Intel Nova Lake CPUs reportedly get a GPU overhaul — Xe3 Celestial and Xe4 Druid IPs used for graphics, media, and display
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Intel's upcoming Nova Lake chips are expected to advance their modular design philosophy by bringing together future Xe3 and Xe4 IPs to handle different engines on the chip. Jaykihn, an avid Intel leaker, asserts that Nova Lake-S will allegedly use Celestial for its graphics engine. At the same time, Druid will handle media and display functions, likely on a separate SoC Tile.
The disaggregated chiplet design, introduced for consumers with Meteor Lake, provides Intel with the flexibility to manufacture less critical chip elements using mature and cheaper fabrication nodes. Meteor Lake splits the media and display capabilities from core graphics. The media and display units were placed on a separate System-on-Chip (SoC) chiplet, manufactured using TSMC's N6 process, while the graphics engine resided on a separate tile produced with TSMC's N5 technology.
A similar strategy has been observed in Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake, however, Nova Lake reportedly is poised to advance Intel's chiplet approach by using separate and specialized IPs for these blocks. Jaykihn claims that the integrated graphics (iGPU) on Nova Lake-S (S: Desktop) will be powered by Xe3 (Celestial), meanwhile, the graphics and media engine move to the more advanced Xe4 (Druid).
This means that while the integrated GPU will be impressive, the most notable improvements could be in hardware codec support, owing to the shift to a next-generation architecture. Meanwhile, Bionic_Squash reports that the graphics engine will utilize a slightly modified version of Xe3, for better or worse. Should it be an improvement over vanilla Xe3, which we'll see in Panther Lake, it might be comparable to the evolution from Meteor Lake's Xe-LPG to Arrow Lake's Xe-LPG+ (mobile-only), the latter of which introduced XMX engines.
Beyond Nova Lake, this is a positive indication for future graphics products from Intel. We could see the first Druid-powered engines by as early as 2026, while Celestial, which is already undergoing pre-validation, is slated to power Panther Lake CPUs next year. It is plausible to say Nova Lake might serve as a test vehicle for Druid, serving as a precursor to a full-fledged product in the future that employs Druid graphics as well.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amazon's Powerful AWS Custom Chip To Get An Upgrade - Why Is It Important?
Inc (NASDAQ:AMZN) Amazon Web Services could soon announce an update to its Graviton4 chip, sparking a rivalry with Intel Corp (NASDAQ:INTC) and Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD). The chip could include 600 gigabits per second of network bandwidth, CNBC reported on Wednesday. Benzinga has reached out to Amazon for its comment. Hyperscalars like Amazon, Microsoft Corp (NASDAQ:MSFT), Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL), and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) migrated towards custom chips to curtail costs, tackle compatibility issues, and address supply crises. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — According to Amazon, its latest cloud computing chip, Graviton4, offers significant advancements in performance and energy efficiency. It's the fourth generation of AWS's custom-engineered data center chips, first introduced in 2018. Graviton4, based on Arm-architecture, boasts four times the performance of Graviton1 and is even more energy-efficient than its predecessor, Graviton3. With 73 billion transistors, it's being adopted by major customers like SAP and Epic Games for high-performance and reliable cloud experiences. This innovation, alongside other custom AWS chips like Trainium and Inferentia for AI, underscores Amazon's leadership in cloud computing technology. Amazon manufactures Graviton4 central processing unit at its Annapurna Labs in Austin, Texas. Rami Sinno, director of engineering at Amazon Web Services (AWS) Annapurna Labs, cited strong demand for chips that outpaced the supply. AWS Senior Director Gadi Hutt told CNBC about Amazon's initiatives to provide an alternative to Nvidia Corp's (NASDAQ:NVDA) costly graphics processing units. Hutt told CNBC. that Anthropic's Claude Opus 4 AI model launched on Trainium2 GPUs and Project Rainier. Trainium3 is coming up in 2025, he has committed $8 billion to Anthropic. Also, Amazon chief Andy Jassy recently highlighted the company's extensive leveraging of Generative AI to drive value. Jassy highlighted Generative AI's crucial role within AWS for developers and optimizing internal functions such as fulfillment and customer service. He also pointed to developing AI agents to automate tasks and accelerate innovation. As Amazon commits huge spending and Capex to AI, it is imperative that it design its own chips based on custom needs rather than relying on NVIDIA. Jassy stated that this AI-driven transformation might reduce the corporate workforce in the coming years. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? Photo by Deep Pixel via Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Amazon's Powerful AWS Custom Chip To Get An Upgrade - Why Is It Important? originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Satellites are polluting Earth's atmosphere with heavy metals. Could refueling them in orbit help?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The world at large is working to stop the fast-progressing degradation of Earth's environment. In the space sector, however, one-use-only products still reign supreme. The advent of megaconstellations has, in fact, accelerated the rate at which the space industry burns through resources, shifting from big satellites with decades-long lifespans to cheaper birds designed to expire within a few short years. The disposable approach worries some researchers, as too much aluminum is burning up in the atmosphere these days, threatening to cause a new kind of environmental disaster in the decades to come. But what can we do? Should we roll back the space revolution and put a cap on what we can do in space? Or could a circular economy, life extension, recycling and reuse be the solution to the space industry's dirty side effects? Proponents of in-orbit servicing and refueling laud the technology's potential. But most analysts remain cautious: Without strict environmental regulations, the expected cost of in-orbit servicing may not entice satellite operators to switch to reusable technology en masse. Dave Barnhart, chief executive officer of the California-based aerospace company Arkisys, first began developing concepts of recyclable satellite technology some 15 years ago as part of a project he oversaw at DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). He and his colleagues investigated how to set up a satellite recycling facility in geostationary orbit — the region about 22,000 miles (36,000 kilometers) above Earth's surface where satellites appear fixed above one spot above the equator. "We wanted to know whether we can use parts from old geo satellites to recreate new ones, because the mass is already there," Barnhart told The geostationary ring is home to some of the largest and most expensive satellites. On top of that, the long distance between Earth and this orbit makes geo missions inherently costly, as they require the most powerful rockets with a lot of fuel to reach their destination. Yet, Arkisys, the company Barnhart cofounded in 2015, is focusing on low Earth orbit (LEO) — the buzzing region closest to Earth up to altitudes of about 1,200 miles (2,000 km). Arkisyshopes to set up an in-orbit servicing and refueling depot called the Port in LEO. The main goal is to spearhead a green revolution in this region, which gives rise to thousands of tons of dangerous space debris every year. "To date, everything we have ever designed to go into space has been one mission, one life," Barnhart told "It's sort of crazy. Every other domain on Earth, we maintain, we sustain, we grow. Not in space." In 2023, Arkisys secured a $1.6 million deal from the U.S. Space Force to test satellite assembly in orbit using the Port demo module — a basic building block of a scalable orbiting garage and gas station. The company wants to launch the first component of this orbital depot next year — a last-mile transportation device called the Cutter, which is designed to help satellites to dock with the garage. In 2027, the main Port module, a hexagonal structure about 9 feet (3 meters) wide, will join the Cutter in orbit to test how the mechanical interfaces of the two work together in space. The Port, in addition to serving as a fuel depot, will arrive with a supply of components and payloads that could be attached to worn-out satellites to give them a new lease on life. "Today, everything on a satellite is done on the ground, and the satellite is launched with an end date," Barnhart said. "We want to shift that to allow extensions of both — life and business — post-launch. We want to be able to add new revenue streams post-launch. You can do that if you can add something, change something in orbit, or even sell that satellite to somebody else who could make it part of a larger platform." Cameras or antennas could be replaced with more powerful ones once those get developed, worn-out batteries could be swapped for brand-new ones, and fuel tanks would get refilled. It all makes sense on paper, but Dafni Christodoulopoulou, space industry analyst at the consultancy company Analysis Mason, warns that whether satellite operators would be inclined to ditch their disposable ways will come down to the cost of the in-orbit maintenance services. LEO is currently dominated by small, relatively cheap satellites, she says, which can be replaced more cheaply than they can be serviced and maintained. "Right now, we expect in-orbit services to come at a cost that might be quite high for operators of small satellites," Christodoulopoulou told "The operators might not be interested in those services, because the price of building a new satellite might not be higher than that of a servicing mission." Barnhart agrees that the fledgling in-orbit servicing industry is likely to face resistance not just from operators but also from satellite manufacturers, who might feel threatened by the idea of reusability and life extension. "Every time you want to make a big shift like this, it's going to be a threat," Barnhart said. "Satellite manufacturers make money by building more satellites to throw away. It might take some time for them to see that by fitting satellites with interfaces that allow them to be serviced, they could actually add some cool functionality to them after launch." Related stories: — Kessler Syndrome and the space debris problem — Pollution from rocket launches and burning satellites could cause the next environmental emergency — 2 private satellites undock after pioneering life-extension mission Still, Christodoulopoulou thinks that in-orbit servicing will eventually make a difference to how things are done in space, and also to the state of the orbital environment. "The number of satellite launches is not expected to go down, so there will be a high need for constellation management, flexibility, disposal and life extension," she said. "I think in-orbit services can definitely help prevent the buildup of space debris and maintain long-term sustainability in orbit." The U.S. government certainly appears to think that life extension is the way forward. In addition to funding the Arkisys experiment, the Space Force also funds the Tetra-5 and Tetra-6 missions to test in-orbit refueling technologies in space. The two missions, designed to test hardware developed by Orbit Fab, Astroscale and Northrop Grumman, are set to launch in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In addition, intensifying geopolitical tensions are increasing the need for quick deployment of new systems in space, which, Barnhart says, could be more speedily addressed with servicing systems such as the Port, than by building new spacecraft from scratch on Earth. "If there is a new threat that has been identified, you might need a new type of sensor or a new payload to observe it," Barnhart said. "If we can augment the satellites that the government has already put up and provide them with a new capability, a new sensor, we can address those threats much faster." Christodoulopoulou thinks that new regulations designed to protect the environment and curb the air pollution related to satellite reentries could further help move the needle toward a less throwaway culture in space utilization. "There need to be a few changes," Christodoulopoulou said. "There needs to be more awareness among satellite operators to understand that in-orbit servicing offers a value in the long term. But also on the government side, there need to be more regulations to support the in-orbit servicing providers."
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Intel Breakup? The Hidden Asset That Could Spark A Strategic Bid
Intel headquarters in Santa Clara, California, USA - June 10, 2023. Intel Corporation is an American ... More multinational corporation and technology company. Intel's once dominant position in the semiconductor industry has eroded into a cautionary tale. Does the current situation make the company vulnerable to a breakup or an acquisition bid? While AMD and NVIDIA sprinted ahead, capturing market share, mindshare, and the AI growth narrative, Intel stalled. Its inability to execute on next-gen chip rollouts, capitalize on the foundry business, or maintain architectural leadership has left the company trailing in nearly every performance metric that matters. In a prior Forbes piece, I made it clear: this decline isn't just a case of bad timing. The issue lies in cultural inertia, poor leadership choices, and a lack of visionary strategy, which have transformed Intel from a bellwether into a bloated, reactive giant. Its current leadership, while vocal about transformation, hasn't shown credible evidence of regaining the offensive. The result? On paper, the stock appears inexpensive, but patience makes it feel costly. Investors have been clinging to the unfulfilled promise of a turnaround for years. It's not that Intel lacks valuable assets. The strategy to unlock these assets has been either muddled or entirely absent. 29 April 2025, USA, San Jose: Lip-Bu Tan, Chief Executive Officer of Intel, appears at an event ... More organized by the company. Photo: Andrej Sokolow/dpa (Photo by Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images) The Foundry Jewel In The Crown Opportunity Intel's foundry ambition was bold: to challenge TSMC and Samsung by becoming a full-service manufacturer for the world's chip designers. The logic was sound: own the infrastructure, capture margin, and secure Western chip sovereignty, but execution has been, at best, uneven. Capital costs have soared, returns remain distant, and Intel's credibility with major customers is still catching up after years of overpromising and underdelivering. The Street has largely discounted this effort, and it shows in the stock's multiple. But that may be a mistake. Here's the twist: in today's geopolitical climate, where semiconductors are national security assets, Intel's U.S.