Ivy Bridge processor line-up revealed

HaggisUK · 1 Dec 2011 at 17:50

debs3759 said:
I don't think Intel have published prices yet, but from what I have read over the last few weeks, I believe the high-end IB will be slightly more expensive than their SB ccounterparts, keeping high-end SB prices where they are initially.

I can see they will be taking advantage of the fact that AMD are offering no competition, and may even leave the desktop CPU business!

AMD responded to the rumours saying they weren't leaving the desktop market at all but were just putting some more money and resources into the mobile market. Softpedia :rolleyes:

debs3759 · 1 Dec 2011 at 17:55

Good! It might take then some time to catch up with Intel again in desktop performance, but any competition is good if it helps stop prices going silly high. And who knows, they might be first to produce x86-128 processors

saitrix · 1 Dec 2011 at 19:26

Where are the i3 processors? I bet they won't come out for at least another month or 2 after that. I was going to wait to see what they were like for a htpc.

panyan · 1 Dec 2011 at 19:36

very interesting, the 2500K is getting a 100mhz bump, but the 2600k isnt... hhmmm...

debs3759 · 1 Dec 2011 at 19:37

saitrix said:
Where are the i3 processors? I bet they won't come out for at least another month or 2 after that. I was going to wait to see what they were like for a htpc.

From the first link I posted at the top of the thread (you did read before you asked, didn't you?):

April's official launch event will include third-generation Core i5 and Core i7 desktop products, and Core i7 mobile chips. Next wave of IB CPUs, consisting of desktop Core i3s and Core i5 mobile microprocessors, will be available later in the second quarter.

debs3759 · 1 Dec 2011 at 19:47

panyan said:
very interesting, the 2500K is getting a 100mhz bump, but the 2600k isnt... hhmmm...

2600K doesn't have a direct replacement, whereas the 2700K does.

Even though there is no increase in the clock speeds, that is not the only selling point. They are expected to have a (small) performance boost at the same frequencies, but the main selling point is the reduced TDP, improved integrated graphics (150% to 200% improvement in graphics benchmarks, for anyone that relies on the integrated graphics). The reduced power consumption and reduction to 22nm technology have also allowed Intel to give a higher maximum multiplier, giving overclockers a chance of even greater performance benefits.

Not a major selling point if you already have a 2600K or 2700K, but great for new buyers that can wait that long

panyan · 1 Dec 2011 at 19:52

debs3759 said:
2600K doesn't have a direct replacement, whereas the 2700K does.

small typo

Even though there is no increase in the clock speeds, that is not the only selling point. They are expected to have a (small) performance boost at the same frequencies, but the main selling point is the reduced TDP, improved integrated graphics (150% to 200% improvement in graphics benchmarks, for anyone that relies on the integrated graphics). The reduced power consumption and reduction to 22nm technology have also allowed Intel to give a higher maximum multiplier, giving overclockers a chance of even greater performance benefits.

Not a major selling point if you already have a 2600K or 2700K, but great for new buyers that can wait that long

i agree, not enough to upgrade from SB, but worth it for new investors to this series

zoomee · 1 Dec 2011 at 20:03

hmmm -so no point changing my 2700k then? excellent

Sayso · 1 Dec 2011 at 20:14

If only they sold them without the GPU

Tute · 1 Dec 2011 at 21:56

Sayso said:
If only they sold them without the GPU

They will, it's called Ivy Bridge-E.

saitrix · 1 Dec 2011 at 22:11

debs3759 said:
From the first link I posted at the top of the thread (you did read before you asked, didn't you?):

Ahh first time I read that I thought it meant i3 mobile and i5 mobile...

Curunen · 1 Dec 2011 at 22:23

So it's the 3570K then.

Hope it's reasonably priced.

Doomedspeed · 1 Dec 2011 at 22:41

im interested by the higher cache on the i3's. Will be a great addition.

PMKeates · 1 Dec 2011 at 23:24

I currently run a 2600K @ 4.5 GHz day-to-day, if the 3770K will sit happilly at 5.0 GHz no issues I'd be tempted to upgrade..

Orcvader · 2 Dec 2011 at 00:47

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Benchmarks-Intel-Ivy-Bridge-CPU-sandy-bridge,news-37178.html

CPU performance seems to be on average 15% better per clock (although we would have to see some proper reviews to confirm this), but they really are concentrating on the IGP for IB. Maybe they want to beat Llano

?

debs3759 · 2 Dec 2011 at 00:56

The original source for that article (before xbit-labs saw it) was http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=34548. They have a link to the complete Intel Desktop Roadmap for the next year, covering processors, chipsets, benchmarks, specs...

drunkenmaster · 2 Dec 2011 at 05:44

Marine-RX179 said:
Am I the only one that want a K-series i3 for cheap rather than paying nearly double the price for a i5 K-series?

In my opinion, if there was a i3 K-series and able to overclock as high as the i5 K-series, the i5 K-series won't really offer noticable extra gaming performance with the two extra cores, unless graphic card(s) used are at quite a bit faster than a single GTX580 (i.e. Tri-SLI, Trifire etc).

Am I missing something, a i3 2120 is £102, that would put a i3 2120k at call it £110...... double that is £220....... a i5 2500k is the whopping great big price of £155.

Nearly double? its not even close, and IF it was double, it offers........ near on double the performance.

If there was an i3 K version other than being cheaper it would be worse value in every single way. A i5 2500k offers near enough 100% more performance for(assuming a i3 K version was more expensive than a normal version) just under half as much more.

Yes the idea of a i3k version is intriguing but it wouldn't be good value, and while it would offer "enough" performance for many people it wouldn't last anywhere near as long as one that is almost 100% faster so if I built a i3 K based computer for my parents or an i5 K based computer, the i5 would last significantly longer and cost less in the long run anyway.

Now, if an i3 was £75 and a i3 K version was £80, its a viable alternative option in terms of value. For now I'd take a quad core phenom that can do 4Ghz at £65 over a £110 dual core that is faster in single thread, and similar or sometimes a tad slower in 4 threaded situations. Also for 90% of the people I'd recommend something slower for, parents, students, etc, £65 offers a lot more value than the £100 i3.

IvanDobskey · 2 Dec 2011 at 09:32

Argh, the GF is getting me a 2500k for xmas and now these are announced! Typical! Ah well, they are bound to be really expensive to start with and i really doubt they are really much faster. I heard the main improvement is the on chip gpu which i dont care about.

KHAN · 2 Dec 2011 at 09:48

Horrible time to want to upgrade basically. I wanted to buy a new PC but seems stupid atm with all that's out between March and April.

tbh · 2 Dec 2011 at 11:55

IvanDobskey said:
Argh, the GF is getting me a 2500k for xmas and now these are announced! Typical!

They're still great chips bro, I'm sure you'll be happy with it for a long time.

Personally I'm more excited about the mobile variants than the desktop chips, reduced TDP and much improved integrated graphics are exactly what I'm looking for when I upgrade my lappy next year sometime.