Friday, November 26th 2010

2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

Nov 26th, 2010 10:44 Discuss (61 Comments)

Back in August, a report with details sourced from ComputerBase.de was bang-on in tabling what the 2011 Intel Core processor lineup is going to look like. With a little over a month to go for the market release of these processors, fresh details emerged that reveal pricing and precise availability dates of each model. To begin with, 9th January is D-day for the socket LGA1155 platform, when one can expect a large wave of motherboards to reach stores, along with 10 new Core i5, Core i7 "Sandy Bridge" quad-core processors.

The quad-core lineup consists of 7 Core i5 models. Based on a Sandy Bridge derivative silicon, these processors differ from the Core i7 models in having no HyperThreading (4 cores/4 threads), and 25% of the L3 cache being disabled (set at 6 MB). The lineup overall is seeing a clock speed increase compared to current-generation "Lynnfield" processors. The Core i5 lineup also includes an overclocker-friendly "K" model, which features an unlocked BClk multipler. The fastest in the lineup is the Core i7 2600/2600K, which is clocked at 3.40 GHz. With the default BClk (base clock) of Sandy Bridge running at 100 MHz (compared to 133 MHz on Nehalem/Westmere), one can expect very high multiplier values. It should also be easier to calculate speeds and keep track of, for overclockers.

The pricing of these quad-core chips also seems to be very interesting. Things are pretty tight between the Core i5-2300 (2.80 GHz), and Core i5-2500K (3.30 GHz), with just a $39 gap between the two, but four models in all to choose from. The Core i7 parts are priced higher, at $297 for the i7-2600 and $317 for the i7-2600K.

The next big launch day is on 20th February, when Intel launches four dual-core processors in the Core i3 series. Quite interestingly, there are no dual-core Core i5 processors, and most of the Core i3 dual-core chips don't feature Turbo Boost technology, barring the fastest one, the Core i3-2390T. Then, a little later in February, the first LGA1155 Pentium Dual-Core processor, the G620T, will be launched. Some time later in Q2-2011, Intel will add three more Pentium models.

Source: Expreview

Add your own comment

61 Comments on 2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

#26

MikeX

core i3 2390T 2/4 2.7/3.5ghz 3MB cache 35W
core i3 2120 2/4 3.3ghz 3MB cache 65W??
I don't understand -.-. I would just get the 35W version then?

#27

Fourstaff

2120 $138, 2390T $195

Tell me again, why would you want to go for the 35w version? Although the power savings will be substantial if you are leaving your computer running 24/7.

#28

MikeX

yes true, but the difference in watts is almost double. The lower priced- higher power consumption telling me that it is a lower quality chip?

Could it be the turbo? Not all cores would be running entirely at 3.5ghz... hmm

#29

Fourstaff

MikeXyes true, but the difference in watts is almost double. The lower priced- higher power consumption telling me that it is a lower quality chip?

Max TDP of 65w does not mean that it consumes 65w, but 99% (or something like that) of all the chips consume less than that amount. And yes, Intel bins their better chips to 2390T, leaves the shittier ones to 2120. You can easily get a more powerful chip with $195 (for example, the i5 760) and downclock it, getting a nice and low power consumption chip.

#30

pjl321

i5-2500T 'vs' i5-2500S

1c3d0gLove the Quad with only 45W power draw! Perfect for a folding farm! :cool:

That is really impressive to have 4 cores running at decent speeds and staying under 45w but you would be far better buying the next CPU up as its the same price and has a higher multiplier clock, if you want lower power then under-volt it and under-clock it, but if you want more power leave it as it is. But with the 45w version you will never be able to increase it's speed.

#31

MikeX

pjl321That is really impressive to have 4 cores running at decent speeds and staying under 45w but you would be far better buying the next CPU up as its the same price and has a higher multiplier clock, if you want lower power then under-volt it and under-clock it, but if you want more power leave it as it is. But with the 45w version you will never be able to increase it's speed.

That's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

#32

pjl321

MikeXThat's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

No that is something different all together. The i5-2500T (45w) has a standard multiplier of x23 and turbo of x33. The i5-2500S (65w) has a standard multiplier of x27 and turbo of x37.

My point was that if they are both exactly the same price then you may as well buy the faster CPU and if you are very power conscience then under-clock and under-volt it. As this way will always leave you the option of having a fast chip if you wanted to, where as the other chip can never run faster than 2.3/3.3GHz.

#33

MikeX

pjl321No that is something different all together. The i5-2500T (45w) has a standard multiplier of x23 and turbo of x33. The i5-2500S (65w) has a standard multiplier of x27 and turbo of x37.

My point was that if they are both exactly the same price then you may as well buy the faster CPU and if you are very power conscience then under-clock and under-volt it. As this way will always leave you the option of having a fast chip if you wanted to, where as the other chip can never run faster than 2.3/3.3GHz.

I like your idea. It is possible to turn the turbo off then overclock all the core all up to 3.3ghz at i3 2120 speed. Without the turbo the power consumption will be around 65watts aswell.

#34

pjl321

MikeXThat's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

MikeXI like your idea. It is possible to turn the turbo off then overclock all the core all up to 3.3ghz at i3 2120 speed. Without the turbo the power consumption will be around 65watts aswell.

Is that right? I didn't know you could 'force' the turbo on all the cores. Would the balance energy profile in Windows still work so that you don't have to have them on 100% all the time? i.e. still have access to lower p-states while still have access to the higher forced turbo speed on all 4 cores?

#35

MikeX

pjl321Is that right? I didn't know you could 'force' the turbo on all the cores. Would the balance energy profile in Windows still work so that you don't have to have them on 100% all the time? i.e. still have access to lower p-states while still have access to the higher forced turbo speed on all 4 cores?

no no. you can't. But you can change affinity of a running software to run to 2 cores on task manager. If that was a Game, yes you forced it to run on 2 core, and the chip will run turbo on the 2 cores. You cannot turboed all the core, that would break the power envelope that was design to be at xx watts. If it was 3/4 cores turbo the 3 cores would raised the multiplier by one or 2 will have the same xx watts to 2/4 cored that raised the multiplier by 4 or 5. I hope you gets it. So all 4 cores will never get 100% turbo

#36

pjl321

MikeXno no. you can't. But you can change affinity of a running software to run to 2 cores on task manager. If that was a Game, yes you forced it to run on 2 core, and the chip will run turbo on the 2 cores

OK, so just to be clear. At the moment i have an AMD 620 X4, default of 2.6GHz, i have overclocked it to 3.8GHz. I run my PC in Balanced Mode so that 95% of the time it runs at 1.2GHz but as soon as my CPU gets stressed it boosts it to 3.8GHz which, for me, is a great balance of speed and efficiency.

Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile?

#37

MikeX

pjl321OK, so just to be clear. At the moment i have an AMD 620 X4, default of 2.6GHz, i have overclocked it to 3.8GHz. I run my PC in Balanced Mode so that 95% of the time it runs at 1.2GHz but as soon as my CPU gets stressed it boosts it to 3.8GHz which, for me, is a great balance of speed and efficiency.

Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile?

Speed-step can be controlled, but you can never control turbo from windows. Hope that is the perfect answer. They are very similar; so I think turbo is just a gimmick advertising actualy saying one of the core goes 100% turbo or xx% turbo balance to the rest of the core with the same xx watts.

Turbo is a hardware thing, some motherboard can alther it in bios. You can still set core affinity for heavy application in task manager , ie 2 core or one to get your turbo 80-100% that way. Normally turbo tries to eliminate non-optimised application that runs on one core by rise specific core multiplier, thus old Intel chip getter bad performance like the core 2 quad :)

With multiplier, you can rise up and down as you want with windows profile, tools, and in the bios ofc. Multiplier affects all cores.

Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile? You gotta to disable turbo in the bios and overclock all the cores. Yes you have to loose turbo

#38

MikeX

ASUS P8H67 looks kinda cute
I wonder how high intel's IGP performance will go with that kind of speedy memory

#39

micropage7

mjkmikethought this was about the 2011 chip that will replace the 1366:ohwell:

yeah intel later act strange, how come they replace their own socket just in a moment? They think we have money tree to buy that :ohwell: if we talk about in the name of performance thats OK but in the name of flexibility of course not

#40

CDdude55

Crazy 4 TPU!!!

Sounds great, later on down the line we should be seeing 6 core and even 8 core iterations of Sandy Bridge.

My 920 is more then enough for me though, as games these days can run on a toaster and i don't have much cash for upgrading my system anyways, unfortunately.:(

#41

Wile E

Power User

1c3d0gLove the Quad with only 45W power draw! Perfect for a folding farm! :cool:

Or that quad with HT at only 65w. Not too shabby at all. Nice gains, imo. Sadly, it seems the Bclock lock is true. The clock gen is on the chip instead of on teh board. Some mobo makers might be able to get us a few Mhz, but probably not much, as the clock gen also effects things like PCIe and USB and such. I remember having to clock PCI locked mobos back in the s478 days, and could only get around 10% before it went to far out of spec. That saddens me a bit, despite reasonably priced unlocked cpus. I like being to clock whatever chip I have at the time.

But, while this is all well and good, I still just want to know about skt 2011. lol.

#42

KaelMaelstrom

wow look at those power consumption. :toast:
CPU in the future will use less and less power :rockout:
but GPU is the other way around :banghead:

#43

LAN_deRf_HA

Gpus will get better, we're just at a bad spot now cause of being stuck at 40nm. I'm not getting new card till the die shrinks hit and we actually get a power efficiency improvement.

#44

MikeX

KaelMaelstromwow look at those power consumption. :toast:
CPU in the future will use less and less power :rockout:
but GPU is the other way around :banghead:

Lets Direct Compute everyone!
Let your Cuda, OPenCL, SIMd grapes run your kernel :roll:

#45

Yellow&Nerdy?

Not too impressed. The power consumption on some is pretty nice, but that's it. Also it would be a bad decision to lock the Bclock, considering that most of the people who build their own systems have a certain level of knowledge about computers and would almost certainly like to overclock. So nobody would buy the high-end locked processors, because anyone using that kind of money on it will probably like to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.

But if they manage to bring a 6-core with 95W TDP in Q3 or Q4, I'd be interested. Otherwise, right now, Bulldozer seems to be the more interesting architecture. Also, all benchmarks "leaked" now should be taken with a big grain of salt. Probably not true.

#46

LAN_deRf_HA

I'd take another crack at it ^. A clock for clock advantage over 1366 and 5-5.5 Ghz air overclocks make this very impressive, truly excessive performance. The unlocked procs are priced right alongside their 1156 counterparts (760/860), which do not have that same overclocking potential. That plus I'm really confident MB makers will get us control of the turbo multi. If AMD can jump past the disparity between phenom and i7, all the way to sandybridge performance and overclocking ability then maybe I'd agree bulldozer is more interesting, maybe even miraculous, but realistically it seems highly improbable at the moment.

#47

meirb111

Yellow&Nerdy?Not too impressed. The power consumption on some is pretty nice, but that's it. Also it would be a bad decision to lock the Bclock, considering that most of the people who build their own systems have a certain level of knowledge about computers and would almost certainly like to overclock. So nobody would buy the high-end locked processors, because anyone using that kind of money on it will probably like to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.

But if they manage to bring a 6-core with 95W TDP in Q3 or Q4, I'd be interested. Otherwise, right now, Bulldozer seems to be the more interesting architecture. Also, all benchmarks "leaked" now should be taken with a big grain of salt. Probably not true.

what we know about Bulldozers tdp is 95w-125w so nothing new there
lets hope for more performance .

#48

Yellow&Nerdy?

LAN_deRf_HAI'd take another crack at it ^. A clock for clock advantage over 1366 and 5-5.5 Ghz air overclocks make this very impressive, truly excessive performance. The unlocked procs are priced right alongside their 1156 counterparts (760/860), which do not have that same overclocking potential. That plus I'm really confident MB makers will get us control of the turbo multi. If AMD can jump past the disparity between phenom and i7, all the way to sandybridge performance and overclocking ability then maybe I'd agree bulldozer is more interesting, maybe even miraculous, but realistically it seems highly improbable at the moment.

I guess that's true. But again, all info now is to be taken with a grain of salt. Bulldozer has a stock Turbo frequency up to 4.0 GHz, and looking at the current AMD 6-cores w/turbo, there is about 500-700 MHz overclocking potential above the stock Turbo frequency. That would put it close to 5 GHz, or maybe even at 5 GHz, because it is a new architecture. And I doubt it would have less overclocking potential than the older generation. Plus it supports DDR3-1866 default. About MB-makers being able to unlock the Bclk, I doubt it. Intel has a reason to lock it, and wouldn't just let MB-makers unlock it that easy.

That being said, I'm not a die-hard fanboy. If Sandy ends up wiping the floor with Bulldozer, Sandy will be the one I'd buy. Personally I don't hope that's the case, because tight competition benefits consumers by giving lower prices.

#49

dr emulator (madmax)

well i was thinking of getting an i7 980 x , but it doesn't have EM64T,

thing is would i or do i need it?

#50

bear jesus

dr emulator (madmax)well i was thinking of getting an i7 980 x , but it doesn't have EM64T,

thing is would i or do i need it?

I think you should maybe ask if you need the 980x, if an overclocked i7 2600k beats it and cost less than $320 then you could use the rest of the cost of a 980x for a new motherboard and faster ram while still having money left over.

I think you should wait and see what sandy bridge and more so it's 6 core variants can do before thinking about getting a 980x.

Add your own comment

2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

61 Comments on 2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

Related News

61 Comments on 2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts