Should Intel release a Unlocked Multiplier dual core for Ivy Bridge, Haswell, etc

[Haserath]

Lets imagine a hypothetical 200000mm^2 wafer. You would make 2000 100mm^2 CPUs and 1250 160mm^2 CPUs. Or put another way more than 50% increased yield from the same production area.

But that doesn't translate to cost directly...

I mean to say, if each of those wafers costed $5000, they would only save a couple of dollars per cpu. Even a 300mm^2 cpu would be under $10 with that pricing, with perfect yield and whatnot.

I don't know what all of the variables could possibly be with maximizing profit and what the unlocked dual would do.

Higher volume now also translates to less purchases later with how things are going.

 

[NTMBK]

This poll is missing a "unlock the multiplier on all chips!" option.

 

[ShintaiDK]

At least three scenarios I can think of at the moment:

1. Unlocked i3 or Pentium will result in a shift of enthusiast sales away from the more expensive Intel processors like the i5 and i7. (This is bad for Intel)

2. Unlocked i3 or Pentium will result in a shift of sales from AMD to Intel. (This is good for Intel)

3. Unlocked i3 or Pentium will result in people satisfied with their old Core 2 duo processors.....and who would not have purchased any CPU otherwise.....to finally upgrade to the new unlocked i3 or Pentium. (This is good for Intel)

Why no 4th with unlocked i3 collecting dust on the shelves? I doubt many, if even any in here for example would buy an unlocked i3 for say 175$ if they had the chance. I am sure many would say so in their posts. But when the day comes, they all stick to i5 and i7.

a reasonable priced K dual core would sell decently and have a positive impact for their brand I think.

Decently to who? You? I am sure if it was a good idea Intel would do it. They dont seem to lack economic knowhow. Plus they already tested the market. And the market said, no thanks.

 

[ShintaiDK]

how about every chip being unlocked

This poll is missing a "unlock the multiplier on all chips!" option.

How about counterfeits? Not like we lack any of such examples from past history

 

[SPBHM]

Decently to who? You? I am sure if it was a good idea Intel would do it. They dont seem to lack economic knowhow. Plus they already tested the market. And the market said, no thanks.

not only just me, there is a good amount of people that would be interested, overclocking sells, I've seen a lot of cheap boards with overclocking features (apart from the latest Intel platform, which are locked because Intel demands), also they tested in a platform where unlocked multiplier was useless, why would you need a K Pentium wofldale, when you can buy a FSB200 pentium wolfdale (which can run higher than FSB400)?

Intel makes more money selling a $230 unlocked CPU than they would do with a $150 unlocked CPU, or a $200 locked CPU.

so you don't need the reason to be "It will not sell", to not release something, which would interfere with your more profitable products,

 

[ShintaiDK]

not only just me, there is a good amount of people that would be interested, overclocking sells, I've seen a lot of cheap boards with overclocking features (apart from the latest Intel platform, which are locked because Intel demands), also they tested in a platform where unlocked multiplier was useless, why would you need a K Pentium wofldale, when you can buy a FSB200 pentium wolfdale (which can run higher than FSB400)?

Intel makes more money selling a $230 unlocked CPU than they would do with a $150 unlocked CPU, or a $200 locked CPU.

so you don't need the reason to be "It will not sell", to not release something, which would interfere with your more profitable products,

You still assume that people would, and in big enough volume to justify, buy the i3 K over the i5 or i7.

Overclocking is a small segment as well. >99% of all Intel CPUs sold are locked.

 

[SPBHM]

You still assume that people would, and in big enough volume to justify, buy the i3 K over the i5 or i7.

Overclocking is a small segment as well.

yes I do, I assume a decent amount of people would buy a cheaper 4.5GHz capable dual core ivy bridge with HT over a more expensive 3GHz I5 (or a 4.5GHz and even more expensive quad core)

if overclocking is so small, someone forgot to tell the MB and cooling companies,
and why p, z chipsets? why allowing to adjust bclk for lga 2011?

 

[ShintaiDK]

yes I do, I assume a decent amount of people would buy a cheaper 4.5GHz capable dual core ivy bridge with HT over a more expensive 3GHz I5 (or a 4.5GHz and even more expensive quad core)

if overclocking is so small, someone forgot to tell the MB and cooling companies,
and why p, z chipsets? why allowing to adjust bclk for lga 2011?

It got PR value. And bclk adjustment comes back on LGA1150 with added ratio modifiers. Simple reason why you dont have it on LGA1155 today. Besides LGA1155 we had that option...for many many years.

Also P/Z is for more than overclocking. Its also to run SLI/CF for example.

As i said, I doubt many, if any at all in here, would buy an unlocked i3 at 175$ if it arrived. People would stick to the quads instead.
Its no different from charity. Usually polls show that 95% or more would give to it. But when it rings on the doorbell, less than 10% actually gives anything. Rest are just full of excuses. Same applies here.

 

[SPBHM]

It got PR value. And bclk adjustment comes back on LGA1150 with added ratio modifiers. Simple reason why you dont have it on LGA1155 today. Besides LGA1155 we had that option...for many many years.

Also P/Z is for more than overclocking. Its also to run SLI/CF.

As i said, I doubt many, if any at all in here, would buy an unlocked i3 at 175$ if it arrived. People would stick to the quads instead.

you talk about the insignificance of overclocking and use SLI/CF to defend the P/Z?

unlocked cheap CPU would have good PR value,

certainlly the price shouldn't be as high, the average price for an i3 is around $120, the average extra for the K version was $20, I think, at $150 this could appeal to a group I'm sure...

a high clocked i3 would be great for gaming and cheaper, also fun for enthusiasts to play with, something the regular i3 isn't, but as I said, this would take away sales from more expensive CPUs I believe... as a overclocking capable h61 and B75 would for the Z chipset..

 

[sm625]

Why would the majority ever vote for more restrictions, in any poll? Putting aside reasonable expectations, why ever choose anything but the most open and consumer friendly option? (The answer is obvious if you simply look at the thread titles in P&N. It's that darned L-word.)

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why would the majority ever vote for more restrictions, in any poll? Putting aside reasonable expectations, why ever choose anything but the most open and consumer friendly option? (The answer is obvious if you simply look at the thread titles in P&N. It's that darned L-word.)

Exactly.

 

[ShintaiDK]

you talk about the insignificance of overclocking and use SLI/CF to defend the P/Z?

unlocked cheap CPU would have good PR value,

certainlly the price shouldn't be as high, the average price for an i3 is around $120, the average extra for the K version was $20, I think, at $150 this could appeal to a group I'm sure...

a high clocked i3 would be great for gaming and cheaper, also fun for enthusiasts to play with, something the regular i3 isn't, but as I said, this would take away sales from more expensive CPUs I believe... as a overclocking capable h61 and B75 would for the Z chipset..

The current top bin i3 is 147$. Meaning it cant be below that. And the unlocked i5 carries a 24$ premium.

So you say it would take sales away. Shouldnt the poll reflect this then? Unlocked i3, but 20$ more for an i5 K model?

Z77 48$
H77 43$
Z75 40$
B75 37$.

Everyone still buys Z77 instead of Z75. And for the same reason there wont be a Z85. The market yet again decided it didnt want it. When the time to vote with the wallet arrived.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I know it is not feasible, but I personally would definitely like a G4xxK equivalent processor for Haswell just for proof of concept of excellent single-core performance.

Yep, now that could be fun. I have no doubts that a G4xx could reach 4.5-5GHz easily... :ninja:

What everyone here is failing to realize is that there IS a partially unlocked dualcore with HT already on the market... :sneaky:

(if you guys can't find it here is the link. Oh, and requires a Z77 MB... )

 

[parvadomus]

I hope no, that would hurt AMD even more. And its not good for Intel neither, as less people would buy low end i5s.

 

[SPBHM]

The current top bin i3 is 147$. Meaning it cant be below that. And the unlocked i5 carries a 24$ premium.

So you say it would take sales away. Shouldnt the poll reflect this then? Unlocked i3, but 20$ more for an i5 K model?

Z77 48$
H77 43$
Z75 40$
B75 37$.

Everyone still buys Z77 instead of Z75. And for the same reason there wont be a Z85. The market yet again decided it didnt want it. When the time to vote with the wallet arrived.

the trouble with the z75 is lack of availability (from the motherboards manufacturer side I think), if the MB was $10 cheaper with the rest unchanged (apart from the chipset related changes), why not? but in reality some z77 boards are cheaper, there is just a higher volume, looking on newegg the cheapest z77 cost the same as the cheapest z75, in that case... why bother... with a $8 cheaper chipset and the same price... oh well, no wonder no one is buying z75...

as for the i3, it's true that the most expensive i3 is badly priced, but that's why I used "average", the average i3 uses the most basic IGP, the K i3 could be something different, to hold some appeal it would have to cost less than $175, so they should give you no HD4000 (maybe no IGP at all, like the 2550K) and a lower default clock (I still find it interesting that the K, the overclock friendly CPUs come with the best IGP, when most IGP users go with cheaper CPUs...), and a $150 or lower price.... if the cost was to high, than it would fail of course, but I don't see why Intel couldn't sell it for less, apart from... killing i5 sales.

I'm pretty sure the most expensive i3 is not selling well compared to the 3220.

my point is, there is a lot of demand for a cheaper overclockable CPU (the AMD offerings do that, but they have some clear disadvantage), but why would Intel do that, if they can get more money selling the 3570K? or a locked i5.

for a $175 dual core I doubt there is a lot of interest, so you are right about this scenario, but I would like to see a cheap K i3 to compete with the FX 6300 or something (max $150), but Intel doesn't really have good options from $140 up to $ 180...

 

[Kenmitch]

They should at least have a 4ghz dual core chip. Unlocked would be cool tho.

 

[cbn]

Plus they already tested the market. And the market said, no thanks.

1. Yes, Clarkdales and a very small amount of wolfdales were released with unlocked multipliers, but on those two lines of chips an unlocked multiplier was not needed for overclocking. This, no doubt, made the K models (like Intel Core i5-655K Clarkdale) less popular.

2. No only that, but the unlocked clarkdale dual core was actually more expensive than the regular (and overclockable) Lynnfield quad core. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3742/intels-core-i5655k-core-i7875k-overclocked-and-analysed-

3. Furthermore, the IPC on the Clarkdale dual core came out worse than expected (possibly due to the memory performance being so bad --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/2). This also helped make quad core chips (like Lynfield) more attractive to enthusiasts.

 

[moonbogg]

No, because if people have the know how to OC then they are enthusiast enough to get a proper CPU.

 

[Kenmitch]

No, because if people have the know how to OC then they are enthusiast enough to get a proper CPU.

Your statement kinda shoots itself in the foot....In the days of past the true enthusiasts would purchase the lower end chip and overclock it to perform equal to or greater than chips double it's price. I'm sure I'm not the only one that misses the days of cranking up the FSB instead of toying with a multiplier caveman style.

 

[moonbogg]

Your statement kinda shoots itself in the foot....In the days of past the true enthusiasts would purchase the lower end chip and overclock it to perform equal to or greater than chips double it's price. I'm sure I'm not the only one that misses the days of cranking up the FSB instead of toying with a multiplier caveman style.

Those were the days of single cores or dual cores being used for everything. Today, no dual core, no matter how overclocked can run modern games. If gaming is on the agenda, then its at least a quad or bust. And more and more, its a quad with HT or bust.

 

[zebrax2]

I voted yes to all since that is what i want. It probably doesn't make much sense though for Intels POV as that may hurt they're sales e.g. people opting for OCed pentiums/celerons intead of i3s

No, because if people have the know how to OC then they are enthusiast enough to get a proper CPU.

You are assuming though that all that OC have enough spare money to spend for i5/i7 which is not true

 

[cbn]

Those were the days of single cores or dual cores being used for everything. Today, no dual core, no matter how overclocked can run modern games. If gaming is on the agenda, then its at least a quad or bust. And more and more, its a quad with HT or bust.

Do you have any examples to share?

I know Skyrim is a very popular game and optimized for quad core, but notice this reviewer claims dual core is still sufficient:

http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

The game appears to only be optimized for quad-core processors, as just four threads of the Core i7-2600K were active when playing. However, of those four threads, only one reached between 90–100% while the other three worked at around 30–50%. This means a decent dual-core processor should have no trouble playing Skyrim.

 

[SPBHM]

Skyrim is dual core only as far as I know, the advantage from faster CPUs comes from clock and cache I think (SB-E is faster than IVY I think)

now, most games use more than 2 cores better than Skyrim, but even so, some 3.2GHz i3 (dual core, but with high IPC, HT, fast IMC) can keep up with older quad cores quite well, now I have 0 reasons to believe a 4.5GHz dual core HT ivy wouldn't do really well at any game, if a 3GHz version can still do decently in almost any game.

 

[Concillian]

It makes little business sense to release one. Not for the reasons claimed above (I'm sure they'd sell well), but more because the people who want unlocked multipliers seem to be willing to pay for the i5 and i7 parts. If I remember correctly, shortly after release, the Intel rep on here stated that the k parts were the highest selling individual retail skus. It would make little sense to make a cheaper alternative when the more expensive ones sell so well.

We would all like fast procs for $50 (or fast cars for cheap, or cheap food, or cheap houses), but that doesn't mean it makes sense (or is possible) to sell them to us at that price. Especially not after we've shown we are quite willing to spend more. This doesn't make the company evil. It makes the company smart.

This one.

People ate up the quad Ks, Intel has no reason to lower ASPs by offering an alternative.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This one.

People ate up the quad Ks, Intel has no reason to lower ASPs by offering an alternative.

Agreed. While it'd be a great chip if priced right, Intel would be under cutting themselves. They'd lose $200+ CPU sales to $125 CPU's. Unless the margins on this part are huge (small die?) I can't see it happening.