Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

New Mainstream Intel Haswell Core i3, i5, Pentium Appear

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2013 12:10:08 PM

An i3 for $165? Yeah, right. AMD's next move better be a good one.
Score
3
August 25, 2013 1:36:40 PM

Intel you sure are funny with those prices.. I'll stick with my $110 vishera 6-core at 4.8GHz that supports unlocking, overclocking, hyper-threading and all that jazz without having to pay extra (im looking at you, i7)
Score
1
Related resources
August 25, 2013 1:39:25 PM

Too bad Intel socket 1150 is such a nightmare, stupid bent pins, and void warranties...I'm going back to AMD
Score
-4
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2013 1:43:29 PM

Haswell? more like Hasfail.
Score
0
August 25, 2013 2:10:55 PM

How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?
Score
23
August 25, 2013 2:37:35 PM

Grandmastersexsay said:
How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?


Integrated graphics are a nice addition for someone building a computer piece by piece. This way they can use the integrated graphics to get by while their save up for an expensive GPU.
Score
2
August 25, 2013 3:27:09 PM

Justin Pinotti said:
Intel you sure are funny with those prices.. I'll stick with my $110 vishera 6-core at 4.8GHz that supports unlocking, overclocking, hyper-threading and all that jazz without having to pay extra (im looking at you, i7)


I think you mean Hyper TRANSPORT, completely different than Hyper Threading. One is a bus system the other is a method of doubling the logical cores in a system.
Score
15
a c 135 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 3:48:37 PM

expl0itfinder said:
An i3 for $165? Yeah, right.

As much as I personally prefer Intel CPUs mostly due to power efficiency, I have to agree that Intel is pushing their luck much too far with those prices. The i5-3350P and i5-3330 used to retail for roughly that price at their lowest point last year. The i3-3225 retailed for $125 through most of 2012 so a nearly $30 jump to $154 for its nearest Haswell equivalent is pretty extreme.

At such high prices, if you're planning to buy into i3-3xxx, might as well step up to i5-4xxx.
Score
0
August 25, 2013 4:43:24 PM

Enjoy your FX-6350 which barely bests an i3 in some things.
Score
5
August 25, 2013 5:46:14 PM

Intel should have retain 65w TDP can clock i3 higher. the gap between i5 vs i3 is soo huge, that there is absolutely no reason to buy i3. @ the same price, people would have gone FX-6300 series or just top up to i5.
Score
5
a c 135 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 6:47:21 PM

Grandmastersexsay said:
How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?

Not all that much since the main reason for integrating a low-end IGP in all mainstream CPUs is to make the die large enough to fit all the solder balls under the die so you would end up paying for die area that does absolutely nothing instead of paying for an IGP you might use for DirectCompute, OpenCL, QuickSync, backup graphics, etc. On Xeons, the huge L3 cache and extra cores provide the surface area.

If you look at the 3350P vs 3470, you save only $10 from losing the IGP and 100MHz base + 300MHz Turbo so the 3350P is not really worth bothering with: the 3470 is 10% faster for 5% more cash so the IGP is effectively free.
Score
-1
August 25, 2013 8:41:15 PM

Lol i get that the clocks are high and all, but it's still a HT enabled dual core...$165 is a bit too close to the i5s.

@squeeks no i think s/he meant hyper threading, in the sense of 2 int cores and a single shared floating point. It's incorrect, i know, but i think that's what was meant...
Score
0
August 25, 2013 8:54:58 PM

InvalidError said:
Grandmastersexsay said:
How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?

Not all that much since the main reason for integrating a low-end IGP in all mainstream CPUs is to make the die large enough to fit all the solder balls under the die so you would end up paying for die area that does absolutely nothing instead of paying for an IGP you might use for DirectCompute, OpenCL, QuickSync, backup graphics, etc. On Xeons, the huge L3 cache and extra cores provide the surface area.

If you look at the 3350P vs 3470, you save only $10 from losing the IGP and 100MHz base + 300MHz Turbo so the 3350P is not really worth bothering with: the 3470 is 10% faster for 5% more cash so the IGP is effectively free.


Shame they have no real competition. They might be forced to give consumers an option to use that extra area for cache and cores too. Instead of only offering it on chips that start at 1000 dollars.
Score
2
a c 135 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 9:47:00 PM

tului said:
Shame they have no real competition. They might be forced to give consumers an option to use that extra area for cache and cores too.

To offer an option, there has to be a large enough market to support the R&D, tooling, stock-keeping, distribution, etc. costs.

No point in producing CPUs for a market that isn't large enough to justify making a product for it. The majority of PCs out there see very little use beyond office applications and media playback. These systems have no use for more cache nor more cores but they do need IGP to skip the extra cost of discrete graphics so for the low-end segments, the IGP is a lot more valuable.

Most games hardly make any use of more than two cores and usually make a decent job at processing data stream in such a way as to minimize cache misses so adding cores and cache has little to no benefits for most games: look at how many games are practically ties between i5 and i7 despite the i7 having 2MB extra cache and 30-40% extra potential processing power with HT.

While lack of competition may be a factor, lack of demand certainly does not help - there is not enough demand for more processing power in mainstream segments. If someone invented something as wildly popular as Youtube for both work and home that required an i7-4770 or FX8350 to work properly, I bet there would be a major product shuffle to accommodate that since it would render anything below that worthless - i7-4770/FX8350 would now be considered the new reference for low-end performance. That's what needs to happen if you want to see Intel make i3 quads, i5 hexa and i7 octo.
Score
1
a c 127 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 10:12:19 PM

Justin Pinotti said:
Intel you sure are funny with those prices.. I'll stick with my $110 vishera 6-core at 4.8GHz that supports unlocking, overclocking, hyper-threading and all that jazz without having to pay extra (im looking at you, i7)


They are only priced that way because that 4.8GHz CPU you have is not able to perform as well as the equivalent Intel.

If AMD ever makes a better CPU than Intel, you wont be getting such great deals. Instead you will pay prices much like Intels current lineup, and that means that 6 core 4.8GHz CPU of yours would have been $500 bucks.

razorblaze42 said:
Too bad Intel socket 1150 is such a nightmare, stupid bent pins, and void warranties...I'm going back to AMD


I have built well over 100 systems since Intel went to the LGA system and not once have I bent any pins nor have I seen a single motherboard with bent pins off the shelf.

The reason why mobo companies do not warranty bent pins is because they have them checked and then have a protector placed. Most every time I have had a customer bring back a motherboard and claim the pins were bent off the shelf, give them some time to stew and they will admit they bent them.
Score
2
August 26, 2013 1:51:03 AM

I agree with this one, 1150, 1155 are easily bent, my full of bug asrock z68 motherboard right now is being repaired for bent pins, yeah i bent it, but its because its easily bent, even the store acknowledged bent pins are common with intel especially when people using big after market cooler, and its the first thing they check when i bring them, i dont mind to pay even though its still under warranty because its my fault, but the pin shouldn't easily bent like that.

the store doesn't even ask to asrock for the price since they already know it, which means bent pins are common.

last thing, don't buy asrock motherboard, their quality and support sucks, try google asrock z68 extreme 4 bsod, they still haven't fix that bug, next time i upgrade i will stick to as*s or gig*byte


razorblaze42 said:
Too bad Intel socket 1150 is such a nightmare, stupid bent pins, and void warranties...I'm going back to AMD

jimmysmitty said:

I have built well over 100 systems since Intel went to the LGA system and not once have I bent any pins nor have I seen a single motherboard with bent pins off the shelf.

The reason why mobo companies do not warranty bent pins is because they have them checked and then have a protector placed. Most every time I have had a customer bring back a motherboard and claim the pins were bent off the shelf, give them some time to stew and they will admit they bent them.


Score
0
a b å Intel
a c 195 à CPUs
August 26, 2013 2:48:47 AM

The thing with making another die is that setup costs would kill it. Currently I'd imagine there are maybe 3 different Haswell dies - dual core, dual core with extra-nice GPU, and quad core.

Same reason the 760 and 770 use the same chip - the 760 would be no cheaper if they built a new one for it that's smaller, because few enough are sold to overcome the $1m+ setup costs for a complex die on a cutting-edge manufacturing line.
Score
0
August 26, 2013 7:45:25 AM

InvalidError said:
Most games hardly make any use of more than two cores and usually make a decent job at processing data stream in such a way as to minimize cache misses so adding cores and cache has little to no benefits for most games...
If someone invented something as wildly popular as Youtube for both work and home that required an i7-4770 or FX8350 to work properly... That's what needs to happen if you want to see Intel make i3 quads, i5 hexa and i7 octo.


The new XBox and PS4 consoles will have octo-core CPUs (and underwhelming GPUs) which will drive console (and thus PC-port) game development to utilize up to 8 CPU cores (if to simply save the wimpy GPU from doing some work, so it can push more polygons). When this happens, you'll have your Youtube popularity that should hopefully push Intel to make hexa/octo-core chips more mainstream. Of course, the i7 series has "hyperthreading" which allows for 8 threads. Intel may consider that as good as 8 cores... Since AMD openly threw in the towel as far as the high-end performance race (remember when they discussed their "vision" for mainstream and mobile and their shift away from enthusiast desktop?), Intel doesn't have to worry.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2013 8:32:49 AM

Intel should put Intel HD 4600 to all Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5 and i7 and make the same ones without Intel HD 4600, so people who can build the whole gaming computer save up money without Intel HD 4600 in their processor and people who can't build the whole gaming computer at once (That means part after part) can have the intergrated Intel HD 4600, that would be so awesome.
Score
0
a c 135 à CPUs
August 26, 2013 9:17:25 AM

ammaross said:
The new XBox and PS4 consoles will have octo-core CPUs (and underwhelming GPUs) which will drive console (and thus PC-port) game development to utilize up to 8 CPU cores

Whether or not that will make any difference as far as PC ports are concerned remains to be seen. Keep in mind that individual cores on the PS4 and XOne will only be about half as fast as current desktop cores. There is also no guarantees that console developers will actually make that much of an effort to use all eight cores on consoles.

Also, there is a high probability that some of console games' most CPU-hungry features might not make it to the PC: how many PC gamers would have any remote interest in air-gesture control using HD cameras instead of keyboard and mouse? I for one have nowhere near enough space around my PC to accommodate Kinect-style gaming on my PC even if I wanted to and from my experiences with Kinect at one of my friends' parties, I wouldn't want to use air gestures as a primary input method.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2013 9:29:59 AM

"Has Well" stick with my core i5-2500k,
Score
1
August 26, 2013 9:32:17 AM

When will they release the Celeron versions?
Score
1
a c 135 à CPUs
August 26, 2013 9:44:36 AM

digiex said:
When will they release the Celeron versions?

Intel has plans to bring Atom into the Celeron and Pentium ranges so I'm guessing Haswell variants might be few and far between.

Details of Haswell Celerons are still sketchy aside from the Celeron 2955U for laptops, HTPCs and other places people might want a budget sub-15W chip.
Score
0
August 26, 2013 10:18:58 AM

AMDRadeonHD said:
Intel should put Intel HD 4600 to all Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5 and i7 and make the same ones without Intel HD 4600, so people who can build the whole gaming computer save up money without Intel HD 4600 in their processor and people who can't build the whole gaming computer at once (That means part after part) can have the intergrated Intel HD 4600, that would be so awesome.


Honestly, I suspect it has to do with corporate sales (where intel makes a metric crap ton of money). A company that wants a low power chip to save on energy and upfront costs doesn't want to waste money on a more powerful iGPU than is needed. Sure $1-2 a month and $5/PC isn't much but when you've got 10,000 computers it adds up. So, Intel uses lower power and lower cost iGPU designs.
Score
0
a c 135 à CPUs
August 26, 2013 8:05:39 PM

Narcissistic_Martyr said:
Honestly, I suspect it has to do with corporate sales (where intel makes a metric crap ton of money).

And just about any application that requires little more than a box you can attach a mouse, keyboard and screen to. In many of those cases, a tablet, laptop or all-in-one would be even better as long as the price is right - I'm not going to put a full-blown desktop PC in my kitchen... but I could imagine putting a portable AiO with desktop docking/charging stand - only needs to be powerful enough to browse, play videos, display photos and little else.
Score
0
August 26, 2013 8:49:41 PM

Da_Man said:
...the store doesn't even ask to asrock for the price since they already know it, which means bent pins are common.


I have to disagree that one store not going to the motherboard manufacturer means that the Intel socket is faulty.


Da_Man said:
last thing, don't buy asrock motherboard, their quality and support sucks, try google asrock z68 extreme 4 bsod, they still haven't fix that bug, next time i upgrade i will stick to as*s or gig*byte


This I can agree with.
Score
0
August 26, 2013 11:26:27 PM

Those prices getting tired of your shit intel.
Score
0
a b å Intel
a c 195 à CPUs
August 27, 2013 11:15:07 PM

AMDRadeonHD said:
Intel should put Intel HD 4600 to all Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5 and i7 and make the same ones without Intel HD 4600, so people who can build the whole gaming computer save up money without Intel HD 4600 in their processor and people who can't build the whole gaming computer at once (That means part after part) can have the intergrated Intel HD 4600, that would be so awesome.


Pulling HD4600 out doesn't reduce the cost though; you just have wasted die space. Which costs money.

There's a reason they have the i3-3225 et al, and I'd imagine that's going to continue into Haswell. An i5-4435 or similar would be good though
Score
0
September 4, 2013 1:51:49 AM

Still no unlocked dual core!!??
Score
0
September 30, 2013 9:31:00 AM

Hmmm an i3 for $160 or a FX 8320? Seriously Intel who do you think wants an i3 for 160? However those Pentiums do look enticing.
Score
0
a c 135 à CPUs
September 30, 2013 9:51:54 AM

Warped_Ghost said:
Hmmm an i3 for $160 or a FX 8320? Seriously Intel who do you think wants an i3 for 160? However those Pentiums do look enticing.

A year ago, i3 started around $125... Intel is getting greedier. I bought my i5-3470 for $180 last year and now it is listed at ~$195 in most stores.

It is almost as if Intel wanted to get rid of i3 and force people to choose between Pentium and i5.
Score
0
!