Intel's first 22nm CPU, codenamed Ivy Bridge, is off to an odd start. Intel unveiled many of the quad-core desktop and mobile parts last month, but only sampled a single chip to reviewers. Dual-core mobile parts are announced today, as are their ultra-low-voltage counterparts for use in Ultrabooks. One dual-core desktop part gets announced today as well, but the bulk of the dual-core lineup won't surface until later this year. Furthermore, Intel only revealed the die size and transistor count of a single configuration: a quad-core with GT2 graphics.

Compare this to the Sandy Bridge launch a year prior where Intel sampled four different CPUs and gave us a detailed breakdown of die size and transistor counts for quad-core, dual-core and GT1/GT2 configurations. Why the change? Various sects within Intel management have different feelings on how much or how little information should be shared. It's also true that at the highest levels there's a bit of paranoia about the threat ARM poses to Intel in the long run. Combine the two and you can see how some folks at Intel might feel it's better to behave a bit more guarded. I don't agree, but this is the hand we've been dealt.

Intel also introduced a new part into the Ivy Bridge lineup while we weren't looking: the Core i5-3470. At the Ivy Bridge launch we were told about a Core i5-3450, a quad-core CPU clocked at 3.1GHz with Intel's HD 2500 graphics. The 3470 is near identical, but runs 100MHz faster. We're often hard on AMD for introducing SKUs separated by only 100MHz and a handful of dollars, so it's worth pointing out that Intel is doing the exact same here. It's possible that 22nm yields are doing better than expected and the 3470 will simply quickly take the place of the 3450. The two are technically priced the same so I can see this happening.

Intel 2012 CPU Lineup (Standard Power)
Processor Core Clock Cores / Threads L3 Cache Max Turbo Intel HD Graphics TDP Price
Intel Core i7-3960X 3.3GHz 6 / 12 15MB 3.9GHz N/A 130W $999
Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz 6 / 12 12MB 3.8GHz N/A 130W $583
Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz 4 / 8 10MB 3.9GHz N/A 130W $294
Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.9GHz 4000 77W $332
Intel Core i7-3770 3.4GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.9GHz 4000 77W $294
Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.8GHz 4000 77W $225
Intel Core i5-3550 3.3GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.7GHz 2500 77W $205
Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.6GHz 2500 77W $184
Intel Core i5-3450 3.1GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.5GHz 2500 77W $184
Intel Core i7-2700K 3.5GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.9GHz 3000 95W $332
Intel Core i5-2550K 3.4GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.8GHz 3000 95W $225
Intel Core i5-2500 3.3GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.7GHz 2000 95W $205
Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.4GHz 2000 95W $195
Intel Core i5-2320 3.0GHz 4 / 4 6MB 3.3GHz 2000 95W $177

The 3470 does support Intel's vPro, SIPP, VT-x, VT-d, AES-NI and Intel TXT so you're getting a fairly full-featured SKU with this part. It isn't fully unlocked, meaning the max overclock is only 4-bins above the max turbo frequencies. The table below summarizes what you can get out of a 3470:

Intel Core i5-3470
Number of Cores Active 1C 2C 3C 4C
Default Max Turbo 3.6GHz 3.6GHz 3.5GHz 3.4GHz
Max Overclock 4.0GHz 4.0GHz 3.9GHz 3.8GHz

In practice I had no issues running at the max overclock, even without touching the voltage settings on my testbed's Intel DZ77GA-70K board:

It's really an effortless overclock, but you have to be ok with the knowledge that your chip could likely go even faster were it not for the artificial multiplier limitation. Performance and power consumption at the overclocked frequency are both reasonable:

Power Consumption Comparison
Intel DZ77GA-70K Idle Load (x264 2nd pass)
Intel Core i7-3770K 60.9W 121.2W
Intel Core i5-3470 54.4W 96.6W
Intel Core i5-3470 @ Max OC 54.4W 110.1W

Power consumption doesn't go up by all that much because we aren't scaling the voltage up significantly to get to these higher frequencies. Performance isn't as good as a stock 3770K in this well threaded test simply because the 3470 lacks Hyper Threading support:

x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03

Overall we see a 10% increase in performance for a 13% increase in power consumption. Power efficient frequency scaling is difficult to attain at higher frequencies. Although I didn't increase the default voltage settings for the 3470, at 3.8GHz (the max 4C overclock) the 3470 is selecting much higher voltages than it would have at its stock 3.4GHz turbo frequency:

Intel's HD 2500 & Quick Sync Performance
POST A COMMENT

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • MonkeyPaw - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    You can always go with the 2120T. It's only 35W (4 threads) and would beat the pants off the other 2 options you are considering.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
    Reply
  • nubie - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    I have to second the G620, they are damn cheap, about half the price of the 2120T, and you aren't losing any level 3 cache. Reply
  • SleepIT - Friday, June 15, 2012 - link

    I use the mini-ITX Atom-based boards running Ubuntu/Webmin for NAS's (OS on thumbdrive, 4 x 2Tb drives on the latest). Performance is stellar! Reply
  • majfop - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    Upping the Turbo Boost multipliers for the 400 MHz overclock is only on Z75 and Z77, right? That makes it very much less "free" I would say.

    There seem to be some reasonable budget option B75 and H77 motherboards, not to mention the previous socket 1155 offerings with an updated BIOS to accept the IVB processor.
    Reply
  • iwod - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    I sometimes wish Intel could just present a Lineup for OEM, another for Retail Consumers. To greatly simplify Lineup. Just looking at the Lineup Hurts my brain and eyes, they could just offer all CPU with HT, 2 / 4 Core Variants with Speed Differentiation would be MORE then enough for me.

    Then AMD is plain stupid for not capturing more market shares with their APU. Their new CEO has it right, where he had watched AMD systematically shoot itself in the foot, over and over again.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    It's ALL for OEM's. Retail CPU consumers are such a tiny fraction of the pie. Consumers just jump in where the CPU fits them best.

    The only consumer aimed retail products are the high end i7 hex-cores.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    Rory Read wasn't responsible for Fusion in any way; the only thing he can realistically do here is to push as many resources at getting APUs out of the door as possible. Reply
  • thunderising - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    One could have atleast hoped for HD3000 in a 200$ chip, not HD2500 crap Reply
  • ShieTar - Thursday, May 31, 2012 - link

    HD3000 is not 500 HDs better than HD2500, it is in fact an older, less capable version of HD graphics. The numbering scheme is admittedly silly, but thats to be expected from Intel by now.

    In the end, this CPU is not meant for gamers, not even if they want Ivy Bridge for a low cost. For 60$ less than the 3470 you will soon get the 2 core / 4 threads i3-3220. For a low budget gamer, this will still give you more than enough CPU power to team with any GPU you can afford. And those 60$ you saved can buy you an AMD 6670, which should be at least twice as fast as HD4000.

    The 3470 makes much more sense for people that can accept minimal GPU power, but appreciate the increased CPU power of the (real) quadcore. Think office PC handling massive excel files with loads of calculations: Not enough to warrant a Xeon based system, but definitly enough to make the 60$ premium from a dual core worthwhile.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link

    The idea that any poor sap has to game on any 2000, 2500, 3000, or 4000, or llano, or trinity, is too much to bear.

    What a PATHETIC place to be. How the heck is someone going to spend on HD3000 or HD4000 and the board and accompanying items and not have $75-$100 for say a GTX460 ?

    I mean how badly do these people plan on torturing themselves and what point are they really trying to prove ?

    They could get a $100 amd phemon 2 and a $100 GTX 460 if they want to game, and be so far ahead...

    This whole scene is one big bad freaking JOKE.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now