Intel is stepping up production of its much-anticipated Ivy Bridge processors for an official launch as early as next month - but is adjusting its numbers to meet increased demand from Ultrabook vendors. Sources in the notebook industry told Digitimes that, despite reported delays of up to two months, production is still by and …
Those prices converted to GBP
Core i7-2677M at 1.8GHz (GBP£200.42)
Core i7-2637M at 1.7GHz (GBP£182.72)
Core i5-2557M at 1.7GHz (GBP£158.08)
Core i7-2657M at 1.6GHz (GBP£200.42)
Core i7-2617M at 1.5GHz (GBP£182.72)
Core i5-2537M at 1.8GHz (GBP£163.81)
Converted using xe.com/ucc
Re: Those prices converted to GBP
Problem is, those are 2xxx part numbers, which are Sandy Bridge CPUs, not Ivy Bridge. FAIL.
And where is all this Ultrabook deman going to come from pray tell?
No sign of it yet.
I for one welcome our Jan 2013 heavily discounted ultrabook minions.
Ultrabook vendors have been demanding bribe money from InHell because consumers refuse to pay the absurd asking prices so I doubt InHell needs to worry about supplying Ultrabook demand - there is none.
Just in time for the next generation of bloated operating systems and badly written applications....
Mark my words
I've been speculating for a while that it would be delayed, and now is reported as delayed, because Apple made a deal with them for first call on the supply and Apple ended up ordering many more than Intel expected. Both because Apple is doing a long overdue refresh of their entire laptop line (which has become quite a good seller) but also because Apple is using its big cash pile to insure that they have a month or two head start on the Ultrabook competition.
Can we build more cpu cores and toss the crappy video out?
I for one am not getting this whole everything on a chip design. At least for the desktop cpus. Why can't they make a mobile cpu with graphics, and put more cores, 8, 16 or more on the desktop cpu version and leave out all the graphics crap? It's WAY slower than dedicated cards anyway. It's the same stupid morons that think TVs with 3D and network and all that crap is worth a few hundred more. Give me a better picture, no frills, any day. I'll use an external device, flash/usb stick, HDMI out from my tablet, phone, laptop, whatever for download content and web browsing. I hate all this extra crap we now have to have in our tvs. 3D is so badly done by almost every movie anyway.. especially all these cheap 2D shot movies that then post-convert to 3D, which is no where near as good. 3D won't work until we have a completely 3D hologram movie theater where I can turn around and see what's behind me in the movie... in fact.. toss the whole idea out until we have holodecks and can interact. Or at least allow us to set up a couple Kinects with 4 projectors that can cover a room full of walls with video and detect our movements and put us in the middle of the movie or game. That's 3D. I've yet to see any movie, including Avatar, about the best one there is, that looks convincing to me. Hell, OLED at 4K resolution would be MUCH more convincing than 3D.. and like someone else said.. with current 1080p screens, you're only getting 1/2 the HD image in 3D.. why do I want to watch a degraded HD image with crappy 3D over a solid 2D.
When 3D brings a movie to us like 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound does to audio.. then we'll have something. I fell like current 3D is like the USA attempt at 4G.. not even close.
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes