Should the next mid-range i5 mobile CPUs be tri-or quad- cores?

[greatnoob]

Dual core CPUs seems to be dying and the next logical step seems like increasing core count. Since pretty much all mobile i3s and i5s CPUs are dual-core and hyperthreaded what would be the next step for Intel?

If they were to make the i5s with 4 cores and 4 threads they would be somewhat cannibalising their desktop i5 line (of course, there would be clock speed differences).

4 cores and 8 threads will not happen obviously.

3 cores and 3 threads seem to be in line with 2 core and 4 thread performance at the expense of clock speeds and increased power consumption, on top of that this would mean the desktop i3s would need a step up too

3 cores 6 threads might be an alternative to the mobile i5's 2c/4t but then of course this would mean a step up in the desktop i3's and i5's core count as they reach closer to each other in performance.

It doesn't seem clear what the next mobile revolution will be. We've been on dual cores for a looong time now. If Intel wanted to go 3/4 cores on their mid range mobile i5s they'd basically need to go 6 cores on their desktop range i5s and quad on their i3s (which we all know won't be happening any time soon). What's everybody's thought on this?

 

[jpiniero]

You have to remember that it appears that there is no more 35W M models anymore; only the 28W U. And the U line is obviously going to have to stay at dual core for awhile.

It's possible the desktop i3 could go to triple core though. It would make sense since they could dump the dual core S and just use Atom and friends for desktop Celeron and Pentium.

 

[Enigmoid]

I think they need to move the stack up for 14 nm

Desktop
i7: 6C/12T
i5: 4C/8T
i3: 4C/4T
Pentium: 2C/2T
Celeron: Atom

Easier branding. Really no point disabling HT. Doesn't change manufacturing costs one bit; its solely market segmentation.

Mobile:

i7 extreme: 6C/12T
i7: 4C/8T
i5: 4C
i3: 2C/4T (turbo)
pentium: 2C/2T (no turbo)
celeron: atom

I hope the extreme desktop platforms at 8 and 10 core for broadwell or skylake (basically a full die for their small server die size).

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dual cores, including i3 (which *is* still dual core) are far from dying out except for the very small segment of the market which is into demanding PC gaming or other heavy cpu usage. For the vast majority of enterprise and consumer uses a Haswell dual core is more than adequate. In fact manufacturers are moving down the performance chain in desktop and sneaking in atom and kabini and trying to hide it by giving them very similar names to the big cores. Granted those are "quad cores", but performance wise compared to "real" cpus, they are slower than dual haswell cores for general usage, although they look competitive in highly threaded artificial benchmarks.

As far a laptops, the trend is even clearer towards low power and dual cores. Look at Broadwell mobile, no quads at all, first out was ultra low power, then the 15w skus. Even AMD Carrizzo is focusing on small die size and improved power consumption at the expense of clockspeed.

I dont like this trend, but unfortunately that is the way it is going.

 

[jihe]

How would mobile cpus cannibalize desktop counterpart? It's not like you can stick a mobile cpu in your motherboard.

 

[Hulk]

Didn't AMD do the tri core thing because their yields were poor so they could sell the quads with one defective core as a tri core? I could be wrong but I don't think has a yield problem like that. Also they don't need to carve out a market niche to sell these parts like AMD did.

 

[frozentundra123456]

How would mobile cpus cannibalize desktop counterpart? It's not like you can stick a mobile cpu in your motherboard.

If this is related to my response, I dont really see the connection. I never meant to imply mobile is cannibalizing desktop, although the trend in sales is clearly toward mobile.

There does seem to be a gap in mobile between high end dual cores, and quads, which are pretty much all out for performance, at least as much as you can be in mobile (all are hyperthreaded with fairly aggressive turbo). However, I think if intel were interested in covering that gap, a non-HT quad with a bit lower base clocks and less aggressive turbo would be the chip of choice.

But in mobile, I think intel already considers the 15watt dual cores "mid range", and if anything wants to push the market toward lower power and better igp.

 

[greatnoob]

How would mobile cpus cannibalize desktop counterpart? It's not like you can stick a mobile cpu in your motherboard.

Think OEM not consumers.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that we are way overdue for getting mainstream 6-core Intel CPUs. Especially with the 14nm shrink. Intel is just shrinking their die sizes (while still increasing their iGPU sizes), and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[jji7skyline]

The base Haswell-E i7 isn't much more expensive than the 4790K and I doubt lntel would want to cannibalise Hasewell-E sales.

 

[Yuriman]

I think that we are way overdue for getting mainstream 6-core Intel CPUs. Especially with the 14nm shrink. Intel is just shrinking their die sizes (while still increasing their iGPU sizes), and laughing all the way to the bank.

Although hypothetically I'd like to see them available on a cheaper platform than 2011, I probably wouldn't buy one. My most recent build had an i3 in it rather than a true quad like I've been using in builds for years (since Q6600 came out, really). I'd even be tempted to replace my 3570K with a Skylake i3, depending on how the IPC improvements are, as I'm sure it'll have sufficient grunt for my needs and will be quiet and cool in a small form factor case. I might even come out ahead selling my Ivy stuff.