Intel's Mobile Ivy Bridge CPU Line-up Revealed in New Leak

[tecmo34]

Intel's Ivy Bridge mobile platform broken down by M-Series and U-Series Processors.

Intel's Mobile Ivy Bridge CPU Line-up Revealed in New Leak : Read more

 

[pent5ht]

seems like IVY is more of a GPU increase......enthusiasts favor CPU perf. because they already have GPU's this is more for HP, etc prebuilt companies that wont need onbaord gpu.s

 

[Pyree]

Interesting. No i3.

 

[fyasko]

[citation][nom]pent5ht[/nom]seems like IVY is more of a GPU increase......enthusiasts favor CPU perf. because they already have GPU's this is more for HP, etc prebuilt companies that wont need onbaord gpu.s[/citation]

...or people who want lower TDP and less noise/heat, not to bash you but not everyone wants a huge "gaming rig" or workstation.

 

[nottheking]

Looking at these compared to the existing Sandy Bridge notebook CPUs, it would appear that all we're really seeing is a +200 MHz clock rate bump across the board; TDPs are otherwise the same for each segment, as are L2 cache and core-count figures. The only other difference is the HD 4000 graphics, which really don't mean all that much anyway. (especially to enthusiasts)

I wonder how this will translate onto desktops: a 200 MHz bump will likely only be a mild improvement, and still keeps Intel well below the 4.0 GHz mark... Though from what I'd seen, Ivy Bridge will actually mean a TDP drop on desktop CPUs, even if it didn't for laptop ones. (i.e, the 95W for top-end non-extreme i5s and i7s would go to 65W)

[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]Interesting. No i3.[/citation]
The listed CPUs only seem to correspond to replacing the top one or two Sandy Bridge CPUs for each broad segment; there's almost certainly some i3s out there, as well as lower-clocked i5s and i7s.

[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]...or people who want lower TDP and less noise/heat, not to bash you but not everyone wants a huge "gaming rig" or workstation.[/citation]
...Except that TDP actually *wasn't* dropped; I just compared the chart with those of Sandy Bridge ones; TDPs remain the same. This actually somewhat disappoints me, since Ivy Bridge promised to give lower TDPs for desktop CPUs... It just won't for mobile CPUs.

 

[Guest]

uhhm, it allows motherboards to utulize pci E 3.0 and beter usage of ssd cache aswell.
Its not a big increase from sandy, nor is the price. so just get one of these, i dont want to buy a sandy now, since i got 2 580 GTX in sli for graphics and a OC i7 -930, and console ports keep coming. next year april this will be a perfect upgrade, the PCI-e3 might mean super GPU's. maybe the graphics card limitations are gona nearly double to to the speed boost the companies get.

Dont just always look at specs, features also play a big role. And since im into gaming and OCing, this CPU gives alot of improved features. also new Mobo Series aswell we might get some improved bios etc..

you can only call it crap after release, like bulldog is crap. but beforehand it looked like major competition for intel, but when it was put to the test it was horrible. for its specs its horrible.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]fgdasd3f3[/nom]uhhm, it allows motherboards to utulize pci E 3.0 and beter usage of ssd cache aswell.Its not a big increase from sandy, nor is the price.[/citation]
Well, I can see that the former might be of particular value to ultrabooks, but I honestly do have questions on the value of PCI-e 3.0 for laptops: it only really pays off with higher-end cards in a lower-end motherboard: the big difference only shows when you're, say, SLi'ing GTX 580s with a x8 slot for each. Given that mobile GPUs tend to be half the potency of their desktop brethren, this might be of a limited impact.

 

[ojas]

It is interesting to see that all the mobile processors have a higher max graphics clocks versus their desktop equivalents (1300 vs 1150).

Probably because Intel realises that most desktop users who buy an Intel proc will use discrete graphics...for notebooks to use less power (by forfeiting an ext. GPU) while still remaining capable, they'd have to do this.

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Except that TDP actually *wasn't* dropped; I just compared the chart with those of Sandy Bridge ones; TDPs remain the same. This actually somewhat disappoints me, since Ivy Bridge promised to give lower TDPs for desktop CPUs... It just won't for mobile CPUs.[/citation]
Well, in a way they have. Not in absolute numbers, but efficiency wise. I'm assuming the 17W procs will now pack as much punch as the earlier 25W ones, hence the 25W parts were pulled.
And remember, these are average TDP values. Maybe the maximum power draw is closer to the average TDP now? Or idle mode wattage will be lower?
Plus you have to consider that this TDP value includes the IGP. So yeah, performance/watt has gone up, even if the TDP is the same.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Not in absolute numbers, but efficiency wise. I'm assuming the 17W procs will now pack as much punch as the earlier 25W ones, hence the 25W parts were pulled.And remember, these are average TDP values. Maybe the maximum power draw is closer to the average TDP now? Or idle mode wattage will be lower?Plus you have to consider that this TDP value includes the IGP. So yeah, performance/watt has gone up, even if the TDP is the same.[/citation]
Yes, efficiency's defeinitely improved, but it's been more a marginal increase rather than a distinct step increase. As I'd mentioned, the highest end of each segment was basically bumped by 200 MHz; so that means that they were able to squeeze that extra speed without a TDP increase. It's not a huge increase, though; and of course, the old Sandy Bridge chips also had the HD 3000.

To put it into perspective, we'd have to look at the best Intel offered with each core at each TDP point: while TDPs are more of a "limit," the highest-end ones generally would be all comparable:

55W - SB: 4C 2.7/3.7 GHz CPU, 650/1.3 GHz MHz GPU, 8MB L3. IB: 4C 2.9/3.8 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.3 GHz GPU, 8MB L3.
45W - SB: 4C 2.4/3.6 GHz CPU, 650/1.3 GHz MHz GPU, 6MB L3. IB: 4C 2.7/3.7 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.25 GHz GPU, 6MB L3.
35W i7 - SB: 2C 2.8/3.5 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.3 GHz GPU, 4MB L3. IB: 2C 2.9/3.6 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.25 GHz GPU, 4MB L3.
35W i5 - SB: 2C 2.6/3.3 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.3 GHz GPU, 3MB L3. IB: 2C 2.8/3.5 GHz CPU, 650 MHz/1.2 GHz GPU, 3MB L3.

All other specs are essentially the same, barring the change between the HD 3000 and HD 4000, the PCI-e 3.0 support, and the improved SSD support. I noticed that the Turbo frequency for the GPU, though, is actually LOWER below the high-end i7s on Ivy Bridge. In the end, the IBs are more efficient than the SBs, but it's only a small evolutionary step, and perhaps less than expected from a full-on die shrink from 32nm to 22nm.

 

[billybobser]

Having a competitive gpu on die makes sense to me, as the mass market is non enthusiast (as people point out every day). It gives oem's a cheaper/much better option and in doing so, is trying to compete in a sector that AMD is doing really well in.

Would be nice if the GPU could be used (effectively) in conjuction with a discreet card so it would be of use to every market sector, though I guess this is unlikely. As it will be expensive to get right, and there's probably no money in getting it right.

 

[ksampanna]

You don't have to deliver huge jumps in mobile processors' performance. It's not like we buy them for Folding@Home. Performance similar to the current generation is acceptable, just give it to me at a lower TDP. I'm definitely in favour of the increased battery life.

 

[stonedatheist]

I think a 35w quad core part would have been nice even if it has the same clocks as the i7-2760QM. Early rumors suggested there would be one but I guess that is either not the case or it will come 6 months later when the faster clocked parts get released. Too bad

 

[Guest]

You folks doth complain too much. You get a bump of 200 MHz which is NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT! You are getting an GPU that performs 3x better. You get the SSD caching support. You also get USB3.0 onboard... up to 4 slots with the non ultrabook motherboards. The PCI 3.0 won't do much for you and the only disappointment is not putting the thunderbolt in there. The world must not be ready for $50 cables or something. Really a heck of an upgrade for a tock. This is perfect for people who want to save battery life and not use on board GPUs anymore on their laptops. You can do so while not resorting to AMD like CPU performance which is a huge gain IMO. This is a big deal for Intel. USB3 + competitive GPU + highest performing CPU (what does 95% of your work) + SSD caching = major laptop platform. The speed of that rig will be out of this world.

 

[stonedatheist]

@IVBMan This is a tick not a tock. But I do agree that is quite a nice tick. SSD caching is great for the mainstream but I think most enthusiasts prefer an SSD + a separate HDD

 

[atikkur]

[citation][nom]pent5ht[/nom]seems like IVY is more of a GPU increase......enthusiasts favor CPU perf. because they already have GPU's this is more for HP, etc prebuilt companies that wont need onbaord gpu.s[/citation]

+1

more cpu perf or lower price (with no IGP). at least there should an option first.

 

[SteelCity1981]

No APU can even come anywhere cloe to take advantage of PCI-E 3.0 bus speeds. Hell no single GPU has hit the ceiling of even PCI-E 2.0 speeds yet. Highend GPU's in SLI or Crossfire mode are the only type of config that comes close to hitting the PCI-E 2.0 ceiling. So talking about an APU utilizing PCI-3.0 buss speeds is moot to say the least.

 

[phatbuddha79]

c'mon, Intel. Usb 3.0 should already be standard on all platforms by now.

 

[danwat1234]

Well if the TDP numbers mean anything, the Ivy Bridge mobile chips aren't that much more efficient than Sandy Bridge. Mild clock increases and the same TDP. Ugh, I would have thought a solid quad core mobile chip could have a 35w TDP now. That and a 6-core 55w TDP chip.
Time to wait for Broadwell and what AMD has up it's sleeve with Trinity/Piledriver.

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]ksampanna[/nom]You don't have to deliver huge jumps in mobile processors' performance. It's not like we buy them for Folding@Home. Performance similar to the current generation is acceptable, just give it to me at a lower TDP. I'm definitely in favour of the increased battery life.[/citation]

Ha! Well I run Seti@home on my laptop's CPU and GPU constantly. Of course I don't buy a laptop based on how fast it can crunch floating point operations for my Distributed Computing client, just an afterthought

 

[cybersans]

can't wait to upgrade my current i7-2600k

yeahh!

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]ksampanna[/nom]You don't have to deliver huge jumps in mobile processors' performance. It's not like we buy them for Folding@Home. Performance similar to the current generation is acceptable, just give it to me at a lower TDP. I'm definitely in favour of the increased battery life.[/citation]
The problem, if you looked over my comment above yours, is that if you want to drop your TDP, you will STILL have to significantly drop your performance. Quad-cores still mean 45W and up.

[citation][nom]IVBMan[/nom]You folks doth complain too much. You get a bump of 200 MHz which is NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT! You are getting an GPU that performs 3x better. You get the SSD caching support.[/citation]
You act as if Intel's giving this to us for free out of the kindness of their own hearts... And not that it's something we're paying for, and that a lot of enthusiasts waited out and suffered not taking a Sandy Bridge laptop in order to grab an Ivy Bridge one.

Remember: this is a die shrink. Normally we're supposed to get phenomenal improvements out of them, as after all, die area for the same logic gets cut by 50%. Instead, we get some mild feature improvements, and CPU clocks get boosted by an average of 8%. As for those features you claimed:

- No independent benchmarks are out to back the +200% performance claim. Given that the only major changes to the HD 4000 are in core count, clock rate, and support of DX11 (including tessellation) this claim is VERY dubious, and +50-60% is more likely.
- USB 3.0 support is not gauranteed; that relies on the motherboard model in question. You're confusing that with PCI-e 3.0 support, which is mostly wasted on a laptop.
- SSD Caching is of dubious utility on most laptops, given that it requires an SSD and HDD be present on the same machine, which typically is limited to desktops. I've yet to see a laptop based on that idea.

Given that this was a major boost in raw performance that we won't get a chance at until Broadwell in 2014, as Haswell will almost certainly focus entirely on those "features" to the point where we likely won't see any additional cores, or increases in clock speed. (I compare Sandy Bridge to Westmere here) I'd have been much more pleased if some of these large-superflous features had been skipped, and instead we got the option for a quad-core at 35W, and more significant gains in clock rate for all but the top CPUs. (in other words, allowing for more than just an 8% improvement for lower-TDP parts)

Lastly, here's a key point that most of you (who seem to be keen on voting down my comments, it seems) are missing: Ivy Bridge is granting far, FAR better TDP improvements on the desktop, where clock speeds are going up even while entire SEGMENTS are dropping TDP. The i7 3770K, the successor to the popular 2600K, gains 100 MHz in clock while dropping TDP from 95W to 77W. In fact, with the actual Ivy Bridge core, (versus the assumed-in-coming Ivy-Bridge E) nothing uses more than 77W! Once you compare this to the mobile processors, this means that the desktop ones are not JUST as efficient as the mobiles ones. Normally mobile CPUs cost more for the same performance as their desktop counterparts, due to their lower TDP. You can bet that the cost difference will still be here, but the TDP difference will be gone.

So, my complaint here is: if Ivy Bridge is bringing us yet all sorts of amazing things on the desktop, why can't we get the same sort of improvements for the mobile chips?

 

[eddieroolz]

Doesn't seem like much of an improvement really. But for notebook users the reduced TDP should help a lot.