June 24, according to VR Zone and Focus Taiwan

They have released the mobile i3 Ivy Bridge, but what about the desktop?

Does anyone know when the desktop Core i3-3225 will be released?

General rumours suggest Q3 for i3 IVB availability, possibly the back-end of Q3. Take that with an Internet-sized pinch of salt of course.

Well it's already July. So can't be too much longer.

I get the impression they're not in much of a hurry, it's not like they're under much pressure from the competition to replace Sandybridge.

Well they are under pressure because whilst the FX got a "meh" reception from review sites, AMD have cut the prices a lot and offering cash back right now.
That puts the i-3 processors in competition with the FX4100 and FX6100 processors, actually both are cheaper than the Intel.

An FX-6100 will tear the i-3 apart for any kind of heavy multi core use, and then some.

So yes it does need an update AMD are slapping Intel about bang per buck wise at this price segment.

What about sales-wise? Any indication that Intel can't sell all the i3's it can make?

Furthermore... SNB and IVB don't share fab capacity don't forget. If what you say is true (and I don't doubt it is), surely then it makes even more sense for Intel to wait to introduce the i3 IVB, and concentrate on selling as many higher-margin i5 and i7 IVBs as possible (given that they slap AMD silly in performance-per-everything).

AMD are doing quite well:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/ ... s_1_3_last

Mistakes were made with FX, mostly becaus they were priced at a point where they were not comfortable at launch. Now they've had some decent price cuts I think FX is a lot more attractive than it was.

I'd take an FX6100 over an i-3 processor any day because I mostly do multi threaded workloads and that is where the i-3 is weakest.
AMD are weaker for lightly threaded applications, but I believe most don't really care about I-tunes and stuff like that (far from a good program for audio encoding)

I'd agree at the i-5 level it's a lot stronger for Intel. Having used AMD for builds for quite some time (I've done a few Intel ones too) I'm perfectly ok with AMD being at the bang per buck end of the market.
I built quite a few Athlon II x4's last year for folks who wanted a decent but affordable pc that won't run and cry if you're doing photo or video work. The FX6100 will be my new bargain build processor from now on. Everyone was very happy with the performance of the Athlon II machines, as the FX6100 is faster it's not likely to disappoint and the price is very close to those older Athlon's.

Intel's I-3 series needs to be cheaper and it's a non starter for enthusiast's due to the lack of overclocking. Overpriced processors IMO
Maybe Ivy Bridge will claw some back for Intel..probably not enough though. I can see why the FX 4/6 are popular at this price point.

I think the FX-6100's value proposition is pretty narrow. $140 in the US. This places it between the i3-2105 and the i3-2130 (using newegg pricing).

If you are a lightweight user (web, movies, MS office, etc) it's overkill.

If you game, and your games only use 1-2 cores, then any i3 will beat it.

If you game, and your games use 4 or more cores, then it's cheaper than the i5-2310 ($180). But, the i5 will perform better.

Photoshop - i3 is faster.
Premiere - FX6100 is faster than the i3 but much slower than the i5.
x.264 - faster than i3, much much slower than an i5.

Power at idle is similar to Intel. Power at load is not as efficient.

I can't comment on the USA Prices but UK wise with cashback the 6100 is cheaper than the i3's all of them.
It's under half the price of the 2500k which is a great CPU..

But do you get half the performance?
This Dutch/review benchmark shows the 6100 outdoing the 2500k for video encoding.

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2382/18 ... o-encoding

I suppose it depends where you find your benchmarks doesn't it. I try and avoid Tom's hardware for obvious reasons (they are hugely Intel biased and have been for many years)

Other points are..many games are using multi cores so the use 2 core processor debate is firmy debunked and has been for a number of years now.
FX6100 being much much slower for video work I would have to say that is clearly not the case.
Even if it's slower and in some it might be, it's not half as slow for half the price. That is where things get interesting..you pay a LOT less for a CPU that is yes slower than the i-5 ones, but it's much cheaper, and probably has a good two thirds of the performance.

Office pc it's overkill? Where did you pull that one from? I could use a sempron for an office pc any CPU is overkill above a budget or £45 or so. Throwaway argument if I ever saw one..and applies to i-3's too overkill for light users!

I've ordered a few for some builds and I'll give my honest thoughts on the CPU next week. If I think it sucks I'll say so, but I suspect it will turn out to be a great CPU for the price. That point is important, "for the price"
Last year I would not have touched an FX CPU with a barge pole..right now though they are a LOT cheaper and that makes a big difference.

I wonder if AMD had called the FX 4/6/8 range 2/3/4 core CPU's folks might have been saying amazing things about them..I mean if you look at it like that you've got some very interesting ways of slanting things! Right now the price is good..and the i-3's are in need of an update they're not good enough in multi core applications (the exact reverse of AMD's problem)

Mr. Spocko, please calm down.

The benchmarks yield different results because they measure different things. Benchmark can rarely be used to predict to real-world performance anyway.
Maybe this is an opportunity to Windows users to grow up. People who have been using different other stuff than x86 have known this all along but different chip designs perform better at some tasks and worse at others.

Whoever said that the i3 aren't overpriced? Intel's profits wouldn't be so high if they weren't.
The appropriate CPU for the average office PC is the G530.

Intel's advantage in the SPCR context is efficiency.
If you don't care about power consumption, AMD has compelling value propositions for some tasks. But if you do, AMD's technological lag makes it a poor choice in most cases.
Can we quit the silliness and agree on this?

When someone says please calm down it's usually because of a huge argument. I saw none so remain puzzled as to that response.

Not the case at my local hardware supplier. They have the Sandy Bridge i3 2100 and 2120 for less than the FX 6100 even with the cashback. I suspect that if Ivy Bridge i3s are released in the Autumn that the existing Sandy Bridge prices will drop even further. And regardless of that I don't think there is anything to touch the G series Sandy Bridge Pentium processors for sheer value for money.

I looked at it from an application perspective..What kinds of uses would the FX 6100 be better or worse than an i3 or i5. My comparison was pulled from X-Bit Labs. I looked through the hardware.info review and my conclusions are mostly the same. The differences being, the FX chip is faster than the i3 and slower than the i5 in hardware.info's Photoshop benchmark, the FX is faster than an i5 in 2nd pass .x264 encoding. Note in their gaming benchmarks, at 1080p, there's no benefit having the FX over an i3.

As in all builds, YMMV. Given the US pricing, I don't see an FX benefit for anything I'd build.

What are the prices that you are seeing? How about for the Intel 2105 or 2125?

In looking at the results, if you compare the FX 6100 to the Intel 2105 with the HD3000 graphics chip, the FX 6100 gets taken down a few notches in some of the tests where it otherwise looks strong.

I don't live in the USA so I can't say if AMD are doing a cashback.
I know Amazon UK were selling the FX6100 for £90 the other day so I gave it a shot..take the cashback off that and you have a CPU for £75

On the same site I see an Intel Core i3 2120 for £90 odd so that is why I'd compare it to the FX6100. I basically get a better CPU that's still 95w and has more threads than the PhII 840 (which was a good deal last year) I slapped in the PC.

For photo work it's hard to say some software like lightroom will use additional cores/threads that might put the AMD ahead in that, it might not I've no idea.. If you're leaning towards video work I think it's a very sound advantage going for the FX processor. As for the FX4 and 8 I suppose that depends on what you're looking for.

Average Joe would likely be quite happy with an i-3 or an FX4100. I'm just highlighting the bang per buck potential of the FX6 series.
Maybe Intel should do a triple core i-3 processor, that would offer better performance at a more reasonable price.

From my local hardware supplier all of the Sandy Bridge core i3s are priced in the £93 to £111 price range. The weakness of attempting FX 6100/Intel i3 price comparisons is that the FX 6100 lacks an integrated graphics unit. So any system built with the AMD processor is going to need an attached graphics card of some form. With the i3 this is an option, and for many purposes the onchip graphics will be quite sufficient. So to really compete the FX 6100 would have to be priced more like the Intel G860 or G870, but even with the cashback offers in the UK it is not even close to that level.

There is no indication at this stage what the UK Ivy Bridge i3 pricing will be. The expected 3220 HD2500 3.3Ghz, 3225 HD4000 3.3Ghz and 3250 HD2500 3.4Ghz models would represent something of a step on from the Sandy Bridge performance levels but with a reduction in TDP to 55w. The 3220T HD2500 2.8Ghz and 3240T HD2500 3Ghz processors are 35W TDP like the Sandy Bridge T range. Again these are likely to be better performing units and the 3240T will be the fastest 35w TDP unit to date.

Some of the responses in this thread leave me very puzzled in fact I will use the word astonished.
Am I the only person to have heard of a motherboard with onboard graphics?

A very quick search revealed a number of economical well priced AM3+ boards that had a HD 3000 GPU built into the mobo.
Of course the HD3000 is far from a beast, but will do the job (ie work) but then the built in graphics on the i-3's are not exactly mind blowing either.
We could move onto the APU's from AMD which would be a more sensible choice if you are looking for better levels of built in graphics/performance in that area.

To dimisss the Fx6100 based on needing to buy a graphics card (which you don't need to at all) is a very interesting method of not really accepting the logic of the argument. Blow for blow bang per buck FX6100 v i-3 I'm waiting for yet more Intel die hard fans to come up with any excuse they can lay their hands on..
At the moment they're amazingly weak and not really working!

At their launch prices the FX range deserve some stick and a slapping down..but with something near a 50% cut in price on some of the range they are starting to look quite good value. Maybe it's just me but hey I can accept Intel have done a great job with the i-5's and i-7's. I can't really see where the i-3's are holding up esp for mulit core applications v the current AMD offerings and cashback.

Okydoke, time to move back on topic. We are getting far afield. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Well, here we are, August 1st, and still no Ivy Bridge i3. There's only one such chip I'd be interested in, the i3-3225, and it would need to be priced significantly lower than the i5-3570K for me to be interested. But I'm still curious.

I asked my Intel account manager last week about the Ivy Bridge i3s and Pentiums and was told September.

A UK site is saying Sept 2nd. Don't know if that's worldwide or not. But it echos what CPU world states.

I don't see this as a place to step in for moderation, I simply ask for clarification as to why some recommend this type of processor.
A forum is a place to discuss, let's not go down this stamp on anything that might be quite an interesting topic for discussion.

And I would like to point out I am very much on topic. You tried to pull this stunt before and I can't say I approve. A natural debate is healty, moderation is not required unless a forum becomes a bar brawl, or personal remarks are made. I see no chance of this happening.

I think the topic is the release date of the i3 Ivy Bridge desktop chips. Not Intel vs AMD graphics.

The topic can encourage a debate that is not AMD v Intel but as I rightly pointed out (IMO of course) one based on performance/pricing points and competitors (and there is only one in this market). I see no problem with that.

You cannot discuss a release of a processor and ignore the potential competition/price/performance of that component or it's relative position in the marketplace.
I for one question how long Intel can carry this range with a dual core (with HT)

Yeah, I saw the possible early Sept release of the fun-for-HTPC SKU. It's about time.

Spocko: It's not anti AMD moderation...it's my thread on i3 release dates. Maybe you could start a thread on current AMD vs Intel solutions and apps. We can all chime in on what's best for what apps.

I have to say, I'm not sure how believable the September 2nd date is, given the fact that it is on a Sunday in the middle of Labor Day Weekend. Is that a normal type of date for Intel to launch a product? I wonder if that is just some sort of "place holder" date that is just being used until the real date is known. But if it is a place holder date, then why Sept 2nd? Why not Sept 1st? So I really don't know what to think.

heh