-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel's Haswell - Leaked Specs (Due Q2 2013)
- Thread starter Sparx
- Start date
quad core will be the mainstay for a while yet, as still not much still uses anything more
standard pc use like apps/programs gaming etc
maybe with windows 96 or 8 core will come more into play
The hardware has to be on the market first before the software will start being optimised for it.
If Intel and AMD were still releasing single core processors do you think that coders would be optimising for 4+ threads? If Nvidia and AMD were still releasing DX9 GPUs do you think that coders would be optimising for DX11?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Meh, will be interesting to see where they've gone with CPU, I'm quite surprised they see GPU as so important that they want to double in size, even with a half decent GPU their drivers for gaming are mocked mercilessly... there is very little call for more encoding power both because its already fast enough for 99.9999% of people. Gaming with crap drivers is still crap even with twice the power, and twice the power is still 1/4 of the power a moderate mid range discrete card will give you.
The main thing is though, usually a lot of extra transistors go into IPC improvements, and if a huge number of those transistors go on doubling up the GPU, it doesn't really hint at massive CPU improvements... if Haswell in terms of normal CPU power isn't exactly far from a 2500k released ages ago.... it will be a massive let down.
Considering how little use the IGP gets by most buyers, the lack of CPU power seems to be a bit of a joke. I mean I have a 2500k currently, and I don't use the IGP at all, I'd have prefered if they had a 2500KG and a 2500KC, one is quad core with IGP, the other is 5-6 core cpu, no IGP.... if you want an IGP, you can get one, if you just want the most CPU juice you can get, you have that option also.
Cramming MORE IGP down your throat(without the drivers to back it up) and for a performance/enthusiast market seems ridiculous.
This is why I can envisage going Steamroller in 2014, both because all the consoles will be pushing for heavy AMD code optimisation, and I can choose between an APU or a all in CPU.
As for TDP's, who cares, idle power isn't the TDP, its all but irrelevant, not least because each company decides TDP is something different, and most companies change their OWN definitions of how they classify TDP fairly often.
A higher TDP is a good thing, why have a huge chip with a gpu, and cpu, and then when you want to run both at the same time you can't because an artificial limit clocks both parts of the chip down?
Low idle, efficient in use, quick to go into idle to save as much power as possible are ways to lower actual power usage, a lower TDP doesn't do anything. If a chip is doing calculation Y and it takes 3 minutes, but a chip with a higher TDP finishes it in 2.5minutes using a little more power, but turning off sooner, same power usage, faster chip effectively. Haswell AFAIK(and Intel in general across all products) is aiming at optimisations for power, idle power, lowest power states and better switching between power states, turning on as little of the core as possible to do basic things. Intel's main focus right now is really mobile, Atom's and sub 5W parts, trying to push decent performance from high end chips into laptops, and trying to make their desktop chips look less inefficient(they arent' actually inefficient, but people wonder why they need a 200W desktop when their 5W tablet almost does everything they want). They want to gain traction in ultra portables, tablets, phones, everywhere that as much performance as you can get using as little power as possible is the goal. Which is why a huge amount of work on all their chips top to bottom is about cutting power, efficiency, rather than really balls out performance at the moment
The main thing is though, usually a lot of extra transistors go into IPC improvements, and if a huge number of those transistors go on doubling up the GPU, it doesn't really hint at massive CPU improvements... if Haswell in terms of normal CPU power isn't exactly far from a 2500k released ages ago.... it will be a massive let down.
Considering how little use the IGP gets by most buyers, the lack of CPU power seems to be a bit of a joke. I mean I have a 2500k currently, and I don't use the IGP at all, I'd have prefered if they had a 2500KG and a 2500KC, one is quad core with IGP, the other is 5-6 core cpu, no IGP.... if you want an IGP, you can get one, if you just want the most CPU juice you can get, you have that option also.
Cramming MORE IGP down your throat(without the drivers to back it up) and for a performance/enthusiast market seems ridiculous.
This is why I can envisage going Steamroller in 2014, both because all the consoles will be pushing for heavy AMD code optimisation, and I can choose between an APU or a all in CPU.
As for TDP's, who cares, idle power isn't the TDP, its all but irrelevant, not least because each company decides TDP is something different, and most companies change their OWN definitions of how they classify TDP fairly often.
A higher TDP is a good thing, why have a huge chip with a gpu, and cpu, and then when you want to run both at the same time you can't because an artificial limit clocks both parts of the chip down?
Low idle, efficient in use, quick to go into idle to save as much power as possible are ways to lower actual power usage, a lower TDP doesn't do anything. If a chip is doing calculation Y and it takes 3 minutes, but a chip with a higher TDP finishes it in 2.5minutes using a little more power, but turning off sooner, same power usage, faster chip effectively. Haswell AFAIK(and Intel in general across all products) is aiming at optimisations for power, idle power, lowest power states and better switching between power states, turning on as little of the core as possible to do basic things. Intel's main focus right now is really mobile, Atom's and sub 5W parts, trying to push decent performance from high end chips into laptops, and trying to make their desktop chips look less inefficient(they arent' actually inefficient, but people wonder why they need a 200W desktop when their 5W tablet almost does everything they want). They want to gain traction in ultra portables, tablets, phones, everywhere that as much performance as you can get using as little power as possible is the goal. Which is why a huge amount of work on all their chips top to bottom is about cutting power, efficiency, rather than really balls out performance at the moment
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
So everything is exactly the same apart from a 100mhz bump from Sandybridge released 2 years ago?
