Report: Ivy Bridge could debut in March

Judging by the performance of AMD’s first Bulldozer chips, Intel isn’t under much competitive pressure to roll out its next wave of chips. Nevertheless, EE Times is reporting that Intel may reach its goal of shipping 22-nm Ivy Bridge processors this spring with months to spare.

The site says the first Ivy Bridge processors will come out in March. According to SeekingAlpha’s transcript of the latest Intel earnings call, when asked when the first Ivy Bridge-based PCs would hit stores, Intel CEO Paul Otellini responded simply, “Spring.” That gives the chipmaker a launch window of mid-March to mid-June or thereabouts—so, a March rollout would be rather timely.

EE Times goes on to quote Real World Technologies’ David Kanter, who says Intel had to push back the Ivy Bridge launch because of delays with its 22-nm ramp. Kanter reportedly estimates that Intel will start shipping Ivy Bridge chips to hardware makers in the early part of next year’s first quarter. Otellini said last week that Intel kicked off Ivy Bridge production last quarter.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    Intel may have had some 22nm ramp problems, but the real reason they delayed Ivy Bridge is because AMD’s got nothing that’ll even approaching Sandy Bridge, so lapping them another year with Ivy Bridge is wasting money. They know they can sell lots of people some SB from now until around the time of Trinity when AMD might (though they probably won’t) have something with the Piledriver cores.

    Just as AMD might improve the Bulldozer, bam, Ivy Bridge shows up and teabags Trinity, Piledriver cores, and everything AMD for another year. Between now and then, they can sell more Sandy Bridge, which by now costs a lot less to manufacture than Ivy Bridge with its new process.

    Intel execs sit back in their chairs, prop their feet up, and laugh as they smoke cigars. No doubt, a few unsavory AMD employees are nervously laughing across from them and sipping Mountain Dew. After all, if AMD keeps failing, they’ll have to be sold off and I’m sure some employees would glide to safety thanks to the wonders of golden parachutes…

      • dashbarron
      • 8 years ago

      I don’t know what real world decision/consequences this really has when considering production of the next generation, but I feel when a company sandbags like the hare they’ll eventually get their comeuppance sooner or later, lest Intel hasn’t forgotten the first lesson.

    • Thue
    • 8 years ago

    Which is the same release date which has been known forever. See for example [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Ivy_Bridge<]the Wikipedia article[/url<]; you can check the page history and see that a March release date has been known for months.

    • luisnhamue
    • 8 years ago

    Ivy bridge is not intended to make guys with Sandy Bridge upgrade, especially for those with the i5 2500k or i7 2600K.
    This CPU is for guys with old Core 2 Quad, although they can still keep up with tasks like gaming…but with more complexity, some games will demand a lot of CPU horsepower.

      • forumics
      • 8 years ago

      also for phenom2 upgraders and people who were waiting patiently for BD and are now completely disappointed

      • HighTech4US2
      • 8 years ago

      > This CPU is for guys with old Core 2 Quad

      That would be me.

      I look forward to the overall power savings and higher performance that Ivy offers. Something that AMD forgot to do with BD.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 8 years ago

        Shoot, I’m still on a dual core E8400. But it still plays the games that I like, so I’m hesitant to dump more money into it.

          • NarwhaleAu
          • 8 years ago

          Same here – except I’m on the E6300…or something like that. The cut down dual core. It’s only these past few months that it has started to feel long in the tooth. I’m sure a fresh Windows 7 install would go a long way to fixing that.

          If all goes to plan, I shall upgrade to Ivy Bridge in time for Mass Effect 3.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Yep – get an SSD and Win7, and you’re good to go for a while

    • ShadowTiger
    • 8 years ago

    Considering the SATA chipset issues they had last time, I think I am going to wait a few months before crossing the Ivy Bridge.

      • Ryhadar
      • 8 years ago

      There’s [i<]probably[/i<] nothing to worry about since this is a little bit more than a refresh of Sandy. It's a safe bet there's nothing wrong on the chipset side either as Ivy can work with current 6 series chipsets. That said, I don't think I've ever adopted new technology as soon as it was released (though that may be more to me wanting to actively save up for new tech rather than splurge). Better to be safe than to have to deal with bugs. I hope Ivy does come out in March. I plan to do a rebuild of my system in June/July so that would be just enough time to consider it as a viable platform. Or, I may just say screw it and pick up Sandy on the cheap.

        • bcronce
        • 8 years ago

        “Or, I may just say screw it and pick up Sandy on the cheap.”

        But an 8 core/16 thread IB is just so…. /drool

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 8 years ago

        There was [i<]probably[/i<] nothing to worry about with the 60 series since it was just a little bit more than a refresh of Arrandale/Clarkdale's. And then the SATA [b<]3gbps[/b<] ports borked - the part that shouldn't have even been touched. Intel would be insane to not be more cautious this time, but you're not really providing a legitimate reason to hop on board here.

      • UberGerbil
      • 8 years ago

      If you’re going to speculate about problems, you should probably turn a gimlet eye towards PCIe 3.0 (which [url=https://techreport.com/discussions.x/21613<]apparently has been rather troubled[/url<] in Sandy Bridge E). While it's unlikely that the IB implementation itself will be the real problem by March (that's a lot of time still; and anyway, as the first to market, any "quirks" automatically become part of the standard), there's no certainty the early motherboards and graphics cards will be blemish-free (especially if they haven't had the latest revisions of the chip to test against). We may not even know for sure right away, depending on how quickly the GPUs in particular arrive (hard to test a link without something on both sides). Of course if SB-E actually does ship with PCIe 3.0 before that then presumably any problems will already be resolved.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Agreed. I think it will be more likely that AMD will screw up SATA in the next chipset than Intel… I think Intel will be extremely careful with SATA now. But PCIe 3.0 is a new beast, and its functionality can be uncertain.

          • Draphius
          • 8 years ago

          is there a real reason for pci-e 3.0? ive yet to see any hardware get close to filling up pcie 2.0, is there some new tech coming out thats going to need such bandwidth that im unaware of?

    • forumics
    • 8 years ago

    i can’t understand how global foundaries/IBM and TSMC are always having problems with their yields but intel not only doesn’t seem to have any problems whatsoever, they seem to be the ones who always come up with new manufacturing technologies like high gate something something and such.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      1. Intel never takes its eyes off the ball when it comes to manufacturing.
      2. While Intel certainly does have setbacks and problems in ramping new processes, they are so far ahead of everyone else that you don’t notice. Intel gives themselves a good safety margin to work with between the time that the process ramps and the time that they ship chips commercially.

        • esterhasz
        • 8 years ago

        also, they don’t fab for third parties which gives em much more overall control and less pressure to communicate on problems…

      • Chrispy_
      • 8 years ago

      I solve your confusion with an ASCI chart from the years when AMD were successful: The picture is worse now that it was then.

      Amount of money Intel has:
      |=====================================================================|
      |<———R&D———>|<————Production costs————>|<————Dirty stinking profit————>|

      Amount of money AMD has:
      |====================|
      |<*>|<————Production costs and enormous debt————|

      * = R&D

        • forumics
        • 8 years ago

        lol +1 for you

        but that doesn’t explain how IBM and TSMC have been dropping the ball all these years

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 8 years ago

          IBM and TSMC’s processes have to be able to handle everything under the sun, and they have several at each node.

          All Intel has to worry about is what product of theirs the exact manufacturing process is going to be used for. You don’t see them making 25nm CPUs or 22nm flash.

          Intel has had their fair share of hiccup as of late, even on the manufacturing side. Where’d the [i<]real[/i<] 32nm shrink of Nehalem go? Oops. Cancelled. There's a laundry list of things they just dropped altogether in the last year or so, weren't first with, and some that are still about a year behind.

            • chuckula
            • 8 years ago

            Where’d the real 32nm shrink of Nehalem go? –> Into the 32nm Clarkdale PC I’m using right now. And as for the “canceled” 32 nm quad cores, you have no evidence that there were ever plans to bring out a 32 nm quad core in the first place. You may have well said that Intel “canceled” its plans for an electric car. Please go on about how Intel has been “failing” its way into record profits for the last however many quarters.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 8 years ago

            Your “32nm CPU” has a separate 45nm memory controller and GPU that was moved off die, making it slower. That wasn’t the original plan.

            Where does my post say Intel is “failing?” I love how you quote something I never said. You fanboys get riled up over the silliest things. Oh no! Someone pointed out reality! *MAIN TROLL MODE TURN ON*

            • chuckula
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]That wasn't the original plan.[/quote<] Please put up a link to the source showing this "original" plan. I could just as easily say that AMD had an "original" plan to launch a 32 nm processor in 2007 with 16 cores and a 7900 series graphics chip integrated into the silicon for good measure... you see how easy it is to say things when you don't have to back them up with any evidence?

            • smilingcrow
            • 8 years ago

            Intel did make some changes with certain designs and skipped some products lines (32nm Quads not available when 32nm dual cores were released) but this didn’t appear to be particularly to do with manufacturing problems.
            Considering the sheer volume of designs they have released since C2D I’d say that their rollout has been very aggressive and timely with a high level of stability overall.

            When you compare Intel’s releases versus AMD’s and NVidia’s they are in a totally different class.

      • maxxcool
      • 8 years ago

      When you spend 100’s of billions in R&D, you get results.

        • oldog
        • 8 years ago

        MS spends $9.6 Billion/year (according to Forbes) on R&D! I’m not sure they’re get as much bang for the buck as Intel.

      • bcronce
      • 8 years ago

      Intel was the ONLY company(in this niche field) that kept their R&D flat throughout the recession. All of the other companies cut back their R&D, which caused them to fall behind.

      You reap what you sow.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This