Purported Ivy Bridge prices leak

We’re still months away from the release of Intel’s Ivy Bridge CPUs, but already, one site claims to have unearthed pricing details on the new chips. CPU-World has a rundown that covers ten CPUs between the Core i5-3450 at $184 and the Core i7-3770K at $332. That range closely resembles Intel’s existing pricing structure for Core i5 and i7 CPUs. (The existing Core i5-2300 starts at $177, while the i7-2700K rings in at $332.)

As with Sandy Bridge, fully unlocked K-series CPUs will command a bit of a price premium over their standard and low-power counterparts. The i7-3770K will purportedly cost $38 more than the standard i7-3770, while the i5-3570K will set you back an additional $11 over the i5-3550. In both cases, the K-series CPUs will reportedly run at higher default clock speeds than their non-K counterparts.

According to the rumor mill, standard and K-series Ivy Bridge CPUs will slip into 77W thermal envelopes. Intel will also have a range of S- and T-series CPUs with even tighter thermal ratings, but don’t expect to pay a premium for them. CPU-World’s price list suggests that those energy-efficient models will cost the same as standard Ivy Bridge chips, although they will run at slower clock speeds.

Those prices are particularly notable because they may not change much over Ivy Bridge’s lifespan. Thanks in part to weak competition from AMD, Intel has been able to hold Sandy Bridge prices steady for nearly a year. Those prices are still fair based on the alternatives on the market, but I do miss the steady trickle of processor price cuts we enjoyed during more competitive times.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    While I appreciate Intel’s decision to price IB to directly replace SB in the pricing ladder, I don’t see this as a good thing, long term. This is Intel’s way of moving in for the kill. Instead of pricing IB higher up, leaving the sub-$320 segment to SB and BD, they just made their lineup here, where BD is struggling to compete (let alone struggling to meet what little demand there is, relatively speaking), just a lot more compelling. SB already puts BD to shame, and IB just made performance a tad higher and power draw a little lower. Talk about adding [u<]more[/u<] insult to injury. If Trinity slips, it's the end. I think I'll get ready to grab an FX-8150. Could become a collector's item or a nice conversation topic someday (AMD's last x86 processor!).

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    ITT: spoiled people who don’t realize the days of large performance boost from straight shrinkage are long over.

    It is has little to do with the fact that AMD has a competitive product or not. Neither company has a compelling reason to keep pushing the envelope on the desktop market where there is still no killer mainstream application that utterly crushes CPU designs from 2007-2008.

    The new game is power efficiency and Ivy Bridge is going to leap-frog the already energy efficient Sandy Bridge chips.

      • Vasilyfav
      • 8 years ago

      > where there is still no killer mainstream application that utterly crushes CPU designs from 2007-2008.

      Wrong. HD streaming, Games that are frequency dependent.

        • evilpaul
        • 8 years ago

        Your GPU should be handling HD streaming. That runs fine on an Atom w/ Nvidia Ion or Marvell decoder chip.

        Just about all the game benchmarks I can think of run fine on Core 2 Quads or Phenom II X4s. Having a $300 GPU will do more for your gaming than going from a $130 -> $300 CPU.

          • Suleks
          • 8 years ago

          Pretty sure he meant encoding video to stream live.

        • jensend
        • 8 years ago

        Ridiculous. Streaming 1080p HD is totally fine on my 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo. Unless you meant streaming CPU-based 1080p H.264 [i<]encoding[/i<], which is hardly mainstream. Very very few people trying to be a source for live HD video streams. I don't know what games you're referring to, but I'd be willing to wager that you could count the games that aren't playable on a Q6600 on your thumbs.

        • Krogoth
        • 8 years ago

        CPU from yesterday can do the job. The only difference is that newer CPUs get the job done faster, which might be your thing if time is $$$$. This isn’t really the case for mainstream users and gamers.

        The majority of games are GPU-bound, especially at higher resolutions with AA/AF thrown in. The majority of games are CPU-bounded are already rendering at silly framerates (150+ FPS). CPUs of yesterday can handle them just fine.

          • yogibbear
          • 8 years ago

          I was reading a forum and someone with a q9450 and a 4870 was getting told that their PC was shit and wasn’t capable of playing SWTOR…. I pretty much stopped reading the thread right there. PCs have progressed faster than gaming requirements buts thats because development costs of new engines that take advantage of newer PC parts are not worth it if no one can play your game. So console ports are the norm and playing a console port with 3+ yrs advanced hardware over a console means your port can be lazy as and still playable on current gen hardware.

    • FuturePastNow
    • 8 years ago

    I’m a few years from needing a new desktop, but if I were building, I believe I’d use the i5-3550S. 65W, doesn’t compromise on the Turbo frequency, a few hundred MHz off the base clock won’t be missed.

    • indeego
    • 8 years ago

    I have an idea: Buy a tablet for all your computing needs! That will send Intel a message!

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      But a tablet doesn’t meet all my computing needs…

        • indeego
        • 8 years ago

        That was the sarcastic point 4 people missed, but whatever.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          5 people, I up voted you.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          I’m off my game today – I need more caffeine

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        Amen.

    • tfp
    • 8 years ago

    According to the rumor mill, standard and K-series Ivy Bridge CPUs will slip into 77W thermal envelopes. Intel will also have a range of S- and T-series CPUs with even tighter thermal ratings, but don’t expect to pay a premium for them. CPU-World’s price list suggests that those energy-efficient models will cost the same as standard Ivy Bridge chips, although they will run at slower clock speeds.

    So how is this not paying a premium? If you want the same performance as a non S or T series (ie clock speed) you’ll pay more.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      More than likely, you won’t get non-S/non-T performance out of an S or T-series CPU, which is why they’re clocked lower. I get what you mean, though. An i5 3550S and an i5 3550 might be the same price, but the S is slower, so you’re paying more per-performance-metric.

        • tfp
        • 8 years ago

        The same thing could almost be said of the last generation of chips if you want to compare on price and ignore model numbers and clock speed. Intel has just gotten smarter now prices and model number match but performance is different…

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          Ya, when they switched from frequencies to model numbers as indicators of speed that made it very easy. In the Core 2 days it was the same speed at a higher price (Q8400S vs Q8400) vs now, like you said, it’s a different kind of price premium.

    • Bauxite
    • 8 years ago

    I don’t care about overclocking (I’m pretty sure I’ll still be GPU limited @4MP even with a 79xx) but I do care about VT-d, its about time to stuff the gaming machine inside a VM for good.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    Thank the gods of Olympus Intel decided to price these things as direct SB replacements, assuming they’re the real deal. I foresee SB quickly going the way of the dodo just like Lynnfield did when Sandy popped out.

    Too bad AMD is down and out for the count. Given how quickly AMD changes its mind, I won’t be totally surprised if they abruptly decide to quit x86 altogether. Looks like they’ve totally run out of ideas on how to improve performance.

    We’re screwed, men. Prepare to witness slowly increasing general CPU prices soon.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      ARM will take care of the low end by the end of 2012, and will ramp up.
      AMD officially announced that they are out of the x86 race, but the new age is ARM with nVidia, Samsung, Qualcomm, Ti, etc,, etc..
      that will flood desktop and server market by 2014.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        You are underestimating how well entrenched Intel x86 is in the desktop/server market. The whole ecosystem is built around x86, and ARM would have to not only meet but beat Intel x86 in performance and performance/watt to break through, and it’s not happening. ARM could get to the same ballpark in 2015, but would still be relegated to low-end, low-cost systems.

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          I’m not saying its going to be what Apple did to PPC on the desktop, complete eradication in just a few years.

          But 2012 will be the year where even more people will do web browsing, email, and other task on ARM.
          Something that was done exclusively on a x86 pc just a few years ago.
          Windows8 will be the gateway to ARM and even more software developers will now write new apps for ARM not x86.

          The tablet market is in its infancy. Two thing will happen by the end of 2013.
          a) They will have a turbo mode when docked (64bit, 28nm 8core, 2.5+ghz)
          b) Dock provide Pci3/DisplayPort/USB (in attached or wireless mode)

          The Intel vs AMD race is over…. Intel won.. but its now facing a dozen of adversary with much bigger pockets.

          Samsung is ready to take on the world with its future desktop and server chips.
          (BTW, I wouldn’t surprised if Samsung gobble up AMD for its IP and GPU expertise….)

          • gamoniac
          • 8 years ago

          I agree. ARM hardware might gain ground quickly but software always requires more time to mature. Software such as drivers (for new and old devices), VM platforms, compilers, backup, utilities, security, management, accounting, CRM, commercial and in-house applications will take years to get to where we are with x86. Not to mention developers need time to switch, too.

          From both corporate and consumer perspective, I think ARM is a great addition. However, there are hurdles ahead for ARM. I hope the variety of manufacturers (even with the ARM standards and specs) will not cause them to implode like Android is about to. I am referring to both competition and compatibility/support issues. That might turn out to be benefitial to Intel.

          On another note, if AMD got out of the x86 race (I hope not), I have a feeling that Intel will regret the loneness in the battle against ARM. In the big picture, two is better than one against the myriad of ARM manufacturers. Intel’s unfair trading practice might have undercut AMD’s ability to compete a little too deep, although that is just part of the story. AMD screwed up, too.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        ARM could take over x86 but it won’t be easy, considering Intel is behind it. And even without Intel’s might the transition will be slow as people still hold on to their x86 apps and it’ll be a while before they ditch them. A lot of folks are already toying with ARM apps today, and when they ditch their x86 apps, their ARM apps will take over. If ARM gains as much performance as x86 has today, people could just run their x86 apps off an emulator similar to DOSbox. Again, Intel is the big hurdle here. Let’s see what happens.

        • djgandy
        • 8 years ago

        ARM don’t manufacture CPU’s. So who is going to take on Intel with ARM designs?

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          TSMC, Samsung, GF

          [url<]http://www.phonearena.com/news/Made-in-USA---Samsungs-new-Texas-foundry-to-produce-Apples-A5-processors-possibly-A6-as-well_id24807[/url<] [url<]http://news.softpedia.com/news/ARM-GlobalFoundries-Demo-2-5GHz-28nm-Cortex-A9-SoC-240764.shtml[/url<] And TSMC also is in line for 28nm ARM. Those are today 28nm ARM foundries, Design house ? Again nVidia, Samsung, Qualcomm, Ti, ... Apple MIPS also seem to make headways [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson[/url<] [url<]http://vr-zone.com/articles/chinese-high-end-cpus-are-now-in-the-game--details-part-1/14302.html[/url<] "Despite the low clock and 65 nm process, the efficient 4-way out-of-order cores and vector units with dual 256-bit FP ops per core per cycle, allow Loongson 3B to reach 16 GFLOPs per core at 1 GHz, some 130 GFLOPs peak FP rate in double precision at 1.05 GHz clock. For a comparison, the 3.3GHz Core i7 3960X with AVX would achieve some 160 GFLOPs peak in DP, while the Westmere (Core i7 990X) and Bulldozer CPUs would be at not more than two-thirds of this - Core i7 990X is at 90 GFLOPs peak, and AMD FX8150 at some 110 GFLOPs peak, all in DP. And, oh yes, the Loongson 3B achieves this performance at just 40 watts TDP, less than one third of the above competing CPUs." It wouldn't pass it AMD to use the same trick with an ARM design (x86 HW decoding) 28nm will allow ARM to have 8 core, 2 in batery saving mode, 8 in docking mode. The ARM onslaught in coming....

            • djgandy
            • 8 years ago

            TSMC doesn’t market and sell SOC’s though. You have missed the point.

            Samsung and TI are the main players in the non iPhone world.

            It’s more than just a case of ARM CPU’s flying around everywhere. What about operating system?

            x86/Windows is the platform that will have to be replaced. You can’t just manufacture CPU’s to replace that. IOS will stay locked down, so are you saying android is going to replace windows?

            Don’t say Windows on ARM is going to replace x86. That is a tablet solution, and ARM CPU’s will show how seriously under performing they are compared to x86.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 8 years ago

      It won’t have to be a slow increase.

      I, for one, don’t want to go back to the days of $1000+ desktop CPUs.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        If they simply hike the prices, there’ll be a major backlash. More likely they’ll do something more devious like offering high-end chips only in the Xeon line, forcing people to buy server-grade hardware at server-grade prices if they want top performance. Everyone else can forget about eight threads and >4.5GHz clocks. In fact, I’m surprised they haven’t done this already.

        The 2600K/2700K are speed monsters close to Xeon performance yet sell at desktop prices… I guess they won’t do it with Ivy Bridge, but I wouldn’t be surprised they save the high-end Haswell chips for Xeon.

        • sschaem
        • 8 years ago

        Back in the age of the Pharaohs with ivory abacus ?

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah, UNLESS of course, there’s massive inflation and everything is 10x more expensive and you’re earning 10x as much.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 8 years ago

        What days of $1,000+ desktop CPUs? You never had to buy $1,000 CPUs even to get into the fastest family of parts.

        I can’t remember the last time they started above $200, pretty much the same as now. Even *gasp* Pentium 4s! They do have to be able to move these things, regardless of how pricey the very most expensive model is.

