

Intel's Nova Lake-S "Core Ultra 400" Desktop CPU SKUs have leaked, which point to up to 52 cores and 150W TDP on the LGA 1854 socket.

wccftech.com

High time intel gave some competition

That's some impressive core counts, but does gaming benefit at all from e-cores? From what I can understand, single P-core performance is still what is most important for that time of workload.

 

[Gitaroo]

Rather have P cores only CPU even if the core count is much lower

 

[Thebonehead]

Rise Leonidas

 

[Skifi28]

The whole P and E core thing just makes things far more complicated than it has to be. I also recall some games/app having issues and having to manually adjust which cores to use in order to have decent performance. Why not just have one type of cores and dynamically adjust their clocks based on usage as usual? Simple, elegant and it works. Feels like waste of silicon to me. Definitely going AMD for my next build.

 

[cartman414]

Whoa. Those thermals used to be what I'd expect from an -E chip. Imagine Turbo mode.

 

[Singular7]

I'll build a core ultra 9 when it releases. Been on AMD since 2017, time to try team blue again

 

[Draugoth]

52 Cores is an insane ammount of cores, games performance might be even lowered.

• Core Ultra 9 - 16 P-Cores + 32 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)
• Core Ultra 7 - 14 P-Cores + 24 E-Cores + 4 LP-E Cores (150W)

These are crazy energy values, the CPU might be insanely hot and degrade even faster than Raptor Lake

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"150W" probably means 700W when actually running all 52 cores maxed for 5 seconds before throttling occurs

 

[Draugoth]

"150W" probably means 700W when actually running all 52 cores maxed for 5 seconds before throttling occurs

My 14900K easily reached 100C during Shader Compilation, it was so hot and power hungry that it actually started degrading.

Any CPU reaching 100C and this ammount of TPD is a big no no.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

52 Cores is an insane ammount of cores, games performance might be even lowered.



These are crazy energy values, the CPU might be insanely hot and degrade even faster than Raptor Lake

Degradation in raptor lake was due to a bug causing the motherboard to oversupply power beyond what the CPU was rated for in key moments, it had nothing to do with how many watts the CPU was designed and officially stated to consume. In other words even if Nova Lake has a higher tdp than Arrow and raptor lake it should be fine just like Arrow Lake is as long as theres no bugs in the firmware.

 

[marquimvfs]

Rise Leonidas

There's always a necromancer...

 

[LavitzSlambert]

That's no CPU, that's a space heater.

 

[IFireflyl]

Purely for gaming, you'd likely see similar or worse gaming performance compared to CPUs like the 7800X3D, which is far cheaper and cooler. The Ryzen 7800X3D is also better optimized for low-latency workloads. For gamers/streamers, the massive core count would be beneficial as you could game while encoding, rendering, etc., all with minimal performance impact.

For value and efficiency, this is not the chip to buy. It's overkill for 99% of gaming workloads, and scheduling behavior on hybrid architectures isn't great. Honestly, this is another Intel CPU generation that I am likely going to pass on. Even if they massively improve their IPC, I am sick of Intel releasing power hogs. Minimal performance gains (or worse performance in some cases) while being more expensive and power hungry is a terrible business model.

 

[winjer]

That's some impressive core counts, but does gaming benefit at all from e-cores? From what I can understand, single P-core performance is still what is most important for that time of workload.

No. Games don't benefit from the economy cores. In fact, it causes performance loses.
So what devs and Intel try to do to optimize games is to make sure that game threads don't jump into the e-cores.
Gamers can also do something similar, using process lasso.