Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel to Launch 10W and 13W Ivy Bridge CPUs in 2013

By - Source: VR-Zone | B 30 comments

Prior to releasing Haswell processors in 2013, Intel will be introducing five significant Ivy Bridge processors for notebooks.

As seen in a slide from VR-Zone, what makes this CPUs special is the fact that Intel will be dropping the thermal design power of its ULV processors for the first time in several years. While the current lineup is designed for at least 17 watts power consumption, the upcoming dual-core Core i3-3229Y, Core i5-3239Y, Core i5-3439Y, and Core i7-3689Y will be dropping to 13 watts. Intel will even be launching a Pentium dual-core that is rated at just 10 watts.

Don't expect performance monsters with clock speeds between 1.1 GHz and 1.5 GHz, but there are clearly interesting opportunities for innovative Ultrabook designs and we would be surprised if those CPUs did not end up in a microserver design, which calls for CPUs that consume less than 15 watts. These specific Ivy Bridge processors will also come with a technology that will allow system vendors to limit the TDP of the CPUs even further (cTDP). The i-series will then run at 10 watts, and the Pentium at 7 watts.

All five new CPUs are expected to launch in Q1 2013.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 30 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 15 Hide
    bison88 , December 5, 2012 8:56 PM
    bavmanMy su3700 from 3 years ago does 1.3ghz stock and 1.6ghz overclocked still at 10W TDP. I realize that the IB architecture is better than core2duos but couldn't that have bumped up clock speed a little bit?Still this is pretty cool. We might start getting affordable ultrabooks at do 10+ hours



    The difference is your Core2Duo didn't have Intel's integrated GPU. That sucker will be sucking on most of the power as well as taking up most the die real-estate and any advantages from the smaller node process.
Other Comments
  • 5 Hide
    bavman , December 5, 2012 8:49 PM
    My su3700 from 3 years ago does 1.3ghz stock and 1.6ghz overclocked still at 10W TDP. I realize that the IB architecture is better than core2duos but couldn't that have bumped up clock speed a little bit?

    Still this is pretty cool. We might start getting affordable ultrabooks at do 10+ hours
  • 9 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 5, 2012 8:54 PM
    How interesting that in just one architectural and die shrink upgrade (about 2-3 years), a 13W i7-3689-Y has only about half as much computing power as my laptop's 45W i7-720qm (1.6 GHz, quad core), and sips about one fourth less power.
  • 15 Hide
    bison88 , December 5, 2012 8:56 PM
    bavmanMy su3700 from 3 years ago does 1.3ghz stock and 1.6ghz overclocked still at 10W TDP. I realize that the IB architecture is better than core2duos but couldn't that have bumped up clock speed a little bit?Still this is pretty cool. We might start getting affordable ultrabooks at do 10+ hours



    The difference is your Core2Duo didn't have Intel's integrated GPU. That sucker will be sucking on most of the power as well as taking up most the die real-estate and any advantages from the smaller node process.
  • 7 Hide
    zorky9 , December 5, 2012 8:57 PM
    they should slap one of these onto a a Surface sku for added battery life.
  • 7 Hide
    joytech22 , December 5, 2012 9:07 PM
    I wonder how these will compare to my E-450 system (CPU-Side) and the newer E2-1800's.
  • 2 Hide
    hate machine , December 5, 2012 9:20 PM
    Maybe the Surface Pro will launch with these. Both are scheduled for Q1 2013... and information on the Pro only states an IB i5.
  • 3 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 5, 2012 9:40 PM
    bison88The difference is your Core2Duo didn't have Intel's integrated GPU. That sucker will be sucking on most of the power as well as taking up most the die real-estate and any advantages from the smaller node process.


    You can always set BF3 in software rendering mode...

    Oh wait, it's not the early 2000's anymore.
  • 0 Hide
    bustapr , December 5, 2012 10:24 PM
    i wish mobile arm manufacturers would make improvements in this same direction. All I see is arm chips becoming faster and faster each gen, but the battery chugging stays the same, which is often horrid.
  • 1 Hide
    nitroexplosion , December 5, 2012 11:19 PM
    Well looks like the SoC future chip rumors are true, look at the packaging BGA, i hope Intel keeps the high-performance chips on LGA for us Computer Gamers if not looks like AMD will finally catch up
  • 6 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 5, 2012 11:33 PM
    hydac7the performance on those CPUs will suck ultra bad and not many will want those


    I think a 2500K would be a tad overkill for mobile word processing, email checking and movie watching, right?
  • 2 Hide
    tomfreak , December 5, 2012 11:37 PM
    why cant they just drop the Atom desktop board and release Ivy bridge on these area? 1.1GHz Ivy is still gonna smoke Atom no matter what.
  • 3 Hide
    bustapr , December 5, 2012 11:37 PM
    hydac7the performance on those CPUs will suck ultra bad and not many will want those

    performance isnt the market. battery life is. and this is aimed for the common person who hates heavy ass laptops and love long lasting batteries.
  • 4 Hide
    ta152h , December 5, 2012 11:47 PM
    joytech22I wonder how these will compare to my E-450 system (CPU-Side) and the newer E2-1800's.


    They'll crush those processors. No comparison. I have an E-450, and it's a dog compared to these chips.

    E2-1800s are only very slightly improved, they'll also get absolutely crushed.

    The question is immaterial anyway, in most respects. The E-450 and E2-1800 are obsolete, and will be replaced soon. The Jaguar will be out, and will have roughly 25-30% more processing power, use less power, and in some configurations have four cores. That's what these processors will be competing against, and considering the small size of the Jaguar, competing on price as well as performance should not be terribly easy.
  • -4 Hide
    piesquared , December 6, 2012 12:04 AM
    Why does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell?? ;) 
  • 2 Hide
    whyso , December 6, 2012 12:37 AM
    piesquaredWhy does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell??


    I think this is intel's testing grounds for ULV 10-13 watt chips. Get everything worked out so that when 10 watt haswell comes out, everything is working fine.
  • 3 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 6, 2012 12:39 AM
    piesquaredWhy does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell??


    What's wrong with trying to expand the mobile sector market-share?
  • 0 Hide
    madjimms , December 6, 2012 12:47 AM
    I can't wait for 10-watt high-performance chips! In 10 years gaming PC's will be super efficient & (hopefully) not suck up 500-1200watts of juice$$$
  • 1 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 6, 2012 1:09 AM
    madjimmsI can't wait for 10-watt high-performance chips! In 10 years gaming PC's will be super efficient & (hopefully) not suck up 500-1200watts of juice$$$


    In 10 years, at least one developer would've released another Crysis-like game, utilizing all of the latest computing power hungry mechanics and stuff.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 6, 2012 1:27 AM
    "Don't expect performance monsters with clock speeds between 1.1 GHz and 1.5 GHz"

    Thank you for being honest about that one. Some people act like these ULV chips provide great performance, which they don't. My standard TDP Ivy Bridge laptop at twice the clock speed isn't a performance monster, and cutting the clocks in half isn't going to help that very much.
  • 2 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 2:10 AM
    A Bad DayHow interesting that in just one architectural and die shrink upgrade (about 2-3 years), a 13W i7-3689-Y has only about half as much computing power as my laptop's 45W i7-720qm (1.6 GHz, quad core), and sips about one fourth less power.


    More than half the CPU performance (frequency and core count aren't everything) and has a decent IGP too. Power consumption and TDP also aren't the same thing. Chances are that it's closer to one fifth or one sixth the power most of the time.
Display more comments