It’s official: Ivy Bridge release pushed back

And just like that, Intel has confirmed last week’s rumors—well, partially so. Intel China Executive VP Sean Maloney gave the Financial Times the scoop over the weekend, revealing that Ivy Bridge is now due to hit stores "eight to 10 weeks later than initially planned." He cited a tentative June time frame, although judging by his choice of words, things aren’t set in stone quite yet:

In his first interview to discuss Intel’s business in China, Mr Maloney told the Financial Times that the start of sales of machines equipped with Ivy Bridge – the 22nm processor set to succeed Sandy Bridge in notebooks this year – had been pushed back from April. “I think maybe it’s June now,” he said.

Now, the rumor mill may have been wrong on one count. While last week’s reports pinned the delay on oversupply of current-gen Sandy Bridge processors, Maloney attributes the "adjustment" to "the new manufacturing process needed to make the smaller chips." In other words, Intel’s 22-nm process may not be ready for prime time.

Comments closed
    • Anvil
    • 8 years ago

    So freaking glad I decided not to wait for Ivy Bridge and upgrade to a 2500k from my E6550 a month ago.

    • Wireflight
    • 8 years ago

    The tough part for guys like I is this:

    2 + 2 = 100 (base 2)
    = 11 (base 3)
    = 10 (base 4)
    = 4 (base 5 and higher)
    = 3.9998736 (base unit containing a Pentium)

    Not to mention: fraud is knowingly selling bad chips as good for five months (unless, of course, you’re Intel: as a chief supplier to the government, it’s immune from responsibility — and therefore, from accountability).

    On the other hand, a Westmere will spit out an answer pronto, but AMD takes a while to mull things over — so, if you need an answer lickety-split, Intel’s your boy … but if you need the right answer and don’t mind waiting for it ….

    • NeelyCam
    • 8 years ago

    Bottom line: when the Ivy Bridge desktops suddenly pop up at Newegg in mid April, we can all act surprised and denounce Forbes, Fudzilla, Sean Maloney, S|A etc. as evil and wrong.

    News outlets are so starved for news that they jump on any rumor or an out-of-context sentence an executive, engineer or a janitor in any company may utter somewhere to someone.

    • HighTech4US2
    • 8 years ago

    This rumor posted as fact here on TR of Ivy Bridge being pushed back to June is wrong.

    Roll-Out of Intel “Ivy Bridge” Microprocessors will Take Months to Complete – Source.
    [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20120227191725_Roll_Out_of_Intel_Ivy_Bridge_Microprocessors_will_Take_Months_to_Complete_Source.html[/url<] Quote: The world's largest maker of chips will roll out the first quad-core Core i7-3000 "Ivy Bridge" microprocessors for desktops and laptops on April 29, 2012, according to sources with knowledge of Intel's plans.

      • dpaus
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]...according to sources with knowledge of Intel's plans[/quote<] ...sounds like rumour to me.

      • maxxcool
      • 8 years ago

      …. since everyone is quoting sources …. nobody knows anything ….

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      It’s not being “posted as fact”. Cyril is quoting a publication that interviewed an Intel employee who says it’s “maybe” June. Cyril himself is not speculating, just reporting acknowledged speculation.

        • HighTech4US2
        • 8 years ago

        Title of article is “It’s official: Ivy Bridge release pushed back”

        First sentence from Cyril; “And just like that, Intel has confirmed last week’s rumors”

        These are Cyril’s words and are stated as FACTS.

          • Yeats
          • 8 years ago

          Intel China Executive VP Sean Maloney did confirm the “rumors”. If he was mistaken – unaware of the entirety of the schedule – that is not TR’s responsibility.

            • sschaem
            • 8 years ago

            No he didn’t. The statement was related to notebook… not desktop.

    • howru
    • 8 years ago

    Laptop makers and retailers still have massive stocks need to be cleaned up, if the release of the ive bridge laptops happens on time, Intel ‘s wholesale customers will not be happy at all.

      • Visigoth
      • 8 years ago

      That’s their f*cking problem! Intel publishes their CPU road map WELL in advance for any idiot company to take notice. But yeah, if said loser company buys a million Sandy Bridge CPU’s and is now stuck with them, why the hell should we consumers pay the price for their mistake?!?

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    Waiting on AMD to catch up…

      • travbrad
      • 8 years ago

      So you’re saying IB will come out in 2015?

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Could be seeing as AMD basically abandon desktop processors now… Depends on if Intel wants to get split up or not.

    • link626
    • 8 years ago

    It wouldn’t matter if intel pushed ivy back 3 years, as AMD is that far behind.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 8 years ago

      The truth!

      • Arclight
      • 8 years ago

      I +1 thee

    • Yeats
    • 8 years ago

    A Cubs fan, a NY Jets fan, a computer enthusiast, and God were walking down the street.

    “God,” said the Cubs fan, “will the Cubs ever win the World Series?”

    “Yes,” said the Lord, “but not in your lifetime.”

    “How about the Jets?” asked the Jets fan, “Will they ever win the Big One?”

    “Yes,” said the Lord, “but not in your lifetime.”

    “God,” said the computer enthusiast, “will AMD ever have a better desktop CPU than Intel?”

    God turned to the man, and with a sad look on His face said, “Yes, but not in My lifetime.”

      • Vaughn
      • 8 years ago

      That was good +1

      • indeego
      • 8 years ago

      AMD64 upon introduction was a better CPU.

      • halbhh2
      • 8 years ago

      Ya’ll must be young, cause I remember 2005.

    • blitzy
    • 8 years ago

    Oh well, gives me some more time to save up the cash for a new machine. Although realistically my 1.8ghz core 2 duo is still doing the business (I don’t really game much on it). that must be damn near 7 years old now, scary

    • trackerben
    • 8 years ago

    For each of the past two years I was going to replace my AMD ultraportable. At first with an Intel CULV, and then with a SB or Brazos machine. But for each of the past two years I’ve bought an iPad instead, and somehow the regrets never came.

    And now ultrabook models dependent on early IVB deployment are delayed, while channel leaks continue to validate the iPad3 as the true next-gen successor. Intel’s not making things easy…

    • ew
    • 8 years ago

    How will I survive an extra two months with my already over-powered CPU!

    • sschaem
    • 8 years ago

    I’m sure Apple put pressure on Intel to supply them first with huge quantities.
    (Apple consume ~2 million Intel CPU a month and growing, and the new macbook air release will create an initial spike in demand)
    Intel also cant miss the windows8 release…

    Intel best interest is to delay mobile IB to enter the market, as H2 2012 is going to suck supply dry and that would mean just giving away market share to AMD for no good reasons.

    Its not a technical manufacturing issue (Intel never stated that), its a capacity/logistic/strategic issue related to manufacturing.

    .. looking at it sideways, Apple consume so much x86 processors, that if they where to buy AMD the acquisition would completely pay itself off in less then 4 years. It would then add billion in profit to their bottom line.

    • WillBach
    • 8 years ago

    Gah! I can’t absorb my wife’s laptop as a hand-me-down until I get her an Ivy Bridge MacBook Air :'(

    • JMccovery
    • 8 years ago

    Why is it that every time a story is posted about Intel delaying a CPU product, people immediately jump on the “it is because of the lack of competition” bandwagon? Even when you have a pathetic competitor, you should still release new products, as long as the inventory on the previous products is low enough where you can afford to lower prices, in this situation, Intel can’t (actually won’t) pull a fire-sale on the existing Sandy Bridge inventory (like they did during the Pentium4 > Core2 transition.

    When AMD was competitive performance wise, they were not competitive capacity wise; even though AMD had the better architecture during the Athlon 64 days, the majority of product movement happened AFTER the Core2 era, and well into the Core i era (those low-end Athlon II systems helped AMD a lot).

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Why is it that every time a story is posted about Intel delaying a CPU product, people immediately jump on the "it is because of the lack of competition" bandwagon?[/quote<] Because it's a freakin' huge bandwagon, that's why. Maybe if there were some competition...

      • NarwhaleAu
      • 8 years ago

      There is no economic sense in introducing a new product UNLESS the profit margins are higher. Unlikely on a new process vs. one that has been depreciated and had the bugs ironed out. When you have a new competitor chip (or your own for that matter), sales of your existing chip will fall as the demand of some customers shifts to the new chip. If AMD had a competitive chip, Intel would be encouraged to introduce Ivy Bridge right now to prevent market erosion and lower profits (which would happen if they remained with Sandy Bridge). As it stands, they have no incentive and can just ride the huge profits they are making off depreciated capital churning out Sandy Bridge CPUs.

      That’s exactly why I believe this latest delay is due to market power.

      • travbrad
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Even when you have a pathetic competitor, you should still release new products, [b<]as long as the inventory on the previous products is low enough[/b<][/quote<] I think you just answered your own question. Have you seen Intel's recent financial results? They seem to be making cash at federal reserve speed with the "old" Sandy Bridge CPUs.

      • clone
      • 8 years ago

      their is no pricing pressure at the moment so Intel doesn’t need to lower the margins on Sandy Bridge.

      the manufacturing process used for building Sandy Bridge chips is mature and yields are as high as they can likely be which minimizes wastage and maximises profit.

      their is no performance competition and Intel isn’t a charity out to do consumers favors, they are a business that puts profit in front of service.

      with the current lack of competition Intel can take as long as they want to release Ivy Bridge, when their is competition Intel and AMD will produce as many processors as they can get as quickly as they can get while refining the manufacturing on the fly, this leads to a lot of waste and is expensive but without the pressure Intel can now run small batches and refine the manufacturing which will maximise profit…. they could even decide to skip Ivy Bridge altogether if they believe AMD has no short to mid term answer which likely is the case.

    • HighTech4US2
    • 8 years ago

    Removing Cyril’s Hyperbole:

    [url<]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4236944/Intel-s-Ivy-Bridge-delayed-says-senior-executive[/url<] Quotes: β€œI think maybe it’s June now,” said Maloney to the Financial Times. It’s unclear whether Maloney was referring to all Ivy Bridge chips or just certain SKUs. Jim McGregor of In-Stat told EE Times that according to his industry sources in Taiwan, Intel's Ivy Bridge server parts were only delayed from April 8 until April 29, though the dual core i5 and i7 parts for notebooks had been pushed out from a planned May 13th launch to June 3. Core i3 parts would launch as planned on June 24, said McGregor. --------------------- So Ivy Bridge server parts are launching April 29th. That doesn't look like June to me. Also note that there was no mention of quad core Ivy Bridge. The quad core parts are to launch first.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      Shush you! We don’t want your facts ruining our feel-good bashing of Intel! Intel totally and permanently screwed up 22nm! Ivy Bridge won’t launch ever! Ivy Bridge has a fake IGP! Intel’s mobile chips don’t even exist! Get with the bandwagon here!

    • donkeycrock
    • 8 years ago

    This is why competition is good.

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c&feature=player_detailpage[/url<]

    • Goty
    • 8 years ago

    Sorry everyone, I did my part to try and clear out the notebook SB inventory, but evidently they have more than one extra CPU lying around….

      • Visigoth
      • 8 years ago

      Yup, same here. Damn it, and I REALLY need a notebook with their newer GPU…this waiting sucks!

        • indeego
        • 8 years ago

        Need? What for?

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          If he can’t render a bus at 50 fps, Dennis Hopper blows him up.

    • credible
    • 8 years ago

    Not surprising at all and totally typical of Intel, as has been said by others they are stomping them as it is.

    May as well wait for Piledriver to release and drop Ivy Bridge on top of that and finish off AMD……….though I sure as hell hope it does not finish them off.

    • indeego
    • 8 years ago

    In other words, stay far far away from this one on release and let the gerbils beta test it.

    yikes.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    Intel: “….”
    AMD Fanboy: “Haha! They’re struggling with the new process!”
    Intel Fanboy: “Where’s my new toy!”
    AMD: “BITCH GOT OWNED!”
    TR: “Meh, Krogoth not surprised at all”
    SSK: “Frist! Awww…”
    Motherboard maker: “Awww… no sexy high def photos…”
    Foxconn employee: “Yah! I can stop painting these boards so quickly!”
    Investors: “Yawn.”

      • dpaus
      • 8 years ago

      Please keep a copy of this handy to cut-n-paste into future announcements; it’ll save untold wear and tear on keybaords around the world…

      • cynan
      • 8 years ago

      Intel: “It’ll be ready when it’s ready. You know as well as we do you don’t have any other options”
      AMD Fanboy: “The 3D transistor tech is broke. Piledriver will be the A64 come again!”
      Intel Fanboy: “New 3D transistor tech is so awesome it’s taking a bit of extra refinement to reign in all that raw power!”
      Any Enthusiast in the Market for a CPU: ‘Where’s my new toy!”
      AMD: “Please be broke. Please be broke. Please be broke. If you don’t want to release till June 2013, that’s fine with us too. Please be broke…”
      TR Editors: [whistling, faint rubbing sound from incessant thumb twiddling]. “Oh well, I guess we’ve got nothing more exciting to do on the CPU front than post these release date rumors..”
      Motherboard maker: “Sigh. There goes our Q2 profits.”
      Foxconn employee: “Crap. I just took a $2/hour pay cut.”
      Investors: “OMG! Sell sell sell! Intel’s Q2 profits might be down a couple of percentage poitns. Wait a minute…”

        • Majiir Paktu
        • 8 years ago

        So the Foxconn employee was fired?

          • dpaus
          • 8 years ago

          Somebody Had To Be Held Accountable.

          • cynan
          • 8 years ago

          bingo.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          he jumped off the roof in protest of low wages.

      • lycium
      • 8 years ago

      nailed it πŸ˜€

    • crabjokeman
    • 8 years ago

    “It’s not ready” sounds better than:

    – We don’t give a fsck about enthusiasts
    – We’ve delayed Ivy Bridge to better align with our fiscal quarter
    – What’s the hurry?

    • Corrado
    • 8 years ago

    OK with me. I just ordered a 2400 on Friday along with a power supply to replace the Celeron G630 I had to make my box work. Put my 560Ti back in the box and back in business.

    • flip-mode
    • 8 years ago

    The i5 2500 K is so good that it’s kinda tough to be upset. Of course, a price cut in the i5 2500 K would be nice.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    I love the tone of these comments:

    Intel: Our 22nm process basically isn’t ready yet
    Everyone here: Nuh uh! You’re intel! Your technological execution is infallible! Conspiracy theory!

      • just brew it!
      • 8 years ago

      The reality is probably that it’s a bit of both. With no serious competition from AMD they have less incentive to bust their butts trying to rush 22nm chips out the door. And it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just good business.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        Even when Intel had serious competition, they always got their process tech down before release. The exception to the rule, the 1.13GHz Pentium III, was eventually recalled because it was literally a failure. The chips couldn’t run that fast reliably. I think they learned their lesson – they haven’t always executed as quickly as they would have liked, but they generally have done a good job making sure that it’s available at least.

        • arbitmax
        • 8 years ago

        Did you consider the investment needed to build a new fab ?
        I am sure they would be in a hurry to get it up as soon as they can, to reap the benefits and not wait watching it lay idle if it is really ready for prime. They may be working to get their yields better before going for volume production.

          • just brew it!
          • 8 years ago

          “working to get their yields better before going for volume production” isn’t inconsistent with what I posted. If they were worried about AMD they’d probably be pushing limited quantities of chips out the door even with crappy yields, just to make sure they maintain their perceived technological edge.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      I always take public statements with a grain of salt.

      If Intel felt like they would be publicly embarrassed for the Ivy Bridge delay, they would keep it quiet.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        I do, too, I’m just more likely to lean the other way – the process is probably farther behind than they’re letting on.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 8 years ago

          If it was that bad, we’d see more price cuts. Sandy Bridge has [i<]a lot[/i<] of room to increase clocks.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            Sandy Bridge is so not made on a 22nm process.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            No, I mean if Intel has to rely on Sandy Bridge longer, they would cut prices and introduce higher clocked SKUs.

            They did it with Conroe, Penryn and other recent CPU lines. Remember the Q6600? That went from like $800 to $200 because Intel didn’t have any better quad core. What about the E6420 and E6320? Or how about the E4000 and E7000 series? I think we got up to E4600 and E7600 by the end of the generation.

            Sandy Bridge largely hasn’t seen the same treatment (yet).

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            No, I guess I don’t remember. I was largely ignoring quads until the Phenom II. Nothing used more than 2 threads back in 2007 or whenever it was.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            The core count doesn’t matter. When you see Intel increasing its overall performance/price by fiddling with price and clocks on its current gen lineup, they are bidding time.

            We haven’t seen that so far, but only time will tell.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            All I meant was, that’s why I guess I don’t remember. However, towards the end of the Core 2 Quad 6600’s existence, there were not only other Intel quads (8000 and 9000 series) but real AMD quads in that same performance range (Athlon II X4s at or near 3GHz) so that might also have something to do with it.

        • jimbo75
        • 8 years ago
      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      How about this conspiracy theory.

      Intel is actually worried that releasing their next generation of chips, will so thoroughly dominate AMD, it will put them out of business. They don’t want to deal with the anti-trust issues, so they’re making sure AMD keeps hobbling along.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 8 years ago

        You’re right about one thing; that [i<]IS[/i<] a crazy conspiracy theory.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          I was going for a joke, I guess I didn’t make it quite over the top enough.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            It’s too plausible to be a joke

      • tcunning1
      • 8 years ago

      By July, when the chips are shipping, no one will care about or remember the delay. It’s a non-issue for the company that will dominate the market (and deservedly so), either way.

      • TheMonkeyKing
      • 8 years ago

      And…we won’t see a drop in Sandy Bridge prices until July. Dammit.

      • lycium
      • 8 years ago

      I love the tone of your comment:

      Everyone here: <some opinion backed by historical evidence>
      You: Nuh uh, you’re so wrong and I don’t like your tone!

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Pretty sure it is conspiracy theory. How many releases like this did you see before bulldozer showed up?

      You don’t even need to believe the theories. Just look at the statistical norm for the company and compare it to what, three of these things since BD came out from underground?

      Kinda sad that you take these things as pure hearted truth, as if a company never lies or has anything else going on on their agenda. If they have problems with these sort of things they don’t usually even tell people to save face.

    • gbcrush
    • 8 years ago

    Heck. I was getting used to waiting so long to build that I kept pushing my plans to the next ‘jump’ anyways. Ivy Bridge – E anyone? πŸ™‚

    • chuckula
    • 8 years ago

    Reading some other stories online, this may be another non-event:

    1. The dual-core IB ultrabook chips were *already supposed to launch in June*.
    2. It is very unclear if Maloney was referring to all of the Ivy Bridge line or just the mobile chips.

    If nothing at all launches in April, then there is a real delay. If Maloney is just saying that Ultrabook chips won’t show up in retail until June, then he’s just repeating what had already been stated elsewhere. His comments are vague enough that it is unclear what will really happen.

      • HighTech4US2
      • 8 years ago

      You are exactly right.

      It’s sorry to see TR turning into a rumor site where there is no fact checking.

      The details on this latest rumor did not identify whether all Ivy Bridge parts are delayed yet here on TR’s front page is a rumor published as fact with really no details.

    • bcronce
    • 8 years ago

    In other words, Intel feels that there is no real competition yet and doesn’t want to waste its queen on a pawn.

    Come on Piledriver! You can do it! I want to see the Athlon all over again.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Come on Piledriver! You can do it! I want to see the Athlon all over again.[/quote<] Umm, ya, don't think there is chance of that happening.

        • just brew it!
        • 8 years ago

        I’ll be thrilled if they can just get the thermals down (which should also give them a bit more clock speed headroom), and tweak the pricing to be more in line with performance. I think that’s within reach.

          • Wireflight
          • 8 years ago

          Without any difficulty, on 3/2/2012, I found a FX-4170 under (USD) $144.
          [url<]http://www.provantage.com/amd-fd4170frgubox~AAAMD2PN.htm[/url<] Highest price I found for the FX-4170 was (USD) $146.00; I'm sure there are better prices out there to be found. Whadda people want: free?

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 8 years ago

        It’ll likely be AMD’s most worthwhile 32nm product, anyway.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        We know it’s denial, you can let us pretend though…

      • TheBulletMagnet
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Come on Piledriver! You can do it! I want to see the Athlon all over again so I can just turn around and buy Intel again. [/quote<] Fixed that for you.

        • bcronce
        • 8 years ago

        My AthlonXP 2500+ on an nForce2 with a 3DFX-5900 served me well through my CounterStrike years. That was my upgrade to my P3-700(@933mhz)(BX chipset ftw!)+Voodoo2 12MB SLI, which also ran CS decently, just a bit blurry for textures.

        Back when there were only ~5 CS servers and 3 of them were empty. 250ms pings on my UR-robotics 33.6k modem. No built in lag compensation. That was the first public beta. You could pick-up all the pistols. If you got on a roll, you could be holding something like 7 different pistols, but the game only let you collect ammo for something like 5 of them.

        Before that, I played Quake on my Celeron 300a, OC’d to 450mhz., and before that, I played quake on my 486 66mhz.. Software mode of course as 3D cards didn’t exist yet.

        I remember my first time getting snipped in 2fort on Quake, while I was under water. I claimed the guy was hacking, but he said he had a Voodoo2 which supported transparent textures and he could see into the water.

        Of course the graphics quality was worse than Minecraft.

        When I first started playing Quake, it didn’t support TCP/IP, so I had to use Kali.Net to emulate IPX over the internet.

          • tay
          • 8 years ago

          Good times man. Been through similar.

        • axeman
        • 8 years ago

        Should have said Athlon 64. Intel’s response to the Athlon 64 was the Prescott.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      You can do it lil’piledriver… we know you can!

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    If they push it back so much, one could wonder what’s the point. If you can wait for Ivy Bridge you can most definetely wait for Haswell. Well unless they come out and say officially that Haswell release will be pushed back as well.

    Dang, gonna be so hard to decide when to upgrade CPU from now on…..Intel having monopolly and all….

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      I already decided to wait for Haswell a while ago… I’m just hoping this doesn’t mean that gets pushed out..

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    Not surprising at all.

    There’s little reason to push out “Ivy Bridge”.

    Sandy Bridge is already curb-stomping Bulldozer in the power efficiency front. Sandy Bridge-E does it at the performance front.

      • Hattig
      • 8 years ago

      Intel can’t actually make them right now (in suitable quantities), and they’re only hoping they can make them for a June release. What if that stepping fails as well? Intel lives and dies on its process advantage. The only silver lining is that they have over 12 months worth of accumulated advantage as a buffer.

      If Intel could release IB, it would, because it’s in the business of making money.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        How is it you wound up at -6 so far? I happen to agree with you.

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          I was at -6? Wow. I think the Intel fanboys are out in force. Hint – competition is good, and slavish devotion to Intel to the point of trying to explain what an Intel person has said quite clearly to be manufacturing problems with the new process as anything else (marketing, etc) is really quite … strange.

          Just to let people know, my main system has a quad-core, eight thread, Intel processor in it.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            ya, I made you -5, and now you’ve had quite a swing.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]Intel lives and dies on its process advantage. The only silver lining is that they have over 12 months worth of accumulated advantage as a buffer.[/quote<] I think you're wrong. Intel not having a process advantage doesn't necessarily mean they die. On an equal process, Intel can still beat AMD because of the sheer number of design engineers. Intel is capable of out-designing AMD. Right now, SB is beating BD, and it's not because of a superior process - it's because of a better design. Same thing with Core2Duo. So, just because you get downthumbed doesn't mean it was done by a "fanboy"

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        Obviously, but the point was that they don’t really need to. By pushing IB back, they will increase their profit margins on the current products as they remain on the market for a while longer. Had Intel some sort of meaningful competition, I’m pretty sure that whatever problems they are facing (if any) would be met with more resources to solve them more quickly. But the reality is they don’t need to do that.

          • Hattig
          • 8 years ago

          Doesn’t negate the fact that IB is delayed because of process problems, even if ultimately it doesn’t matter overall for Intel (as I wrote in my post). Given that this is the first time in a long long time that Intel has had, or admitted to having, process problems, this is a very legitimate piece of news. IMO.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Or they’ve had process issues in past generations, but had been able to dump resources into the problem. Intel has deep pockets, they can afford to be wasteful when they need to get something done.

            Perhaps now they get to maintain a healthy work pace [i<]and[/i<] they get a good excuse.

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Correct, but that was not Krogoth’s point, or at least my understanding of it. Intel might be having problems, but they have no need to actually fix those problems faster, just to meet the previous known IB launch date, since right now their main competition resides in their own past gen products.

            • Hattig
            • 8 years ago

            Fair enough. It would be interesting to see inside Intel right now in the parts that deal with manufacturing.

            Delays often occur, but Intel has prided itself on being on time (even if the ramp was slow) with new processes. Maybe Intel is taking the opportunity to realign manufacturing with the ability to ramp faster, then moving back to the 24 month cadence, as mentioned above.

            It probably is as simple as requiring a new stepping to get yields up to those required for mass production – hence the 8-10 week delay.

            The problem with steppings is that they don’t always improve things as much as you hope. Intel’s SB problem was a metal layer problem, and thus quickly fixed with a metal layer respin. A problem with 22nm trigate transistors leaving to yield issues would take far longer to resolve, as it would be at the lowest level of the chip. Given that there are working IBs out there, it probably isn’t anything serious, and could be just because Intel have the legroom to improve yields even further, and hence profits.

        • chuckula
        • 8 years ago

        Where is any concrete evidence for that statement? From everything we’ve seen there is a large and healthy population of Ivy Bridge chips that are out in the wild undergoing testing right now, including some crazy samples that are overclocking to 7Ghz.

        Intel does not “live and die” on its process advantage considering its chips using the same 32nm process as AMD use far fewer transistors and have far better performance than AMD’s solutions.

        • mganai
        • 8 years ago

        Methinks the article took the statement out of context. Mobile IB is delayed til June.

        • clone
        • 8 years ago

        Sandy Bridge is the better architecture over Bulldozer and Intel has more than a 12 month advantage…. additionally Intel isn’t losing money by delaying Ivy Bridge.

        their is no price competition, Sandy Bridge yields are mature with minimal waste and Intel can do small runs of Ivy Bridge while tweaking manufacturing so at launch they can maximise profit from higher yields.

        even if Intel is having problems which may not be true, they can always lie corporations do that when it’s in their own best interest and consumers atm have no choice….. if I was Intel I’d delay Ivy bridge to make it incompatible with existing motherboards so consumers would have to upgrade both cpu and mobo.

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Precisely. No need to invest in more R&D when the competition is so weak. Just push back what you already have in the pipe and increase your profit margins in your current products that are already the best on the market.

        • axeman
        • 8 years ago

        I know, what a shocker. Here I thought Intel’s goal was to make sure we get fancy new toys on a regular schedule, not to make money. πŸ˜‰

        • chuckula
        • 8 years ago

        A delay of Ivy Bridge has zero to do with any investment in R&D. It has to do with an investment in production capacity. The R&D budget for Ivy Bridge ended sometime in 2010 when Intel went into the production phase.

        There is no evidence at all that Intel has cut R&D, and in fact there is a lot of evidence that Intel’s R&D budget is likely growing to account for new nodes and for new product lines like mobile systems and HPC accelerators.

          • Silus
          • 8 years ago

          You missed my point when I mentioned R&D. R&D is a “never-ending” expense for these companies. When talking about releasing a new product, there’s already R&D expenses for the next two or three (big expense for X after IB, less for the one after X and so on).
          What I meant was that by pushing back Ivy Bridge, they have more time for their next big thing which makes R&D expenses for that next product will be spread across a longer period. More profits for current products, less expenses in new stuff.

        • esterhasz
        • 8 years ago

        From a purely economic standpoint: if the investments for IB (from R&D to bringing fabs online) are already sunk costs (which they certainly are for the most part), it is difficult to see how prolonging the life-cycle of SB would make economic sense.

        I agree that a lack of competition lowers the pressure on R&D and fast product cycles, but effects would rather have a stretched-out consequences than manifest themselves in a short notice product delay.

        To put it differently: only if the IB delay was planned for a long time, i.e. in a way that it would allow to modulate investment on IB development and production itself, could it be economically beneficial. SB inventory can always be cleared through pricing alone but if most costs for IB are sunk as we speak, there is no pervasive benefit in delaying the product.

        There may be external factors though, e.g. board partners asking to stall introduction to lower their R&D expenditure.

      • LiquidSpace
      • 8 years ago

      It’s not about BZ, it’s that SB is more than capable of handling anything perfectly and people who have SB or even a quad core nehalem like myself have no reason to pick up a new CPU.
      I’ve got a 4.1 GHz core i5 750 which I’m planning on harnessing till probably 2015.
      honestly I’m more interested in getting an SSD or a good FPS mouse and a fast GPU than anything else.

      • tejas84
      • 8 years ago

      Krogoth is overrated and held as some deity by the TR community.

      Lame…

        • Vaughn
        • 8 years ago

        You seem threatened by this…..

        • Krogoth
        • 8 years ago

        Are you frustrated?

    • dragmor
    • 8 years ago

    It’s official: Haswell release pushed back to mid 2014….

    Welcome to the 18 month tick tock…

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      My opinion on the matter is that a yearly tick-tock cycle is unrealistically fast. They proved me wrong for quite a while, with 45nm in early 2008 and 32nm in early 2010 (and new architectures in between), but they were bound to hit a bump.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      Oh it’s so bad that Sandy Bridge is being taken off the market and all sold units will be forcibly repossessed by Intel! Sandy Bridge will Re-launch in 2015!

    • Hattig
    • 8 years ago

    8 – 10 weeks being the time it typically take to spin a new stepping.

    And they don’t know if this new stepping is going to be ‘the one’ yet.

    • dpaus
    • 8 years ago

    [paraphrase] As an Easter present, we’re giving our good buddies at AMD an extra eight to ten weeks to get their **** together…. [/paraphrase]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This