Trending

Intel Quietly Launches Ten New Mobile Processors

By

It may have been a long weekend but somebody over at Intel was in the office. Intel on Sunday quietly slipped a total of nine new Haswell processors and one new Celeron into its price list without any fanfare. The price list shows no other changes.

These are all mobile processors and the nine new Haswell additions are split between Intel’s Core i5 and Core i7 families. The four new Core i5 processors are the 4310M, the 4310U, the 4340M, and the 4360U. All four boast two hyper-threaded cores and pack 3 MB of L3 cache. The Core i5-4310M features Intel HD 4600 graphics and is clocked to 2.7 GHz while the Core i5-4310U is clocked to 2 GHz and features Intel HD 4400 graphics. These are priced at $225 and $281, respectively. The Core i5-4340M boasts a frequency of 2.9 GHz and HD 4600 graphics and is priced at $266. Rounding out the new additions to Core i5 family is the Core I5-4360U. This chip sports a 1.5 GHz frequency, HD 5000 graphics and a price tag that reads $315.

The new Core i7s include the Core I7-4940MX Extreme Edition, which debuts at $1096. This quad-core CPU packs 8 MB of L3 cache, a clock speed of 3.1 GHz, and integrated HD 4600 graphics. Next up is the quad-core Core i7-4910MQ with 8 MB of L3 cache, clock speed of 2.9 GHz and HD 4600 graphics. It’s priced at $568. The Core i7-4810MQ is clocked at 2.8 GHz, packs HD 4600 graphics, and costs $378, while the Core i7-4860HQ is clocked to 2.4 GHz, boasts HD 5200 graphics and costs $434. Both include 6 MB of L3 cache. Lastly, there’s the Core i7-4610M, which packs 4 MB of L3 cache, two cores and a 3 GHz clock speed. It costs $346 and comes with HD 4600 graphics.

Rounding out the lot is a new uLV Celeron. This dual-core CPU is clocked to 1.1 GHz and packs 2 MB of L3 cache. It’s priced at $107.

Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • danwat1234 22 January 2014 07:40
    I'm assuming the 4940MX had a turbo of 4GHZ, so it's 100MHZ faster in both the base clock and the turbo clock versus the 4930MX. Not much performance increase there. Overclocking opportunities on laptops with good cooling solutions? There is no more FSB so it's more complicated.
    Reply
  • jerm1027 22 January 2014 09:37
    There is no more FSB so it's more complicated.
    I'm not sure if you've just been living under a rock, or simply don't know what FSB is. Front Side Bus was the connection of the north bridge to the CPU. Tweaking the FSB had the unwanted side effect of also changing memory speed as well, since at the time the memory controller was on the northbridge chipset. So, you had a series of checks and balances, and actually had to run stress tests on your memory in addition to the CPU. With modern unlocked CPUs, there isn't an FSB because a lot of the northbridge (or chipset) is integrated into the CPU itself, and has been replaced by faster standards (DMI, QPI, or HyperTransport). Since the multiplier is unlocked, you can just raise that to overclock and done. No memory to worry about, don't have to worry about your northbridge, memory controller, etc. It's actually gotten simpler.
    Reply
  • guvnaguy 22 January 2014 09:49
    While I'm all for lots of options, I must say I miss the Core 2 days when there were far fewer numbers and letters to keep track of. I barely get the naming scheme now.
    Reply
  • cypeq 22 January 2014 12:32
    Jane use tables, please.
    Reply
  • InvalidError 22 January 2014 14:12
    12503884 said:
    While I'm all for lots of options, I must say I miss the Core 2 days when there were far fewer numbers and letters to keep track of. I barely get the naming scheme now.
    I'm just annoyed with how mobile chips are just a mess of chips that follows desktop specs roughly one rung lower... the mobile i7 lineup is a mess of desktop i3/i5/i7 specs (some dual-core chips, some quad-core chips, some with HT, some without), the mobile i5 lines up with the desktop i3 (dual-core with HT), the mobile i3 is somewhere between desktop Pentium and i3, etc.

    IMO, there is way too much hair-splitting and inconsistencies (with desktop models) in Intel's mobile lineup.
    Reply
  • cypeq 22 January 2014 14:29
    12503884 said:
    While I'm all for lots of options, I must say I miss the Core 2 days when there were far fewer numbers and letters to keep track of. I barely get the naming scheme now.
    I'm just annoyed with how mobile chips are just a mess of chips that follows desktop specs roughly one rung lower... the mobile i7 lineup is a mess of desktop i3/i5/i7 specs (some dual-core chips, some quad-core chips, some with HT, some without), the mobile i5 lines up with the desktop i3 (dual-core with HT), the mobile i3 is somewhere between desktop Pentium and i3, etc.IMO, there is way too much hair-splitting and inconsistencies (with desktop models) in Intel's mobile lineup.
    This is intentional... effort to misslead unaware customer. Customer will possibly know that i7 is the best of range. what he doesn't know is that he's buying desktop i3 labled as i7. It's probably legal because they don't hide real specs from buyers... only most of them don't understand any of that.

    Same goes for moblie gpu market where under desktop name X you get X minus two performance tiers.
    Reply
  • Keyrock42 22 January 2014 14:33
    "The four new Core i5 processors are the 4310M, the 4310U, the 4340M, and the 4360U. All four boast two hyper-threaded cores and pack 3 MB of L3 cache."Hold up, did Intel change its naming scheme or did I have it wrong the whole time? I thought i7 = 4 cores hyperthreading, i5 = 4 cores, no hyperthreading, i3 = 2 cores hyperthreading.
    Reply
  • InvalidError 22 January 2014 15:16
    12504950 said:
    Hold up, did Intel change its naming scheme or did I have it wrong the whole time? I thought i7 = 4 cores hyperthreading, i5 = 4 cores, no hyperthreading, i3 = 2 cores hyperthreading.
    Nah. The model branding/numbering between desktop and mobile has always been messed up like that. Even with desktop models those general descriptions go out the windows when you look at low-power T/S variants.

    You really cannot rely on model number or product line with Intel's "simpler" numbering scheme. The simplest way to compare models these days is to use tables.

    I find it ironic how Intel used to say the alphabet soup after the CPU architecture designation and clock speed as model numbers was "confusing" - seeing what they did to make things "simpler," the alphabet soup from the 386-P4 days seems like the simplest model numbering scheme Intel has ever had: pick a CPU family, pick a clock frequency, find the letters that correspond to the features you want, that's your model number now all you need to do is find the closest match.
    Reply
  • vmem 22 January 2014 16:01
    only when you're Intel, is releasing 10 CPUs a 'quiet' business lol
    Reply
  • Keyrock42 22 January 2014 16:37
    12505220 said:
    12504950 said:
    Hold up, did Intel change its naming scheme or did I have it wrong the whole time? I thought i7 = 4 cores hyperthreading, i5 = 4 cores, no hyperthreading, i3 = 2 cores hyperthreading.
    Nah. The model branding/numbering between desktop and mobile has always been messed up like that. Even with desktop models those general descriptions go out the windows when you look at low-power T/S variants.

    You really cannot rely on model number or product line with Intel's "simpler" numbering scheme. The simplest way to compare models these days is to use tables.

    I find it ironic how Intel used to say the alphabet soup after the CPU architecture designation and clock speed as model numbers was "confusing" - seeing what they did to make things "simpler," the alphabet soup from the 386-P4 days seems like the simplest model numbering scheme Intel has ever had: pick a CPU family, pick a clock frequency, find the letters that correspond to the features you want, that's your model number now all you need to do is find the closest match.
    Thanks for your reply. It doesn't make me any less confused, but that's Intel's fault, not yours.

    As for the switch from the supposedly complicated (yet in retrospect quite simple) old naming scheme to the new "simple" (yet in reality convoluted and needlessly complicated) naming scheme, I would imagine that "simplicity" was just a guise, the reality of the situation was that using clock speed as part of the naming scheme became exceedingly less attractive when they ran into the 4 GHz thermal brick wall.
    Reply