Report details Intel Broadwell-K CPUs, Iris Pro graphics included

By on November 21, 2013, 8:30 AM
intel, report, rumor, cpu, broadwell, iris, iris pro

The socketed desktop line of Intel's Broadwell processors aren't due until the fourth quarter of 2014, however that hasn't stopped the guys at CPU-World from discovering some new details about the Broadwell-K chips that feature an unlocked multiplier.

Where Haswell-K CPUs didn't include the new Iris line of integrated graphics, instead packing Intel HD Graphics 4600 units, Broadwell-K will pack an Iris Pro GPU. Not only that, but the Broadwell-K CPUs will come with 128 MB of dedicated eDRAM, which in Haswell was only reserved for R-series BGA SKUs for all-in-one systems. With Iris Pro and 128 MB of eDRAM, Broadwell-K's graphics performance is said to be more than 80% faster than Haswell-K's.

As far as core configurations go, Broadwell-K is reported to have a maximum of four cores manufactured at 14nm (as we already know). Turbo Boost will be found in both the Core i7 and Core i5 models, however Hyper Threading is reserved for i7 SKUs only, making eight threads available in the top-end CPUs.

CPU-World also reports that 6 MB of L3 cache will be found in Core i7 Broadwell-K processors, while Core i5s will pack 4 MB of L3 cache. Furthermore, while the LGA 1150 socket will be used for the CPUs, they will require Intel 9 Series chipsets, so current Haswell motherboards will be incompatible.

Desktop Broadwell processors are still some time away, so its possible the specifications could change between now and then, but it's looking likely that the integrated graphics processor will receive a significant upgrade. It's an interesting move by Intel, as K-series CPUs are often used by gamers and high-end system builders who would already be using a discrete graphics card, but the change could still be useful for some.




User Comments: 11

Got something to say? Post a comment
ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I can see how decent integrated graphics could make a bit of sense if you want to buy a CPU and buy a GPU later, but 80% better than 4600 won't cut it, because it will still be a lot slower than even a $80 card, and not really capable of decent gaming in modern titles.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I can see how decent integrated graphics could make a bit of sense if you want to buy a CPU and buy a GPU later, but 80% better than 4600 won't cut it, because it will still be a lot slower than even a $80 card, and not really capable of decent gaming in modern titles.

I've seen demo's of Iris Pro 5200 vs Nvidia's GT 640 (this is a £60 and up card) and it's pretty much on par, slower in some areas and the same in others, that's pretty decent considering it's TDP shared with the processor while the Discrete card is taking more power.

This is a considerable step up, I'm pretty sure it would run games on medium to low at 720/1080 (depending on game) absolutely fine and at decent frame rates for an Intel GPU as well.

EEatGDL said:

OK, now these have been enough iterations of Core "tick-tocks", when are we getting more than 4 cores in the consumer line? I'm not rich to build a Core i7 Extreme rig to get 6-8 cores. It would be nice if finally in Broadwell 6 cores could be implemented as the true top models of i5 and i7 (with 12 threads).

JC713 JC713 said:

Why waste dye space for a weak iGPU that most people arent gonna use (people who buy K series CPUs will most likely buy a dedicated GPU).... I think Intel should do what AMD does and offer some CPUs without iGPUs.

mrcavooter mrcavooter said:

Why waste dye space for a weak iGPU that most people arent gonna use (people who buy K series CPUs will most likely buy a dedicated GPU).... I think Intel should do what AMD does and offer some CPUs without iGPUs.

XEON chips are exactly that, but disguised as server chips.

[link]

richkill richkill said:

Why waste dye space for a weak iGPU that most people arent gonna use (people who buy K series CPUs will most likely buy a dedicated GPU).... I think Intel should do what AMD does and offer some CPUs without iGPUs.

AMD's newest roadmap has no intentions/plans on the AM3+ socket so they are most likely going to follow the footsteps of intel.

Blue Falcon said:

4th quarter of 2014? Please Intel tell us why should we throw $ on your mild Haswell refresh when Skylake is less than 8 months away from Q4 2014 and will bring DDR4, PCIe 4, AVX 3.2 512-bit and possibly SATA express? Broadwell desktop is shaping up to be a short-lived CPU, not worth any enthusiast's time.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I've seen demo's of Iris Pro 5200 vs Nvidia's GT 640 (this is a £60 and up card) and it's pretty much on par, slower in some areas and the same in others, that's pretty decent considering it's TDP shared with the processor while the Discrete card is taking more power.

It's a good effort, but I don't think any desktop gamer who spends $250+ on a CPU would want GT 640 (and under) performance. If Intel can put that in mobile at a decent price (the current problem of Iris Pro) then that's good, but for a desktop solution I think Intel needs more than this to get to the "okay, I can survive with this performance a tad longer" frame of mind.

And I think that's the only place where people who buy K CPU's might make do with integrated graphics. Nobody is going to make do with them in the long run. If you can play on the Intel reasonably, that might be good enough for someone who buys a PC in order to make do with the IGP until the graphics card they want arrives or is on sale or is released, and so make a CPU purchase sooner rather than wait for the card

Still, I think even that is more wishful thinking than anything. Iris Pro need to be in the lower end CPU's, where they'd kick AMD's integrated solutions, not in the enthusiast level CPU's.

JC713 JC713 said:

XEON chips are exactly that, but disguised as server chips.

[link]

Yeah true.

Guest said:

I've seen demo's of Iris Pro 5200 vs Nvidia's GT 640 (this is a £60 and up card) and it's pretty much on par, slower in some areas and the same in others, that's pretty decent considering it's TDP shared with the processor while the Discrete card is taking more power.

This is a considerable step up, I'm pretty sure it would run games on medium to low at 720/1080 (depending on game) absolutely fine and at decent frame rates for an Intel GPU as well.

Yes, it's a good case on theoretical TDP but not so much on price or performance. A dedicated GPU will work below TDP to get Iris Pro performance (what Intel calls "SDP").

According to ark.intel.com (tray prices):

The i5-4570R w/ Iris Pro, max 3.20GHz, 65W, $288

The i5-4570T w/ HD4600 max 3.60GHZ, 35W, $192 (+$60 for 55W Radeon HD 7750 GPU)

4core-8thread Xeon E3-1230L max 2.8GHz, 25W, $250 (+$60 for 55 7750 GPU)

In Cinebench CPU, i5-4570R ~ 5.1, i5-4570T ~ 4.7, Xeon ~ 5.7.

Cost-wise you're $22 cheaper than the Xeon but $36 more than the other i5. So looking at that, why wouldn't you pay $22 more than the Iris Pro system, but get 10% more CPU power and 100% more GPU power?

Zareth Zareth said:

Why is L3 cache shrinking?

I have an i5-750 at 4.1 ghz on the old 1156 socket and it has 8mb l3 cache.

Haswell and ivybridge have 6mb L3 cache on i5 and now broadwell will have 4mb on i5?

Is this because its not needed anymore or due to making room for that eDRAM?

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.