Intel is not longer having varieties

[maverick786us]

I have started getting frustrated by intel's lack of variety with current generation CPUs. Since the launch of SB CPUs intel is not longer having varieties with thier latest generation CPUs.

When intel launched their first generation C2D CPUs...

1) they started with E6XXX series (E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700)
2) In 2nd half they launched some more batches of E6XXX CPUs (E6320, E6420 etc).
3) When first Core 2 Quad came they started with QX66XX(Q6600 and Q6700).
4) Next year intel released more Core 2 Duo processor (E7XXX series and E8XXX)
5) Similarly with Core 2 Quad that lunched varieties of QX8XXX and QX9XXX series
6) Then came Core i7 and Core i5 processors they started with 920, 940 and 960 processors
5) Next year they launched 930, 950, 975, 980 and 990 processors till the EOL of first generation Core i7 series

But after SB the whole trend changed.
1) They launched just 1 high end processor 2600K and 2500K and 6 months later a 2700K within a gap of one year. 2550K came pretty late when IB was just months away.
2) Similarly with IB just one high end processor 3770K and 3570K. Now that 2nd half has come and with Broadwell still years away they haven't released any 2nd patch of IB processors. There are a lot people who have problem with its cheap IHS because of which they are waiting for next generation processors or 2nd patch of IB processors.

What is in intels mind? Will we expect another batch of high end IB processors with improvement in IHS and OCing capabilities or do we have to wait for next generation Broadwell processors which i believe are still an year away (Q2 or Q3 of 2013)?

 

[bbordwell]

I can not really answer your question, but broadwell will not be out by Q2 or Q3 of next near, more like Q3 of 2014. You must be thinking of haswell which is expected in Q2 of next year.

 

[dinlee23]

if they had more variety theyd totally wipe out competition... and i dont think allot of people in high places would like that

 

[Suprfire]

Where do the i5-2400/3550 and below (and their subsequent improvements/refreshes) come into play?

Or did you just choose to leave them out because they aren't unlocked?

Locked/Unlocked changed the Intel processor game, and much of that reduced "variety" looks like it is caused by that addition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, it feels like you could just single out the new Unlocked processors and place them on a list with the old Extreme Editions.

and the problem with IB isn't the IHS itself, it's the poor thermal interface between the die and the IHS.

As far as the (near) future of Intel processors, i don't think they will be releasing any heavy hitters anytime soon. (I mean processors with big gains or potential big OC gains). Just look at how well they are doing, and also look at the increases in performance from generation to generation. The gap is definatley getting smaller, and it feels like Intel is just sitting on their throne or something.

Were going to see some rather mild increases in performance. I'll bet a lot more focus on reduced power and heat though.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I see quite a confusing variety in sandy and ivy bridges. Pentium, Core i3, i5, i7, dual cores, quads cores, hyperthreading, non-hyperthreading, virtualization support, this GPU, that GPU.... S series, T series, K series....

 

[Dangman]

As Suprfire pointed out, it appears that you're ignoring the non K series series Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs. Not to mention the Core i3 and Pentium CPUs. There were numerous varieties of those non-K CPUs released in the year and a half between SB and IB including the S and T series.

Now if you're just complaining solely about a lack of variety of K series CPUs or Core i5 in general, there's three additional factors that may have had an impact:
1) Not many people are buying high-end CPUs or need overclock capable CPUs in the first place so no need to keep releasing slightly faster overclock capable CPUs.
2) Any slight speed increase of a new overclock capable CPU is easily overtaken by older CPUs. So yes while the 2700K was 100Mhz faster than the 2600K, it didn't actually overclock that much higher. In fact, the 2600K and 2700 often reached similar overclock limits with only a 100Mhz difference at times.
3) AMD haven't been releasing extremely competitive high-end CPUs so Intel doesn't have to keep releasing slightly faster higher-end CPUs to compete.

The fact that there were numerous and slightly different variants of non-overclock capable Core i3, Core i5, and Pentium CPUs clearly shows that there was no great demand for continually faster higher-end CPUs and/or that there were a greater demand for lower-end CPUs. Here's the timelines of the Core i5 2300 and the Core i3 2100:
Core i5 2300: January 2011
Core i5 2390T: February 2011
Core i5 2310: May 2011
Core i5 2320: September 2011
Core i5 2380P: January 2012

Core i3 2100: February 2011
Core i3 2120: February 2011
Core i3 2105: May 2011
Core i3 2125: September 2011
Core i3 2130: September 2011

That's a lot more CPUs of the same family/category than some of the C2Ds.

1) they started with E6XXX series (E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700)
2) In 2nd half they launched some more batches of E6XXX CPUs (E6320, E6420 etc).

2nd half of what? The E6300, E6400, E6600, and E6700 came out in July 2006. The E6320 and E6420 were released 9 to 10 months afterwards in April 2007. The E6550, E6750, and E6850 came out a full year after the E6600 and E6700 in July 2007. In other words, very similar time periods between releases as the Core i5 2310, Core i7 2700K, and Core i5 2550K and the numerous Core i3 CPUs.

4) Next year intel released more Core 2 Duo processor (E7XXX series and E8XXX)

The first Wolfdale CPUs came out in January 2008, only 5 to 6 months after the release of the E6550, E6750, and E6850. The first IB CPUs came out in April to May of 2012, just 4 to 5 months after the release of the 2550K. So only a month less than the time period between Wolfdale and those slightly faster Conroe CPUs.

 

[maverick786us]

You are right I ignored Non K-series CPUs. I was giving examples of highly potential OCing CPUs.

Enthusastic point of view, in year 2006, E6300, E6400, E6600, and E6700 were like today's 3770K, 3750K. Same was with the case of E6320 and E6420 that came 9 months later, and then E6550, E6750, and E6850 which came 3 months. Now within this 1 year duration, we had 3 batches of high end CPUs.

Within that 1 year duration we had mainstream processors as well like E4300, E4400, .... E4700, which we can compare with todays mainstream processors that are Core i5 3450, 3350, 3330....3240 and so on.

So if we compare 2006-2007 there were 3 matches of high end processors thus adding more varieties at that time. But today when IVY bridge processors came on April we don't see any more rumor or announcement of any new batch of IVY bridge processors in enthusastic section after 3770K.

And I think Danny's point was right about the factors which resulted in lack of variety with K-Series CPUs. Yes there are varieties with the mainstream processors.

With next generation processors still miles away, what Intel should have done was either release some E0 stepping of 3770K - 3750K processors which should have good thermal interface between the die and the IHS or released some upgraded batch of IB K-series processors within 6-7 months like 3775K or 3575K that would have some good thermal interface between the die and the IHS along with new batch of mainstream CPUs.

 

[AthlonXP]

My honest opinion is the landscape of the PC has changed since 2006/2007. AMD is not as fierce of a competition to Intel in this section now and the mobile market is the faster growing area in I believe Intel is focusing more of its resources there.

 

[Dangman]

Within that 1 year duration we had mainstream processors as well like E4300, E4400, .... E4700, which we can compare with todays mainstream processors that are Core i5 3450, 3350, 3330....3240 and so on.

Not exactly a fair comparison. The E4300, E4400, and E4500 had launch prices for under $140. That puts them close to the Core i3s in terms of pricing. As such, they should be compared to the Core i3s, not the Core i5s.

The cheapest Core i5 released so far is the $180 Core i5 2300 and the cheapest currently available Core i5 is the $190 Core i5 3330. So in terms of pricing, that puts the "mainstream" Core i5s in the price bracket for the "high-end" E6420 and E6750 CPUs which had a launch price of $183 but a real world price of $190 IIRC. And those Core i5s are still capable of a limited OC. So they occupy that zone between the fully unlocked of the K series and fully locked Core i3s. As such, they could be considered as high-end CPUs if we're talking price brackets here and functionality here

So if we compare 2006-2007 there were 3 matches of high end processors thus adding more varieties at that time. But today when IVY bridge processors came on April we don't see any more rumor or announcement of any new batch of IVY bridge processors in enthusastic section after 3770K.

The thing is that the first four C2D CPUs as well subsequent C2D E6xxx series CPUs had locked multipliers and therefore differed greatly in actual overclock capability. As such, there was always a chance that you could not catch a higher-end CPU (i.e E6600, E6850) with a lower-end CPU (ie. E6300, E6420) when overclocking is involved. Not the case with SB and IB: The 2500K, 3570K, 2600K, and 3770K all have unlocked multipliers. Or basically similar overclock capabilities. As such (this somewhat ties in my second factor mention) it really doesn't make much sense to release slightly higher clocked version of an unlocked CPU when that higher clock is easily reproduced and exceeded. So in other words, that "unlocked" feature pretty much did away with the major need for multiple "high-end" CPU releases that differed in overclock capability.

In addition, the lack of rumors about additional IB CPUs during IB's launch isn't as big of an issue as you think it is: The first news of the 2550K hit in December 2011, only a month or so before it was actually released in January 2012. The first bit of news about the 2700K only came in a month before it was quietly released in October 2011. So there very well could be new IB CPUs in the works but we won't know until a month or so in advance.

With next generation processors still miles away, what Intel should have done was either release some E0 stepping of 3770K - 3750K processors which should have good thermal interface between the die and the IHS or released some upgraded batch of IB K-series processors within 6-7 months like 3775K or 3575K that would have some good thermal interface between the die and the IHS along with new batch of mainstream CPUs.

Miles away? Last I heard, the Haswell CPUs are due as early as March 2013 till as late as June 2013. Only 5 to 9 months from now.

 

[maverick786us]

Not exactly a fair comparison. The E4300, E4400, and E4500 had launch prices for under $140. That puts them close to the Core i3s in terms of pricing. As such, they should be compared to the Core i3s, not the Core i5s.

The cheapest Core i5 released so far is the $180 Core i5 2300 and the cheapest currently available Core i5 is the $190 Core i5 3330. So in terms of pricing, that puts the "mainstream" Core i5s in the price bracket for the "high-end" E6420 and E6750 CPUs which had a launch price of $183 but a real world price of $190 IIRC. And those Core i5s are still capable of a limited OC. So they occupy that zone between the fully unlocked of the K series and fully locked Core i3s. As such, they could be considered as high-end CPUs if we're talking price brackets here and functionality here


The thing is that the first four C2D CPUs as well subsequent C2D E6xxx series CPUs had locked multipliers and therefore differed greatly in actual overclock capability. As such, there was always a chance that you could not catch a higher-end CPU (i.e E6600, E6850) with a lower-end CPU (ie. E6300, E6420) when overclocking is involved. Not the case with SB and IB: The 2500K, 3570K, 2600K, and 3770K all have unlocked multipliers. Or basically similar overclock capabilities. As such (this somewhat ties in my second factor mention) it really doesn't make much sense to release slightly higher clocked version of an unlocked CPU when that higher clock is easily reproduced and exceeded. So in other words, that "unlocked" feature pretty much did away with the major need for multiple "high-end" CPU releases that differed in overclock capability.

In addition, the lack of rumors about additional IB CPUs during IB's launch isn't as big of an issue as you think it is: The first news of the 2550K hit in December 2011, only a month or so before it was actually released in January 2012. The first bit of news about the 2700K only came in a month before it was quietly released in October 2011. So there very well could be new IB CPUs in the works but we won't know until a month or so in advance.



Miles away? Last I heard, the Haswell CPUs are due as early as March 2013 till as late as June 2013. Only 5 to 9 months from now.

Slight mistake I should have compared E6300 & E6400 (which were launched with high end E6600 and E6700) with today Core i5 processors and E4XXX series with today's Core i3 processors.

9 month is still a long wait which is 3 quarter of an year that might hurt all our enthusastic fans who are eagerly waiting for next generation (Haswell \ Broadwell) processors because of poor thermal interface between the die and the IHS with current generation IB processors

 

[Dangman]

9 month is still a long wait which is 3 quarter of an year that might hurt all our enthusastic fans who are eagerly waiting for next generation (Haswell \ Broadwell) processors because of poor thermal interface between the die and the IHS with current generation IB processors

That is an issue but that's not stopping people from buying the 3770K or 3570K. They're still capable of decent overclocks despite that issue. In addition, the more hardcore overclockers already have ways to fix that issue. While AMD's new Vishera FX CPUs are a threat of sorts, they're still not as fast as Intel's K series CPUs. So Intel really doesn't have to worry that much about losing the small enthusiast vote/market share.

 

[bigdogchris]

What you see as lack of variety, I see as improved simplicity.

Some times less choice is better because it's easier to understand what's available and comparison shop to other products. If you are only comparing 5-10 processors to each other rather than 20, its' easier to know what's better.

A metaphor for you is, my bank currently has 5 different checking account options and just as many saving account options. I see that as a flaw because there are too many choices and it gets confusing. If they were to stick to just 2 checking plans, 1 personal and 1 business, it would be much easier to understand, same with savings. I see computer peripherals in the same light. Again, say with Windows, 1 business and 1 home, it's all you need. A couple years ago Microsoft was selling 6 or 7 OS choices worldwide, it's too much.

 

[Activate: AMD]

The thing is that the first four C2D CPUs as well subsequent C2D E6xxx series CPUs had locked multipliers and therefore differed greatly in actual overclock capability. As such, there was always a chance that you could not catch a higher-end CPU (i.e E6600, E6850) with a lower-end CPU (ie. E6300, E6420) when overclocking is involved. Not the case with SB and IB: The 2500K, 3570K, 2600K, and 3770K all have unlocked multipliers. Or basically similar overclock capabilities. As such (this somewhat ties in my second factor mention) it really doesn't make much sense to release slightly higher clocked version of an unlocked CPU when that higher clock is easily reproduced and exceeded. So in other words, that "unlocked" feature pretty much did away with the major need for multiple "high-end" CPU releases that differed in overclock capability

Yea, this is pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell. Used to be that you needed to spend a little more to get the higher multipliers. If, for example, you could guarantee 200mhz bclk, theres still a difference in the ultimate clockspeed in multiplier-locked chips. you could also pay to get the same clock speed at lower bclk. Overclocking with locked multis used to be much more of a "whole system" endeavor, where you needed quality motherboards, ram, procs, etc to generate good overclocks. Now the overclocks are basically limited by the core and architecture, theres really no difference in the ultimate abilities of any one processor. Just look at the results for the SB and IB OC's, pretty much everyone gets 4.6-4.8.. Even if there were different SKU's, you wouldn't be getting better than that by much, if anything.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

While there were some processors into Intel® Core™ 2 Duo and Intel Core 2 Quad that could be overclocked they were not designed to be overclocked. The unlocked "K" processors like the Intel Core i5-3570K and the Intel Core i7-3770K are processors designed to be overclocked by simply changing the multiplier.

Over the course of the lifespan of the Intel Core 2 Duo and Intel Core 2 Quad (in both the new micro-architecture and the follow on die strink) we released a total of 49 processors in socket 775. So far with the 2nd and 3rd generation Intel Core processors (original micro-architecture and the die strink) we have released a total of 50 processors in socket 1155. It seems as if we are doing a good job of releasing varieties of our current processors.

 

[DejaWiz]

9 month is still a long wait which is 3 quarter of an year that might hurt all our enthusastic fans who are eagerly waiting for next generation (Haswell \ Broadwell) processors because of poor thermal interface between the die and the IHS with current generation IB processors

That is an issue but that's not stopping people from buying the 3770K or 3570K. They're still capable of decent overclocks despite that issue. In addition, the more hardcore overclockers already have ways to fix that issue. While AMD's new Vishera FX CPUs are a threat of sorts, they're still not as fast as Intel's K series CPUs. So Intel really doesn't have to worry that much about losing the small enthusiast vote/market share.

To echo, in a sense, what Danny is saying:
The only heat issues faced with IB is when higher/extreme OC'ing comes into play. Most users are able to OC their IB's to 4.4 - 4.6 GHz without any real heat issues. Remember, IB is 6% IPC faster than SB, so that 4.4 - 4.6 GHz OC on IB is roughly the same as 4.6 - 4.9 GHz on SB...and IB will do it typically with lower power draw and, in some cases, less heat.

The heat issue is experienced when the metaphoric "IB heat wall" is hit, which seems to be with IB's that require a bit of a Vcore bump to get it past 4.4 to 4.6 GHz, but this is on a case by case basis. Some will require more Vcore than others, and some will just OC better than others. Really, no different mentality there than with SB's "OC lottery". One thing that does seem to be a constant, though: with IB, more heat will be experienced once that heat wall is surpassed because the paste under the IHS is no longer able to effectively act as a thermal conduit vs the fluxless solder found in SB.

All in all, when a SB OC'd to, say, 4.7 GHz or an IB OC'd to, say, 4.4 GHz doesn't cut it anymore for whatever the most popular games are that far off in the future, is when we'll have Skylake or even Skymont (maybe even whatever is next) available at places like Amazon, Microcenter, and Newegg. For those of us running SB/IB now, Haswell could very well be one of those "no need to upgrade to IB if you already have SB" kind of scenarios, because an i5 or i7 (hell, maybe even an i3) SB/IB will still posess enough processing power to carry right on through and past.

In response to your obvious frustration that Haswell's 5-9 months release is still too long...if it's going to cause you to pull your hair out, then upgrade to SB/IB K series today and be done with it until Skylake around 2015 or Skymont after that emerges... unless you really want the Haswell or Broadwell name in your chassis.

E8400 Vs 3570K

You have a 20% OC on your E8400, which is easily attained on either SB or IB K, so the benchmark deltas will still be around the same, if not even more favorable for the newer architecture.