Monday, July 17th 2017

Intel Adds New Core CPUs to Its Desktop, Laptop Lineups

Intel has recently updated documentation on their available list of processors based on the 7th generation of the Core Family. These new Kaby Lake-based CPUs will further flesh-out Intel's offerings in both the desktop, laptop, and professional segments with new entries in the Core i3, Kaby Lake-U, and Xeon E3 lines of processors.

The new Core i3 processors make use of the S-0 stepping, instead of the B-0 stepping of previously-released processors. The additions are comprised of the i3-7340 (4.2 GHz, 4 MB cache, 51 W TDP); i3-7320T (3.6 GHz, 4MB cache, 35 W TDP); i3-7120 (4 GHz, 3 MB cache, 51 W TDP); and the i3-7120T (3.5 GHz, 3 MB cache, 35 W TDP.) On the laptop side of the equation, Intel is introducing four new processors: the Core i3-7007U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.1 GHz, 3 MB cache); the Core i3-7110U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.6 GHz, 3 MB cache); the Core i5-7210U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.5 GHz base, 3.3 GHz Turbo, 3 MB cache); and the Core i7-7510U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.7 GHz base, 3.7 GHz Turbo, 4 MB cache.) Lastly, Intel is adding the new E3-1285 v6 Xeon to its lineup. This one brings increased clock speeds (4.1 GHz base, 4.5 GHz Turbo) with Intel's HD P630 integrated graphics, increasing the TDP by 19 W ( to 91 W) compared to the already existing Xeon E3-1275 v6 - for a 300 MHz clock speed increase. This Xeon should be the new highest-end processor for the iMac, which should place its pricing above the $612 mark previously held by the Xeon E3-1280 v6.

Sources: Intel, via AnandTech
Add your own comment

53 Comments on Intel Adds New Core CPUs to Its Desktop, Laptop Lineups

#1
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Trying to stay relevent
Posted on Reply
#2
DeathtoGnomes
so many, seems like intel is trying to confuse everyone.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
So, they introduced even more dual cores with HT. Lol. We had proper quad cores like a decade ago and now we get this shit. Eat dung Intel.
Posted on Reply
#5
9700 Pro
RejZoR said:
So, they introduced even more dual cores with HT. Lol. We had proper quad cores like a decade ago and now we get this shit. Eat dung Intel.
No problems gaming with Pentium G4560 here. Great CPUs for budget gaming.
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
Yeah, well, it's because of people like this why we are still stuck on god damn quad cores in 2017... Just because it works "well" we shouldn't be stuck with same crap for decades.
Posted on Reply
#7
cellar door
RejZoR said:
So, they introduced even more dual cores with HT. Lol. We had proper quad cores like a decade ago and now we get this shit. Eat dung Intel.
U parts are for the Ultrabooks, with 15watts.
Posted on Reply
#8
birdie
Firstly, this is an error: the Core i7-7510U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.7 GHz base, 3.7 GHz Turbo, 4 MB cache.)

Secondly, nothing has stopped you from presenting these new CPUs as a table - your text is nigh impossible to read and comprehend.

Thirdly, it's a normal refresh cycle for Intel - these new CPUs are slightly better than the parts they are replacing and cost the same. I don't understand all the bile in the comments section, "staying relevant" and similar shat. Intel is still N1 in the x86 CPU market because it is trusted, known and reliable. Yes, AMD has introduced a lot of nice competitive CPUs but there's thing called inertia and AMD has a long road to fight it successfully.
Posted on Reply
#9
Prima.Vera
Raevenlord said:
he Core i3-7110U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.6 GHz, 3 MB cache); the Core i5-7210U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.5 GHz base, 3.3 GHz Turbo, 3 MB cache); and the Core i7-7510U (2 cores, 4 threads, 2.7 GHz base, 3.7 GHz Turbo, 4 MB cache.)
Intel's confusing shitty naming scheme at its finest. Wth is THE MAIN difference between mobile's i3, i5 and i7 if all of them are dual cores with HT only??
Just don't tell me is the L3 cache.....
Posted on Reply
#10
WVL!VN
birdie said:
Thirdly, it's a normal refresh cycle for Intel - these new CPUs are slightly better than the parts they are replacing and cost the same. I don't understand all the bile in the comments section, "staying relevant" and similar shat. Intel is still N1 in the x86 CPU market because it is trusted, known and reliable. Yes, AMD has introduced a lot of nice competitive CPUs but there's thing called inertia and AMD has a long road to fight it successfully.
Well, this is not physics to must have inertia.
This is Intel just being Intel, and you are approving their politics. Even more, you go further, defending them with marketing statements like "trusted, known and reliable".
Inertia requires movement, but here we still have i7 as dual core. I call this stagnation. Normally, you should ask for more, for progress and evolution.
Think outside of the box, you can do better, you can have more.
Posted on Reply
#11
birdie
WVL!VN said:
Well, this is not physics to must have inertia.
This is Intel just being Intel, and you are approving their politics. Even more, you go further, defending them with marketing statements like "trusted, known and reliable".
Inertia requires movement, but here we still have i7 as dual core. I call this stagnation. Normally, you should ask for more, for progress and evolution.
Think outside of the box, you can do better, you can have more.
I still have Intel Core i5 2500 (not even K) and I'm absolutely happy with it. I know firsthand what inertia is. Unfortunately at the moment neither of the companies offers anything that entices me to upgrade. I've already shown that my CPU has an IPC which is similar to what Ryzen CPUs pocess and I don't actually need more than 4 cores.

