Intel's next batch of CPUs might still be called Core Ultra 200S, possibly because the Arrow Lake refresh won't be much of a boost
Over the years of producing CPUs, Intel has a long history of refreshing its current architecture, rather than wholesale replacing it. The updates typically offer higher clock speeds and occasionally a new feature or two, but they've always involved a new name for the processors. However, for the Arrow Lake refresh, it's being claimed that the tweaked chips will still be called Core Ultra 200S.
Admittedly, it's just the one person making the claim, X-user Jaykin (via Videocardz), but they have a good track record when it comes to tech leaks and rumours. Jaykin also suggests that the Arrow Lake refresh will involve an updated NPU (neural processing unit), courtesy of a larger SoC tile.
Both desktop and mobile variants of Arrow Lake (ARL-S and ARL-HX, respectively) will still have the same package size and, in the case of the former, will still use the LGA1851 socket. While that doesn't automatically mean your current Z890 or B850 motherboard will support the refreshed chips, there's a good chance it will.
In previous years, when Intel launched a refreshed CPU line-up, it has always renamed the chips. So why would Team Blue stick with Core Ultra 200S? I suspect that it's because there will be no changes that affect their fundamental performance, such as higher clock speeds, more cores, or a faster memory system.
If the only thing that's being improved is the NPU (possibly to ensure that Intel's chips now meet Microsoft's requirements for its Copilot AI PC ecosystem), then the new processors would perform no better than the current ones do in games, content creation, and general use.
Then again, the recently launched Core 200S Boost feature showed there is some scope for improving the performance of Arrow Lake without having to change various internal components. In other words, Intel could tweak all of the internal clocks and timings, plus add a larger NPU, and have a big enough difference in performance to warrant calling them Core Ultra 300S.
After all, it was happy to refresh its Raptor Lake-powered Core 13th Gen series, call it Core 14th Gen, and barely change anything other than the boost clocks and power consumption.
I suspect that Intel wants to keep Core Ultra 300S for its next generation of CPU architectures, namely Panther Lake for mobile platforms and Nova Lake for desktops, both targeted for release in 2026.
Your next upgrade
Best CPU for gaming: The top chips from Intel and AMD.Best gaming motherboard: The right boards.Best graphics card: Your perfect pixel-pusher awaits.Best SSD for gaming: Get into the game ahead of the rest.
These are expected to be significantly better in performance than the current Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake processors, and given the lacklustre reception the latter received, it makes sense to keep the new name for something that's (hopefully) a lot better.
One concern that I have is whether the Arrow Lake refresh is going to be the last processor that supports Intel's LGA1851 socket. If it is and the refreshed chips aren't any better in gaming, for example, then it would be really disappointing to see.
AMD was still releasing CPUs for its AM4 socket last year, a good eight years after it first appeared, and while Intel is well-known for changing its sockets every couple of processor generations, you'd think it would take a leaf from Team Red's book of design and make something that lasts. Of course, changing the socket forces OEMs and system builders to push out entirely new platforms, which in turn helps Intel shift a whole heap of processors.
Hopefully, the Arrow Lake refresh does offer more than just a larger NPU because, as things currently stand, I wouldn't recommend that any PC gamer buy a Core Ultra 200S chip. It's not bad, but regardless of what your budget is or what your use scenario for the processor is, there are far better CPUs out there to choose from.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are We in a Quantum Computing Bubble?
Key Points Quantum computing stocks have been on a tear this year, despite the technology's nascent scale and still speculative nature. Unlike the broader artificial intelligence (AI) theme, many popular quantum computing stocks are small companies with limited traction. While it can be tempting to follow the momentum, several quantum computing stocks boast valuation multiples that echo those seen during prior stock market bubbles. 10 stocks we like better than IonQ › This year has been tough for investors, particularly those who flock toward growth stocks. Just about every major industry has been impacted in some form or fashion by President Donald Trump's new tariff policies. While the broader implications of these import taxes are still unfolding, one sector that has faced abnormally large headwinds is technology. For the first time in nearly three years, investing in the artificial intelligence (AI) market hasn't necessarily resulted in outsized gains. Nevertheless, one pocket of the AI realm that has managed to circumvent the panic-selling this year is quantum computing. As of this writing (July 17), the Defiance Quantum ETF has gained 17% so far this year -- roughly double the returns seen in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite. With quantum computing stocks trouncing the broader market, now may be an appropriate time to assess valuations in the sector and compare them to prior periods of heightened enthusiasm. What is a stock market bubble, and what are some examples? One of the most basic mistakes investors make is assessing a company's valuation based on its stock price. In other words, if the stock price is low, an investor might mistakenly view the company as "cheap" (and vice versa). Smart investors understand that there are far more parameters than the share price that help determine a company's valuation. Underlying financial metrics, such as revenue, gross margins, profitability, free cash flow, cash, and debt, should all play a factor in assessing the health of a business. From there, more sophisticated analysis requires investors to benchmark these figures and their growth rates against a set of peers to get a better sense of how the business in question compares to the broader competitive landscape. Many investors do not take the time to perform the due diligence exercise above and instead choose to follow broader momentum. Unfortunately, this can lead to abnormally inflated stock prices -- those that are incongruent with the underlying fundamentals of the business. Generally speaking, reality begins to set in and these companies are unable to sustain their overstretched valuations, eventually leading to harsh, dramatic sell-offs. This phenomenon is known as a stock market bubble. In the charts below, I've illustrated some valuation trends across two notable stock market bubbles. The chart above illustrates the price-to-sales (P/S) ratios for a number of high-flying internet stocks during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. As the trends above make clear, each of the companies in the peer set above trades at much more normalized valuation multiples today when compared to their peaks during the internet boom. Investors witnessed a similar theme in overstretched valuations during the peak days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies such as Zoom Communications, Wayfair, and Peloton witnessed abnormal demand for their respective product offerings as remote work became the norm. As the trends seen above demonstrate, however, these growth tailwinds were not permanent. Today, none of these COVID stocks are seen as compelling growth opportunities, and their cratering valuations are a sobering reminder of the aftermath of bubbles bursting. How do quantum computing stocks compare to the valuations above? Over the last year, IonQ (NYSE: IONQ), Rigetti Computing (NASDAQ: RGTI), D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS), and Quantum Computing (NASDAQ: QUBT) have emerged as popular names fueling the quantum computing movement. With a P/S multiple of over 5,700, the tiny Quantum Computing business is the clear outlier in the quantum computing cohort illustrated above. Even so, Rigetti, IonQ, and D-Wave each boast P/S ratios that are either considerably higher or in line with the darlings of the dot-com and COVID bubbles. Are we in a quantum computing stock bubble? The quantum computing stocks referenced above are highly speculative -- arguably even more so than the highfliers during the internet era. Unlike then, today's technology behemoths, such as Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and Cisco, have evolved into sophisticated platform businesses with diversified ecosystems. This provides them with the scale and financial flexibility to explore emerging fields such as quantum computing. Smaller players, such as IonQ, Rigetti, D-Wave, and Quantum Computing, currently face intense competition from big tech -- something the dot-com businesses did not. Given the valuation analyses explored above, many popular quantum computing stocks are clearly trading at abnormally high and historically unsustainable valuation levels. For these reasons, I think companies such as IonQ, Rigetti, D-Wave, and Quantum Computing have entered bubble territory. With that said, many big tech companies in the "Magnificent Seven" are exploring quantum applications as well. Many of these companies trade for much more reasonable valuations. While I am not convinced the broader quantum computing opportunity is necessarily in a bubble, I believe investors need to be cautious and thoughtful when selecting which quantum computing stocks to invest in. And the best choices will rarely be high-flying specialists with big dreams and small revenue streams. Should you invest $1,000 in IonQ right now? Before you buy stock in IonQ, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and IonQ wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Adam Spatacco has positions in Amazon and Microsoft. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Peloton Interactive, VeriSign, Zoom Communications, and eBay. The Motley Fool recommends Wayfair and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Are We in a Quantum Computing Bubble? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
