Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel's Haswell Refresh Processors Pricing Revealed Online

By - Source: Guru3D | B 34 comments

There you have it -- tray prices of the Haswell Refresh CPUs from Intel.

Intel has released its first Haswell Refresh processors, though you won't be able to find them on shelves just yet. This release is only for OEMs, likely so that they have time to get them into circulation. As such, the enthusiast "K" labelled products aren't on the release list. Prices below are for buying in trays of 1000 CPUs.

ModelCoresThreadsFrequencyL3-CacheTray Price
Core i7-4790483,6 GHz8 MB$303
Core i7-4790S483,2 GHz8 MB$303
Core i7-4790T482,7 GHz8 MB$303
Core i7-4785T482,2 GHz8 MB$303
Core i5-4690443,5 GHz6 MB$213
Core i5-4690S443,2 GHz6 MB$213
Core i5-4690T442,5 GHz6 MB$213
Core i5-4590443,3 GHz6 MB$192
Core i5-4590S443,0 GHz6 MB$192
Core i5-4590T442,0 GHz6 MB$192
Core i5-4460443,2 GHz6 MB$182
Core i5-4460S442,9 GHz6 MB$182
Core i5-4460T441,9 GHz6 MB$182
Core i3-4360243,7 GHz4 MB$149
Core i3-4350243,6 GHz4 MB$138
Core i3-4350T243,1 GHz4 MB$138
Core i3-4150243,5 GHz3 MB$117
Core i3-4150T243,0 GHz3 MB$117
Pentium G3450223,4 GHz3 MB$86
Pentium G3440223,3 GHz3 MB$75
Pentium G3440T222,8 GHz3 MB$75
Pentium G3240223,1 GHz3 MB$64
Pentium G3240T222,7 GHz3 MB$64
Celeron G1850222,9 GHz2 MB$52
Celeron G1840222,8 GHz2 MB$42
Celeron G1840T222,5 GHz2 MB$42

The total unit count comes up to 26 CPUs. These include Celeron processors, as well as Pentium chips, Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 chips. The release of the CPUs in boxed variants is likely to follow soon, with MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) probably slightly above the aforementioned. That said, street pricing for boxed Intel chips is almost always below MSRP pricing by a small margin, so take the prices above as a worst-case scenario guideline. Currently, the Core i7-4770 has a tray MSRP of $303, which is identical to the tray price mentioned above of the newer Core i7-4790. Since performance won't be much higher than existing parts, it'll be hard to justify an upgrade. Though if you're in the market for a new system, it's nice to know that these chips will sit at the same MSRP price point as their older counterparts, or you can make use of price cuts to which the older parts will fall victim.

Discuss
Add your comment Display all 34 comments.
  • 1 Hide
    Mike Stewart , April 16, 2014 10:38 AM
    thanks intel but i'll keep my LEGENDARY 2700K at 4.8 !!!! its easily on par if not faster than any i7-4790
  • 3 Hide
    Osmin , April 16, 2014 10:49 AM
    Waiting for Skylake for some truly refreshing technology. We should be a year away when it makes more sense for an upgrade. DDR4, PCI 4.0, SATA Express, and quadcore as lower tier with octacore processors as upper tier.
  • 4 Hide
    CaedenV , April 16, 2014 11:05 AM
    Agreed, waiting for skylake/mont before my next CPU upgrade. There is no need to upgrade the CPU anymore, it is all of the connectivity of having newer PCIe, SATA, DDR and Ethernet standards. To get any faster I would need to move up to the LGA2011 platform, but that is too rich for my blood, and I really don't need it.
  • 1 Hide
    ocilfa , April 16, 2014 11:07 AM
    @osmin: lol, let me know when we fully utilize the current versions of those technologies.
  • 4 Hide
    TheAshigaru , April 16, 2014 11:08 AM
    Why is a refresh even necessary? Isn't Broadwell coming out later this year anyway? I mean, I get the whole "tick-tock" philosophy, but this isn't even a tick...

    On the whole, I'm with Osmin. I don't see a reason to upgrade the Mobo just to put in a new CPU. Wait for other reasons like DDR4. In the mean time, my Sandy Bridge won't let me down.

    Here's to Skylake or (*gasps*) an AMD competitor!
  • 1 Hide
    jimmysmitty , April 16, 2014 11:18 AM
    Quote:
    thanks intel but i'll keep my LEGENDARY 2700K at 4.8 !!!! its easily on par if not faster than any i7-4790


    Not to downplay SB, it was a great CPU and I loved my 2500K, but as fast or faster than a overclocked 4770K? Or what a 4790K will be (if the rumors of Intel improving the thermal connection of the CPU to the IHS is true it might make them OC even better).

    On a per clock basis, Haswell is actually quite a bit faster than SB in many ways. Of course we wont see it as much as other places that can actually utilize those features.

    Quote:
    Why is a refresh even necessary? Isn't Broadwell coming out later this year anyway? I mean, I get the whole "tick-tock" philosophy, but this isn't even a tick...

    On the whole, I'm with Osmin. I don't see a reason to upgrade the Mobo just to put in a new CPU. Wait for other reasons like DDR4. In the mean time, my Sandy Bridge won't let me down.

    Here's to Skylake or (*gasps*) an AMD competitor!


    Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.
  • 0 Hide
    nitrium , April 16, 2014 11:36 AM
    Anyone know if the iGPU in the refreshes have been materially improved? Or is the iGPU unchanged?
  • 3 Hide
    TheAshigaru , April 16, 2014 11:44 AM
    Quote:
    Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.


    Absolutely. I have a Trinity A10 in my laptop, and the performance is great for what I need. I've been glad to see all that AMD has done with their APUs.

    On the flipside though, they're lagging behind Intel in terms of traditional computing power. I'm just hoping to see AMD back in the game seriously by the time Skylake comes around.
  • 0 Hide
    danwat1234 , April 16, 2014 1:14 PM
    Any new high end mobile CPUs?
  • 0 Hide
    danwat1234 , April 16, 2014 1:16 PM
    AMD needs to make some 47/57watt mobile CPUs/APUs instead of just 35w so they have a chance against Intel's mobile performance.
  • 0 Hide
    cklein , April 16, 2014 2:47 PM
    Anyone want to go in with me and 998 others and buy a tray?
  • 0 Hide
    ratchet256 , April 16, 2014 5:06 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.


    Absolutely. I have a Trinity A10 in my laptop, and the performance is great for what I need. I've been glad to see all that AMD has done with their APUs.

    On the flipside though, they're lagging behind Intel in terms of traditional computing power. I'm just hoping to see AMD back in the game seriously by the time Skylake comes around.


    Agreed, even as a total Intel fan (I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I got an AMD CPU). I also hope AMD steps up their game.

    No AMD = No competition for Intel = Monopoly = extremely bad for everyone.
  • 2 Hide
    mapesdhs , April 16, 2014 8:26 PM

    jimmysmitty writes:
    > ... but as fast or faster than a overclocked 4770K? ...

    Put bluntly, yes (though note the poster is referring to a 2700K).

    A 2700K @ 5.0 is faster than a 4770K at 4.4, and is much easier
    to cool. Every 2700K I've obtained (five so far) has been able to run
    at 5.0 no problem, no fancy cooling required, just a simple TRUE
    and two typical 120mm fans will suffice. I've been running tests on
    another setup this week, an M4EZ with multiple 3GB 580s:

    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8194171
    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8194291
    http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1966614
    http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1999089


    > On a per clock basis, Haswell is actually quite a bit faster than SB in many ways.

    Not really IMO. Certainly not 2 "generations" worth of improvements. The bump is
    so small, it's almost as if the 3770K never existed.

    Intel is sitting on its hands wrt desktop CPUs. S'funny, their financial results
    reflect a PC sales dip, yet IMO at least some of the lack of sales have to be
    down to poor upgrade options. If consumers are expected to adopt 4K, more
    advanced gaming, etc., then where are the better CPUs to go with the better
    GPUs? NVIDIA/AMD are both moving on the gfx tech, but at this rate we're
    going to have a terrible CPU bottleneck in the PC gaming platform in a year
    or so (it's bad enough already that so many reviews have to use an oc'd CPU
    in order to reduce CPU bottlenecks). Intel isn't producing better desktop CPUs
    because it doesn't have to, but I reckon there are a lot of enthusiast PC users
    who are not spending their money atm on new builds because there's nothing
    worth bothering with. We all know Intel could produce something waaay better
    for desktops than is currently available, but without the commercial pressure,
    they just won't bother.

    Ian.

  • 0 Hide
    vampelle , April 17, 2014 3:02 AM
    hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138
  • 0 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , April 17, 2014 3:46 AM
    Quote:
    hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138

    You're getting another 100MHz, too.
  • 1 Hide
    ubercake , April 17, 2014 4:57 AM
    Quote:

    Intel is sitting on its hands wrt desktop CPUs. S'funny, their financial results
    reflect a PC sales dip, yet IMO at least some of the lack of sales have to be
    down to poor upgrade options. If consumers are expected to adopt 4K, more
    advanced gaming, etc., then where are the better CPUs to go with the better
    GPUs? NVIDIA/AMD are both moving on the gfx tech, but at this rate we're
    going to have a terrible CPU bottleneck in the PC gaming platform in a year
    or so (it's bad enough already that so many reviews have to use an oc'd CPU
    in order to reduce CPU bottlenecks). Intel isn't producing better desktop CPUs
    because it doesn't have to, but I reckon there are a lot of enthusiast PC users
    who are not spending their money atm on new builds because there's nothing
    worth bothering with. We all know Intel could produce something waaay better
    for desktops than is currently available, but without the commercial pressure,
    they just won't bother.

    Ian.


    I agree completely. There just is no competition either. At this rate, I don't feel a need to upgrade my architecture (LGA2011) for two to three years and I consider myself to be a chronic upgrader.
  • 0 Hide
    vampelle , April 17, 2014 7:10 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138

    You're getting another 100MHz, too.


    i understand refresh haswell will be increased 100mhz. but what is L3cache 3mb vs 4mb.
    faster processing?

    and As i have Dell optiplex gx620 (ie very old pc pentium 4 2.8mhz), that why refresh haswell seems good for me, unless otherwise you can guide me should i go for older version.
    Say one more thing, i read haswell need more power than sandy, turning my electric bill higher? is this true.

    And AMD not here in Pakistan for very long time now. and importing will over cost the processor. and mainly no warranty
  • 1 Hide
    TheAshigaru , April 17, 2014 9:55 AM
    Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

    As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

    As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

    What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

    You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

    Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.
  • 0 Hide
    vampelle , April 17, 2014 10:13 AM
    Quote:
    Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

    As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

    As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

    What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

    You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

    Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.


    Thank you. i also was thinking the same thing, but needed to confirm :) 

    can you also help in the other question of mine.

  • 0 Hide
    mf Red , April 17, 2014 11:20 AM
    @vampelle haswell is more energy efficient than sandy. You will spend less on your power bill.
Display more comments
React To This Article