Report pins Ivy Bridge launch on April 8

For a while now, all signs have pointed to a spring launch for Intel’s 22-nm Ivy Bridge processors—but the spring is a pretty broad time frame. Thankfully, the rumor mill is able to offer a more precise (though unofficial) estimate.

Quoting unnamed sources at Taiwan’s PC makers, DigiTimes reports that Intel has set an April 8 release date for its next-generation processors. That date will purportedly see the arrival of no less than 25 new chips; 17 of them will be aimed at desktop systems, while the remainder will target notebooks and ultrabooks.

DigiTimes lists a handful of model numbers for desktop Ivy Bridge CPUs to be priced between $184 and $332. However, past reports from other sources have provided more thorough descriptions of the desktop Ivy Bridge family. You’ll want to check out this story at CPU World for more details.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    AMD has about 4 months to prove to the world that Bulldozer is not a hopeless project and GF can fix their fluke-based 32nm process. Or, they have 4 months to think about drastically cutting FX prices.

      • Theolendras
      • 8 years ago

      Hopefully yields will get better, because I suspect they are selling it higher than they should be because they just can’t produce enough of them.

    • Frith
    • 8 years ago

    I’m still confused as to why the TDP on the mid-range CPUs has remained at 65W. Since it’s dropped nearly 15% on the higher end models you’d have expected the mid range CPUs to have come down to around 56W, but it’s the same as Sandy Bridge.

    Anyone know why this might be?

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      The 65w quad-cores are higher clocked than with Sandy Bridge. We also don’t know anything at all about how the GPUs are configured for i5s vs. i7s.

      • Peldor
      • 8 years ago

      I take it to mean that Intel sees a benefit in redefining the top-end desktop TDP to 77 W. Primarily it creates a differentiation point with AMD’s offerings, but it might fit in a few more designs that 95W wouldn’t.

      Redefining the 65W wouldn’t gain you as much IMO.

      Keep in mind the TDP rating on top-end Sandy was 95 W but it didn’t actually use more than about 85 W. We’ll have to wait and see what the real consumption of Ivy Bridge is like relative to the 77 W TDP. It’s possible that Intel has narrowed the gap a bit between real-world and rating.

        • UberGerbil
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah, that’s my interpretation too. The TDPs aren’t the actual power requirements of the chips, they’re the thermal load design points that the OEMs use when designing systems — and those design points haven’t changed in some time. These are the “buckets” that the chips drop into, and as long as they stay within those buckets the OEMs don’t have to go back and redesign things to accommodate the new generation. Given that the design problems get exponentially more difficult (ie expensive) as the load goes up (and are accompanied by added considerations of things like noise), there’s a lot more benefit to dropping the top bucket a few watts (or creating a new bucket below the top one) than in reducing any of the lower-power ones. If the mid-range models actually run a few watts cooler overall, it’s a nice bonus, but it’s not worth introducing a new design point for.

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      TDP of CPU’s mean nothing more than “your cooler has to handle at most this much”. In reality they are all very conservative estimates. Go check out a good review that does an accurate power measurement of the whole system. You’ll see that one 95w CPU will use 20-30w more than another 95w CPU under stress. Its useful for OEM’s but not really for enthusiasts who do their research.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    So when will we see ivy bridge-E so we finally get our consumer 8 core processors???

      • FuturePastNow
      • 8 years ago

      There should be Sandy Bridge-E Xeons with all eight cores early next year which *I think* will work in consumer X79 boards. But hopefully IB-E will lead to consumer octo-cores.

    • bcronce
    • 8 years ago

    I’m looking forward to a more power conservative CPU with stronger single thread performance than my aging i7-920. IB or SB will be good enough, but hoping to get an IB.

    Heck, if AMD fixes a lot of their problems with their next revision(Piledriver) that is rumored for Spring also, I wouldn’t mind helping them, assuming it’s competitive.

      • Theolendras
      • 8 years ago

      I’m interested and relatively hopeful about piledriver the will be closer to Intel by that time. But I really wouldn’t have hope for performance parity on single thread performance. I think best case would be better multithreading performance, equivalent light multi-thread and a notch or two below in single thread performance. Probably a better choice as an upgrade path than starting a new system on for many people.

        • bcronce
        • 8 years ago

        I also wouldn’t mind starting a server for my home storage. AMD at least fully supports all of the virtualization features.

        • mesyn191
        • 8 years ago

        Even AMD’s slides suggest Piledriver is a minor improvement over Bulldozer. They need huge improvements to just meet Sandybridge much less Ivybridge.

        If the drop the price on Bulldozer enough it could offer some value vs Intel but that is about the best you can realistically expect.

          • bcronce
          • 8 years ago

          I’m not sure if these are rumors, but I heard BD has a lot of performance “bugs”. So the “minor improvements” may be based on if BD was working correctly in the first place, but if PD not only fixes the performance bugs a long with the “minor improvements”, there may be a large difference.

          I’m hopeful. I love competition.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 8 years ago

            The biggest “bug” of all is with people jumping to conclusions. We don’t really know what the core itself is capable of in a PC context. They can use it any number of ways, but thus far, they’ve only shown it to us in what is effectively low power, multi-socket server form.

            Was AMD either misleading or possibly just outright stupid to market that as a high end desktop part? Yes. Does that mean the core itself is broken? No.

            You don’t buy a Piledriver core, you buy a Trinity chip. It’s like Arrandale compared to Gulftown. There shouldn’t be any expectations of worse or better, only waiting to see what in the world this thing actually is.

            • Theolendras
            • 8 years ago

            I think you miss the point. bcronce seems to point to corner that were either compromise to get out to market or process issues that wasn’t fully mastered by AMD enginneers. It fully works, but maybe was out before being mature enough in some areas.

            Well anyway, it’s tough to compete for AMD they have enormous pressure to deliver on a timely basis with a widening gap on process and architecture front with a tenth of the R&D of your competitor. Not really hard to see the are sometime constrainst to get products out. As to marketing, I don’t care, I can read graph without marketing guidance.

            If you remember correctly first Phenom weren’t great either with TLB bug and all. Phenom II delivered somewhat but the retirement is long overdue. Some would say it was broken, but I would mostly agree with you the ecosystem as a whole and price is what matters most.

          • Theolendras
          • 8 years ago

          If I recall correctly they’re hoping for 15 % higher IPC. If they can squeeze a little better frequency as well which might be possible as Global Foundry SOI 32nm still seems to be a work in progress, it might* add up and be a decent alternative.

            • cygnus1
            • 8 years ago

            If they can get that IPC up and they get a nice scheduler patch from MS, they might get my money. I really don’t like how difficult Intel makes it to get an inexpensive CPU with all the virtualization features enabled, whereas AMD leaves the features enabled on pretty much every CPU they sell.

    • Firestarter
    • 8 years ago

    Crap, I want to build something around the HD7950, waiting for April 8th would be the height of First World Problems 🙁 🙁 🙁

      • cygnus1
      • 8 years ago

      See, I don’t like lumping together everyone in the first world that way. Plenty of people in the first world don’t whine about such things. So when I hear people whining about ‘problems’ like that, I pat them on the back and tell them their princess problems will be OK and ask them if they need assistance getting the sand out of their vag.

        • lycium
        • 8 years ago

        I think you might misunderstand the gist of it; it’s not “All people in the first world have this problem,” it’s “Only people in the first world have this problem.”

          • cygnus1
          • 8 years ago

          and I think you missed my gist that anyone complaining about ‘first world problems’ such as a new CPU not coming out fast enough for them; reminds me of a whiny, little, spoiled child.

          edit: also, i take offense at him implying that whiny, little, spoiled children only exist in the first world.

    • lycium
    • 8 years ago

    One Core i7-3770 for me, please!

      • yogibbear
      • 8 years ago

      Me too!

      • Wirko
      • 8 years ago

      I just wonder why Intel didn’t keep those marketing friendly round model numbers. I’d feel so much better with a chip with i7-3700 written on it rather than i7-3770.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This