German online retailer www.hpm-computer.de last week leaked details of Intel’s coming range of Core i3 processors. Although Intel forced the retailer to remove the offending info; it was too late: TechConnect Magazine managed to copy the information, and is still displaying it, including clock speeds and prices.

The Core i3 range are supposed to be a budget range of processors: With that in mind, a price-tag of between 104 and 253 Euro seems a bit steep; bearing in mind the current unfavourable exchange-rate.

So what do you get for your money? All 5 of the i3 offerings have an on-chip-built-in graphics processor, constructed using Intel’s new 32nm fabrication technology. The 32nm transistors will require less power in order to operate due to their decreasing size; which gives the Core i3 the edge in power-efficiency. The on-chip graphics-processor will mean that it won’t be necessary to have a graphics-processor on the motherboard itself; as is the case with the Core i5 family also.

The fastest of the bunch of 5 different models of the Core i3 will be Core i3 540; clocking in at 3.06 GHz.

(Why am I thinking P4? Maybe I’m paranoid, or maybe it’s that I distinctly remember that just after I purchased a first-generation P4 clocked at 2.8GHz, Intel released a 3.06GHz P4 with hyperthreading, back in 2002.)

The Core i3 dual-core range will also include hyperthreading; allowing the operating system to see them as quad-core processors.

Expect the price of DDR3 RAM to fall even further: These babies have a dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory controller, as well as 4 whole megabytes of L3 cache. 

– It’s about time DDR3 got cheaper: I’m now seeing 4GB of DDR3 1600 MHz for less than £100GBP, while 4GBs DDR2 800MHz is up to around £70GBP, from less than £60GBP when I bought 4GBs of it for my triple-cored Windows 7 box just before they released the RC, and another 4GBs shortly afterwards, for a tiny bit less still. ( – Supply and demand. )

I once said that I didn’t think they’d get fabrication technology much smaller than 35nm: That was only about a year ago and it seems that I’m already about to be proved wrong, if I haven’t already been so proved. How much smaller can they go? According to my quick off-the-cuff calculations they’re already at the thickness of three or so atoms. What next; quarks carrying energy inside atoms? – That would bring a whole new way of looking at electricity and electronics if it is feasible!