Onboard GPU? Nobody cares.... IPC improvements as stated above will be restricted due to this retarded onboard GPU doubling.
Onboard GPU? Nobody cares.... IPC improvements as stated above will be restricted due to this retarded onboard GPU doubling.
2008: X4500HD is launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce 3 Ti500.
2010: HD is launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce 4 Ti4800.
2011: HD2000/3000 are launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce FX5800 Ultra or 8500GT respectively.
2012: HD2500/4000/P4000 are launched, the latter having performance roughly on par with a Geforce 6800 Ultra.
To say they are coming on in leaps and bounds is a bit of an understatement, if they continue at this rate then Haswell's top GPU should be a match for a GT630 which should be pretty appealing to somebody who doesn't want an add in GFX card or an AMD CPU.
This is a tock architecture, like i5 7xx to 2xxx was, so IPC improvement should be bigger than SB-IB. And dont forget that the chips may also be clocked deliberatly low as AMD has nothing to compete with (a la i7 920/etc) and if the speed is actually being crippled by the iGPU then it will be interesting to see how the K's clock with it disabled
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
2008: X4500HD is launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce 3 Ti500.
2010: HD is launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce 4 Ti4800.
2011: HD2000/3000 are launched, performance roughly on par with a Geforce FX5800 Ultra or 8500GT respectively.
2012: HD2500/4000/P4000 are launched, the latter having performance roughly on par with a Geforce 6800 Ultra.
To say they are coming on in leaps and bounds is a bit of an understatement, if they continue at this rate then Haswell's top GPU should be a match for a GT630 which should be pretty appealing to somebody who doesn't want an add in GFX card or an AMD CPU.
This is a tock architecture, like i5 7xx to 2xxx was, so IPC improvement should be bigger than SB-IB. And dont forget that the chips may also be clocked deliberatly low as AMD has nothing to compete with (a la i7 920/etc) and if the speed is actually being crippled by the iGPU then it will be interesting to see how the K's clock with it disabled
That is pretty pathetic, and as a consumer is an overwhelming reason why not to buy an Intel CPU. Knowing that the manufacturer is deliberately constraining the product simply "because they can get away with it". As a consumer paying for high-end performance parts you I like to see;
1) Clear progression and notable improvements to the WHOLE of the underlying architecture each cycle.
2) Increased clock speed, Cache, Cores every 1-2 years. (non of this in Haswell).
WIth those mediocre specs my Phenom II will have to do for another year. Atleast I save some money!
This is why I can envisage going Steamroller in 2014
Assuming AMD even make it 2014....Steamroller is only 50/50 to even make it to market as far as I'm concerned.
If things continue as they are next year for AMD, I can see them ditching their non APU desktop business completely.
As a consumer paying for high-end performance parts you I like to see;
1) Clear progression and notable improvements to the WHOLE of the underlying architecture each cycle.
2) Increased clock speed, Cache, Cores every 1-2 years. (non of this in Haswell).
WIth those mediocre specs my Phenom II will have to do for another year. Atleast I save some money!
1) That will be present here, the IPC/feature/GPU/etc gains over Sandy are notable.
2) Clock speed has been static across the range since Intel cancelled the launch of the 4GHz P4 nearly 8 years ago, IPC is where its at now. More cores is pointless at the moment until software can make do with whats available now (and for people using specialist software that can the are specialist chips like the hex core i7's or octocore Xeons). Likewise if the clock speed and core count are not rising then extra cache would be pretty pointless.
AMD will make it to 2014. Intel can't exist without AMD, for now
I think AMD will sit back in the mobile/laptop world.
Are they not doing a deal on the new PS4 or Xbox or something?
I think AMD will sit back in the mobile/laptop world.
Are they not doing a deal on the new PS4 or Xbox or something?
Yeah, they have the deal to create the chips/gpu that go into next gen consoles I think. This will overall help them with the PC games and optimising games for their hardware.
Maybe Intel should buy Virtu MVP and make sure it's reliable, that will give their IGP a very good use in the short term at boosting 3D performance of a discrete card. They can't really compete with AMD for iGPU's with the current structure I think.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 403
I think AMD will sit back in the mobile/laptop world.
Are they not doing a deal on the new PS4 or Xbox or something?
This is another thing that has me concerned. Once the next refresh of consoles are up and running will be need 6-8 core CPU's as a bare minimum for next gen gaming?
Any news on the specs of these things?? Sure 4 cores is great for xbox 360 ports, but in the next "leap" we may need way more horsepower?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,407
- Location
- UK.
This is another thing that has me concerned. Once the next refresh of consoles are up and running will be need 6-8 core CPU's as a bare minimum for next gen gaming?
Any news on the specs of these things?? Sure 4 cores is great for xbox 360 ports, but in the next "leap" we may need way more horsepower?
Why would that have you concerned? It's progress.. I really hope the next gen consoles do push things along and don't mind upgrading to play the latest games. PC gaming has stagnated. Roll on the next gen, can't come soon enough or powerful enough
.PC gaming has stagnated. Roll on the next gen, can't come soon enough or powerful enough
People have been saying that for years! Technology wise, gaming has been trundling along nicely, engines are at a point where indie or budget productions can look great without spending half the studios' budget just to get the game engine running
What has happened IMO is an explosion in the number of games out there, the number of platforms vying for attention (consoles, PC, smartphone, tablet and even websites like FaceBook)... Taking risks is commercial suicide if it does not come off