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

G

Gubaldo

Member
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)

wccftech.com

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 wccftech.com


High time intel gave some competition
 
Last edited:

& 150W TDP

Click to expand...
tenor.gif

So 500W then?
 
Gubaldo said:
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)

wccftech.com

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 wccftech.com


High time intel gave some competition
Click to expand...
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 kind of workload.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...

These are crazy energy values, the CPU might be insanely hot and degrade even faster than Raptor Lake
 
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier said:
"150W" probably means 700W when actually running all 52 cores maxed for 5 seconds before throttling occurs
Click to expand...

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.
 
Draugoth said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Jinzo Prime said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Uurrghh...

Windows Scheduler nightmare incoming.

Look forward to all the tech reviewers telling us which cores should be turned off for gaming.
 
Skifi28 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just ordered my first ever AMD desktop chip for my own PC Workstation, yesterday - went with 9800X3D/X870 combo - and I've been exclusively on Intel since 80286 but have changed for the same reason that I don't see any value in an asymmetric setup with E and P cores in preference to the all P core solutions from AMD
 
Skifi28 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The reason for having E cores is not really power saving, but area saving, since Intel don't have chiplets on the desktop and this enables them to ship many more cores for a given die size.
 
Singular7 said:
I'll build a core ultra 9 when it releases. Been on AMD since 2017, time to try team blue again
Click to expand...
wccftech.com

AMD's Next-Gen Ryzen Zen 6 "Medusa Ridge" CPUs To Come In 12, 24 & 32 Core Flavors, Up To 128 MB L3 Cache

AMD's next-generation Ryzen CPUs based on the Zen 6 core "Medusa Ridge" architecture will pack increased core and cache counts.
wccftech.com wccftech.com
Zen 6 has up to 32 cores / 64 threads and up to 128 MB L3 cache.

AMD has delivered 16 cores per CCD with compact Zen cores. Higher density process node allows for a larger cache.
 
why is the intel core ultra series of CPUs so expensive?
especially when compared to the AMD counterparts
i dont understand the pricing logic by intel behind these CPUs
 
Last edited:
Gameplay Gods Bless said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a bug, bad architeture.

Raptor Lake was operating at the limit of what 10mm allowed, the energy consumption and temps are just too high for the chip to handle
 
Skifi28 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No kidding. When I first heard of P and E cores, I thought it could end up being a game changer as I thought game developers could push certain tasks to E-cores and free up P-cores for more rigorous tasks.

That clearly never happened.
 
Gameplay Gods Bless said:
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.
Click to expand...

The issue with Intel CPU degradation still isn't fixed, as Intel is still releasing new UEFIs to try to mitigate the issue.
The last one was a few weeks ago. And motherboard makers should have already have new firmwares with the new code.
 
JohnnyFootball said:
No kidding. When I first heard of P and E cores, I thought it could end up being a game changer as I thought game developers could push certain tasks to E-cores and free up P-cores for more rigorous tasks.

That clearly never happened.
Click to expand...

Games weren't limited by the amount of cores or threads, so it was obvious that the e-cores would not help gaming.
The the big cores in the Intel CPUs were already enough to deal with all the game threads.
And having cores with lower IPC, lower clock speed and low amount of cache would never help gaming.
The reality is that games scale with IPC, clocks and cache. Beyond 8C16T, there is nothing to gain. And it has been like this for over a decade now.
 
winjer said:
Games weren't limited by the amount of cores or threads, so it was obvious that the e-cores would not help gaming.
The the big cores in the Intel CPUs were already enough to deal with all the game threads.
And having cores with lower IPC, lower clock speed and low amount of cache would never help gaming.
The reality is that games scale with IPC, clocks and cache. Beyond 8C16T, there is nothing to gain. And it has been like this for over a decade now.
Click to expand...
Yep, I bought a 12 core 3900X when Zen 2 came out. It offered no benefits in gaming. I since then stuck with 8-core. I now have threads disabled in my 7800X3D and 9800X3D system using X3D Turbo mode. Few games benefit from the threads (Starfield being one of them) and disabling them drops CPU power by a non-insignificant amount. I may look into this again and see if it's worthwhile to re-enable them.
 
The only numbers that matter are the gaming benchmarks and the price. I have my doubts that Intel can catch back up to AMD in gaming anytime soon.
 
If the u5 8 core is priced like a 14600K ill bite, that'll be a hell of a deal.
Hopefully Intels confidence was shot by ArrowLake reception.

If they price it like a 14700K Ill probably just stuck to a 14600K and float the generation till I need....NEED a full system rebuild.

LavitzSlambert said:
That's no CPU, that's a space heater.
Click to expand...

The Ultra line is as efficient as Zen 5 if not more considering actual core count.
So we must all be running space heaters.

power-games.png



cpu-temperature-blender.png
 
Draugoth said:
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.
Click to expand...
the 13x/14xk cpus just had shit design, any other proper cpu doesn't degrade like that; now of course it's ok to be cautious after that debacle, but it's not the norm.
 
Black_Stride said:
The Ultra line is as efficient as Zen 5 if not more considering actual core count.
So we must all be running space heaters.
Click to expand...

The 9700X, for example, is slightly faster than the 265K, while using slightly less power.
So no, the 265K is not more efficient in gaming. Though it's not too far off.
And of course, that the e-cores don't count, as they are power gated during gaming.

The moment it's really far off, it's when we compare the 285K agains the 9800X3D.
That is a blood bath, with the 9800X3D having much greater performance and lower power usage.
And that means the best efficiency, by a huge margin.
 
winjer said:
The 9700X, for example, is slightly faster than the 265K, while using slightly less power.
So no, the 265K is not more efficient in gaming. Though it's not too far off.
And of course, that the e-cores don't count, as they are power gated during gaming.

The moment it's really far off, it's when we compare the 285K agains the 9800X3D.
That is a blood bath, with the 9800X3D having much greater performance and lower power usage.
And that means the best efficiency, by a huge margin.
Click to expand...

Intels CPU dont eat tons of power or heat themselves to boiling for fun
You'd be pulling similar numbers on heat and wattage as each other depending on the workload.
If you are doing a purely gaming system the X3Ds are the obvious choice, if you are doing more then Intels offerings become much more attractive.
If you are building a dare I call it Entry level system them Intel is a totally viable option for the price that non-Ks go for.

Which was my point.
The Ultras arent pulling 100s of Watts fully loaded like the Core i used to, the joke of Intel being super hot and power hungry doesnt factor anymore as the CPUs are on average about the same.
 
Black_Stride said:
Intels CPU dont eat tons of power or heat themselves to boiling for fun
You'd be pulling similar numbers on heat and wattage as each other depending on the workload.
If you are doing a purely gaming system the X3Ds are the obvious choice, if you are doing more then Intels offerings become much more attractive.
If you are building a dare I call it Entry level system them Intel is a totally viable option for the price that non-Ks go for.

Which was my point.
The Ultras arent pulling 100s of Watts fully loaded like the Core i used to, the joke of Intel being super hot and power hungry doesnt factor anymore as the CPUs are on average about the same.
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't have only CPUs with 8cores.
There is also the 9950X, with and without the 3dvcache.

The issue with the 200 line is that several programs and games can run much worse than Zen5 or even than Intel's 14th and 13th gen.
The reality is that this CPU is so bad, that Intel is still selling a lot more 13/14th gen CPUs, than 200 series. Which might be a good thing, because then Intel doesn't have to pay TSMC.
 
winjer said:
AMD doesn't have only CPUs with 8cores.
There is also the 9950X, with and without the 3dvcache.

The issue with the 200 line is that several programs and games can run much worse than Zen5 or even than Intel's 14th and 13th gen.
The reality is that this CPU is so bad, that Intel is still selling a lot more 13/14th gen CPUs, than 200 series. Which might be a good thing, because then Intel doesn't have to pay TSMC.
Click to expand...

In higher core count workloads the u9 and r9 are neck and neck.
If you are buying high core count CPUs and NEED them then Intel is totally viable.
Down the stack the 12/3/400 were always good and I dont believe Intel ever brought out the replacement 240 or atleast havent seen any in the wild.
 
Black_Stride said:
In higher core count workloads the u9 and r9 are neck and neck.
If you are buying high core count CPUs and NEED them then Intel is totally viable.
Down the stack the 12/3/400 were always good and I dont believe Intel ever brought out the replacement 240 or atleast havent seen any in the wild.
Click to expand...

Depends on the CPU load. Zen5 was a big hit for workstations and servers, due to the new architecture and instructions.
Meanwhile, the 200 series can't barely compete with the 13/14th gen.

But for professionals, that require lots of CPU cores, there is nothing better than Threadripper:

 
Skifi28 said:
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.
Click to expand...
100%

I have issue like this on my 14700k

Some game engines dont work with e cores and leads to stutter. I disabled all ecores

Amd ftw
 
JohnnyFootball said:
No kidding. When I first heard of P and E cores, I thought it could end up being a game changer as I thought game developers could push certain tasks to E-cores and free up P-cores for more rigorous tasks.

That clearly never happened.
Click to expand...

It's a great idea in concept, but in practice they are making things much more complicated and unless software is optimized for BIGlittle (excluding the inherent overhead of the scheduler) we won't see gains. The entire idea of this is for the data center and to run as much as possible on low powered E cores while reserving some muscle for actual workloads when they arise. For gaming it's overhyped.
 
Draugoth said:
Not a bug, bad architeture.

Raptor Lake was operating at the limit of what 10mm allowed, the energy consumption and temps are just too high for the chip to handle
Click to expand...
It was a firmware bug and it's fixed. New 14900k CPUs don't have this issue. Even Zen 5 is frying itself due firmware bugs it's not exclusive to Intel.
 
SpokkX said:
100%

I have issue like this on my 14700k

Some game engines dont work with e cores and leads to stutter. I disabled all ecores

Amd ftw
Click to expand...
It's a recent thing, the devs of Doom TDA talked about how they had to optimize for heterogenous CPU architectures because they're a new recent phenomenon that is not going away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Borderlands 4 has Denuvo and Symbiote (Kernel Level DRM), system requirements demand 8 CPU cores
News Hardware  2
70
71
Barakov replied
you guys think 8 cores will be enough for the next 6-7 years ?
30
2K
Wilhelm_85 replied
Radeon RX 9060 XT features 2048 cores, boost clock of 3.2 GHz
Hardware  2
96
2K
ResilientBanana replied
MiSTer FPGA Sega Saturn core hits update_all; basically a finished core
19
126
_Ex_ replied
PS3 Games Running on PS5 Silicone via RPCS3/Linux with only 6 Cores Active
Analysis 
12
2K
TehGoomba7s replied
Top Bottom