To me the x86 market died with Sandy Bridge. 6 years after its introduction we have nothing that's substantially faster (I mean in terms of IPC) than this CPU architecture. And Ryzen has just reached the level of performance that I've already had for six long years. There's very little if any progress or evolution to me.
Posted on Reply
#12
Nokiron
Prima.Vera said:
Intel's confusing shitty naming scheme at its finest. Wth is THE MAIN difference between mobile's i3, i5 and i7 if all of them are dual cores with HT only??
Just don't tell me is the L3 cache.....
It's still quite simple.

i3 does not have turbo
i5 has turbo
i7 has a a lot higher turbo frequency

(i7 also has more cache and slightly higher base clock as well.)
Posted on Reply
#13
Freez
Dual-Core in 2017. Intel - care.
Posted on Reply
#14
9700 Pro
RejZoR said:
Yeah, well, it's because of people like this why we are still stuck on god damn quad cores in 2017... Just because it works "well" we shouldn't be stuck with same crap for decades.
Well, everyone doesn't need a 6+ core CPU for gaming and watching cat videos.
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
Nokiron said:
It's still quite simple.

i3 does not have turbo
i5 has turbo
i7 has a a lot higher turbo frequency

(i7 also has more cache and slightly higher base clock as well.)
Funny guy. :)
Posted on Reply
#16
RejZoR
9700 Pro said:
Well, everyone doesn't need a 6+ core CPU for gaming and watching cat videos.
Quad cores should be minimum that even exists unless for really low power applications. Even my frigging hybrid tablet has a proper quad core for crying out loud...
Posted on Reply
#17
9700 Pro
RejZoR said:
Quad cores should be minimum that even exists unless for really low power applications. Even my frigging hybrid tablet has a proper quad core for crying out loud...
I don't think that people who use their computers for paying bills and reading news need a quad core for that.
Posted on Reply
#18
OSdevr
Nokiron said:
It's still quite simple.

i3 does not have turbo
i5 has turbo
i7 has a a lot higher turbo frequency

(i7 also has more cache and slightly higher base clock as well.)
i7 used to mean 'quad core with hyperthreading'!
Posted on Reply
#19
RejZoR
9700 Pro said:
I don't think that people who use their computers for paying bills and reading news need a quad core for that.
With that mentality, we'd still be on 1.6 GHz single cores today...
Posted on Reply
#20
9700 Pro
RejZoR said:
With that mentality, we'd still be on 1.6 GHz single cores today...
I mean more like that for that usage I mentioned, a 10 year C2D is still fine.

Like I said, everyone doesn't need a quad core, everyone isn't a gamer or doesn't edit videos etc., for basic tasks a dual core (even without HT) is still perfectly fine. And like I said, I don't have any problems gaming with 1080p/60 on 2c/4t CPU.
Posted on Reply
#21
Nokiron
OSdevr said:
i7 used to mean 'quad core with hyperthreading'!
Since when? Sandy Bridge?

And AFAIK all the mobile CPUs that are not U-models are still quad core.
Posted on Reply
#22
Slizzo
Nokiron said:
Since when? Sandy Bridge?

And AFAIK all the mobile CPUs that are not U-models are still quad core.
Since Nehalem, first gen Core i7 parts.
Posted on Reply
#23
OSdevr
Nehalem. You know, the first i7?

EDIT: Slizzo beat me to it.
Posted on Reply
#24
Nokiron
Slizzo said:
Since Nehalem, first gen Core i7 parts.
OSdevr said:
Nehalem. You know, the first i7?

EDIT: Slizzo beat me to it.
I meant when the last one existed. (aka when Ultrabooks arrived)

Mobile i7 are still quad-core. Nothing has changed.
The i7-U SKUs have never been quad core.

It's nothing new.
Posted on Reply
#25
OSdevr
Nokiron said:
I meant when the last one existed. (aka when Ultrabooks arrived)

Mobile i7 are still quad-core. Nothing has changed.
The i7-U SKUs have never been quad core.

It's nothing new.
The past couple Intel generations have had dual core 'i7' processors marked as 'M'.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment