Friday, June 14th 2013

Intel Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" and Core i3 "Haswell" Series Detailed

We know from older reports that Intel will refresh its socket LGA2011 HEDT (high-end desktop) product family with three new parts, based on the new 22 nm "Ivy Bridge-E" silicon. A table detailing their clock speeds was leaked to the web. In addition, we got details of what Intel's entry-level Core i3 "Haswell" line of dual-core processors would look like, specs-wise. The Ivy Bridge-E silicon, is to a large part an optical shrink of the Sandy Bridge-E silicon, with a few improvements. The chip is fabricated on Intel's 22 nm node with tri-gate transistors, the IMC natively supports DDR3-1866 MHz, the PCI-Express root complex is gen 3.0 certified, and the CPUID features the new RdRAND instruction set. Aside from these clock speeds are increased across the board, although TDP isn't lowered from the previous 130W.

Leading the Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" pack is the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition, with its 3.60 GHz core, 4.00 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, unlocked base-clock multiplier, and 15 MB L3 cache. This six-core chip will command a four-figure price. Next up, is the Core i7-4930K, with 3.40 GHz core, 3.90 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, unlocked base-clock multiplier, and 12 MB L3 cache. This chip could be 30-40 percent cheaper than the i7-4960X. The cheapest of the lot, though, is the Core i7-4820K. This quad-core part, interestingly, features unlocked base-clock multiplier, unlike its predecessor, the i7-3820. Perhaps Intel didn't want a repeat of Core i7-3770K cannibalizing the i7-3820. The i7-4820K features 3.70 GHz core, 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost, and 10 MB of L3 cache. The chip may be priced in the same range as the i7-4770K. All three parts feature quad-channel DDR3 integrated memory controllers, with native support for DDR3-1866.

Intel kicked its 4th generation Core "Haswell" desktop family off earlier this month, but only with quad-core parts spread across the Core i7 and Core i5 brand extensions. The entry-level is still stuck with Core i3 "Ivy Bridge," but it won't be for long. Before October, Intel plans to launch three Core i3 parts based on the "Haswell" micro-architecture. These dual-core chips lack Turbo Boost, but feature HyperThreading, which enables four logical CPUs, two out of three feature the same HD 4600 graphics core as other Core "Haswell" processors, while one of them features the slower HD 4400. HD 4600 is good enough for 4K Ultra HD desktop usage, while HD 4400 isn't recommended for desktop usage on displays higher than 1600p. The dual-channel IMCs of all three feature native support for DDR3-1600. TDP of all three chips is rated at 54W. The Core i3 "Haswell" lineup is led by the i3-4340, with its 3.60 GHz clock speed, HD 4600 graphics, and 4 MB L3 cache. Next up, is the Core i3-4330 with 3.50 GHz clock speed, HD 4600 graphics, and 4 MB L3 cache. The most affordable of the lot is the Core i3-4130, with its 3.40 GHz core, HD 4400 graphics, and 3 MB L3 cache.

The mystery of Core i7-4771 is cracked, too. While the unlocked Core i7-4770K features 3.50 GHz clock speed and 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost, the "locked" Core i7-4770 starts out at 3.40 GHz clock speed, and 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost. The Core i7-4771 is an intermediate. It features the clock speeds of the i7-4770K (3.50 nominal, 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost), while being "locked" like the i7-4770. We expect it to eventually replace the i7-4770 from the product stack.
Add your own comment

36 Comments on Intel Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" and Core i3 "Haswell" Series Detailed

#1
Fourstaff
3.4Ghz i3? FX4300 is going to meet serious competition soon.
Posted on Reply
#2
lilhasselhoffer
Wow. That sucks.

Four figures for the 4960X. Let's assume that that means 1000USD.
30-40% reduction in price for the 4930k. We're looking at 600-700USD (where SB-e started).
4820 fully unlocked, and priced near the 4770k.
No PCH change, so absolutely no upgraded connectivity.


Intel, we know that increases in performance cost money to develop. We know that you're doing 99% of your research on the lower cost "mainstream" options, then rolling out the developments to your higher cost chips.

None of this makes it acceptable to have the same lackluster PCH running off of 3 generations (22-32-45-65nm) old process nodes making your high end boards run. It doesn't make it acceptable that the mainstream options are more than a generation ahead of your high performance lines. It doesn't make it acceptable to finally deliver on performance, because the thermal overhead forced you to use better processing technologies.

Intel, you're giving us the middle finger. It's time to give it right back. Have fun with all that expensive IB-e silicon.
Posted on Reply
#3
Prima.Vera
This is because there is no true competition from AMD side, so they keep the prices as up as possible with minor performance increase. This is what MONOPOLY is people!
Posted on Reply
#4
alucasa
by: Prima.Vera
This is because there is no true competition from AMD side, so they keep the prices as up as possible with minor performance increase. This is what MONOPOLY is people!
One good advantage to this. You can stay one tech behind without suffering too much while saving some dough.
Posted on Reply
#5
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: lilhasselhoffer

No PCH change, so absolutely no upgraded connectivity.


Intel, we know that increases in performance cost money to develop. We know that you're doing 99% of your research on the lower cost "mainstream" options, then rolling out the developments to your higher cost chips.

None of this makes it acceptable to have the same lackluster PCH running off of 3 generations (22-32-45-65nm) old process nodes making your high end boards run. It doesn't make it acceptable that the mainstream options are more than a generation ahead of your high performance lines. It doesn't make it acceptable to finally deliver on performance, because the thermal overhead forced you to use better processing technologies.

Intel, you're giving us the middle finger. It's time to give it right back. Have fun with all that expensive IB-e silicon.
Or maybe Intel's intent was that you would use some of those 40 PCI-E lanes. The PCH is still on DMI 2.0 and like server boards, isn't going to offer everything that you want. So instead of complaining why don't you realize that you can get a lot out of a skt2011 board if you're willing to invest in the money to get decent add-on cards, like an 8-port SATA 6GB RAID card, if you really need it so badly. Also Intel doesn't care, you already invested in skt2011, they have your money. This is to get more people to invest in it, not to get people like you and I to upgrade.

by: Prima.Vera
This is because there is no true competition from AMD side, so they keep the prices as up as possible with minor performance increase. This is what MONOPOLY is people!
AMD still exists. This is what happens when Intel is dominating the market. We would see even less if Intel had no competition, and that is a monopoly.
Posted on Reply
#6
Sinzia
That 4820k has me interested in moving from SB to IB-E, I'm running out of lanes as it is on Z68.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
by: Aquinus


AMD still exists. This is what happens when Intel is dominating the market. We would see even less if Intel had no competition, and that is a monopoly.
Intel has virtual monopoly north of 3770/4770/8350
Posted on Reply
#8
tokyoduong
Wow, is it just me or is this article harder to read than the usual. It just seems less organized.
Posted on Reply
#9
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
by: tokyoduong
Wow, is it just me or is this article harder to read than the usual. It just seems less organized.
I agree, needs compartmentalising. Having three processors mulched out into a paragraph without a table or line break is a little slow, but I got the information in the end.
Posted on Reply
#10
AlienIsGOD
well im liking the i3 lineup, the 3.6 ghz 4340 looks like a nice chip compared to the current IB dual core lineup.
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Technically, it would cost Intel $0 to rebadge Z87 as X89. They're both just glorified southbridges anyway.
Posted on Reply
#12
douglatins
So X89 coming? Where is that in the news?
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: douglatins
So X89 coming? Where is that in the news?
No, there's no X89. I was commenting on how X79 feels ancient next to Z87, why people could still pick an i7-4770K over an i7-4820K (six SATA 6 Gb/s ports), and how easy it really is for Intel to fix the situation.
Posted on Reply
#15
lilhasselhoffer
by: Aquinus
Or maybe Intel's intent was that you would use some of those 40 PCI-E lanes. The PCH is still on DMI 2.0 and like server boards, isn't going to offer everything that you want. So instead of complaining why don't you realize that you can get a lot out of a skt2011 board if you're willing to invest in the money to get decent add-on cards, like an 8-port SATA 6GB RAID card, if you really need it so badly. Also Intel doesn't care, you already invested in skt2011, they have your money. This is to get more people to invest in it, not to get people like you and I to upgrade.
You make a few fair points. My counters to them are the simple ones.

1) X79 was originally specced out to have much more connectivity. Some boards actually had this connectivity enabled, but it didn't see general markets because the 65 nm process made the PCH get too hot. 65 nm PCH for a 32 nm CPU is like connecting your efficient 2010 engine to a transmission from 1980. It will work, but it's a huge loss.

2) 40 lanes is great, but Intel is forcing us to spend money that we didn't have to. I can see purchasing a $300 RAID card, but that's not the point. 40 lanes - 32 lanes for crossfire = 8 lanes from the CPU. Add in the lanes from the PCH, remembering to deduct extra items that use those lanes (such as SATA III controllers, USB 3.0 controllers, etc....), and we're left with a handful of extra lanes. Not a problem, unless lanes are dedicated to extra controllers because the PCH has been intentionally crippled.

3) Who sees IB-e now, and wants to rush out and buy it? If you're the slightest bit informed, and I assume this because of the huge price tag, then you know Haswell has released. Haswell is an improvement on IB, and will be a generally cheaper platform. If you need the performance of an enthusiast system then you've committed to being behind the curve, for extra processor cores. I could see that if you'd gotten a few months before it was old tech, but not when they were 3 months behind the release of the newest generation. That's some crappy PR.


Yeah, still disappointed in X79. The 3930k is acceptable, if over priced. There are arguments to be made for it, but this isn't about the need for LGA 2011 options. This is about IB-e, and why it exists. It came to the table late, it offers almost nothing new, and it's actually priced higher than its predecessor. Unless you're still rocking a high end LGA775 processor, IB-e offers no reasons for upgrade that SB-e didn't. That is the root of my disappointment.
Posted on Reply
#16
sc
A big improvement over the mess the i3 lineup was with SB/IB but still I can't understand the purpose with an i3 with a IGPU less than HD5200 (nevermind the BGA packaging).
They should all have either the best IGPU Intel has to offer today or without any graphics at all.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: lilhasselhoffer
Wow. That sucks.

Four figures for the 4960X. Let's assume that that means 1000USD.
30-40% reduction in price for the 4930k. We're looking at 600-700USD (where SB-e started).
4820 fully unlocked, and priced near the 4770k.
No PCH change, so absolutely no upgraded connectivity.


Intel, we know that increases in performance cost money to develop. We know that you're doing 99% of your research on the lower cost "mainstream" options, then rolling out the developments to your higher cost chips.

None of this makes it acceptable to have the same lackluster PCH running off of 3 generations (22-32-45-65nm) old process nodes making your high end boards run. It doesn't make it acceptable that the mainstream options are more than a generation ahead of your high performance lines. It doesn't make it acceptable to finally deliver on performance, because the thermal overhead forced you to use better processing technologies.

Intel, you're giving us the middle finger. It's time to give it right back. Have fun with all that expensive IB-e silicon.
Where SB-e Started? Look again, these are the same prices as SB-e when it was launched. The i7-3960X launched at over $1,000 and it is still there, and the i7-3970X came out and was even more expensive. And they were simply following in the Footsteps of Gulftown's i7-980X which also launched at $1,000. And those were following in all the other Extreme Edition processors footsteps which were all $1,000.

Seriously, the Extreme Edition processors have been $1,000 for as long as I can remember, all the way back to the P4 days when Intel was loosing to AMD. For some reason Intel just always prices them right at that price point, no matter what.
Posted on Reply
#18
lilhasselhoffer
by: newtekie1
Where SB-e Started? Look again, these are the same prices as SB-e when it was launched. The i7-3960X launched at over $1,000 and it is still there, and the i7-3970X came out and was even more expensive. And they were simply following in the Footsteps of Gulftown's i7-980X which also launched at $1,000. And those were following in all the other Extreme Edition processors footsteps which were all $1,000.

Seriously, the Extreme Edition processors have been $1,000 for as long as I can remember, all the way back to the P4 days when Intel was loosing to AMD. For some reason Intel just always prices them right at that price point, no matter what.
Do you have a different point, or are we making the same one?

I said the exact same thing as you have repeated. My point was static pricing, with only a marginal increase despite nearly two years between releases. That is what I find depressing/sad.



Edit:
Changed wording to, hopefully, not sound so egotistical.
Posted on Reply
#19
shovenose
AMD is no competition to Intel. High end gaming and workstation computers? Intel i7 is the way to go? Cheap office-type computers? Intel Celeron is the way to go. HTPC? AMD APU.
Wow, one minority area where and AMD might be a better choice.
Of course, AMD could put it's crappy CPUs in those cheap $300 Best Buy laptops. But those even come with Intel CPUs now...

Intel can charge as much as people are willing to pay. Is it overpriced? Yes. But it's also worth it if you want the performance and efficiency.

My AMD FX-8350 computer is being sold to a friend who neded a computer for audio production. I'm sure the 8 cores at 4.0-4.2GHz will serve him well. It also came in cheaper than building him a new computer with an i7, so it's better "bang for the buck" but it's still not the best computer since it isn't running an Intel CPU.

Why is it that an old Intel i7 860 quad core 2.8GHz is equivalent in benchmarks to the latest AMD FX-8350 which runs at 4GHz and uses much more power??
Posted on Reply
#20
Bytales
by: Sinzia
That 4820k has me interested in moving from SB to IB-E, I'm running out of lanes as it is on Z68.
Thats why i got me a dual socket lga 2011 board, because i get 80 pci express 3.0 lanes.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheinsanegamerN
by: shovenose
AMD is no competition to Intel. High end gaming and workstation computers? Intel i7 is the way to go? Cheap office-type computers? Intel Celeron is the way to go. HTPC? AMD APU.
Wow, one minority area where and AMD might be a better choice.
Of course, AMD could put it's crappy CPUs in those cheap $300 Best Buy laptops. But those even come with Intel CPUs now...

Intel can charge as much as people are willing to pay. Is it overpriced? Yes. But it's also worth it if you want the performance and efficiency.

My AMD FX-8350 computer is being sold to a friend who neded a computer for audio production. I'm sure the 8 cores at 4.0-4.2GHz will serve him well. It also came in cheaper than building him a new computer with an i7, so it's better "bang for the buck" but it's still not the best computer since it isn't running an Intel CPU.

Why is it that an old Intel i7 860 quad core 2.8GHz is equivalent in benchmarks to the latest AMD FX-8350 which runs at 4GHz and uses much more power??
the biggest reason is how the bulldozer cores are laid out. each module only has one FPU, or floating point unit. FPU performance is VERY important to cpu performance. now, amd's eight core processors have only four fpus, the same number as any quad core intel model. intel's architecture is also very efficient, being refined since the core 2 days, while amd has switched to a new design, and it is painfully optimized. for power consumption, amd's processors take way more juice. the 4 ghz fx 84350 runs at about 1.4v if i remember right, while the i5 only runs at 1.2v. and, amd's chips are on an older 32 nm process, while intel uses a 22nm 3d process. basically, amd is falling behind on EVERYTHING, with an arcitecture that is catering to a market that does not exist yet (a market that uses the gpu to do fpu calculations.
Posted on Reply
#22
Sabishii Hito
I, for one, am excited about having a drop-in replacement for my 3820 (selling off my 3930K in anticipation of getting a 4930K). I have a Haswell chip and aside from the insane memory clocking capability, it doesn't offer anything over Ivy Bridge and in fact is harder to overclock to 4.5GHz+ in most cases especially while trying to run fast memory. The idea of a 4930K clocked at 4.5GHz or higher with quad channel DDR3-2666 or 2800 is pretty appealing to me.
Posted on Reply
#23
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: lilhasselhoffer
Do you have a different point, or are we making the same one?

I said the exact same thing as you have repeated. My point was static pricing, with only a marginal increase despite nearly two years between releases. That is what I find depressing/sad.



Edit:
Changed wording to, hopefully, not sound so egotistical.
Sorry, I read your post as saying the SB-e Extreme Editions were only $600-700 and you were saying the prices have gone up.

Yeah, static pricing is Intel's game, but it has nothing to do with a Monopoly or the fact that they outperform AMD, because even when AMD was in the lead Intel was still charging the same $1,000 for their Extreme Editions, or course AMD was too at that point...

by: shovenose
High end gaming and workstation computers? Intel i7 is the way to go?
Actually, for Workstations AMD is a very serious competitor to Intel. Intel has basically killed their dual-socket 2011 Workstation motherboards, meaning a single socket 2011 is the best you can do and 8-Core Xeons start at $1,150, and are only clocked at 2.0GHz which is really low for a SB-e. And for basically the same price you can build a 32-core dual-processor monster with AMD processors.
Posted on Reply
#24
Dent1
by: shovenose
AMD is no competition to Intel. High end gaming and workstation computers? Intel i7 is the way to go? Cheap office-type computers? Intel Celeron is the way to go. HTPC? AMD APU.
Wow, one minority area where and AMD might be a better choice.
Of course, AMD could put it's crappy CPUs in those cheap $300 Best Buy laptops. But those even come with Intel CPUs now...

Intel can charge as much as people are willing to pay. Is it overpriced? Yes. But it's also worth it if you want the performance and efficiency.

What are you talking about Intel have been overcharging customers for almost 2 decades. Even when AMD had a faster CPU line up, Intel still overcharged.

Intel is a premium brand. They will overcharge regardless, it's their business model.
Posted on Reply
#25
shovenose
by: newtekie1

Actually, for Workstations AMD is a very serious competitor to Intel. Intel has basically killed their dual-socket 2011 Workstation motherboards, meaning a single socket 2011 is the best you can do and 8-Core Xeons start at $1,150, and are only clocked at 2.0GHz which is really low for a SB-e. And for basically the same price you can build a 32-core dual-processor monster with AMD processors.
IDK for workstations but I run a company that has over a dozen servers. All of them run Intel Xeon E3 and E5 CPUs... AMD is just too power hungry and slow and not worth the small savings up front.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment