Monday, November 28th 2011

Intel Ivy Bridge Desktop Processor Models Tabled

Russian website Overclockers.ru claims to have a complete picture of what Intel's upcoming 22 nm Core "Ivy Bridge" desktop (2012 Core Processor Family) looks like. The site compiled model names, extensions, clock speeds, Turbo Boost speeds, L3 cache sizes, and TDP ratings of as many as 18 models, most of which are quad-core.

The table reflects that most clock speeds are similar to today's Sandy Bridge LGA1155 processor models, some have Turbo Boost speeds as high as 3.90 GHz. Since Ivy Bridge silicon is an optical shrink of Sandy Bridge LGA1155, from 32 nm to 22 nm, and since Intel is using a more energy-efficient transistor design, there are significant improvements in TDP ratings.

Source: Overclockers.ru
Add your own comment

57 Comments on Intel Ivy Bridge Desktop Processor Models Tabled

#1
tigger
I'm the only one
3570K for me please :)
Posted on Reply
#2
Jarman
These will work in current p67 boards yes??
Posted on Reply
#3
radrok
Yes they will but you won't be sure of the PCI express 3.0 support
Posted on Reply
#4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Extensions:
  • K = unlocked BClk multiplier
  • S = energy-efficient (while not compromising clock-speed)
  • T = low-power (lower clock-speed/core-count)
Posted on Reply
#5
INSTG8R
by: Jarman
These will work in current p67 boards yes??
Yes as long as the Manufacturer has put out an updated BIOS for it. I know my P67 is Ivy Bridge ready. I know I am eyeballing that i7 3770K if the prices are right.
Posted on Reply
#6
tigger
I'm the only one
Mine supported it with bios 902, and i don't care about pci-e 3, that can wait till my next board.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
It looks like IVB is gunning for power/perf rather than raw increase in performance. Anyone shares the same view?
Posted on Reply
#8
HalfAHertz
Hmm I expected a bigger drop in power than this from the 22nm Tri-gate process :/ Scratch that - there's more l3 cache. Interesting
Posted on Reply
#9
the54thvoid
Makes sense. They need to allow the performance to stay with the SB-E platform.
Posted on Reply
#10
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
These look good. As they're an incremental improvement over SB, I hope they will be priced about the same.

I'll have the 8 thread i7-3770K to go, along with a side order of fries and ketchup. ;)

by: Fourstaff
It looks like IVB is gunning for power/perf rather than raw increase in performance. Anyone shares the same view?
Yes, that's true. When you consider the lack of competition from AMD and the fact that even a low end CPU can run most things including 3D games very well, it's not surprising.
Posted on Reply
#11
Zubasa
by: Fourstaff
It looks like IVB is gunning for power/perf rather than raw increase in performance. Anyone shares the same view?
Its not like they need to increase the performance, given the "competition" or the lack of.
Posted on Reply
#12
Completely Bonkers
Error in table:
i5-3450S should be 65W

(I'm only pointing this out because it got me confused...)

There might also be a i5-3450T at 45W... who knows.
Posted on Reply
#13
loleafidas
Intel, pls dun cost me X79 for nothing, Bulldozer costed Asus Crosshair V Formula is enough :-|
Posted on Reply
#14
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
why are they all soo low powered? even my 945 is 95W!
Posted on Reply
#15
Fourstaff
by: de.das.dude
why are they all soo low powered? even my 945 is 95W!
Die shrink + 3D gate + already low power S-B
Posted on Reply
#16
repman244
These will be perfect for laptops, anyone knows if mobile versions will also be compatible with current laptop sockets?
Posted on Reply
#17
ensabrenoir
.......no way around it I'm building 2 new machines....thanks a lot intel:)

An Ivy bridge e would be more palletable than sbe though
Posted on Reply
#18
MikeMurphy
This table is screwy and must be fake.

1) Only a single dual-core option? Dual core CPUs is where Intel makes most of their profits. Its not like most consumers really need 4 cores.

2) Similarly, why so many more quad core options than with SB?

3) Fill out the rest of the table with what it *should* have suddenly you're talking about way too many chips
Posted on Reply
#19
afw
release date ???
Posted on Reply
#20
afw
by: MikeMurphy
This table is screwy and must be fake.

1) Only a single dual-core option? Dual core CPUs is where Intel makes most of their profits. Its not like most consumers really need 4 cores.

2) Similarly, why so many more quad core options than with SB?
why not make quad-cores mainstream when mobile phones these days come with dual-cores (quad cores coming 2012 Q1) :D ...

earlier dual-cores were highend single cores were mainstream ... then dualcores were mainstream and quad-cores were highend ... catch the pattern ... :toast:
Posted on Reply
#21
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
hope fully more quads mean they will be "competitively priced"
Posted on Reply
#22
radrok
There are more quad cores because they are getting into the dual core TDP range at which you can simply use them because the low TDP associated with the new lithography permits you to do so :)
Posted on Reply
#23
Sasqui
What I find incredibly interesting is the TDP of different speeds with same core and cache is the same.

Taking the data at face value, does this mean that wattage is scaling non-linearly with core speed? Kind of hints that the K models will overclock like crazy. I hope so!
Posted on Reply
#24
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: afw
release date ???
April 2012.
Posted on Reply
#25
repman244
by: Sasqui
What I find incredibly interesting is the TDP of different speeds with same core and cache is the same.

Taking the data at face value, does this mean that wattage is scaling non-linearly with core speed? Kind of hints that the K models will overclock like crazy. I hope so!
AFAIK they are only the same on paper, for example if you have a set TDP of let's say 65W and 95W and you produce a chip that is 66W it then uses the 95W tag. But if you don't look at those numbers the chip with lower cache size, lower clock and less cores (but it still has the same TDP as a chip that has more of all the things I said) will run cooler and consume less.

At least that is how I see it, I could be wrong though.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment