New IB Celerons, Pentiums, i3 etc.

[ShintaiDK]

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...Jan_20_13_Recommended_Customer_Price_List.pdf

Note the PDF got alot of 32 vs 22nm wrong. Proper information can be found on ark.intel.com.

A short version of a few new CPUs:
Desktop:
G1610 55W 2.6Ghz 42$
G1620 55W 2.7Ghz 52$
G2010 55W 2.8Ghz 64$
G2020 55W 2.9Ghz 64$
G2130 55W 3.2Ghz 86$
Mobile:
1000M 35W 1.8Ghz 86$
1020M 35W 2.1Ghz 86$
1007U 17W 1.5Ghz 86$
1037U 17W 1.8Ghz 86$

While listprices are the same on alot. OEMs pay a very different price. So dont let that fool you.

 

[sm625]

And not a single review or benchmark or even a single product that uses any of these chips. Intel has no interest in promoting these parts. The fact that they charge $86 for both the 1007U and the 1037U is more proof of that. Apparently, losing more and more share of the PC/tablet market is their goal. The fact that not a single one of these chips includes an integrated PCH only underscores that goal.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And not a single review or benchmark or even a single product that uses any of these chips. Intel has no interest in promoting these parts. The fact that they charge $86 for both the 1007U and the 1037U is more proof of that. Apparently, losing more and more share of the PC/tablet market is their goal. The fact that not a single one of these chips includes an integrated PCH only underscores that goal.

Uhh, what?

Sites hardly, if ever, review lowend parts. Simply because there is no or only very interest in it from the readers. Same reason you might have problems finding A4 5300 reviews.

Also hint of the day, twice, nobody pays listprices when buying directly from Intel. Those 86$ chips are most likely sold for around 40-50.

They would all need a new platform to incorporate the PCH.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Well I am glad to see these processors roll out. Even on the low end the boost in performance should give a little bump over the older 2nd generation processors.

 

[SPBHM]

Well I am glad to see these processors roll out. Even on the low end the boost in performance should give a little bump over the older 2nd generation processors.

well, the biggest gain is HD2000 based IGP to HD2500 I think (but without quick sync), but honestly the performance gain is minimal on the CPU side, and power usage on low clocked sandy bridge was already quite good... so... it's just a small update...

 

[Exophase]

Still no AVX. Boo Intel.

 

[Torn Mind]

Lucky bastards who buy Celeron G1610 now. You had to pay a a good 20-30 premium for the same performance in the Sandy Bridge era; you needed a Pentium G630 or G640.

 

[Piroko]

Lucky bastards who buy Celeron G1610 now. You had to pay a a good 20-30 premium for the same performance in the Sandy Bridge era; you needed a Pentium G630 or G640.

It took them 18 months to provide a performance bump of ~5% with no extra features. They even downclocked the IGP to 1050 Mhz to add insult to injury.
I wasn't expecting much, but that's just a weak offering.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It took them 18 months to provide a performance bump of ~5% with no extra features. They even downclocked the IGP to 1050 Mhz to add insult to injury.
I wasn't expecting much, but that's just a weak offering.

Agreed. Where's the cheap under-$100 IB i3 chips? Intel is just too expensive, that's why I've been buying AMD lately for builds.

 

[Torn Mind]

It took them 18 months to provide a performance bump of ~5% with no extra features. They even downclocked the IGP to 1050 Mhz to add insult to injury.
I wasn't expecting much, but that's just a weak offering.

Well, at least the HD 2500 should be slightly faster even at lower clocks, aka it's exactly the same.

 

[Arachnotronic]

And not a single review or benchmark or even a single product that uses any of these chips. Intel has no interest in promoting these parts. The fact that they charge $86 for both the 1007U and the 1037U is more proof of that. Apparently, losing more and more share of the PC/tablet market is their goal. The fact that not a single one of these chips includes an integrated PCH only underscores that goal.

AMD got curb-stomped this quarter compared to Intel.

Not sure what you mean...

 

[RU482]

why does that sheet say the Celeron and Pentium models are 32nm instead of 22nm?

 

[Arachnotronic]

why does that sheet say the Celeron and Pentium models are 32nm instead of 22nm?

That price list has a lot of typos.

 

[USER8000]

AMD got curb-stomped this quarter compared to Intel.

Not sure what you mean...

Who cares,when the PC market is collapsing?? Intel has even decided to stop making motherboards now.

Intel profits dropping nearly 30% is a big deal to a lot of people and investors more than AMD, who have always been marginal with profitibility even during the good times.

Intel stock has declined over 30% over the last year alone.

Trying to make it all look better just,because another company is doing worse,smacks of putting your head in the sand. Intel is one of the most important tech stocks,not AMD and if a company 10X the size with much bigger engineering teams and much more cash,is being squeezed it is not good news TBH.

 

[pablo87]

These new parts don't signify progress, they're being introduced for the wrong reason. It's a sell signal.

 

[cbn]

Uhh, what?

Sites hardly, if ever, review lowend parts. Simply because there is no or only very interest in it from the readers. Same reason you might have problems finding A4 5300 reviews.

Also hint of the day, twice, nobody pays listprices when buying directly from Intel. Those 86$ chips are most likely sold for around 40-50.

I wonder at what point we begin to see Intel's Wind River Android x86 matched to those the cheap ULV celerons? Maybe as a Tablet?

Just look how much more expensive A $199 Acer C7 chromebook becomes when it is built with a Windows License--> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...K?tag=at055-20

Granted the RAM is increased from 2Gb to 4Gb on the windows model, but that is not enough to account for the $120 price difference.

 

[Turbonium]

Who cares,when the PC market is collapsing?? Intel has even decided to stop making motherboards now.

Source?

 

[cbn]

Source?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6685/...board-business-to-ramp-down-over-next-3-years

 

[Turbonium]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6685/...board-business-to-ramp-down-over-next-3-years

Just saw the news on another site, but thanks.

Sad, really. I always get Intel boards whenever possible.

 

[Gideon]

I can't seem to find it anywhere, what GPUs do the mobile versions of these chips have ? HD4000 or HD2500 ? The latter would be a big BOOOOO ofc.

 

[cbn]

I can't seem to find it anywhere, what GPUs do the mobile versions of these chips have ? HD4000 or HD2500 ? The latter would be a big BOOOOO ofc.

They have "Intel HD graphics" (This is HD2500 without certain features).

http://ark.intel.com/products/71995/Intel-Celeron-Processor-1037U-2M-Cache-1_80-GHz

 

[KompuKare]

Would be interested in seeing the actual wattage of those desktop Celerons. 55W TDP seems a conservative rating. Back in the Core2 days, Celerons like the E1200 etc. performed fairly well (this is of course a relative thing: I mean for a £40 CPU) while sipping power even when overclocked quite a bit (no longer possible with SB and IB but maybe coming back for Haswell? We can but hope).

For instance the Celeron G530/G540 are rated 65W but xbitlabs measured max 70W for the whole system with a G540, while a poster at TPU measured the G530 at 55W for full system. So those 65W were possibly more like 40W.

So if these new Celerons are 'good enough' they'd make good HTPC rigs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

why does that sheet say the Celeron and Pentium models are 32nm instead of 22nm?

Because its a typo. You can actually find plenty of those in the sheet.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Who cares,when the PC market is collapsing??

PC market aint collapsing. ARM goes backwards too you know.

Intel has even decided to stop making motherboards now.

You should really read the anandtech article you link to.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Would be interested in seeing the actual wattage of those desktop Celerons. 55W TDP seems a conservative rating. Back in the Core2 days, Celerons like the E1200 etc. performed fairly well (this is of course a relative thing: I mean for a £40 CPU) while sipping power even when overclocked quite a bit (no longer possible with SB and IB but maybe coming back for Haswell? We can but hope).

For instance the Celeron G530/G540 are rated 65W but xbitlabs measured max 70W for the whole system with a G540, while a poster at TPU measured the G530 at 55W for full system. So those 65W were possibly more like 40W.

So if these new Celerons are 'good enough' they'd make good HTPC rigs.

My bet, CPU-wise, 20W tops.