Skip to main content

Intel Delays CPUs With iGFX Until 2010

A leaked Intel slide shows delays for upcoming "Havendale" and "Auburndale" processors that feature integrated graphics.

A recently leaked Intel slide, assuming it can be believed, has revealed Intel’s updated roadmap for mainstream Nehalem platforms and it would seem Intel has some changes in mind. Apparently due to "customer feedback" and "2008 client platform learnings", Auburndale and Havendale will now be pushed back for release into January 2010. According to earlier leaked Intel roadmaps, Havendale was previously planned for Q3 of 2009 alongside Lynnfield, but now it would seem that only Lynnfield will be available in time for Christmas 2009.

When given the chance to comment on the news, Intel stated it had not announced release dates yet, but assured us that Auburndale, Havendale, Clarksfield and Lynnfield are targeted for production in 2H 2009.

Havendale and Auburndale will feature a GPU integrated alongside the CPU in the same processor packaging, with Havendale being for mainstream and value desktops and Auburndale for mobile PCs. Both Havendale and Auburndale will have two cores each, with the ability to add a discrete graphics solution also. The reason for the delay of Havendale and Auburndale may have something to do with their integrated graphics, as Intel has taken quite a bit of criticism lately for delivering poor performing graphics solutions on their current platforms: maybe Intel has decided it needs to further increase performance? With all the talent Intel has been rumored to be hiring lately for developing Larrabee, Intel should really not have any excuse for only being capable of producing weak integrated graphic solutions. There is also the possibility that Intel may be wishing to give a longer life span to current platforms, with or without a refresh to the platforms, in an attempt to appease clients.

Intel would not disclose any new details about Havendale or Auburndale when questioned, but did tell us that these processors are targeted for mainstream market segments and should be great products for both consumers and businesses. By integrating the graphics and providing an integrated memory controller that supports DDR3, there apparently should be a dramatic increase in performance over current IGP solutions and a savings on board layout costs.

For many, the delay of Havendale may not be of much concern, as Lynnfield is still expected on time, which will target mainstream and performance desktop systems using discrete graphic solutions. Havendale will feature two cores, while Lynnfield will feature four. Future notebook buyers may however find the news that Auburndale will be delayed a disappointment, as integrated graphics are commonly used in notebooks and any boost there in speed would be welcomed to more than just entry-level buyers. Additionally, due to the lack of competition in the high-end market for Intel right now, Intel may be considering a delay also for Sandy Bridge, the successor to the 32nm die-shrink of Nehalem.

Intel is not the only company pushing back anticipated processors it seems though as AMD has had a roadmap slide leak of its own, indicating two of its Phenom processors based of its upcoming Deneb core will be delayed until January 8th, 2009. Previously expected to be released before the end of 2008, there are concerns that maybe things are not running as smoothly for AMD as it has been claiming. The AMD Phenom FX processor based on the Deneb FX core is rumored to be expected out in mid-2009 and assuming there are no delays in getting it to market, Intel may finally have some welcomed competition again in the high-end market.

In the end, Intel and its clients may enjoy the tick and tock pattern they have developed over the years, which does ensure sufficient life cycle for their products, but to consumers that feel Intel is holding back its faster products, it stops seeming like Intel is really trying to leap ahead.

  • GlItCh017
    Tick and Tock is great and all. But it's time Intel gets digital with it's release pattern.
    Reply
  • JAYDEEJOHN
    They may be making the greatest cgpu ever made (cause itll be the ONLY one ever made ) in Larrabee, but to me this only shows Intel doesnt know how to make a decent igp, or gpu in traditional form. Itll simply get mowed over by anything AMD puts out in fusion form. What Im saying is, if theyre going to do this, its a moot point if the graphics side turns to failure, even if their cpus may be superior at that time
    Reply
  • JAYDEEJOHN
    Also, ummm what customers? Its either a disgruntled public concerning their igps, or its the oems...hmmm
    Reply
  • RADIO_ACTIVE
    Innovation is a good thing and should take time to do things correctly. Yes it will probably fail but who knows it could be the future. Only time will tell.
    Reply
  • well the delay is true. but the reason given in this article is incorrect, keep digging, the truth is out there. here's a hint: it's a "technical" delay on the silicon test side.
    Reply
  • biohazard420420
    Frankly all IGP products are/should be focused on the business sector imo anyway. Anyone wanting even decent performance graphic wise will/should always go with a discreet solution. Anyone going with an IGP product that wants to do any gaming is crazy as even a cheap discreet card will out perform them. And frankly businesses are not all that concered with graphic performance when it comes to their machines. You can bring up laptops but again a discreet card is always the better option and besides gaming on a laptop is really a minor use for the laptop in general if you want to game on a laptop pay for it dont get a run of the mill laptop and be disappointed you cant run games at a decent frame rate. It would be nice to see IGP solutions that can hold up to a basic amount of gaming as ATI demonstrated with is last IGP solution, but then again is that REALLY the point of a IGP board in the first place. And yes I did ignore Vista because well Vista sucks IMO and I prefer XP. Besides Vista wasn't really or at least isn't designed to run on IGP solutions well.
    Reply
  • TheFace
    Integrated graphics are immensely important to the market. If they come out with both the CPU and GPU on one chip, that will allow for less packaging and less power consumption. Less power consumption means longer battery lives. Also, in an HTPC format, if either of these is powerful enough, they would make for a great small form factor HTPC.
    Also, you are correct, business computers would benefit from this, but also your 18 year old non-gamer college student. Does that cover Biohazard's useless commentary?
    (in short, IGP is not for intense gaming, and if you have anything more to say about that, think before typing.)
    Reply
  • JAYDEEJOHN
    Dont forget average Joe who buys that must have first time computer for little Johnny, and lil Johnny wants to game. Current igps (other than Intels) allow for some kind of gaming experience, especially for all the lil Johnnies in the world, which only helps to plant the seeds for future pc gamers
    Reply
  • TheFace
    Your scenario relies on the consumer not being informed. Which is a very common situation. Go into a bestbuy or a circuit city and get them to give you their sales pitch on a computer. Sometimes they are not well informed. The market is so broad with its offerings that it is hard for Mr John uninformed buyer to tell the difference between two computers that have the same processor speed and same amount of ram. Alas, this is the world in which we live, and a person should really get informed before plunking down $400 on a desktop when they should really move up to that pricey $600 one.
    This combo will really benefit business users and college students. Think about how many computers a large university has and how often they upgrade. Now about the power usage of all those computers and the cooling required for the labs. (Ever been in a computer lab without AC? NOT fun) It's all about minimizing power and space. Not gaming.
    Reply
  • tim851
    The problem ist not really that Intel's IGPs are weaklings, they are perfectly adequate for 90% of users who rely on IGPs in the first place. The problem is that they still consume more power than their more 3D capable counterparts from nVidia and AMD. They lack in the performance-per-watt category.

    Reply