Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

More Details on Ivy Bridge Models "S" and "T" Emerge

By - Source: ComputerBase | B 59 comments

Leaked details point to possible "T" and "S" models of Ivy Bridge CPUs.

With the The First Intel Ivy Bridge CPU Clock Speeds and More story from earlier this week, we caught some of the early details of the first Ivy Bridge chips, which is set to release in April 2012. Now, with some more leaked information from Chinese site Corecn, via German site ComputerBase, we find out more information on S and T model numbers. 

The table provides a full listing of remaining eight upcoming models, including model number, base frequency, cache size, cores/threads, memory speed, turbo boost speeds, Intel HD graphics, frequency / dynamic frequency and TDP ratings. It appears that Ivy Bridge will have similar clock speeds to current generation Sandy Bridge CPUs, just with a lower TDP based on Intel's transition to 22 nm from 32 nm transistor design.

Processor
Base Frequency (GHz)
Total Cache (MB)
Cores / Threads
Memory Speed Support (DDR3)
Turbo Boost max single core (GHz)
Intel HD Graphics
Frequency / Dynamic Frequency (MHz)
TDP (W)
Core i7-3770S
3.10
8
4 / 8
1600, 1333
3.90
4000
650/1150
65
Core i7-3770T2.50
8
4 / 8
1600, 13333.70
4000650/115045
Core i5-3570S3.10
6
4 / 4
1600, 13333.80
2500650/115065
Core i5-3570T2.30
6
4 / 41600, 13333.30
2500
650/115045
Core i5-3550S3.00
6
4 / 41600, 13333.70
2500650/115065
Core i5-3475S2.90
6
4 / 41600, 13333.60
4000650/110065
Core i5-3470S2.90
6
4 / 4
1600, 13333.60
2500
650/110065
Core i5-3470T2.90
3
2 / 4
1600, 13333.60
2500
650/110035
Core i5-3450S2.80
6
4 / 41600, 13333.50
2500650/110065
Core i5-3330S2.70
6
4 / 41600, 13333.20
2500650/105065

S - Performance-optimized (low power with 65W TDP), T – Power-optimized (ultra low power with 35-45W TDP)

Features shared by all the above mentioned Ivy Bridge CPUs are a 2-channel integrated memory controller; and all but the Core i5-3450S and i5-3330S have Intel's SIPP 2012, vPro 2012, VT-d, TXT, and AES-NI support.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 19 Hide
    rebel1280 , December 2, 2011 6:21 PM
    at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already :(  . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.
  • 15 Hide
    SpadeM , December 2, 2011 6:33 PM
    rebel1280at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.

    The GHz race was the rage when performance scaled with frequency so the point was going up-up and of course going up meant power hungry and hot processors. But at a distinct point in time, a light bulb lit in one engineers head and he thought "what if performance can scale upwards with improvements in architecture rather than just plain speed". So back to the drawing board and there u have it, speed obtained through "cleverness" rather then "brute force".
  • 11 Hide
    CaedenV , December 2, 2011 6:41 PM
    rebel1280at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.

    The GHz race died some 6-7 years ago when AMD figured out that they could kick intel's ass in optimizing design rather than raw speed. Then intel took that cue and came out with the Core solo/duo and Core 2 duo/quad and AMD has been playing catchup ever sense. Also they found that there are issues with power constraints and stability going past 5GHz, as the power requirement started turning exponential, and then running that much power causes damage to the processor so things start dying quickly.

    But ya, there was a time when the P4s were coming out that they thought they could push the micro-burst architecture to some 15GHz before they would have to change their processor design... obviously this did not work out.
Other Comments
    Display all 59 comments.
  • 2 Hide
    deathengine , December 2, 2011 6:15 PM
    I will take a 3570S please.
  • 19 Hide
    rebel1280 , December 2, 2011 6:21 PM
    at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already :(  . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.
  • 9 Hide
    soo-nah-mee , December 2, 2011 6:26 PM
    Looks like there's not much reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge unless you really want that energy savings.
  • 2 Hide
    anonamouse77 , December 2, 2011 6:28 PM
    I think there's gonna be a lot of headroom for overclocking on Ivy Bridge, next year is going to be awesome.
  • 2 Hide
    phatbuddha79 , December 2, 2011 6:31 PM
    Looks like they downclocked from SB...strange. I thought they could keep the same thermal and power savings draw but can raise the frequency higher due to moving to tri-gate 22nm.
  • 2 Hide
    jprahman , December 2, 2011 6:32 PM
    Long story short, power consumption and heat. The high clock speed Pentium 4s started drawing about 125W once they got to the 3.8Ghz range, and for reasons of power consumption and heat that just wasn't economical. It seems like 125W is about the ceiling for most processors, past that point is gets very difficult to go much higher economically.
  • 15 Hide
    SpadeM , December 2, 2011 6:33 PM
    rebel1280at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.

    The GHz race was the rage when performance scaled with frequency so the point was going up-up and of course going up meant power hungry and hot processors. But at a distinct point in time, a light bulb lit in one engineers head and he thought "what if performance can scale upwards with improvements in architecture rather than just plain speed". So back to the drawing board and there u have it, speed obtained through "cleverness" rather then "brute force".
  • 9 Hide
    billj214 , December 2, 2011 6:39 PM
    Looks to me like this Ivy Bridge will greatly help sales of notebooks with the lower TDP and increased graphics power!
  • 11 Hide
    CaedenV , December 2, 2011 6:41 PM
    rebel1280at the risk of sounding totally noob on this website, an inquiring mind wants to know: What happened to the GHz race? i thought we would be at 5GHz already . please no flaming, i sincerely want to know.

    The GHz race died some 6-7 years ago when AMD figured out that they could kick intel's ass in optimizing design rather than raw speed. Then intel took that cue and came out with the Core solo/duo and Core 2 duo/quad and AMD has been playing catchup ever sense. Also they found that there are issues with power constraints and stability going past 5GHz, as the power requirement started turning exponential, and then running that much power causes damage to the processor so things start dying quickly.

    But ya, there was a time when the P4s were coming out that they thought they could push the micro-burst architecture to some 15GHz before they would have to change their processor design... obviously this did not work out.
  • -7 Hide
    jn77 , December 2, 2011 6:47 PM
    hummm no 6 core 12 thread or 8 core/ 16 thread cpu's.... fail/skip/bypass
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 2, 2011 6:55 PM
    @dgingeri

    er no, it's an exponential thing, given the current material technology, as you approach 5GHz the internal friction starts to take over and the thing starts to exponentially heat up, to go beyond 5GHz without the aid of exotic cooling requires the utilization of different semi-conductor material
  • 5 Hide
    kyuuketsuki , December 2, 2011 7:01 PM
    jn77hummm no 6 core 12 thread or 8 core/ 16 thread cpu's.... fail/skip/bypass

    Seeing as these are aimed at the mainstream desktop market, that's not surprising. More disappointing is that they weren't able to (or simply chose not to) push the clock speeds higher. Not much to interest anyone over Sandy Bridge unless you want/need the lower TDPs.

    The notebook/ultrabook variants will be interesting, though.
  • 1 Hide
    bildo123 , December 2, 2011 7:05 PM
    phatbuddha79Looks like they downclocked from SB...strange. I thought they could keep the same thermal and power savings draw but can raise the frequency higher due to moving to tri-gate 22nm.


    Kinda meet half wayish. I little bit of a downclock but a solid reduction in TDP. The 2500k TDP is 95W while the equivalent 3570S is 65W and only 100Mhz slower. I don't think I'll upgrade though since I'm not running at the full 95W 24/7 and the money lost in selling the 2500k probably wouldn't exceed the money gained in energy consumption.
  • 2 Hide
    danwat1234 , December 2, 2011 7:25 PM
    Hmm, only the top two models have HD4000 graphics, which was the graphics silicon that we saw 3dmark vantage benchmarks charts a day or two ago on tomshardware with Sandy Bridge HD2000 vs Ivy HD4000. All the rest are HD2500 graphics. I wonder what laptop chips will have HD4000 graphics?
  • 0 Hide
    danwat1234 , December 2, 2011 7:31 PM
    I along with a lot of you are also disappointed in the lack of new enthusiast chips that push the envelope. It'll be interesting to see if the overclocking steps are the same as SBridge and if Throttlestop can help.
    Maybe Intel is getting lazy.
  • -6 Hide
    dgingeri , December 2, 2011 7:32 PM
    danwat1234Hmm, only the top two models have HD4000 graphics, which was the graphics silicon that we saw 3dmark vantage benchmarks charts a day or two ago on tomshardware with Sandy Bridge HD2000 vs Ivy HD4000. All the rest are HD2500 graphics. I wonder what laptop chips will have HD4000 graphics?


    Those benchmarks were HD3000 vs HD4000, not HD2000.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 2, 2011 7:36 PM
    Are these desktop or notebook processors???
  • 2 Hide
    maximiza , December 2, 2011 7:39 PM
    good upgrade from an S939 opteron 185 definitly
  • 2 Hide
    Raidur , December 2, 2011 7:42 PM
    45w @ 2.5ghz, 3.7ghz turbo, 8MB Cache, and HT?!

    Wow Intel, just... wow.
Display more comments