Report: Ivy Bridge-E processors to start at $310

The rumor mill revealed the specifications for Intel’s upcoming Ivy Bridge-E processors a few months ago. Now, the guys over at VR-Zone claim to have learned prices for those chips.

Quoting information "given to major retailers from Intel," the site says the slowest Ivy Bridge-E variant, the 3.7GHz, quad-core Core i7-4820K, will be priced at just $310. That would make it a teeny bit more expensive than the slowest member of the Sandy Bridge-E lineup today, the Core i7-3820, which sells for $299.99 at Newegg.

VR-Zone also quotes prices of $555 for the mid-range Ivy Bridge-E model, the Core i7-4930K, and $990 for the flagship, the Core i7-4960X. The Core i7-4930K reportedly has six cores, a 3.4GHz base clock speed, and a 3.6GHz Turbo speed, while its faster sibling is said to run at 3.6GHz with a 3.7GHz Turbo peak. Those two models seem poised to replace the Core i7-3930K and Core i7-3970X, which sell for $569.99 and $1,029.99, respectively.

Again, Ivy Bridge-E is expected to fit in the same X79 platform as Sandy Bridge-E. Last we heard, Intel was rumored to be prepping Ivy Bridge-E for a launch in the fourth quarter of this year.

Comments closed
    • CaptTomato
    • 6 years ago

    To move from my i3570, my next CPU must be strong like bull, but even Haswel-E won’t cut it.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Intel prices creeping up since Haswell came out. So is this because Intel knows Steamroller is not gonna be much of a threat, or is this Intel milking Haswell as much as it can before Steamroller hits?

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      Up? This is completely different segment, where only one CPU got more expensive by five dollars, rest slightly cheaper. (inconsequential, but…)
      See Anandtech’s table: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/7193/intel-ivy-bridgee-pricing-leaked[/url<] That's more or less price noise...

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        Are you sleeping under a tree lately? Intel’s next gen chips are priced more than their outgoing counterparts. I’m not saying the increase is huge but it’s there nonetheless. Yes, I know newer products tend to be more expensive but the older products pretty much hold their ground in terms of pricing while the newer stuff climb a little higher.

      • Unknown-Error
      • 6 years ago

      since when did Intel give two craps about AMD?

      • chuckula
      • 6 years ago

      ??? These chips are pretty much across-the-board cheaper than their predecessors with the exception of the 4820K by a whopping $10. I ain’t saying they are cheap in an absolute sense, but these sure aren’t price increases either.

      Remember also that the street prices for the older chips have dropped a little since they have launched.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    Seems like if you’ve waited this long for LGA2011, just wait a year longer for the Haswell-E Octacores instead. That’s a real improvement. This thing’s been so delayed that it’s now pointless. It isn’t worth the upgrade for current SNB-E users and the chipset/motherboards essentially being the same as two years ago means the platform that came out as a disappointment of cut features then looks positively anemic now and certainly not worth the HUGE motherboard costs this platform require compared to what you can get for far less with LGA1150.

    I still think it’s a shame Intel doesn’t offer a version of the hexacore without hyperthreading at the same cost as the quadcore with hyperthreading because I can imagine people making that trade without question.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 6 years ago

    “Come here and pay extra for old tech.” – Intel

    Seriously?

    I wouldn’t have been opposed to the E platform but the fact that its generally 1 to 2 gens behind the “consumer” market makes it a lame joke. For the dollar they are neither future proofed or amazingly improved over the prior releases.

      • cynan
      • 6 years ago

      Depends on yer perspective, m’boy. The relative neglect Intel is displaying with its “E” series makes my (almost) 1.5 year old X79 + 3930k purchase look quite future proof in retrospect. I can’t believe they’re not updating the X79 platform for Ivy-E.. It was showing its age compared to Z7X.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 6 years ago

        The earlier gens were awesome, I remember when they launched unified memory interface through the E platform, back when it was a market leader hence the premium. They’ve slowly slacked off until recently when it looks like they don’t even want to try anymore. Its just that they have basically givin us nothing this gen and nothing to look forward to for next. :^\

        I wouldn’t be surprised to see them retire this product line. Honestly for the money the platform demands I’d rather mess with server hardware.

      • travbrad
      • 6 years ago

      I agree it’s pretty silly having the “high-end” parts 1 generation behind, but 1 generation really doesn’t mean much these days, when we are only seeing a 5-10% performance difference between each generation of Intel CPUs.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 6 years ago

        I mean we see more than that but it rarely appears uniformally across the board. Hence the Tick/Tock design cycle. Haswell is the architecture Tick, focusing on energy consumption while maintaining preformance, I expect the tock will do more than reduce die size.

      • EV42TMAN
      • 6 years ago

      Pay extra for old tech? The E platform are gimped versions of server CPUs and generally have MORE features then the consumer CPUs. Even then Haswell CPUs have some new features an Ivy-Bridge E-platform is based on the E5-Xeons so there are better more important features coming from the Xeon side rather then the Desktop side. For instance quad channel memory and better virtualization support.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Correct. This platform is tied to server releases and those are delayed. (Extra testing and validation + longer support for older tech, because servers are conservative market)

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 6 years ago

          You hit the nail on the head my friend.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 6 years ago

        Killmax Nailed it. Servers are generally old news. These products have fallen back on the server release timeline. They also don’t have MOST of the capabilities of a server product, I know I looked.

        They are like server products but with limitations, and expensive, and outdated compared to the cheaper consumer products…

        I’m sorry I just don’t see value, its not like intel is pushing core counts or doing anything diff. They are server products clocked like consumer products marked up about 1,000 percent with half the features that would interest their user base turned off.

        Dual sockets anyone?

    • jdaven
    • 6 years ago

    The 4820K is very appealing to those who don’t want any integrated GPU tech and like to try a quad-channel memory setup. There is not much value adding two more cores and 5 MB L3 cache for three times the price IMHO.

      • Plazmodeus
      • 6 years ago

      I’ve been running i2600k at 4.7 and I can pin 4cores/8threads with ease. Two more cores would be a dream.

        • jdaven
        • 6 years ago

        Would it enhance your life enough to pay the extra $350 or $650?

          • ClickClick5
          • 6 years ago

          No. No it would not.

      • Bensam123
      • 6 years ago

      On the contrary, I think the only reason to get into the E platform is for the two extra cores. You’re paying infinitely more for marginally better processors till you hit the six cores at $500. It has the best performance/price out of the bunch. But you’re still paying out the ass when you could get a i5 or a 8350 for quite a bit less.

        • Airmantharp
        • 6 years ago

        No, I think jdaven has it. At least for most of the games today that don’t scale well past four physical cores (Crysis 3 notwithstanding).

        Even a lot of HPC stuff would benefit from the lower-priced SKU, though what’s $200 for two more cores if you’re dropping the dough for Teslas :).

    • BillyBuerger
    • 6 years ago

    Looks like you’re quoting the specs from that VR-Zone page which sound wrong and don’t match the specs in your rumor mill article. Even with the IB improvements over SB, going from 3.7/4.0GHz to 3.6/3.7GHz would hurt if that was correct.

      • Airmantharp
      • 6 years ago

      If you were going to run it at stock, you’d just get a Xeon.

        • BillyBuerger
        • 6 years ago

        Good point, the stock speeds probably don’t matter much since people will be overclocking them most likely anyways. But I still don’t trust that VR-Zone table.

          • lckbrend
          • 6 years ago

          It is a waste of money to spent so much money on Intel Quad core that is simply faster by overclocking.
          I will rather spent SGD 35 buy a coolermaster CPU Cooler and overclock a cheap Intel CPU to 3.7ghz.
          Then spent the rest of the money buy a Good Nvidia/AMD Graphic card mid range.

    • thanatos355
    • 6 years ago

    Make with the octa-cores, Intel.

      • BIF
      • 6 years ago

      Yeah man!

      All these manufacturers are slacking off. Asus with their teaspoon-sized serving of PCIe SSD capacity. Intel, why are you afraid of making 8-core CPUs for the masses?

      • Chrispy_
      • 6 years ago

      It annoys me that Intel use consumers as paying beta-testers for their server hardware, but we only get the low-end in terms of server hardware.

      an 8-core, 64GB PC is relevant to my interests. 6-core is so [i<]Thuban[/i<], and it's one area where AMD have Intel bent over a chair.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Wrong. Performance of “8 core” of AMD doesn’t even touch 6 Core by Intel. (Because those are not full cores anyway) So claiming “where AMD have Intel bent over a chair” is wrong.

        Anyway:
        How about [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/64597/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2665-20M-Cache-2_40-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI[/url<] or [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/53580/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8870-30M-Cache-2_40-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI[/url<] (:D)

          • ronch
          • 6 years ago

          Going by the argument that AMD’s 8-core CPUs are not really 8-cores and instead are really 4-cores, let’s compare Vishera to a non-HT 4-core Intel, say, the 3570K. Let’s also go by the argument that HT is cheating because it makes the software think that there are more cores than there really are.
          So, in some benchmarks it’s quite apparent that the FX-8350 can zip past the 3570K by as much as ~30%, specifically in apps that can utilize all available cores. Bolting two more cores.will give this theoretical 3570K 50% more throughput, which puts it just slightly ahead of the 8350. So doing an apples to apples comparison, a ‘4-core’ FX-8350 can actually give a 6-core Ivy with no HT some good competition in terms of available throughput.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Missed primary point – 8 cores were marketing. I said no real cores, but never said that those extra threads are useless…
            Second, ignoring HT while letting Vishera use CMT makes your comparison invalid, because CMT provides software visible extra threads like HT does. So you attempted to skew comparison by way of apple-orange. (Although you cannot turn it off IIRC)

            AMD needs 4/8 larger CPU to beat 4/4 in few tests:
            [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697[/url<] While 4/8 will beat it on most workloads: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=697[/url<] (some previously won by AMD got matched) 3930k 6/12 finishes: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/552?vs=697[/url<] Used Haswell as current Microarch. Bonus round: [url<]http://extrahardware.cnews.cz/testy/haswell-mezi-nami-recenze-intel-core-i5-4670k-i7-4770k/strana/0/4[/url<]

            • ronch
            • 6 years ago

            Regardless, you did say that AMD’s 8-core chips can’t go against Intel’s 6-core, but that is not entirely true. An 8-thread AMD CPU can still go against a 6-thread Intel CPU quite competitively.

            • Chrispy_
            • 6 years ago

            It’s all irrelevant really, since the only point I was trying to make is that AMD sell their 8-core products to consumers and Intel don’t.
            Regardless of the per-core performance delta between an AMD and an Intel core, this is all a direct side effect of AMD being unable to compete on performance with Intel at the high end, and Intel being complacent enough to effectively ignore that small part of the market.

            Intel make 8-core products but you can only buy them with silly workstation branding running obscure boards using weird chipsets like the C206 designed for things that consumers don’t care about.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            It’s not 8 core. (And better to say it’s 4-core, because otherwise it looks much worse, because it would make it look as 8 cores are necessary against 4 cores…)

            And x79 supports Xeons… (In the end it is reduced C606 and if you want full C606, Gigabyte has you covered [url<]http://www.gigabyte.cz/products/page/mb/ga-x79s-up5_wifirev_10)[/url<]

      • Waco
      • 6 years ago

      The dies have 8 cores…they’re just fused off. 🙂

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        And original Xeon’s have them online…

      • MadManOriginal
      • 6 years ago

      Everyone says Intel is competing with ARM, right, but why compete when you can steal ideas? Intel should just copy ARMs octacore naming and MCM an Atom quad core with a Core series quad core.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/64597/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2665-20M-Cache-2_40-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI[/url<]

      • dashbarron
      • 6 years ago

      I’m with you.

      I know that the 8 cores are pretty much useless today, but I like to be a little prepared for the future.

      That, and I have a hard time stomaching an upgrade when at least on paper, to a complete idiot, I’m not gaining anything. I have a q9450 right now, and I don’t want to “upgrade” from 4 cores to 4, despite the refined ISAs and speed increases. Just…can’t…do it….

      Note: I came from a Pentium 4 2.4GHz at the same speed, so I’m not a complete tool 🙂

      • FuturePastNow
      • 6 years ago

      Agreed, the silicon has eight cores, they should sell a non-Xeon model with all eight enabled. I wouldn’t buy it- I wouldn’t be able to afford it- but it’s silly to not offer it.

    • Waco
    • 6 years ago

    The 4820 is going to be a K variant? At least they did something right.

      • Airmantharp
      • 6 years ago

      That’s really the only interesting revelation. Would be nice if they’d push the six-core variants a little lower, but I can understand wanting to protect the sales of the 4770k.

      Oh, and ECC support would be cool too.

        • Ryhadar
        • 6 years ago

        The “E” variants support VT-d as well if you’re into that sort of thing.

          • Waco
          • 6 years ago

          I hope it also includes TSX (I didn’t dig into the spec sheets to check).

            • madmilk
            • 6 years ago

            These are Ivy Bridge, not Haswell.

            • Waco
            • 6 years ago

            Reading fail. Also, forgetting that the destroy-your-wallet versions are usually a generation behind.

            Nothing to see here, move along. 🙂

      • mganai
      • 6 years ago

      Two apparent reasons: 1) The mainstream i7 K processors won’t cannibalize its sales, and 2) limited unlocks are history.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This