Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
I stopped reading after this just because I would like to clear up something.....
The IvyBridge Core i3 already has SEVERAL "reduced" features, I brought this up in a couple of posts, and have a list in one of them of the features i3 doesn't have that i5 and i7 do. To sum up the list...
IvyBridge i3 processors DO NOT have...
PCI-E 3.0 support
Memory is 1066/1333, i5 and i7 actually list 1666 as supported.
New AES Instruction
Several virtulization technologies
No Turbo Boost
and a few others.
Intel is already creating market separation between the i3 and i5/i7, just by having the i3 name some people are going to pass on it. Others that are going more high end and pushing SLi and Crossfire will have to go i5/i7 with the new generation of cards, for the bandwidth. Another way to look at it, if the i3 had any potential to take from the i5 market, we would already be seeing it, but we aren't. People are buying non-K i5 processors over the i3, even people that don't need a true quad core. An i3K would be targeted at the budget enthusiast, much like the old extreme processors were targeted at the high end enthusiasts.
Dude, I know this and a few things - lets go through them in YOUR order 1 by 1.
Someone buying a dual core will most likely be using it for gaming, and will most likely have one GPU, let alone two powerful gpus. PCIE 3.0 in ivy bridge is currently not useful at-all as with one gpu, the most powerful so say a 7970/680 at 1.2-3ghz will not saturate a 16x link via pcie 2.0. Someone buying a dual core who would look into buying gpus able to saturate a 2.0 8x bus easily would be aiming for a quad core, so will have pcie 3.0 support.
Secondly, the dual core i3's are aimed at "mainstream" I want to watch a movie, and with the k series more towards I play games so vPro is not useful. I have never known anyone who has used "vPro" period who is a mainstream desktop user. Business will most likely NOT be purchasing i3's and that is the only target market I can see.
Ivy bridge lists it can only support 1600mhz but we all know most can run 2800mhz and some can run higher. Also normal sandy bridge only lists 1333mhz but it can run 2133mhz 100% of the time and some can get 2400mhz with some minor tweaks. Furthermore, IF SOMEONE IS BUYING A DUAL CORE TO SAVE COSTS THEY WILL NOT BE PURCHASING PERFORMANCE RAM WHICH WILL ADD A FRAME OR TWO WHILE COSTING 2-3 times as much. They will stick to 1600 ram as generally recommended here on OCN for "budget users". If you're getting a <$160 CPU you're not picking up a $200-$400 RAM KIT.
Small majority will be encrypting and I doubt the difference is over 30%, again useless for the POTENTIAL target market.
If you're overclocking I doubt you care about the performance aspects of turbo boost. Power-wise I assume they still have "speed step" and if not you won't be gaining much power savings from a dual core. % wise it seems like a lot but the wattage is much less than that of a quad/hex core and the frequencies don't change power too much anyway, it's the voltage.
Few others? All useless tbh.
I know all these features are missing.
I doubted intel would change their ivy lineup but in future revisions to keep this same "low cost" which people want, the only REALISTIC way intel will use a $135 price tag is if they ommit these features, especially pcie 3.0, for has/broadwell where they will actually be felt. This will mean that it really will target the "budget"/htpc high end market where people will use a third-fourth tier GPU opposed to a top tier one. I could use an unlocked ivy dual core at 4.6ghz with a single gtx 680 at 1314mhz like I currently used and only be losing up to 5-6 frames on most games on ultra. In the future I'd be bottlenecking my "high end" but my gtx 660ti or lower equivalent part wont be bottle-necked and I'll still have similar single-dual thread cpu performance if not better.
Realistic expectations in the future, continued omitted features which will be wanted more in the future, or a closer to $150-$200 price tag with the features.
Intel will NOT change their ivy lineup pricing/advertising/oem deals/manufacturing to incorporate an unlocked ivy cpu part. The best we can all hope for is one in haswell in which the price will be more than a "$15 premium" or will continue to not have the one-two important features which will convince us to buy the quad cores - such as pcie 3.0 and possibly higher ram speeds if
the new architecture is tweaked in a way where it improves cpu performance substantially (i.e. even more as was done two generations ago).Consider reading this if you actually hoped for one and to understand my point.
Intel will not release an unlocked ivy.
Your features do NOT matter for the target market ATM AT ALL.
My points apply to the next generation haswell cpus where if intel listen they might incorporate an unlocked dual core - they will still be missing the only important features (pcie 3.0 possibly and possibly ram if the haswell architecture rely's on it/gets more performance from better ram which is a doubt) - or prepare for a higher price - not the wanted $135.
Edit reply to your last paragraph: I guarantee the people who cannot afford the UNLOCKED QUAD CORE I5's would snap on these unlocked i3s. As would any informed i3 user, especially if it had the "same features with a $15 premium". This is with regards to a "what-if" scenario based of the current ivy-bridge and sandy bridge cpus.
In 2013-14 if games become more threaded and intel release an unlocked dual core, you'll see the $15 premium. If things stay the same-ish to an extent, and intel release the cpu, you'll see reduced features which will make a difference then, such as pcie 3.0 as I've said three times now, or you'll see a slightly higher say roughly $50 premium. Otherwise it would undercut the MAJORITY of their i5 market so any informed user would snap it up, along with the "persuaded" amd buyers.Edited by JassimH - 6/29/12 at 11:40pm