36 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Eric Schmidt explains why he doesn't think AI is a bubble — even if it might look like it
Eric Schmidt took over as Google's CEO in the midst of the dot-com bubble burst. He doesn't anticipate the same fate for AI. The former Google executive explained why he didn't think the AI industry was in a bubble while speaking at the RAISE Summit in Paris. AI has expanded rapidly in the years since ChatGPT took off and Big Tech invested heavily in the industry and ignited a new talent war. With an estimated market value of $189 billion in 2023, it's projected to grow into a $4.8 trillion industry by 2033. While some may see signs of an eventual crash, Schmidt — who has investments in multiple AI companies, including Anthropic — pointed to hardware and the chips market as a specific sign that the market has longevity. "You have these massive data centers, and Nvidia is quite happy to sell them all the chips," Schmidt said. "I've never seen a situation where hardware capacity was not taken up by software." Schmidt, speaking about his conversations with AI executives, said that he's heard talk that the AI industry is in a "period of overbuilding," and that they'll hit "overcapacity in two or three years." "They'll say, 'But I'll be fine and the other guys are going to lose all their money,'" Schmidt said. "That's a classic bubble, right?" Then there's the other side of the debate, the Bay Area techies who think that reinforcement learning chains will transform the world. "If you believe that those are going to be the defining aspects of humanity, then it's under-hyped and we need even more," he said. Schmidt didn't side with either side — overcapacity or under-expansion — but he did weigh in on whether it was an industry facing a bubble-level correction. "I think it's it's unlikely, based on my experience, that this is a bubble," Schmidt said. "It's much more likely that you're seeing an whole new industrial structure." Not everyone agrees. On Wall Street, talk of a potential bubble continues to simmer. On Wednesday, Apollo Global Management's chief economist Torsten Sløk said that the stock market faces an even bigger bubble than the dot-com boom. The primary culprit, in his view: AI. "The difference between the IT bubble in the 1990s and the AI bubble today is that the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 today are more overvalued than they were in the 1990s," Sløk wrote.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Intel axes Clear Linux, the fastest distribution on the market — company ends development and support, effective immediately
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. As part of its global restructuring plan, Intel has been cutting not only engineers, technicians, and managers, but also its software unit. This week, Intel officially ended its Clear Linux project, a high-performance Linux distribution designed for x86-64 systems, according to Phoronix. The company announced that it will no longer maintain or update the OS, marking the end of a decade-long effort to optimize Linux performance aggressively. "After years of innovation and community collaboration, we are ending support for Clear Linux OS," a statement by a Clear Linux official reads. "Effective immediately, Intel will no longer provide security patches, updates, or maintenance for Clear Linux OS, and the Clear Linux OS GitHub repository will be archived in read-only mode. So, if you are currently using Clear Linux OS, we strongly recommend planning your migration to another actively maintained Linux distribution as soon as possible to ensure ongoing security and stability." Clear Linux stood out for its aggressive out-of-box performance tuning and consistently strong results not just on Intel hardware, but also on AMD platforms, as noted by Phoronix. First, it was built using the latest toolchains that support all the latest CPU technologies. Secondly, it was compiled with aggressive GCC or Clang flags tailored to the latest CPUs, thereby adopting all the optimizations for such processors, making it particularly useful for performance-hungry workloads. Thirdly, Clear Linux applied profile-guided (PGO) and link-time optimizations (LTO) system-wide — including the kernel, libraries, and user utilities — enabling it to streamline execution paths based on real workloads and reduce binary size and overhead. In addition, Clear Linux featured aggressive out-of-box kernel tuning, prioritized maximum CPU frequency, and featured performance enhancements for CPU multi-threading, memory, I/O, and power consumption. Also, Clear Linux was among the first operating systems to adopt the latest technologies that Intel had to offer, such as AVX2, AVX-512, or Optane, out of the box. Last but not least, it featured tools like clr-boot-manager for fast kernel updates, which improved the user experience. The shutdown is part of Intel's global cost-reduction strategy, which has already impacted most of the teams within the company. Though the end of Clear Linux had been rumored in recent years, the company only now made the decision public. Of course, Intel will remain deeply engaged in the Linux ecosystem and will continue contributing to upstream projects and other major distributions. Other distributions, such as CachyOS, are already adopting some of the technologies and methods pioneered by Clear Linux. "Rest assured that Intel remains deeply invested in the Linux ecosystem, actively supporting and contributing to various open-source projects and Linux distributions to enable and optimize for Intel hardware," the statement reads. "A heartfelt thank you to every developer, user, and contributor who helped shape Clear Linux OS over the last 10 years. Your feedback and contributions have been invaluable." Phoronix notes that this announcement follows a week of significant changes within Intel's open-source software teams. A well-known Linux engineer exited the company, and at least one primary upstream driver lost its maintainer. Other team members working on Linux and open-source technologies were also affected by recent job cuts. Given such significant changes, it remains to be seen whether Intel will be as efficient as before in driving Linux performance improvements in the future. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
