Intel could be prepping 24-core Arrow Lake-H processors for notebooks

News
By
published

Desktop silicon heads to gaming notebooks once again.

Arrow Lake
(Image credit: Intel)

It looks like Intel is prepping Arrow Lake-H processors for ultra-high-performance gaming notebooks based on the Arrow Lake-S silicon designed for desktops, and featuring up to 24 cores, noticed @InstLatX64 on Twitter/X. If this is the case, this will not be the first time that Intel and partners will install desktop silicon into laptops.

Intel is currently testing its 'Intel Corporation Arrow Lake Client Platform/ARL-S BGA SODIMM 2DPC board.' The board could be used to test an upcoming ARL-S BGA processor for notebooks, or perhaps actual desktop processors for some reason packed in a BGA packaging. The motherboard was built in early 2024, so at this point the platform should be in its late stages of development, if Intel decides to proceed with its release.

Unlike Arrow Lake-H processors for laptops, projected to feature up to 16 cores (with both high-performance and energy-efficient cores), socketed Arrow Lake-S CPUs for desktops are expected to pack up to 24 cores (with both high-performance and energy-efficient cores) without simultaneous multithreading. While most notebooks will be fine to use Arrow Lake-H processors with up to 16 cores, ultra-high-end laptops for gaming and professional applications may require more cores, and Arrow Lake-S BGA with 24 cores will be just what the doctor ordered for them. 

Intel's Arrow Lake-H or perhaps Arrow Lake-HX processor will likely use fully-featured Arrow Lake-S multi-chiplet silicon, equipped with eight Lion Cove performance cores without Hyper-Threading and 16 Skymont efficiency cores, a large cache, and an integrated GPU. The CPU uses a BGA ARL-S interposer, which is designed to provide sufficient pins and power for the large, power-intensive silicon, possibly including the chipset in the same package. 

These high-performance Arrow Lake-H/HX processors are expected to have a TDP of 45W or 55W, though actual power limits may be higher to support high clock speeds. Achieving these high frequencies will significantly depend on voltage regulating modules (VRMs), making the performance of Arrow Lake-S in BGA packaging reliant not only on Intel but also on the efforts of PC makers and motherboard designers.

At this point, we do not have any details about the specifications of Arrow Lake-S in BGA packaging, though InstLatX64 notes that the processor's detected frequency is 3.0 GHz without AVX512. 

Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

See more CPUs News
21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Intel could be prepping 24-core Arrow Lake-H processors for notebooks.

    Intel's Arrow Lake-H or perhaps Arrow Lake-HX processor will likely use fully-featured Arrow Lake-S multi-chiplet silicon, equipped with eight Lion Cove performance cores without Hyper-Threading and 16 Skymont efficiency cores, a large cache, and an integrated GPU.

    Nope. Wrong . Arrow Lake H only sports 16 cores as per the patch.



    These entries have been spotted. This is how it stacks up. All processors are having higher base clocks than previous gen entries.

    Arrow Lake-S 24-cores, with base clock of 3.6 GHz.

    Arrow Lake-HX 24-cores, with 3.0 GHz base clock.

    Arrow Lake-H 16-core part, with base clock speed of 3.5 GHz.
    At this point, we do not have any details about the specifications of Arrow Lake-S in BGA packaging, though InstLatX64 notes that the processor's detected frequency is 3.0 GHz without AVX512.

    Wrong.

    He was referring to the Arrow Lake-HX part/prototype here,with 3.0 GHz base clock frequency. Not the Arrow Lake-S variant.

    Reply
  • Lucky_SLS
    Workstations need more CPU cores, but if they are low power Skymont or cresentmont cores - is it really worth it?

    Intel needs to have more Lion cove cores to compete favourably with 16 core Zen 5 SKUs.
    Reply
  • This is the Arrow Lake-S entry. With 3.6 Ghz base clock.

    https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_14901/bat-arls-5/boot0.txt
    https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Intel-Arrow-Lake-S-Desktop-CPU.png
    1799124303985963355View: https://x.com/InstLatX64/status/1799124303985963355

    While most notebooks will be fine to use Arrow Lake-H processors with up to 16 cores, ultra-high-end laptops for gaming and professional applications may require more cores, and Arrow Lake-S BGA with 24 cores will be just what the doctor ordered for them.

    That's why the mobile HX part exists, and the patch entries also prove it as well. An ARL-HX part sporting 24 cores was spotted. So basically we are talking about the HX mobile variant here.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Lucky_SLS said:
    Workstations need more CPU cores, but if they are low power Skymont or cresentmont cores - is it really worth it?

    Intel needs to have more Lion cove cores to compete favourably with 16 core Zen 5 SKUs.
    16 full cores are expensive, why do you think AMD is starting to use the cheaper c variants?!
    If you go above a certain number of cores the individual power of the cores are irrelevant since you can't make them all run at single thread speed anyway (unless you connect them to an Kw A/C unit ) having smaller and cheaper cores for high core count is the only thing that makes sense.
    Reply
  • Lucky_SLS
    TerryLaze said:
    16 full cores are expensive, why do you think AMD is starting to use the cheaper c variants?!
    If you go above a certain number of cores the individual power of the cores are irrelevant since you can't make them all run at single thread speed anyway (unless you connect them to an Kw A/C unit ) having smaller and cheaper cores for high core count is the only thing that makes sense.

    Agree to disagree. The Zen 5C cores still perform atleast 75% of a complete zen 5 core. The performance of the E cores is not in the same ball park.

    The multi core scores will speak for themselves.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    Lucky_SLS said:
    Agree to disagree. The Zen 5C cores still perform atleast 75% of a complete zen 5 core. The performance of the E cores is not in the same ball park.

    The multi core scores will speak for themselves.
    You are using information more than a month old.
    Skymont should be pretty close to zen5c not including SMT. They are supposedly close to RPL IPC. And quite good at low use/power scenarios.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Very good a portable heater... When you can't do a good core... you put 24 bad ones :S
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Lucky_SLS said:
    Agree to disagree. The Zen 5C cores still perform atleast 75% of a complete zen 5 core. The performance of the E cores is not in the same ball park.

    The multi core scores will speak for themselves.
    On desktop they're a liability, but when power constrained they're close enough for it to not matter. It's not the core design or performance potential holding dense cores back so much as the clock scaling. The 8500G is an example of this where they can only clock up to 3.7 compared to 5 for the regular cores so a 35% clockspeed increase and that's before you touch the architecture side.

    As for the Intel side Skymont should have very good performance, but Intel has only talked about the LNL implementation where it's not attached to the ring bus.

    Also keep in mind AMD is doing 4 Z5/8 Z5C versus 6P/8E which makes it a bit less cut and dried performance wise.
    Reply
  • mac_angel
    I mentioned this before; I think it would be a great idea for someone to do a proper article with full testing on the validity of hyper-threading with the past couple of generations of CPUs. With gaming as well as production. As well as affected overclocks as a bonus.
    Reply
  • TechyIT223
    Amdlova said:
    Very good a portable heater... When you can't do a good core... you put 24 bad ones :S

    Ha, this guy is not being sarcastic here. 🔥
    Reply