backtop

Print 15 comment(s) - last by talikarni.. on Jan 25 at 4:22 PM
22 nm just got a lot more budget friendly

If you're a budget computer shopper or OEM looking to build budget systems, take note -- Intel Corp. (INTC) is pushing its 22 nm Ivy Bridge cores out into the low end of the commodity CPU market.

The company yesterday announced eight new budget dual-core parts -- three new Celerons (ultra low end) and four new Pentiums (low end).  The new chips do come with DDR3 support, power savings from the die-shrink, and an improved integrated GPU.  However, unlike higher end parts they lack hyperthreading.

In the Celeron brand $42 USD will buy you a fetching G1610 (2.6 GHz, 55 W) or G1610T (2.3 GHz, 35 W), while $52 will get you a G1620 (2.7 GHz, 55 W).

If you're a big spender you can put down $64 USD for a Pentium and get a G2010 (2.8 GHz, 55 W), G2020 (2.9 GHz, 55 W), or G2020T (2.5 GHz, 35 W).  Or you could really go wild and purchase an $86 USD Pentium G2130 (3.2 GHz, 55 W).

The Pentiums carry 3 MB of L3 cache, while the Celerons offer only 2 MB of L3.

Intel Ivy Bridge
Intel is offering more affordable Ivy Bridge chips, at last. [Image Source: Intel]

Rounding out the lineup is the launch of the i3-3210 (3.2 GHz, 55 W), a dual-core part that comes with hyperthreading (for four threads, total).  Like the Pentiums, it comes with 3 MB of L3 cache.

The G2130 and the i3-3210 support slightly faster DDR3-1600, while the other new parts support DDR3-1333.  Ivy Bridge launched in higher-end chips last April.

Source: Intel


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
AMD A4-5300 @$@*s on Intel and laughs while doing so
By Pirks on 1/22/2013 7:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
So much more bang for the buck with AMD Trinity (if you include GPU in the overall picture of course) that this is beyond ridiculous. Intel, eff off.




By kase123 on 1/22/2013 7:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
yeah no harm here.. except the Intel motherboard will probably be more expensive than this cpu. I've noticed that AMD boards are usually slighter cheaper.


By StevoLincolnite on 1/22/2013 7:14:32 PM , Rating: 4
Low-end AMD boards are usually more feature filled too. :)

Man I wish these chips would have an unlocked multiplier though, they would probably overclock like champs, AMD has the edge in that regard.


By othercents on 1/23/2013 8:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
However you have a better stair step option with the Intel processors and the LGA 1155 socket. Buy a low end ivy bridge processor now and upgrade to an i5 or i7 later on.


By spread on 1/22/2013 11:14:53 PM , Rating: 3
And yet none of the AMD partners can manage to make a decent mini itx motherboard.


By GotThumbs on 1/23/2013 8:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

I've been waiting for a decent FM2 mITX board to replace my old mATX system that I sold to a friends business. ASRock has a new A85 chipset and 7 SATA ports, but I haven't seen it for sale anywhere yet.

For my money, AMD has always been my choice. Not anxious to over spend just for bragging rights.

Best wishes to all,


By Jeffk464 on 1/22/2013 11:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
It really depends how you will use the system. For multimedia and light gaming the A4 is a win for productivity the celeron/pentium are far ahead.


By DominionSeraph on 1/23/2013 1:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, the A4-5300 GPU only has 128 cores to the A10's 384, so you're talking 1/3rd the speed of a 4670/GT 240/9600GT. And the CPU isn't fast enough to bother pairing it with any decent graphics card.

Intel's integrated graphics are more than enough if you're not gaming. If you're gaming, you can get a G860 for $65 and a 7770 for $90 which will give you +100-200% the gaming performance of a A10 5800k system for >12% more system cost.

Trinity has a place in notebooks, but it's kinda stupid in a desktop.


By Samus on 1/23/2013 9:20:11 AM , Rating: 3
Thing is, you can get an A10 + mobo for the price of the i3 3210 + mobo. The CPU's will likely perform competitively (Intel may beat the Athlon in the usual workload tests by a small margin)

...but the A10 has vastly superior graphics performance to anything Intel, so eliminating that $80 video card purchase is money in the bank.


By eagle470 on 1/23/2013 9:24:28 AM , Rating: 3
It all depends on what your doing. If I was to building a gaming box, AMD all day long. But if I want to build a white box for at home server/dev work, it's Intel hands down. Intel gets MUCH better bench marks in raw number crunching than AMD does (with a comparable chip.) So while it's a little more expensive, I have an AMD for my gaming system, but my at home Xen Server/VMWare/Hyper-V environment is running all Intel. It just depends on your needs.

Of course I really think AMD could out do Intel on the x86 Tablet market, if they actually had the R&D budget to keep up. But alas, I don't hold much hope for AMD being around for another 5 years.


By talikarni on 1/25/2013 4:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
A little clarification there..... it depends on what you are looking for and your plans for using it.

Some games only use 1 or 2 cores, so the higher core speed AMDs work better if those are your primary games. For the newer expansive games and programs that do take advantage of multiple cores then the similar level 4-8 core Intels spank AMDs left and right.

Of course the aim of this article is more about the low end entry level PCs we build for our parents and grandparents, or for basic office work systems. Not too many gamers would be building a gaming machine using a Celeron or the low end i3 mentioned here... unless they are just trying to get the base machine up and running and plan to upgrade to i5 or i7 a few months later.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki