Intel Arrow Lake and Panther Lake CPU power profiles allegedly surfaced — leak details Intel Baseline, Performance, and Extreme profiles for next-gen chips
Intel is reportedly fine-tuning its power profiles for Arrow Lake-S CPUs.
Hardware leakers Jaykihn and Harukaze5719 have reportedly leaked the power profiles for Intel's Arrow Lake and Panther Lake processors. These next-generation chips will arrive to rival the best CPUs on the market.
The leak details Intel's Baseline, Performance, and Extreme power profiles for five distinct variants of Arrow Lake-S processors. The core configurations and TDPs include: 8+16 at 125W, 8+12 at 125W, 6+8 at 125W, 6+8 at 65W, and 6+4 at 65W. The former number depicts the number of P-cores, while the latter depicts the chip's number of E-cores.
For the flagship 8+16 125W configuration, there will be Intel profiles for motherboard makers to choose from Baseline, Performance, and Extreme. The Baseline profile features a PL1 rating of 125W and a PL2 rating of 177W; the IccMAX amperage limit is 287 amps. Performance features a 125W PL1 rating, 250W Pl2 rating, and 347 amp IccMAX rating. The Extreme profile features a 125W PL1 rating, 295W PL2 rating, and 400W IccMAX amperage limit. This flagship 8+16 configuration is the only core config that offers an extreme profile.
The 8+12 125W Baseline profile has a 125W PL1 rating, 177W PL2 rating, and a 287 amp IccMAX limit. The Performance profile keeps the same 125W PL1 rating but increases PL2 to 25W and IccMAX to 347 amps.
The 6+8 125W Baseline profile features identical PL1 and PL2 ratings at 125W, giving this profile only a single power level. IccMax is limited to 203 amps. The Performance profile, however, increases PL2 to 159 watts and IccMax to 242 amps.
The 6+8 65W config comes with significantly neutered power limits due to the lower TDP. For the Baseline, the PL1 rating is set at 65W and the PL2 rating at 84W. IccMAX is set at 143 amps. For the Performance profile, PL2 is increased to 121W and 188 amps, respectively. The least potent configuration, the 6+4 65W config, inherits the same profiles as the 6+8 configuration.
Differences vs Raptor Lake
Arrow Lake's power profile parameters are very different from Raptor Lake's. The flagship 8+16 125W Extreme profile on Arrow Lake has a significantly lower PL1 rating; Raptor Lake's equivalent Extreme profile on the 8+16 125W chips uses a 253W limit for PL1 and PL2. The performance profile is also different, where the Arrow Lake PL2 peaks at 250W and has a 347 amp limit. The Performance profile on the Raptor Lake equivalent inherits the same 253W PL1 and PL2 config from the Extreme profile but drops the amperage limit to 307 amps.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
The Baseline profile is also slightly different; Raptor Lake has a higher PL2 rating of 188W but a lower amperage limit of 249 amps.
Similar changes also appear in the 8+12 125W config. The Performance Profile for Arrow Lake features a much lower PL1 rating and a higher amperage limit. Raptor Lake again has identical PL1 and PL2 limits of 253 watts. The Baseline profile on Arrow Lake has a slightly lower PL2 rating but a somewhat larger IccMax amp limit.
Again, there are changes on the 6+8 125W config for both Arrow Lake and Raptor Lake. The Performance Profile for Raptor Lake, once again, has identical PL1 and PL2 ratings, though this time they are at 188W. Arrow Lake, by contrast, has two different limits for the PL1 and PL2, with both being lower than 188W. Arrow Lake also has a much higher IccMax limit, 42 amps higher than Raptor Lake.
The most significant differences in Intel's power profiles are arguably due to the 6+8 and 6+4 65W configurations. Intel changed things massively with Arrow Lake by adding a Performance profile to these 65W configs. Raptor Lake, by contrast, only has a single "Default" profile. The default profile on Raptor Lake is more similar to the Performance Profile on Arrow Lake, featuring a slightly more potent PL2 rating but an inferior IccMAX limit. The Baseline profiles for these two chip configurations on Arrow Lake are truly restrictive, with neither option allowing the chips to consume power in the triple-digit range.
Panther Lake & Mobile Arrow Lake
Another post by Jaykihn showed off a huge assortment of power profiles for Panther Lake and Arrow Lake mobile. There's a colossal amount of data, so we'll only highlight some of the profiles that stood out to us.
The Panther Lake 6+8+4 (the latter number being Xe GPU cores) chip (PTL-H) purportedly comes with a PL1 rating of 45W, PL2 80W, PL3 82W, and PL4 240W, with an Iccmax rating of 149 amps. The low-power variant (PTL-U) with a 4+0+4 configuration comes with a 15W PL1, 54W PL2, 56W PL3, and 142 PL4, with an IccMax limit of 79 amps.
The most performant Arrow Lake notebook chip, the 8+16+4 config (ARL+HX), has a power configuration similar to its desktop counterparts. PL1 is rated at 55W, PL2 160W, PL3 162W, PL4 291W, and Iccmax is rated at 263 amps.
Jaykihn's table also highlights the addition of a low-powered Arrow Lake chip with a 15W PL1 rating, revealing that Intel will be making low-powered Arrow Lake chips even though Lunar Lake is already filling.
Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.
-
KyaraM Reply
I think you mean 400A here, not 400W, right? And in the next paragraph, PL2 is certainly not raised to 25W, but rather to 250W...Admin said:The Extreme profile features a 125W PL1 rating, 295W PL2 rating and 400W IccMAX amperage limit.
Anyways, baseline and Performance sound fine to me. Extreme is pretty heavy on the power draw, but I guess it's at least honest if these limits are enforced. Will be interesting to see how they affect performance. My guess is that Performance will be the most sensible balance here, but we will have to see how much these chips will actually consume as well, since as we know that can differ. -
Lavadog321 400 amps??? My entire house only has 40 amp service from the power company. Is this real? What am I misunderstanding?Reply -
KyaraM Reply
You are missing that it's your PSU's job to convert the current and amperage from your power plug into the values your CPU can withstand. Or do you think your CPU gets the full 110V or whatever it is in the US from the wall plug?Lavadog321 said:400 amps??? My entire house only has 40 amp service from the power company. Is this real? What am I misunderstanding?
I (A) = P (W) / V (V)
This is the formula. In easy terms, Ampere is Watts divided by Volts. If your CPU pulls 295W with 1.5V, then the Amperage is just short of 200A, at ca. 196,7A. At 1V, it would be 295A. It feels like the limit is simply set higher so that it won't conflict with the rest of the stats, maybe allow for loss or whatever. I'm not an electrical engineer, though, so others here can likely explain more comprehensively. But the short version is, your PSU converts V and A received from the network into what your components can take. -
Kamen Rider Blade I thought Intel was trying to reduce power draw, not just use the head room to push more power through?Reply -
baboma >Anyways, baseline and Performance sound fine to me. Extreme is pretty heavy on the power draw, but I guess it's at least honest if these limits are enforced.Reply
'Extreme' only shows up for the top part, which makes sense for the best-perf-bar-none crowd. When you're playing top dollar for top perf, power efficiency isn't exactly top of mind.
That, and benchmark wins are still needed for bragging rights. Like it or not, it's essential for marketing. Enthusiasts and fanboys alike tend to fixate on the flagship winning or losing.
Anyway, the mere presence of an "Intel Default Setting" should suffice to bring an end to OEMs' unlimited power defaults, especially in light of the fallout of the instability issue. Intel should've done this a long time ago.
>but we will have to see how much these chips will actually consume as well, since as we know that can differ.
Interesting to note that short-duration power is more finely gradated to PL2/3/4.
I've no doubt ARL will consume less, if only because PL1 will now be 125W (or 65W) vs unlimited as before.
Regardless, on desktop, performance takes precedence over power efficiency. I don't see people complaining about 4090's 450W power draw, or 5090's reported 500W.
On that tangential note,
https://wccftech.com/intel-arc-battlemage-graphics-card-14-xe2-gpu-cores-12-gb-192-bit-bus-19-gbps-memory -
SunMaster Reply
PL4 is the max the chip can get before shutting down.KyaraM said:I think you mean 400A here, not 400W, right? And in the next paragraph, PL2 is certainly not raised to 25W, but rather to 250W...
-
Neilbob Reply
Not for everyone. Particularly when the so-called high performance can typically only be observed via benchmark numbers, I'd far rather go for efficiency all day long, especially here in the UK (and many other countries as I understand it) where electricity prices are kind of obnoxious. The majority of the time it's impossible to tell the difference.baboma said:Regardless, on desktop, performance takes precedence over power efficiency. I don't see people complaining about 4090's 450W power draw, or 5090's reported 500W.
As for the 4090 etc, people don't complain about that because they are purposefully buying it knowing the top-tier FPS comes at the cost of power (including melting power connectors. Is that still a thing amidst all this Intel nonsense?)
Personally, even if I could justify splurging such a huge sum of money just for gaming, I wouldn't specifically because I don't want anything in my PC guzzling power like that. Same with this CPU; I'd purposefully go for the lowest power setting. I kind of hate that the Extreme, heavy-power slurping setting is even still an option. -
KyaraM Reply
???SunMaster said:PL4 is the max the chip can get before shutting down.
What are you even talking about? I'm talking about this graph from the article:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/55TKSW5k9yeFGcPRcvs5Wa-970-80.jpgNo mention of PL4, no mention of 400W anywhere, and to boot, my comment spans errorenous text about two different chips, divided by paragraphs. I'm not sure what you even want to say. -
SunMaster ReplyKyaraM said:I think you mean 400A here, not 400W, right? And in the next paragraph, PL2 is certainly not raised to 25W, but rather to 250W...
I was referring to this. PL4 is 400w, which to my understanding is the same as Iccmax. Not 400A. -
Guardians Bane Reply
Thanks for that quick lesson on electrical engineering! I had to learn all that back in the early 90's for electrical work on the AH-64 Apache when I was in the army. I haven't used that knowledge since the 2000's and forgot most of it!!!! Lol ... Anyway, good looking out.KyaraM said:You are missing that it's your PSU's job to convert the current and amperage from your power plug into the values your CPU can withstand. Or do you think your CPU gets the full 110V or whatever it is in the US from the wall plug?
I (A) = P (W) / V (V)
This is the formula. In easy terms, Ampere is Watts divided by Volts. If your CPU pulls 295W with 1.5V, then the Amperage is just short of 200A, at ca. 196,7A. At 1V, it would be 295A. It feels like the limit is simply set higher so that it won't conflict with the rest of the stats, maybe allow for loss or whatever. I'm not an electrical engineer, though, so others here can likely explain more comprehensively. But the short version is, your PSU converts V and A received from the network into what your components can take.