News - Intel outs three graphics-less Core i5 CPUs

[HEXUS]

Intel shifts the last of the Sandy Bridge line.

Read more.

[watercooled]

I wonder if they'll get slated the same way as AMD for selling defective dies?

[kingpotnoodle]

I wonder if they'll get slated the same way as AMD for selling defective dies?

It's been common practice in the chip industry for as long as I can remember, anyone who slates either Intel or AMD for it is basically declaring themselves to be a clueless numpty. People need to remember they have no 'right' to unlockable cores and overclocking headroom, chips only need to work as sold.

It makes excellent business sense, benefits consumers who can save a few ££ buying the cut down SKUs and is better for the environment with less wastage...

[Hoonigan]

So long as they work 100%, then there's absolutely no problem with this at all, that I can see.

Better for the environment and saves people money at the same time.. Win win!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Core i5 2550K is a fail unless it is cheaper than a Core i5 2500K. So they drop the IGP and it still has a 95W TDP - the E3 Xeons do the same thing and the TDP drops to 80W. If anything it indicates the Core i5 2550K has a higher core voltage than a Core i5 2500K.

[Scarlet Infidel]

Any chance you could put the information in a table, with a few existing CPUs for reference?

[watercooled]

So long as they work 100%, then there's absolutely no problem with this at all, that I can see.

Better for the environment and saves people money at the same time.. Win win!

Exactly, and I have no problem with it myself (I own a triple-core Llano), but it doesn't stop csome certain fanboys criticising AMD for being cheapskates. Apparently they are forgetting Intel only make 2 mainstream SNB dies and most of the chips have features fused off (AES-NI, Virtualisation, Hyperthreading, etc).

[kalniel]

The Core i5 2550K is a fail unless it is cheaper than a Core i5 2500K.

Why? It's faster both at nominal and turbo clocks. Unless you're using the IGP then it makes more sense to get the 2550k.

[watercooled]

Isn't Quicksync part of the IGP though?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why? It's faster both at nominal and turbo clocks. Unless you're using the IGP then it makes more sense to get the 2550k.

No it doesn't. The E3 Xeons are not higher binned in any way compared to the normal Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs. There is a 15W TDP drop with the IGP being disabled for the Xeon E3 models which lack an IGP. The Core i5 2550K boosts clocks by a tiny 100MHZ when compared to a Core i5 2500K which has the IGP. If anything this indicates how poor a bin the Core i5 2550K is,as it should have a 80W TDP,not a 95W one. For an increase of 100MHZ a 15W increase in TDP is pathetic.

Deactivate the IGP on a Core i5 2500K and it would be rated as a lower TDP part.

If you are not overclocking a Core i5 2500 non-K is a better choice. If you are overclocking,the Core i5 2500K is a better choice as it seems the CPU is binned higher, and the IGP gets deactivated anyway when you use a discrete GPU.

Edit!!

The Core i5 2550K tray price is more than the Core i5 2500K:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i...300833803.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i...0i5-2550K.html

[Biscuit]

No it doesn't. The E3 Xeons are not higher binned in any way compared to the normal Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs. There is a 15W TDP drop with the IGP being disabled for the Xeon E3 models which lack an IGP. The Core i5 2550K boosts clocks by a tiny 100MHZ when compared to a Core i5 2500K which has the IGP. If anything this indicates how poor a bin the Core i5 2550K is,as it should have a 80W TDP,not a 95W one. For an increase of 100MHZ a 15W increase in TDP is pathetic.

If you are not overclocking a Core i5 2500 non-K is a better choice. If you are overclocking,the Core i5 2500K is a better choice as it seems the CPU is binned higher, and the IGP gets deactivated anyway when you use a discrete GPU.

Thats a pretty fair assumption, although i would hold judgement till the chip is actually released.

The Xeon actually doesnt have the GPU at all, if this chip was binned surely its still there but just non functional and therefore the may be some kind of loss related to this?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thats a pretty fair assumption, although i would hold judgement till the chip is actually released.

The Xeon actually doesnt have the GPU at all, if this chip was binned surely its still there but just non functional and therefore the may be some kind of loss related to this?

The Xeon E3 is the same chip as the Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7. It is socket 1155 and comes in both IGP activated(95W) and IGP deactivated forms(80W). I was looking at them as a possible upgrade path for my H67 motherboard from a Core i3 2100. The Xeon E3-1230 is the cheapest way to get a 8 thread Sandy Bridge CPU if you don't want the IGP(it is around £170 to £180 and only slightly lower clocked than a Core i7 2600).

[kingpotnoodle]

No it doesn't. The E3 Xeons are not higher binned in any way compared to the normal Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs. There is a 15W TDP drop with the IGP being disabled for the Xeon E3 models which lack an IGP. The Core i5 2550K boosts clocks by a tiny 100MHZ when compared to a Core i5 2500K which has the IGP. If anything this indicates how poor a bin the Core i5 2550K is,as it should have a 80W TDP,not a 95W one. For an increase of 100MHZ a 15W increase in TDP is pathetic.

Deactivate the IGP on a Core i5 2500K and it would be rated as a lower TDP part.

If you are not overclocking a Core i5 2500 non-K is a better choice. If you are overclocking,the Core i5 2500K is a better choice as it seems the CPU is binned higher, and the IGP gets deactivated anyway when you use a discrete GPU.

Edit!!

The Core i5 2550K tray price is more than the Core i5 2500K:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i...300833803.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i...0i5-2550K.html

I reckon it's far more likely Intel have just kept the same 95W TDP on the 2550K to be consistent amongst i5 and avoid confusing anyone, after all nearly all the i7/i5/i3 have the same TDPs as other lesser specced chips and very few of them seem to hit their TDP in actual testing...

The i5 2300 shares a 95W TDP with the i5 2500K despite a 500MHz clock difference, HD2000/3000 and much lower max turbo.

[kalniel]

If you are not overclocking a Core i5 2500 non-K is a better choice.

Why? It's slower than a 2550K

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I reckon it's far more likely Intel have just kept the same 95W TDP on the 2550K to be consistent amongst i5 and avoid confusing anyone, after all nearly all the i7/i5/i3 have the same TDPs as other lesser specced chips and very few of them seem to hit their TDP in actual testing...

The i5 2300 shares a 95W TDP with the i5 2500K despite a 500MHz clock difference, HD2000/3000 and much lower max turbo.

Yet,the Xeon E3 CPUs are rated at 80W without and IGP and these are quad core parts with the IGP switched off. The 95W TDP Xeon E3 CPUs have the IGP activated.

Its more likely these are worse bins in the first place,and the Core i5 2300 is probably a worse bin than a Core i5 2500K too.

If the Core i5 2550K was not a worse bin then the IGP would be functional or the TDP rated as lower.

On top of this with a non-functional IGP,the Core i5 2550K is priced higher(lacks Quick Sync too) and probably will overclock worse(or need more voltage). The Core i5 2500K is cheaper and has a functional IGP and hence the Core i5 2550K is a waste of money.

[watercooled]

The TDP implies it's from a lower bin though so in theory, less OC headroom.

Edit: Missed above post, was replying to kalniel.