Why I won't buy an Intel Lunar Lake-powered laptop

[uev0x]

Intel could use HBM memory. Laptop is not latency sensitive but the graphics core need more bandwidth.

 

[Amdlova]

For mobile devices don't see the need of more than 32gb of ram...
Energy wise. Two Watts of ram can make a difference to win the battery race over the ARM new threat.

 

[thestryker]

I think Skymont LPE deserves more credit. It'll even put Crestmont regular E-cores to shame. It's not on the ring bus or L3 cache but it's on the same die as the P-cores and has a lot else going for it.

It's going to be good for sure, but it's at a pretty significant disadvantage whereas the Zen 5c just has half the cache. I do hope you're right even if I don't think you are though!

 

[ThomasKinsley]

Yet you want Intel to spend a lot more money to appease a very small segment which would force the prices up disproportionately. I also didn't say anything about Apple's pricing, but rather the very real physical limitations of design being utilized. It's why there aren't higher DRAM options on the MBA regardless of the pricing (what I mean here if you don't get it is that to maintain their margins they'd have to cost as much as the MBP so they'd rather you bought that anyways).

No, I want Intel to create a better design and offer more value compared to their competitors. SnapDragon is offering 64GB today and AMD is offering 64GB with the AI 300 series. If anything Intel is falling behind, but even if they were in the status quo they can't afford to stay there. They need to create a compelling reason to convince people to switch from AMD.

You actually are asking for something completely ridiculous given the design being used. The design uses on package memory so going from two to four memory packages would increase the design cost as they'd be spinning up a one off or making every single SKU more expensive. 64GB is still a relative anomaly in the thin and light space which is probably due to the very narrow market appeal.

32GB is not a lot of RAM any more. We have VMs, LLMs, and 4K all becoming more mainstream. The people who need more will not be as tiny for as long as you think.

Or just buy a different laptop with similar weight characteristics that does have 64GB? Since in your hypothetical compute doesn't matter. The point about the battery pack is that if you're traveling and worried about battery life to such a huge degree you should always have something to cover should something go wrong. You can keep making spurious arguments all day and I can keep slapping them down no problem.

The discussion is all opinion on the future direction the market should go. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

It's not spurious to say there is a growing customer base who want a lightweight laptop that has enough RAM for their needs. Remember the Ultrabook trend spawned by the Macbook Air 12-14 years ago? They had light processors but decent RAM in a small, light package. This is the same issue, only 24-32GB isn't enough IMHO. People are just asking for the same lightweight package with 64GB of RAM. If I was a decision-maker I would go up to 128GB or even 192GB but 64GB is a good starting point.

In an ideal world, yes, however we live in one where public companies are controlled by "investors" who don't care about long term viability. When the customer exists in a segment too small to be profitable (or today not profitable enough) they don't matter and may as well not exist.

I absolutely agree on the first part. We have too many business professionals and not enough genuine computer guys and gals in charge. Remember how Steve Jobs created the Macbook Air and Pro segments? There are two ways to go about this. Companies can either sit back and make existing products or they can create new segments, either offering unique value or fantastic specs. IMHO, it's time to up the value and specs. 64GB is a good step forward.

 

[leckig]

Its not all about you.
Stop whining and maybe get a desktop.

 

[TheSecondPower]

It's going to be good for sure, but it's at a pretty significant disadvantage whereas the Zen 5c just has half the cache. I do hope you're right even if I don't think you are though!

Zen 5c also has lower clock speeds. And in the Ryzen 370 it's in a separate CCX from the Zen 5 cores, which sounds quite similar to me to how separated Lunar Lake's P and LPE cores are. And under an all-core load I don't think any of these are reaching their boost frequency, and I think the 12-core TSMC N4B Ryzen 370 will shed more frequency in that case than the TSMC N3B Core 288V. I think SMT stands out as a big help for all-core workloads as much as the extra cores.

	Lion Cove	Skymont	Zen 5	Zen 5c
cores/threads	4/4	4/4	4/8	8/16
boost frequency	5.1 GHz	3.7 GHz***	5.1 GHz	3.3 GHz
IPC	100%*	89%**	100%*	100%
L2	4x2.5 MB	1x4 MB	4x1 MB	8x1 MB
L3	12 MB	0****	16 MB	8 MB
LODDR5x	8533 MT/s	8533 MT/s	7500 MT/s	7500 MT/s

*IPC here is Lion Cove vs. Skymont and Zen vs. Zen 5c and isn't intended to equate Lion Cove to Zen 5. Small L3 cache probably hurts Zen 5c IPC but Intel's Skymont IPC vs. Raptor Lake notes similar cache so both these numbers might be slightly inflated.

**Intel claims Lion Cove has 14% more IPC than Redwood Cove and Skymont 2% more than Raptor Cove. I assume here that Redwood Cove has identical IPC to Raptor Cove. 102% / 114% = 89%.

***Most of the specs come from the TechPowerUp database which disclaims the Lunar Lake spec page could change. The Core "Ultra" 288V was compared to the Ryzen "AI" 370.

****There is still the memory-side cache for the P and LPE cores, although I don't how helpful that is.


Lastly, on a completely different thought, memory is volatile and requires constant power to hold data. Wouldn't more RAM necessitate more power consumption?

 

[Yveske]

I won't question the need for 64GB of memory, but DO question the need for 80+ tabs opened in a browser.
Just because it's convenient to have all frequently used tabs open doesn't mean it's efficient.

 

[Giroro]

Really? My job has AutoCAD models as big as 100GB. On those even with 64GB you can only load about half the layers at once.

And you want to do that job on a <25 Watt MacBook Air clone with integrated graphics and a 13" screen?

 

[thestryker]

Lastly, on a completely different thought, memory is volatile and requires constant power to hold data. Wouldn't more RAM necessitate more power consumption?

Yes, but only if you're adding additional memory packages. The difference between 16GB and 32GB should be extremely minor.

And under an all-core load I don't think any of these are reaching their boost frequency, and I think the 12-core TSMC N4B Ryzen 370 will shed more frequency in that case than the TSMC N3B Core 288V.

The 288V definitely reaches maximum boost under all core load whatever that happens to be (since all core is always lower than single). You can see the way the performance plateaus on their multicore chart from the LNL presentation. This could of course be indicative of conservative all core boost clocks across the board since it's the only 30W part of the bunch.

**Intel claims Lion Cove has 14% more IPC than Redwood Cove and Skymont 2% more than Raptor Cove. I assume here that Redwood Cove has identical IPC to Raptor Cove. 102% / 114% = 89%.

The problem is that we don't know how much the performance suffers without being on the ring. All of their slides have been really murky about the LNL Skymont performance.

And in the Ryzen 370 it's in a separate CCX from the Zen 5 cores, which sounds quite similar to me to how separated Lunar Lake's P and LPE cores are.

Yes and no, but the key is AMD not relying on a ringbus to connect the different core types and they have their own individual cache.

 

[abufrejoval]

How many people buy a laptop, with the thought of upgrading in a few years?
Of that small segment, how many actually do? (even in laptops where you can upgrade)

Pretty sure I am an outlier, but since I started back in CP/M days when all computers were individually assembled, I didn't change habits when PCs or laptops came around.

Computers were the price of a small new compact or a used high range car back then, so nobody could afford a fully stocked machine and you slowly added and replaced the parts that were pinching the most: disks and RAM were at the top, but in socket 7 days I might have changed CPUs more often, e.g. going through every variant of AMD K2 to KIII+, because it was possible, easy and relatively affordable to do.

Likewise the first generation laptops I bought for my triplets were single core Celerons with 512MB on Windows 95 originally, finished as dual-core 65nm Intel Core Duos with 3GB of RAM on Windows 7 a few years later when those beefier CPUs and RAM were cheap on e-Bay. The 45nm Quad-Core variants were not supported by the BIOS, unfortunately, and 4GB of RAM failed with the chipset. Actually one of those machines actually survived and still works... Its last use was as a penalty device (for essential homework) when the kid was gaming too much on their big rig ;-)

I was very sad to see CPU sockets go on notebooks, I've always replaced laptop WiFi modules, because vendors cheaped out on them, HDD/SSD/NVMe grew on every laptop, RAM often got replaced immediately after purchase, because it was cheaper than getting it right from the vendor.

I try to buy expandable notebooks, only, but it's getting increasingly difficult because expandable models get put into some professional or gaming niche where prices are just really painful.

I don't buy notebooks for gaming, I've got workstations I can use for that. But I have professional use even on laptops for lots of RAM and storage, while CPU power has 'naturally' grown to the point, where it's quite enough for what I do most of the time, I resort to real servers when not.

The PC industry flourished because it was built on modularity and even outliers like me accumulated to significant enough numbers to become another client group.

The seemingly inescapable trend towards single die[carrier] hardware makes modularity manufacturer-only, so those need to accomodate for less mainstream demands or they'll start loosing customers.

 

[Konomi]

You clearly don't do photo or video editing. 64GB is IMO the bare minimum for Adobe products when processing high res camera stills and 4K+ video. So "it 's a you problem" for him, so instead he should be more like you that doesn't need 64GB.

Who said I don't need 64GB? Actually, I do. I'm also wise enough to close processes I'm not currently using. Just because you can sit with hundreds of browser tabs open and various programs running in the background hoping you'll use them at some point, doesn't mean you should leave them running all the time. Also if I were video editing or similar, I'd choose to do it at a desktop - the right tool for the job. Larger, more colour accurate screens are just one of many perks you'd get by not being stubborn.

 

[marcus_br_]

That is just sloppy memory usage. By that standard one would need 128gb...or 512gb or infinite gb.

A hundred open tabs bring not only the memory but also the CPU to its knees...seems like a very odd use case. It is not the CPUs fault, it does perfectly what is expected to. You will need to wait the next option...

 

[Bikki]

How about apple m3 14inch with 128gb ram option.

 

[abufrejoval]

It is a little weird that extra ram slots are not even optional.

It would be like making a 2nd engine in front optional on a Porsche designed for a rear engine.

Whether or not a signal

• just needs to go somewhere else on the chip
• off the chip to another chip on the same silicon interposer
• off the chip via a die carrier to another chip on the same organic interposer or
• off the chip, through lengthy motherboard traces to a slot, through a DIMM PCB (potentially with another amplifier in case of registered DIMMs) to chips on that PCB

makes a huge difference in terms of how you need to potentially modulate and transform them and then amplify its strength

And these amplifiers are like transformers for 30kV landlines: progress hasn't really made them fit in your pocket either, sometimes physics requires the scale dictated by the voltage.

So one of the reasons why mobile SoC manufacturers and now laptop SoC makers like Apple, Intel so love putting RAM right next to their SoCs (or on top in the case of mobile phones) is the fact that is saves tons of silicon beachfront and surface area which cannot be shrunk like logic on newer fab processes and requires tons of power to operate.

Giving all of those advantages away for a 2nd class of RAM is something so far only ever tried on server chips dedicated for niche HPC applications and Intel quite spectacularily failed with that the last time they tried with their Xeon Phi line of SoCs, some of which included Hybrid Memory Cubes, an alternate vision of HBM.

It would also require extra RAM channels, for which not even the logic part is a trivial transistor budget expense.

Yes, for users extra DIMM slots sound lovely. I wanted them, too.

Then I started to think about it and realized that here Intel and the others arent just trying to aggravate consumers, it's just not as easy as you'd think.

 

[newtechldtech]

For mobile devices don't see the need of more than 32gb of ram...
Energy wise. Two Watts of ram can make a difference to win the battery race over the ARM new threat.

Actually it is not that much difference , and depending on your usages , having more free RAM means fewer read/write hence lower power usage (in case you are using up all 32GB)..

 

[ivan_vy]

Really? My job has AutoCAD models as big as 100GB. On those even with 64GB you can only load about half the layers at once.

my models are simple and also load only the type I'll be working on, also using X-ref most of the time

 

[FelG875]

It is where I can say. That if your stvpid DRAM fails or leaks.. You can't CHANGE or REPAIR it.. Which simply means.. GOODBYE MONEY. GOODBYE LAPTOP. If it's integrated with the Chip.. Then CPU and iGPU Temps will be your DRAM Temps.. And That's stvpid design.

 

[Pigpig]

Yes i agree one product cannot fulfill everyone needs. Once fulfilled 64gb user needs, then 128gb user will be came out . So fulfilled majority user needs is sufficient enough, 16gb now is main stream , 32gb is for more advanced user

 

[newtechldtech]

It is where I can say. That if your stvpid DRAM fails or leaks.. You can't CHANGE or REPAIR it.. Which simply means.. GOODBYE MONEY. GOODBYE LAPTOP. If it's integrated with the Chip.. Then CPU and iGPU Temps will be your DRAM Temps.. And That's stvpid design.

I never seen laptops DRAM fail all my life ... and I used more than 20 laptops. it is not a big deal. and if it is factory defect it will appear within warranty period.

 

[newtechldtech]

Yes i agree one product cannot fulfill everyone needs. Once fulfilled 64gb user needs, then 128gb user will be came out . So fulfilled majority user needs is sufficient enough, 16gb now is main stream , 32gb is for more advanced user

32GB is now main stream ... and remember with iGPU sharing from the same RAM pool , 16GB is not enough by today standards.

 

[Pigpig]

32GB is now main stream ... and remember with iGPU sharing from the same RAM pool , 16GB is not enough by today standards.

mainstream mean majority , I don’t think 32gb ultrabook users is more than 16gb ultrabook users now.

 

[newtechldtech]

mainstream mean majority , I don’t think 32gb ultrabook users is more than 16gb ultrabook users now.

Depends where you live ... in poor countries ; true they cant afford paying more for RAM. 32GB is mainstream in Europe and US by today software and hardware needs.

 

[TheJoker2020]

This is true, indeed especially for consumer (earlier to market) vs. business (later to market as more validation and testing is done). HP Z Books are also "workstation-class" notebooks that can come with 64 GB of RAM, and even the more typical business-class HP EliteBook can be custom-ordered from their web store with 64 GB of RAM. To your point, even the latest models (G11, e.g. EB 845 G11) don't have the latest CPU's from either blue or red camp.

The author obviously has quite steep demands as he's saying he has to have all of these at once:
1) Very light and compact
2) 64 GB of RAM with the latest CPUs
3) The longest battery life possible

He can pretty well get that with the new AMD Ryzen AI 300 series laptops. It's also possible that Intel will release new Lunar Lake SKU's later this year, e.g. ones with 64 GB of onboard RAM. That said, getting a Meteor Lake laptop with 64 GB of RAM wouldn't be the end of the world either, would it?

It'd still be a large change coming from original Skylake. Yes, I get his point about it being strange that a new CPU gen has actually lowered options at the top. It would only take one SKU -- probably a Core Ultra 7 model being a good all-arounder for a 64 GB PC -- to check this box.

The primary problem with Lunar Lake is the cost of production.!

It is not a high-end CPU in terms of raw performance, but it is fast at low thread counts whilst having decent graphics and being very power efficient.

But it is very expensive to produce, which means to sell, which means that it is a lot more of a niche product (launching in a couple of weeks) due to it's pricetag where (currently) it is in the pricerange of laptops with iGPU's, and/or CPU's that are faster and have more cores, at which point the market for Lunar Lake has just shrunk to those that want epic battery life, solid low thread performance, decent graphics and are willng to spend ~$1,300 - $1,500 price-range, where a similar performing competitor but with worse battery life might be nearer $800 which is the bulk of the market, and at least for the moment is not something intel can even afford to do with Lunar Lake due to it's production cost.

Anyway, this is an interesting stepping-stone product to the next generation of intel's "big" cores and a new desktop competitor (that hopefully functions), and we will be able to learn a lot when it is finally released and people can and will test it in every way imaginable to see how it truly stacks up against previous intel products, and the competition from AMD.

 

[squew]

Apple appliances run an embedded system by now. Not even supporting non-Apple screens. Dishonest and lying as never before. Case closed.

The new Intel SOCs are neat, for a first generation, tiles based, layered... ready for a few good generations.
They aren't snubbing anyone, they are building fabs (this is billions), developed a process that turned out not working low yields... They take a lot of risks... once in 40 years is OK. The stock will get better, but this is ridiculous, crooks with a store and an average phone Trillions an some, doing pretty much nothing, ripping of people and devs... Intel, looking at their products, has some long/mid-term vison as always... They have everything ready for the future... from consumers product to supercomputers...

So no snubbing, but adding a new version of the SOC may cost... I don't know but a lot. Next one will get more.

Also, if you want power... buy a desktop PC... not a laptop.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

What has Lunar Lake got to do with Apple?