Intel adds 16 new CPU models

Intel has updated its official processor price list with a handful of new models and a smattering of discounts to existing ones. Let’s start with the new chips, some of which were rumored to be on the way.

On the desktop, the Core i5-2320 slots in above the 2310 with four cores, 6MB of cache, and a 3.0GHz base clock speed. The i5-2320 has the same $177 asking price as the 2310 and 2300, which are surely on their way out. The Core i3-2120 also looks to be living on borrowed time, replaced by the 2125 and 2130, which run at 3.3 and 3.4GHz, respectively. Intel is charging $134 for the i3-2125 and $138 for the 2130.

Further down the desktop line, there are three new Celerons and a couple of updated Pentium models. Intel has also refreshed its low-power desktop parts with new offerings in the Celeron, Pentium, and Core i3 families. For the most part, the new low-power chips represent a 100MHz speed bump over the existing models.

On to mobile, where Intel has a bunch of new Core i7 CPUs for notebooks. At the top of the line, the Core i7-2960XM sets a new bar with a 2.7GHz base clock speed and a 3.5GHz Turbo peak. You can expect 200MHz speed bumps from the Core i7-2860QM and 2760QM, which look primed to supplant the 2820QM and 2720QM for $568 and $378, respectively. There’s also the Core i7-2640M, which appears to be a 100MHz upgrade for the 2620M at $346. For considerably less, the $86 mobile B840 is poised to supplant a range of mobile dual-core chips.

I’ve seen a number of sites tout the fact that Intel is accompanying these new chips with a round of price cuts. There isn’t much to see on that front, though. Only Intel’s low-power desktop chips have been discounted, and then only by 4-6%. Enthusiast-friendly Core i5-2500K and i7-2600K CPUs remain at their initial launch prices some nine months after Sandy Bridge’s official debut. With Bulldozer still missing in action, I suppose Intel has little reason to sell those CPUs for anything less.

Comments closed
    • yehuda
    • 8 years ago

    These processors are real treats and I’m happy with the awesome selection of motherboards. I wish AES acceleration was available across the line rather than confined to the i5s since we all use encryption in one form or another. The Pentium G620 @ 2.6 needs to be replaced with a more powerful part at the same price point.

    Also: since 8GB is starting to become the baseline for new systems maybe it’s time Intel and AMD partnered up to make ECC standard on all consumer platforms. To my understanding, the danger of bit errors does not go away with advances in process tech and only increases in proportion to memory size. The fact that Windows 7 caches everything at hand provides more incentive to protect the bits.

    • moose17145
    • 8 years ago

    Cool.

    Idk what else to say… incremental improvements, minor price cuts in some areas, slightly better things for the consumer, etc… nothing really bad here… just nothing to really write home about either…

    Would be nice if they would release another 1366 socketed i7 and maybe push the 6 core guys down in price a bit further. Still rockin a i7-920 that I have been using since the 1366 i7’s were first released. Its a great chip… and I suppose I have no real need to upgrade… But I have been considering upgrading to one of the 6 core i7’s anyways. I just am having a hard time swallowing the 500 – 600 dollar entry price… for that price I could buy a SB CPU and a new mobo and just reuse everything else i currently have… If the 6 core i7’s ever hit the 300 dollar price range I will probably bite.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      The price of the high end desktop CPUs is really dictated by their Xeon counterparts, which is going to remain an issue with Sandy Bridge E. Because they share the same platform, and the “real” thing starts anywhere from $700 to $1,000, the $300 desktop tier is stuck with the leftovers, despite the fact that that’s not exactly Celeron territory.

        • moose17145
        • 8 years ago

        I know. Never the less I would still like to see a Six core around the 300 dollar price range. I knew when I built my machine I was locking myself in a more expensive upgrade path by going with a workstation socket. But at the time I NEEDED a new desktop as my previous workhorse of a Pentium 4 rig’s motherboard had perished in a tragic power supply failure… and my only other alternative at the time was the socket LGA 775 (which was on it’s way out and thus out of the question). Thus I went with the 1366… although I do not regret in the least in going with it (it is still a phenomenal powerhouse of a machine even after the years), it still would be nice to have a few slightly cheaper upgrade options for the cpu.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]With Bulldozer still missing in action, I suppose Intel has little reason to sell those CPUs for anything less.[/quote<] Not only that. According to this video presentation by AMD [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs1CxuUrpc[/url<] .. if you look at 1:50, it says that the first server-oriented BD chips will feature up to 16 cores, a 33% increase in core count over their current 12-core Magny Course processor, and delivers an estimated 50% increase in performance/throughput at the same power envelope. Put simply, 16 BD cores will deliver 50% higher performance using just 33% more cores. If you do the math, it means each BD core will provide 12.5% better performance than a K10.5 core. No talk about clocks so we don't know if AMD is talking 16 BD cores doing battle at the same clock as 12 K10.5 cores. Plus, given how AMD tends to be a bit optimistic in its performance estimates, the figure may even be.. optimistic.

