Wednesday, March 4th 2015

Intel to Launch Socketed "Broadwell" Processors in mid-2015

Along the sidelines of GDC 2015, Intel offered a few details on how the year could look for its desktop processor lineup. The company is preparing to launch socketed Core "Broadwell" processors in mid-2015 (late Q2 or early Q3), likely in the sidelines of Computex 2015. Broadwell is an optical shrink of "Haswell" to the new 14-nanometer silicon fab process, with a minor feature-set update, much in the same way as "Ivy Bridge" was an optical shrink of "Sandy Bridge" to the 22 nm process.

The socketed Core "Broadwell" chips could come in the LGA1150 package, running on existing 8-series and 9-series chipset motherboards, with BIOS updates. The optical shrink seems to be working wonders for the silicon. Quad-core chips based on "Broadwell" could come with TDP rated as low as 65W (and we're not talking about the energy-efficient "S" or "T" brand extensions here). Some dual-core variants in the series may even be based on the smaller Core M "Broadwell" silicon, which physically features just 2 cores (and isn't a bigger quad-core silicon with two cores disabled in what's a colossal waste of rare-earth metals on a production scale). Some of those dual-core parts could come with TDP rated as low as 28W. Source: TechReport
Add your own comment

44 Comments on Intel to Launch Socketed "Broadwell" Processors in mid-2015

#26
15th Warlock
All I know is I'm skipping broadwell altogether, like I did with ivy bridge, 4% more performance is just not worth it :(

Will wait for Skylake in 2016 :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#27
the54thvoid
I recently ditched any thought of a Chipset upgrade and resurrected my mobo by altering DIMM slot usage (back to 16Gb after a water incident that took out DIMM A1).

I'll skip Broadwell Enthusiast as well methinks (2016 date). No idea if Skylake is even roadmapped to have an enthusiast variant. Either way, I'll be holding onto this 3930K for another year or so. 3 1/2 years and still punching hard (and been running at 4.4GHz all that time).
Posted on Reply
#28
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
FordGT90Concept said:
*cough* Xeon *cough* I hope you have need of 8+ cores though.
LOL, you're referring to my ancient server! Yeah, but as long as it does what I need to, it's staying. It is old enough though that if something breaks on it, it's cheaper to just replace with Haswell or Broadwell stuff.
Posted on Reply
#29
Beertintedgoggles
Brusfantomet said:
Tantalum is used for the capacitors, not the core. And for doping silicone they use materials with 3 electrons in the other shell (mostly aluminum and Gallium) for the P substrate and materials with 5 electrons ( mostly Phosphorus and Arsenic) for the N substrate, out of them Gallium is a bit rare, but for doping you don't need a lot.
I finally read the whole blurb and now I see what you're talking about.... maybe colossal just doesn't mean what it used to.
Posted on Reply
#30
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Beertintedgoggles said:
I finally read the whole blurb and now I see what you're talking about.... maybe colossal just doesn't mean what it used to.
I think Intel has a valid point, as well as Brusfantomel. However, please try to think of the sheer scale of how many cpu's are made. You start to see where the extremely finite amount of rare earths can be conserved a bit by making true dual cores instead of cut down quads. Every little bit counts..
Posted on Reply
#31
The Von Matrices
qubit said:
It looks like Skylake is going to be launched around August, so I would wait for that instead.

www.techpowerup.com/210106/intel-delays-14-nm-skylake-desktop-cpu-launch.html
It's not quite that simple. The Broadwell CPUs in mid 2015 will be the high-end unlocked versions; the Skylake processors that will be released shortly after will be the mid-range and low-end locked versions. The unlocked, high-end Skylake CPUs don't arrive until late 2015 if not 2016.

http://www.techpowerup.com/201936/intel-desktop-cpu-roadmap-updated.html
Posted on Reply
#32
Octopuss
I will definitely hang onto my delidded and overclocked 3770K for at least one more year. Plus I learned that buying new tech right after launch is a bad, bad idea on more than one occasion.
Posted on Reply
#33
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
newtekie1 said:
Yeah, but that is going to require a whole new motherboard. Broadwell will be the upgrade for people that don't want to move to a whole knew platform.
Sure, I'm just talking from my personal point of view. I've got a 2700K and as you've mentioned, the performance improvements have been very small over the last few generations, so it's not worth upgrading.

I really hope Skylake breaks that trend so I can finally upgrade. Such a shame AMD isn't a performance player any more to give Intel some incentive to give us faster processors.
Posted on Reply
#34
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
rtwjunkie said:
LOL, you're referring to my ancient server! Yeah, but as long as it does what I need to, it's staying. It is old enough though that if something breaks on it, it's cheaper to just replace with Haswell or Broadwell stuff.
I meant that Intel isn't making 120+w processors for consumer platforms because AMD isn't making them do it and there isn't much demand for it. This is why the top of consumer line is falling in wattage while gaining a little performance. If you want the top of the line performance, you have to go to the Xeon line and spend four digits. So no, I'm not referring to your server at all; I'm point out the consumer market isn't reflective at all of what is available like it was a decade ago. Moore's Law no longer applies to consumer; only enterprise.

My 920 likely isn't all that much slower than these new Broadwell chips but Broadwell is doing it at half to quarter the power. There's no reason why Intel couldn't put out a processor for ~$300 with a 120w TDP and 8-16 cores. But they don't, because they'd rather charge $1000-4000 for that chip to server customers.

Meanwhile, AMD puts out 160w chips that barely compete with my ye-old 920. This is what happens when there is no competition.
Posted on Reply
#35
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaahhhh.....that's quite the premium for those top-flight Xeons. At least we know they CAN make advances.
Posted on Reply
#36
BorisDG
15th Warlock said:
All I know is I'm skipping broadwell altogether, like I did with ivy bridge, 4% more performance is just not worth it :(

Will wait for Skylake in 2016 :rockout:
Really? Haswell was meh - hot and bad clocker compared to Sandy Bridge. Broadwell will be just 65W TDP and possibly with Iris Pro graphics. It will be like final optimized version of pre alpha chip called Haswell. But after all Skylake in 2k16 - yes. This year's Skylake will be only BGA/Locked multiplier as I know.
Posted on Reply
#37
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FordGT90Concept said:
I meant that Intel isn't making 120+w processors for consumer platforms because AMD isn't making them do it and there isn't much demand for it. This is why the top of consumer line is falling in wattage while gaining a little performance. If you want the top of the line performance, you have to go to the Xeon line and spend four digits. So no, I'm not referring to your server at all; I'm point out the consumer market isn't reflective at all of what is available like it was a decade ago. Moore's Law no longer applies to consumer; only enterprise.

My 920 likely isn't all that much slower than these new Broadwell chips but Broadwell is doing it at half to quarter the power. There's no reason why Intel couldn't put out a processor for ~$300 with a 120w TDP and 8-16 cores. But they don't, because they'd rather charge $1000-4000 for that chip to server customers.

Meanwhile, AMD puts out 160w chips that barely compete with my ye-old 920. This is what happens when there is no competition.
You're 920 is in the "Pro-sumer" line. So to really be fair, you have to look at 2011-3 processors, and those start at 140w.

But, yes, I'll definitely agree with your sentiment that in the mainstream consumer line Intel has been focused on lowering power consumption more than raising performance.
Posted on Reply
#38
15th Warlock
BorisDG said:
Really? Haswell was meh - hot and bad clocker compared to Sandy Bridge. Broadwell will be just 65W TDP and possibly with Iris Pro graphics. It will be like final optimized version of pre alpha chip called Haswell. But after all Skylake in 2k16 - yes. This year's Skylake will be only BGA/Locked multiplier as I know.
Well, due to the timing of my upgrades, I usually get the "tock" version of whatever Intel releases. Yes, I have three Haswell rigs currently, and they serve me just fine. I can't justify upgrading to Broadwell for just 4% more performance, so unless Broadwell turns out to be a monster of an overclocker, I'll just skip it entirely.

And to be honest, I couldn't care less about Iris Pro graphics, waste of silicon in the desktop space in my opinion.
Posted on Reply
#39
Octopuss
I highly doubt first generation of Core CPUs is comparable to the current lineup at all. It's not about frequency, but you know that just a well as me.

P.S. Is it just me or is anyone else confused by the weird tock-tick schema? It should be the other way around. It's just words, yea, but completely confusing (assuming everyone has "tick tock" burnt in his brains).
Posted on Reply
#40
BorisDG
15th Warlock said:

And to be honest, I couldn't care less about Iris Pro graphics, waste of silicon in the desktop space in my opinion.
Yes, but for me will be cool, because I will put it in my HTPC. I don't have any VGA there...
Posted on Reply
#41
Schmuckley
What I want to know is: how high will it clock?
It's been looking like clocks are getting lower with the die shrinks..
Posted on Reply
#42
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
newtekie1 said:
You're 920 is in the "Pro-sumer" line. So to really be fair, you have to look at 2011-3 processors, and those start at 140w.

But, yes, I'll definitely agree with your sentiment that in the mainstream consumer line Intel has been focused on lowering power consumption more than raising performance.
2011-v3: 140w, 6 cores, no IGP
1150: 88w, 4 cores, IGP
Posted on Reply
#43
Octopuss
The "enthusiast" class of CPUs don't have any GPU inside the package?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment