News Intel's newest E-core-only "Twin Lake" CPUs are on the way, starting with Intel N250

[Admin]

The low-power quad core Intel N100 gets a successor.

Intel's newest E-core-only "Twin Lake" CPUs are on the way, starting with Intel N250 : Read more

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

These are most likely basically just Alder Lake-N "refresh" chips.

The silicon should remain the same unless Intel plans to replace the Gracemont E cores with Skymont, or even Crestmont in near future (but the chances are less though).

Do make a note that the patch entry refers "Twin Lake" as the reference platform used, but Alder Lake-N has been mentioned next to it.

So we don't know whether Intel will officially use "Twin Lake" as a new codename for this series, or just keep the older Alder Lake-N branding. So far only leakers have made the prediction that Twin Lake would be a new series of processors, succeeding Alder Lake-N.

"Intel Corporation Twin Lake Client Platform/AlderLake-N LP5 RVP, BIOS TWLNFWI1.R00.5122.A00.2403191932 03/19/2024"

 

[thestryker]

I wish they were going to be Crestmont or Skymont (preferably Skymont), but I get the feeling it's just another Gracemont refresh. Though this does save me from being enticed to buy another relatively low cost box.

Crestmont seems like a decent optimization pass on Gracemont: https://chipsandcheese.com/2024/05/13/meteor-lakes-e-cores-crestmont-makes-incremental-progress/

 

[usertests]

"0.1 GHz Base up to 3.4 GHz Boost" - Try 0.8 GHz base for N100.

If the N250 is a quad-core and not a 6-core, big yawn.

The naming scheme continues to be awful.

So we don't know whether Intel will officially use "Twin Lake" as a new codename for this series, or just keep the older Alder Lake-N branding. So far only leakers have made the prediction that Twin Lake would be a new series of processors, succeeding Alder Lake-N.

MLID did say that it was a refresh, some time ago.

View: https://youtu.be/VSzAeJjN0Kw?t=1091

Looking back at the segment, it is said to be on the "latest Intel 7 node". I don't know if that's actually a change from current ADL-N. If it is a slightly enhanced version of the node, that could explain somewhat higher clocks.

I don't even know what the point would be of Intel publicizing the "Twin Lake" name given how minor it looks. Just let it seep out into the world.

Crestmont seems like a decent optimization pass on Gracemont: https://chipsandcheese.com/2024/05/13/meteor-lakes-e-cores-crestmont-makes-incremental-progress/

From what I saw elsewhere Crestmont is a 3-4% IPC increase and that's it. Not worth making a new die for it, even if there are a bunch of changes under the hood.

 

[bit_user]

These are most likely basically just Alder Lake-N "refresh" chips.

The silicon should remain the same unless Intel plans to replace the Gracemont E cores with Skymont, or even Crestmont in near future (but the chances are less though).

Why wouldn't they use the updated Gracemont clusters from Raptor Lake, which have double the L2 cache and are made on an improved (or so we thought) version of the Intel 7 node?

 

[thestryker]

From what I saw elsewhere Crestmont is a 3-4% IPC increase and that's it. Not worth making a new die for it, even if there are a bunch of changes under the hood.

It could make a pretty big difference due to manufacturing node improvements. IPC doesn't mean a whole lot when you're limiting clocks due to power consumption. You can see this in the current ADL-N series implementations where the variance can be quite massive. If Intel 3/4 gives enough better performance per watt for Crestmont over Gracemont that alone could make it worthwhile.

 

[usertests]

Why wouldn't they use the updated Gracemont clusters from Raptor Lake, which have double the L2 cache and are made on an improved (or so we thought) version of the Intel 7 node?

I think they wouldn't do it if they literally want to keep using the same die, maybe a slightly better stepping, not spending the money to design the "Raptor" version. As for the node, they can switch to a newer one if it has the same design rules.

Now I want to check the die area of Alder/Raptor Gracemont clusters.

Raptor = 8.65mm^2

It could make a pretty big difference due to manufacturing node improvements. IPC doesn't mean a whole lot when you're limiting clocks due to power consumption. You can see this in the current ADL-N series implementations where the variance can be quite massive. If Intel 3/4 gives enough better performance per watt for Crestmont over Gracemont that alone could make it worthwhile.

Maybe they'll give us the LP E-cores from the TSMC N6 SoC tile, lol.

I'd love to be proven wrong but it looks like Twin Lake will be a boring Gracemont refresh, which resets the clock by at least a year. I think we'd want to see Skymont next. Arrow Lake with Skymont should be out this year, so we'll know more about Skymont soon.

 

[thestryker]

Maybe they'll give us the LP E-cores from the TSMC N6 SoC tile, lol.

I'd love to be proven wrong but it looks like Twin Lake will be a boring Gracemont refresh, which resets the clock by at least a year. I think we'd want to see Skymont next. Arrow Lake with Skymont should be out this year, so we'll know more about Skymont soon.

I think this is absolutely the most likely situation. The only thing I think could change it is if they don't have the spare 18A capacity for a low margin part and want to use Intel 3. Though it's possible they could just do Skymont by itself on Intel 3. The biggest question I have is whether these parts will be monolithic or tiled.

 

[TerryLaze]

"0.1 GHz Base up to 3.4 GHz Boost" - Try 0.8 GHz base for N100.

If the N250 is a quad-core and not a 6-core, big yawn.

If this base clock is true it should be a pretty big jump for efficiency, the idle power draw would be next to nothing, always a good argument for sales.

 

[usertests]

If this base clock is true it should be a pretty big jump for efficiency, the idle power draw would be next to nothing, always a good argument for sales.

Truly amazing stuff, the Alder Lake-N microcontroller! But it's just a misquote of what's known about the N100:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Lake#Alder_Lake-N

The weird part is that the N200 doesn't have a base clock specified anywhere, so it's difficult to compare with an N250 supposedly having a 1.2 GHz base clock. A lot of Alder Lake-N information is sketchy (clock speeds, "TDPs" now that other product lines have moved to base/turbo TDP, and memory capacity support). That's Intel's fault.

 

[AlskiOnTheWeb]

I love my N95 minis. I'll wait a few iterations before I buy any more just to make sure the juice is worth the squeeze ... but they have a winner in these lower power chips. Does everything I ever needed a mini to do and more.

 

[bit_user]

I love my N95 minis. I'll wait a few iterations before I buy any more just to make sure the juice is worth the squeeze ... but they have a winner in these lower power chips. Does everything I ever needed a mini to do and more.

My N97 uses quite a bit more power at the wall than I was expecting (up to 54 W for peak CPU + GPU workload) and has proven challenging to keep below its 95 C throttling point. Also, the fan is pretty annoying, whenever I hit it with any kind of load.

 

[usertests]

My N97 uses quite a bit more power at the wall than I was expecting (up to 54 W for peak CPU + GPU workload) and has proven challenging to keep below its 95 C throttling point. Also, the fan is pretty annoying, whenever I hit it with any kind of load.

Did you try limiting in the BIOS or are you f'ed?

I love my N95 minis. I'll wait a few iterations before I buy any more just to make sure the juice is worth the squeeze ... but they have a winner in these lower power chips. Does everything I ever needed a mini to do and more.

It's clear that quad-core Skylake-alikes are enough for most people, and that's what N9coof5/N97/N100/N200 are. They even added AVX2.

The biggest complaints I have are that they jettisoned dual-channel memory (found in Jasper Lake and earlier), and the 8-core pricing is inflated. I also think that most users would appreciate a single P-core being added in the future.

 

[brandonjclark]

My N97 uses quite a bit more power at the wall than I was expecting (up to 54 W for peak CPU + GPU workload) and has proven challenging to keep below its 95 C throttling point. Also, the fan is pretty annoying, whenever I hit it with any kind of load.

What are you using for power testing?

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

The weird part is that the N200 doesn't have a base clock specified anywhere, so it's difficult to compare with an N250 supposedly having a 1.2 GHz base clock.

These patch entries imply that the new N250 chip has a 200 MHz clock bump over the N200 Alder Lake-N chip. Assuming the base clock of this new chip is 1.2.

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_14773/bat-adln-1/boot0.txt

https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_14758/bat-twl-1/boot0.txt

N200:

<6>[ 0.000000] DMI: Intel Corporation Alder Lake Client Platform/AlderLake-N LP5 RVP, BIOS ADLNFWI1.R00.3362.A00.2208311605 08/31/2022
<6>[ 0.000000] tsc: Detected 1000.000 MHz processor
<6>[ 0.000000] tsc: Detected 998.400 MHz TSC

N250:

<6>[ 0.000000] DMI: Intel Corporation Twin Lake Client Platform/AlderLake-N LP5 RVP, BIOS TWLNFWI1.R00.5122.A00.2403191932 03/19/2024
<6>[ 0.000000] tsc: Detected 1200.000 MHz processor
<6>[ 0.000000] tsc: Detected 1190.400 MHz TSC

 

[Notton]

Having tried out a few different N100 mini-PCs, I can say for certain that they are usually not worth it.
The higher quality ones cost so much that their price point overlaps with cheaper Ryzen 5 mini-PCs.
The lower quality ones cost-cut so much that they end up having a bunch design flaws. Flaws that make them loud, hotter, and slower than they should be.

IMO, the N100 needs to cost even less than $55, and the PCH should integrate 1GbE. Those realtek 1GbE LAN chips aren't free, and neither is the PCB space they take up.

 

[TechyIT223]

An 8 core low power SoC would be a much better option for a refresh imo.

I want a mini PC badly

 

[TechyIT223]

Are current Alder Lake N products still easily available though ?

Any word on pricing of these new chips?

 

[usertests]

An 8 core low power SoC would be a much better option for a refresh imo.

I want a mini PC badly

Are current Alder Lake N products still easily available though ?

Any word on pricing of these new chips?

The Alder Lake-N die already has 8 cores. That's what's getting refreshed. The quad-cores like N200 and apparently N250 are half the die disabled.

The market is good and flooded with Alder Lake-N products, but the 8-cores are not as cheap as they should be, and @Notton balks at the cost of all of them.

There is no real pricing. You can find recommended customer prices on ARK, but they are meaningless. N100 boxes are typically $150-200. 8-core N300/N305 is usually more, like $300+, which gets too close to better products.

 

[Notton]

In fact, at $300 I would consider an i5-1135G7.

 

[bit_user]

Did you try limiting in the BIOS or are you f'ed?

I found a userspace utility to override the power limits, but I don't really want to sacrifice performance. I don't mind the board going into the 40 W territory, under heavy load. It idles around 8-11 W.

That 54 W figure I obtained was during the heaviest CPU + GPU stress test I could find. I think it could happen while gaming, but I don't play games and sure wouldn't play them on this system if I did.

It's clear that quad-core Skylake-alikes are enough for most people, and that's what N9coof5/N97/N100/N200 are. They even added AVX2.

That's why I got it.

The biggest complaints I have are that they jettisoned dual-channel memory (found in Jasper Lake and earlier),

My board is one of the few that uses DDR5. I put a DDR5-5600 DIMM in there, but the BIOS will only run it at 4800. That's probably fine.

BTW, another beef I have with many Alder Lake-N boards is the NVMe connectivity. My board provides just PCIe 3.0 x2. I've seen some boards devote only a single lane to it! For the SSD I'm using (SK Hynix P31 Gold), I get up to 1.8 GB/s when it's been benchmarked at up to 2.8 GB/s. So, even with x2 lanes, I'm already getting most of what the drive could deliver. Plus, x4 lanes would mostly just mean higher drive temps, which I could tolerate but I'm already not too happy about it reaching 56 C, when the CPU (which it sits right next to) is under load. That's with ambient temps of 22 C. So, when my ambient goes up, the SSD will easily get into the mid/upper 60's.

and the 8-core pricing is inflated.

Big time.

I also think that most users would appreciate a single P-core being added in the future.

Makes sense for some, but not for what I wanted.

 

[bit_user]

What are you using for power testing?

This:

Amazon.com

I don't have any other meters to compare it with, but it seems to get good ratings.

It's plugged into a power strip that's plugged into my APC SmartUPS, which does line-interactive power filtering. So, my power shouldn't be terribly noisy.

 

[bit_user]

Having tried out a few different N100 mini-PCs, I can say for certain that they are usually not worth it.
The higher quality ones cost so much that their price point overlaps with cheaper Ryzen 5 mini-PCs.
The lower quality ones cost-cut so much that they end up having a bunch design flaws. Flaws that make them loud, hotter, and slower than they should be.

For me, it was about cutting heat and noise, during the summer, and also about having a low power Linux machine that I wouldn't mind leaving on 24/7. My main Linux workstation idles at about 10x the power (at wall). Given that I sprang for a $230 industrial board (which doesn't even include RAM or storage), it definitely was not about cost-savings!

This came out too late for me, but anyone interested in a Alder Lake-N (@TechyIT223 ?) should consider the ODROID-H4/H4+/H4 Ultra:

ODROID-H4 – ODROID

www.hardkernel.com

You will need to add RAM and storage, but the H4 seems well-engineered and starts at just $99. The company also offers inexpensive case options (if somewhat ugly, IMO), or you can get a mini-ITX adapter and use your mini-ITX case of choice!

IMO, the N100 needs to cost even less than $55, and the PCH should integrate 1GbE.

My board (and the ODROID-H4) uses dual-2.5 Gbps, which I appreciate.

8-core N300/N305 is usually more, like $300+, which gets too close to better products.

The ODROID-H4 Ultra uses the N305 and costs $220.

 

[bit_user]

In fact, at $300 I would consider an i5-1135G7.

Might be fine, if it's well-implemented which I question whether you'd get for that price. Even so, it won't be as energy-efficient and doesn't offer the in-band ECC feature you can find on some Alder Lake-N boards/systems (including the ODROID-H4 series).

 

[usertests]

The ODROID-H4 Ultra uses the N305 and costs $220.

That's for barebones, no case etc. You're probably going to end up at $300. It's not too hard to find AMD fast 8-core mobile mini PCs starting at $300 barebones, but with the case. For example, here's Minisforum UM773 Lite at $294.

ODROID-H series has a good reputation and reasonable pricing for the features it offers though.