      • Game_boy
      • 8 years ago

      AMD’s John Fruehe has said time and time again that you CAN’T deduce “12.5% IPC increase” from those figures. That claim is specifically about server workloads on Opteron products and does not apply to desktops.

        • flip-mode
        • 8 years ago

        So that could mean no IPC increase at all. Great.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          It could. Or not. We don’t know. It could be that the CPU used in this example is clocked lower.

          The key point is that Interlagos has 50% more performance than Magny Cours at the same power envelope (whatever “performance” means, or at what kind of loads, is a different topic altogether).

          Patience, Neo – the benchies are coming.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Patience, Neo - the benchies are coming.[/quote<] Well, for our sakes I hope you're right.

            • flip-mode
            • 8 years ago

            Benches are coming? That’s just a rumor, or has AMD officially announced that benches are coming?

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Benchies are certainly coming… sometime… in the future…

            I’m hoping September 19th, but I guess October sounds more likely now.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            I hope they’ll come out before Dec. 21, 2012 so we’d be alive to see them.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 8 years ago

          IPC is actually worse. Bulldozer is just a 32nm HKMG Athlon XP with added 64 bit support, eight cores, turbo, AVX, 25GB/s memory bandwidth, and a 16MB multi-level cache. That’s it. The parts about it being different from past AMD CPUs were a lie.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            They could’ve called these quad-cores with much higher IPC, I guess. But they chose to go with 8-core marketing speak.

            Probably the right choice. Tech freaks pay attention to IPC, but masses only know that this computer has more cores than that one.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            And the Athlon XP is just a super-overclocked AMD 5×86. The die shots you’re seeing everywhere are fake. Source: DonanimHaber.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        [quote<]AMD's John Fruehe has said time and time again that you CAN'T deduce "12.5% IPC increase" from those figures[/quote<] I never said anything about IPC. The video makes no mention of clocks (which I acknowledged in line 7 of the last paragraph of my orig. post, and which is the basis of IPC in the first place). The video only says a 16-core BD CPU will be 50% faster than a 12-core Magny Course (MC). Is it running at half the MC's clock? Is it running at twice the MC's clock? I haven't the foggiest idea. It is, however, an indication of the performance AMD has been able to achieve with 16 BD cores running at an unknown clock speed compared to what their current MC (I assume it's a production model) can muster running server workloads, which, I would assume, max the silicon out with many threads as many server workloads often do. Plus, I don't see how server workloads won't give a hint of the silicon's desktop performance, single-threaded or multi-threaded, when compared to a current product which is also presumably running the same server workloads for the sake of comparison. Past desktop CPU launches that come a few months after their server CPU counterpart's release illustrate this fact: The server variant pretty much spills the beans on what the desktop variant can do. Perhaps Turbo Core will give the silicon better per-core performance on single-threaded apps, but let's leave out Turbo Core and Turbo Boost out for now for the sake of simplifying the discussion.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 8 years ago

          @ second paragraph: because server workloads and desktop/workstation-ish workloads, even when considering highly threaded applications like video encoding, are different from server workloads. Iirc John Cantor’s in-depth analysis points to server workload optimization over desktop/workstation workloads. A ‘hint’? Sure, maybe vaguely, but not enough to give even a somewhat definitive indication of desktop/workstation performance. BD is enough of a change that we shouldn’t assume that server workload performance will translate in to desktop performance.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            Well, we have no other processor that has the same design concepts as BD yet (if ever there will be more like it), so historical data is the only data we have that we can use to illustrate the relationship and complexities between single-/multi-threaded workloads as well as desktop/server workloads when evaluating architectures.

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    You want 2500K price cuts? Pshaw. I’m still waiting for 655K price cuts.

    • dpaus
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]I've seen a number of sites tout the fact that Intel is accompanying these new chips with a round of price cuts. There isn't much to see on that front, though...[/quote<] I've seen a number of sites [s<]tout the fact that Intel is accompanying these new chips with a round of price cuts[/s<] [u<]blindly parrot the Intel press release, without bothering to fact-check/reality-check like TR does[/u<] There, fixed that for ya!

      • StuG
      • 8 years ago

      +1 Thumb

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This