Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

New Mainstream Intel Haswell Core i3, i5, Pentium Appear

By - Source: CPU-World | B 31 comments
Tags :

The folks over at CPU-World and ShopBLT spotted and priced a number of upcoming budget and mid-range "Haswell" processors that will be arriving on the market shortly and bear Pentium, Core i3 and Core i5 branding.

Starting off with the entry-level Pentiums, the G3220, G3420 and G3430 are dual-core processors with a 54 W TDP, 3 MB L3 Cache, and clock rates of 3 GHz, 3.2 GHz and 3.3 GHz, respectively. Unsurprisingly, the three processors do not feature support for Hyper-Threading or Turbo Boost, but do include an integrated graphics processor (IGP) clocked at 1100 MHz.

The Pentium G3220 has been priced at $70, the G3420 at $90 and the G3430 at $100.

Moving on, the three new dual-core Core i3 CPUs feature the same 54 W TDP and lack of Turbo Boost as the Pentiums, but include an Intel HD Graphics 4400 IGP clocked at 1150 MHz and support for Hyper-Threading.

The Core i3-4130 features a 3.4 GHz clock rate, 3 MB cache and is priced at $137. The Core i3-4330 and i3-4340 both feature a 4 MB L3 cache, clock rates of 3.5 GHz and 3.6 GHz and prices of $154 and $165, respectively.

The Core i5-4440, a quad-core processor which offers a 3.1 GHz clock rate that is Turbo Boosted to 3.3 GHz, 6 MB L3 Cache, Intel HD 4600 Graphics clocked at 1100 MHz, and a TDP of 84 W. It seems to be a recurring feature of this post that the CPU does not offer support for Hyper-Threading and is priced at $197.

Further information is available at the source linked above. It's worth mentioning that many of the aforementioned processors are available for pre-order at ShopBLT should you feel like doing some "sight unseen" shopping this week.

Display 31 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 23 Hide
    Grandmastersexsay , August 25, 2013 2:10 PM
    How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?
  • 15 Hide
    squeeks , August 25, 2013 3:27 PM
    Quote:
    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.
Other Comments
  • 3 Hide
    expl0itfinder , August 25, 2013 12:10 PM
    An i3 for $165? Yeah, right. AMD's next move better be a good one.
  • 1 Hide
    Justin Pinotti , August 25, 2013 1:36 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)
  • -4 Hide
    razorblaze42 , August 25, 2013 1:39 PM
    Too bad Intel socket 1150 is such a nightmare, stupid bent pins, and void warranties...I'm going back to AMD
  • 0 Hide
    Greybush , August 25, 2013 1:43 PM
    Haswell? more like Hasfail.
  • 23 Hide
    Grandmastersexsay , August 25, 2013 2:10 PM
    How much cheaper could they be without the integrated graphics that builders don't want?
  • 2 Hide
    Justin Pinotti , August 25, 2013 2:37 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 15 Hide
    squeeks , August 25, 2013 3:27 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , August 25, 2013 3:48 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 5 Hide
    cupholder , August 25, 2013 4:43 PM
    Enjoy your FX-6350 which barely bests an i3 in some things.
  • 5 Hide
    tomfreak , August 25, 2013 5:46 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.
  • -1 Hide
    InvalidError , August 25, 2013 6:47 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    ojas , August 25, 2013 8:41 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...
  • 2 Hide
    tului , August 25, 2013 8:54 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , August 25, 2013 9:47 PM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 2 Hide
    jimmysmitty , August 25, 2013 10:12 PM
    Quote:
    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.

    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    Da_Man , August 26, 2013 1:51 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


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

    Quote:

    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.


  • 0 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , August 26, 2013 2:48 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.
  • 0 Hide
    ammaross , August 26, 2013 7:45 AM
    Quote:
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    AMDRadeonHD , August 26, 2013 8:32 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.
  • 0 Hide
    InvalidError , August 26, 2013 9:17 AM
    Quote:
    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.
Display more comments