        There is this weird phenomenon on these sites where many people seem to wear glasses that are rose colored on one side and covered in tape on the other.

          • Krogoth
          • 8 years ago

          Intel always had $500-$1000 tier CPUs. The only difference from then is that $500-$1000 ranged shifted markets towards workstation and server market. The $200-300 range yields more then sufficient performance for gaming and mainstream users.

          That wasn’t the case back in the P6 architecture days. The Pentium line-up started at $300 and quickly towered into $1,000 range. Pentiums were considered to desktop chips. This was before Intel decided to tackle the $100-300 range with the Celeron brand. 😉

            • axeman
            • 8 years ago

            Yep, back in the P6 days, getting a desktop CPU from Intel in the “performance” segment meant the CPU was often close to 1/2 of the purchase price. Other than software pricing, pretty much everything has gotten MUCH cheaper. We’re complaining about the prices of SSDs and the spike in mechainical drives, but I can remember being happy about getting a “deal” on a 10GB drive for 300 bucks as well.

    • WillBach
    • 8 years ago

    I have to admit that I’m a little disappointed. I thought that Intel would use the die shrink to wring out some price savings for Ultrabook OEMs.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      They might – the prices OEMs negotiate don’t have to match list prices.

      • cynan
      • 8 years ago

      And these prices are for desktop CPUs, so they don’t apply to ultrabooks anyway.

        • WillBach
        • 8 years ago

        Oh, I missed that, thank you 🙂

    • ModernPrimitive
    • 8 years ago

    Thanks AMD………..

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      For making Intel focus on integrated graphics? lol

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        for not being performance competitive at price levels >$120

    • Ryhadar
    • 8 years ago

    Can’t wait. I’m hoping to build a sandy bridge system on the cheap when Ivy is out.

      • Compton
      • 8 years ago

      Don’t get your hopes up; I don’t think you’re going to see much in the way of price cuts on existing SB parts.

    • Duck
    • 8 years ago

    So Intel is mainly using the gains in the smaller manufacturing process to increase their profit margins? 🙁

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      They already went all out on the CPU side with Sandy Bridge. What’s left? The cores, cache, and ring bus will all run nearly 4 GHz, even in a laptop.

      So now it’s on to the GPU, PCIe controller, memory controller, video encoder, and hopefully increasing laptop battery life, which they have not attempted in years.

        • Duck
        • 8 years ago

        It is hoped to get more for your money with new, smaller process nodes. An i7 for i5 money compared to sandy bridge.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 8 years ago

          So you thought they were going to give you hyper threading, a $100 premium feature, for free? That doesn’t make any sense.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      Lets see, Intel could continue to sell us 32nm Sandy Bridge.. instead they invested 12 month of R&D (10% IPC boost, new DX11 with 2x the compute/gaming power) and spent ~6billion $ in new fab and fab upgrade.

      You are right, why in hell does Intel feel that they have the right to charge an extra 5$ for a state of the art chip!!

      AMD to the RESCUE!!!

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Yes. And this is because AMD gave up.

      • Krogoth
      • 8 years ago

      That’s the primary reason behind smaller processing.

      The only problem is that returns coming from die-shrinkage are decreasing while the costs to move to the next node are skyrocketing.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        It’s still worth it – otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

          • Krogoth
          • 8 years ago

          TSMC and GF are starting to think otherwise. 😉

      • ronch
      • 8 years ago

      I imagine myself buying IB instead of SB because of the power draw savings. And 22nm may not be fully mature yet so Intel is holding back pushing clocks and instead made some cache optimizations to get a little more IPC. For the same price as SB is today, it’s a pretty good deal to me.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    Day 1 purchase from me.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Wait for benchies…?

        • etrigan420
        • 8 years ago

        DAY ONE HE SAID!!!!1

        DAMN THE BENCHIES!

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        This isn’t Bulldozer, you know.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        We already know (basically) how they perform. Like a Llano at a faster speed.

      • lycium
      • 8 years ago

      I’m waiting for the 8 core / 16 thread Socket 2011 incarnation to make a beastly box with 64GB memory.

      • NarwhaleAu
      • 8 years ago

      Day 2ish to 3ish purchase for me – going to wait for TR review first then plunge in. Time to upgrade the old Pentium E2140… wonder if I’ll see a noticeable increase in speed. 😀

        • indeego
        • 8 years ago

        You should see at least 10X the performance based on CPU-heavy workloads.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This