-based foundry operations are not just valuable, they're strategic. Governments want sovereign supply chains. Major chip designers want a domestic alternative to Asia. Intel is sitting on an asset uniquely positioned to benefit from this trend. Intel is no longer a single entity; it now encompasses two distinct narratives within its sprawling structure. On one side: a legacy chip business that's lost ground to AMD and Nvidia, plagued by inconsistent execution and a more reactive culture than visionary. On the other: a capital-heavy, misunderstood foundry business that, despite its growing pains, sits at the center of global chip sovereignty conversations. As the U.S. and EU pour billions into domestic semiconductor production, Intel's foundry arm has inadvertently become a geopolitical asset. Defense contractors seeking to secure supply chains, sovereign wealth funds with national mandates, and even Asian players seeking U.S. credibility are aware of this. While Intel's sheer scale and capital expenditure requirements may deter private equity, a consortium or strategic carve-out remains a viable option. What's actually at stake? That foundry value is trapped, held back by Intel's cumbersome structure, slow decision-making, and internal conflicts of interest. Split out, the foundry could pursue its customers, define its strategy, and attract the valuation it deserves. What will happen if Intel's leadership doesn't unlock that value? You can be sure someone else will try. Today's market quickly uncovers undervalued strategic assets. Intel Breakup? Intel doesn't need another engineer at the helm. Intel requires a visionary leader who can simplify the story and establish clarity where bureaucracy has obscured the boundaries. A bold CEO would shrink the chip bloat, confront the underperformance head-on, and redirect capital into what matters: the foundry. They'd monetize low-value, non-core businesses, create clean segment reporting, and reframe Intel not as a legacy chipmaker but as a national platform for advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Think of Microsoft under Nadella or IBM's pivot to services, only with sharper execution. The right leadership would embrace partnerships (even former rivals), tap government tailwinds, and focus the street's attention on the structural upside buried in the foundry. For an activist investor, the roadmap isn't complicated. Demand transparency between business units. Push for timeline clarity on unlocking foundry value, whether via partial spin, joint venture, or strategic equity participation. Pressure the board to explore structural separation. And above all, instill urgency. Because what Intel lacks is not capital, talent, or assets, it's the courage to act decisively. It's up to time whether this courage originates internally or is externally imposed. The real question is who will get there first and who'll profit from the move. Intel 5 years Vs Nasdaq Breakup or Buyout? The biggest mispricing in Intel today isn't its margin compression or lagging revenue growth; it's the way the foundry is still being treated like a side project. Wall Street views it as a cost center rather than a strategic asset. That's the blind spot. Investors won't see a true earnings re-rating until they understand who is driving the company or who is about to take over. If the foundry sits buried beneath Intel's bloated structure, the market will continue to misread its upside. But that's starting to shift. Smart investors are watching for clues: insider buying, activist stake-building, tighter segment disclosure, JV chatter, and the sudden alignment of political and industrial interests around domestic chip sovereignty. As I recently stated, 'Intel's execution is subpar, yet its foundry presents a valuable asset.' Breakup or buyout feels more plausible than the market's pricing in.' Pay attention—not just to the earnings, but to the structure. Once the market gains confidence in the foundry's independence or ownership, the valuation will not simply rebound. It will re-rate. Fast. Intel Breaking Up Is Hard To Do The longer Intel delays meaningful change, the more compelling the breakup case or bid opportunity becomes. The company is not a turnaround stock but rather a hidden restructuring opportunity. Investors who are astute should not wait for Intel to resolve its issues. What is the more advantageous option? That pressure, whether from activists, strategic buyers, or visionary CEOs, forces change from the outside in. The roadmap is clear. The foundry is in control. The rest is just capital, courage, and timing. The real question isn't if someone moves to secure an Intel bid or a breakup. The real question is not if someone makes a move on Intel, but rather who gets there first and whether you were already in a position when they did.
