Ivy Bridge I3's Coming June 24th..

[Don Karnage]

Run and hide now Amd fans :whiste: :biggrin:

Source

http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-plans-on-releasing-3rd-gen-core-i3-after-june-24/16284.html

Intel announced earlier today that its 3rd-gen Core-i3 will be available after June 24th, as opposed to press reports that it won’t be available until August.

The news came out of Intel’s Taiwan branch when official clarified to the press that Intel had no intentions of withholding or delaying its entry-level Ivy Bridge CPU.

Intel just give us a K I3 Sku already. Charge 185 dollars for it. Just give it to us.

 

[ShadowVVL]

Intel just give us a K I3 Sku already. Charge 185 dollars for it. Just give it to us.

so it will be a unlocked i3? sofar it does not state its a k version its just talking about mobile.Unless you put a K by mistake.

 

[Don Karnage]

so it will be a unlocked i3? sofar it does not state its a k version its just talking about mobile.Unless you put a K by mistake.

No i was just begging Intel for them. They refuse to give them to us. It would drive amd out of the market

 

[Stoneburner]

RUn and hide, Amd fans? That seems gratuitous and unnecessary.

 

[I4AT]

Awesome! More chips to undo the 20 year old thorn in Intel's side known as overclocking!

Let's all run out and buy i3's to play Diablo 3 and support the continued removal of basic features. Consumers unite.

 

[Red Hawk]

No i was just begging Intel for them. They refuse to give them to us. It would drive amd out of the market

I was going to defend Intel's decision not to unlock any dual core parts, but really? It doesn't make sense. Intel wants to control just what is available for overclocking, because if all CPUs were unlocked the cheaper chips could possibly be overclocked to be as fast as the more expensive chips. I get that -- Intel releases more expensive unlocked chips so overclocking enthusiasts can have their fun, while protecting the rest of their product line from being subverted. Fine.

So why not release the highest clocked i3 (dual core) processor as an unlocked SKU for ten bucks more? It's NOT going to endanger more expensive product sales, because no matter how much you overclock that dual core, it ain't going to become a quad core. If they're worried about it threatening other unlocked CPU SKUs, why did they release multiple unlocked CPUs in the first place? Obviously the 2500k didn't threaten the 2600k enough to warrant not being unlocked, and the 2500k had the same physical core count, unlike a hypothetical i3 2120k would have. You just stand to gain sales from all the people who couldn't pay for the performance of a 2500k and went with an AMD processor since it was less expensive but open to overclocking.

So yeah, I'm with you on the begging.

 

[dma0991]

So yeah, I'm with you on the begging.

The presence of the mid range Core i5 2500K/3570K was enough to thwart the Core i7 2600K/3770K from being the bestseller. I reckon an unlocked Core i3 would be enormous, making the Core i5's less relevant as the best price/performance gaming CPU. Intel was wise to have locked the i3, good for their pockets as whoever wants and overclocked CPU would have to pay double the price. I'm not agreeing to what they do is right for the consumer, but from the perspective of running a business, it is a brilliant move especially when you hardly have any competition.

 

[Red Hawk]

The presence of the mid range Core i5 2500K/3570K was enough to thwart the Core i7 2600K/3770K from being the bestseller. I reckon an unlocked Core i3 would be enormous, making the Core i5's less relevant as the best price/performance gaming CPU. Intel was wise to have locked the i3, good for their pockets as whoever wants and overclocked CPU would have to pay double the price. I'm not agreeing to what they do is right for the consumer, but from the perspective of running a business, it is a brilliant move especially when you hardly have any competition.

Either way they end up with a ton of sales. With an unlocked i3 they get sales that otherwise would have gone to AMD. More sales for the i5 2500k is counterbalanced by the fact that they are selling more expensive quad core processors, after all. They stand to get a higher profit margin if they release an unclocked i3.

 

[Kristijonas]

Earlier releases from intel is a good sign for those waiting for Haswell.

 

[dma0991]

They stand to get a higher profit margin if they release an unclocked i3.

Maybe they'll get more sales from forum enthusiasts who wants to keep with the saying of taking something cheap and push it to the max. I think the profit gained is only slightly higher. If I were to exclude those who are following that saying, the average user isn't going to bother much about overclocking nor would they have the interest in overclocking and take the risk of blowing up their new rig due to their inexperience in this matter.

Lets not forget about the cost either. If an average mainstream consumer were to get a Core i3, I would've scaled the other parts(motherboard, RAM, heatsink) proportionally to the value of the processor. They could get a very low end Z77 motherboard that is proportional to the price of the processor but it wouldn't last very long or stable if he/she wanted a near 4.5GHz overclock.

Some are just not to be trusted with such flexibility. I don't trust because there are people who wants it built and forget about maintenance, I've done a couple for friends and they end up poorly maintained and dusty.

 

[lehtv]

No i was just begging Intel for them. They refuse to give them to us. It would drive amd out of the market

Not to mention a Celeron G530K or Pentium G620K (or Ivy Bridge equivalents thereof)... :'(. The perfect budget gaming CPU. Dual core Ivy Bridge @ 4GHz for $100, anyone?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Not to mention a Celeron G530K or Pentium G620K (or Ivy Bridge equivalents thereof)... :'(. The perfect budget gaming CPU. Dual core Ivy Bridge @ 4GHz for $100, anyone?

That won't happen.

 

[Kristijonas]

Seriously is it not possible to "hack" a processor into becoming unlockable? Of course it would void the guarantee, but I mean it would probably be possible to overclock a G530 to 3.5k (because it's the same chip as all others that can hit 5ghz as i5 and i7). So is it hardcoded somewhere deep in the chip and irreversible or is it simply hard to undo, so no one ventured to do it so far?

I would even question legality of Intel locking their CPUs frequencies, cores, threads and even additional memory. Because all those things are on the chip that you bought and should be for you to choose on how to use it. But that's a separate discussion.

 

[paperwastage]

Seriously is it not possible to "hack" a processor into becoming unlockable? Of course it would void the guarantee, but I mean it would probably be possible to overclock a G530 to 3.5k (because it's the same chip as all others that can hit 5ghz as i5 and i7). So is it hardcoded somewhere deep in the chip and irreversible or is it simply hard to undo, so no one ventured to do it so far?

I would even question legality of Intel locking their CPUs frequencies, cores, threads and even additional memory. Because all those things are on the chip that you bought and should be for you to choose on how to use it. But that's a separate discussion.

as for the first question, I'd say Intel physically disables the extra cache and cores(lasers them off, so impossible to reactivate it without some major chip surgery), and probably firmware locks the overclocking, so you can't deactivate it without having $$$$ equipment to scan the CPU and refix it

maybe someone could start looking www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/ to see how to reverse engineer...

as for the second, you paid for a chip that Intel says has x cores and y cache(r&d, manufacturing, support)... I dont see any legality problems.. it actually makes sense to pay for one design r&d, make it, some chips are binned to dual cores and sold as i3 etc.. instead of making 3 designs for each i3 i5 i7

only if amd stops releasing x86 chips, maybe Intel will some antitrust problems..

 

[ShintaiDK]

I would even question legality of Intel locking their CPUs frequencies, cores, threads and even additional memory. Because all those things are on the chip that you bought and should be for you to choose on how to use it. But that's a separate discussion.

You made a joke right? Because you cant possible be serious....

 

[Rvenger]

Nvm stupid post.

 

[pelov]

The diminishing presence of AMD in the desktop space is the reason we don't have core i3 unlocked chips and it's why unlocked chips cost more than locked ones. Intel forces gamers to buy a core i5 when all they'd need is a 2/4thread unlocked multiplier chip

When are the core i3 mobiles coming out? Same day?

 

[Don Karnage]

It would not drive AMD out of the market. A dual core is a dual core. You better hope that AMD stays in the market because if they don't, you will be taking a loan out for your Haswell CPU with gimped performance and no overclocking.

Rv,

There is no way if amd died that chip prices would go through the roof. The market wouldn't allow it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It would not drive AMD out of the market. A dual core is a dual core. You better hope that AMD stays in the market because if they don't, you will be taking a loan out for your Haswell CPU with gimped performance and no overclocking.

No, thats just plain wrong and utter nonsense. Intel CPUs are already priced close to, if not at the perfect margin/volume ratio. Increase price and Intels profit and revenues go down. Stop innovating and nobody buys.

I assume people often confuse this industry type with consumables that you need a constant renew of.

 

[Meghan54]

It would not drive AMD out of the market. A dual core is a dual core. You better hope that AMD stays in the market because if they don't, you will be taking a loan out for your Haswell CPU with gimped performance and no overclocking.

Rv,

There is no way if amd died that chip prices would go through the roof. The market wouldn't allow it.

No, thats just plain wrong and utter nonsense. Intel CPUs are already priced close to, if not at the perfect margin/volume ratio. Increase price and Intels profit and revenues go down. Stop innovating and nobody buys.

I assume people often confuse this industry type with consumables that you need a constant renew of.

Good responses, guys!

I still cannot believe some continue to spout the nonsense about "If AMD disappears, Intel will double its cpu prices!!! Count on it!!!"

Consider what would happen, Rvenger, if Intel did just that. Sales would crumble. New cpu releases would sit gathering dust because consumers have gotten quite used to cpu prices right where they are. Doubling prices, the scenario most gloom-and-doom predictors hang their hats onto, would be the death knell of Intel's volume of sales, something Intel depends upon to give it its revenue.

So, sales plummet, revenue tanks, and investors begin screaming.

Face it, Rvenger, Intel already enjoys essentially a monopoly position (AMD isn't very relevant in any area....market share alone demonstrates this clearly) and has yet to stick it to consumers with wildly higher prices on every release of new cpu architecture. Intead, prices are very stable and performance keeps increasing.

You really ought to take an elementary economics lesson, Rvenger, before spouting more crap and making yourself look more foolish than you've already done.

 

[Edrick]

You better hope that AMD stays in the market because if they don't, you will be taking a loan out for your Haswell CPU with gimped performance and no overclocking.

Complete lack of understanding Business 101.

Intel wants you to upgrde your CPU every 2 years and they depends on that. Regardless of the competition.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Intel wants you to upgrde your CPU every 2 years and they depends on that. Regardless of the competition.

I write this from my home e2160 @ 3.2 Ghz which is what... nearly 6 years old. All of the apps here... are running fine. The "market" that upgrades every two years isn't actually that big. Most people don't bother, in fact... a good majority already moved to the laptops.

 

[Schmide]

So the only one to look for is the Core i3-3225, aka the one with hd4000.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Think the only people who will be into this product are those coming off older amd dual core chips and low end pentium dual cores.

Doubt any of the quad core users are gonna care if this chip is unlocked,locked,the best bargain in town or a overpriced piece of silicon,the chip would have to clock to 5ghz on stock voltages before any quad core users are gonna raise a eyebrow at it.

The i3 2100 and the 2120 already do a fine job of making any amd quad core look irrelevant anyways,this is just a nail in the coffin.

 

[exar333]

Think the only people who will be into this product are those coming off older amd dual core chips and low end pentium dual cores.

Doubt any of the quad core users are gonna care if this chip is unlocked,locked,the best bargain in town or a overpriced piece of silicon,the chip would have to clock to 5ghz on stock voltages before any quad core users are gonna raise a eyebrow at it.

The i3 2100 and the 2120 already do a fine job of making any amd quad core look irrelevant anyways,this is just a nail in the coffin.

Older quad owners could very well get great benefit from this. Either C2Q budget chips or cheap AMD quads are pretty slow at gaming, these would be a huge lift for most modern games at a great price.