• 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.

Detailed Intel Haswell specs revealed

This is the part people should be getting excited over; in truth Ivy Bridge is little more than a pipe-cleaner, Haswell is where the real gains are to be found.

Socket LGA-1150? That's bound to rub a few people the wrong way...
 
Yes not too impressed with intels socket changes all the time, also Haswell may end up using LP-DDR3 (1.2V) memory as well as DDR3L (1.35V) only for their desktop chips too for all we know and people with DDR3 1.45-1.65v may have to buy new memory again, as with Sandy Bridge requiring DDR3 1.5v max without damaging the chip. Still too early really to know and changes to the CPU may happen. Would have liked some sort of performance increase data we may see over SB and IB with Haswell. Another thing that I am annoyed about with Haswell is it again seems to be another 4 core CPU and I bet Haswell-E will again be 6 cores max. ... Seems thanks to AMDs mess intel are in no rush to add more cores to their CPUs and I do wish they remove the graphics from their desktop chips and use that extra space for more cores.
 
Last edited:
as well as DDR3L (1.35V) only for their desktop chips too for all we know and people with DDR3 1.45-1.65v may have to buy new memory again

Dunno, there are people running current 1.5v ram at 1.1v so maybe not. (ill try hunt out the web page about that)
 
Are we really surprised it's a new socket? Seems to the current trend. I may be completely wrong but most of the time people will buy a new motherboard anyway (though this might be as people don't have a choice?) If they add more features and things then and older motherboard won't run it as well surely?

Also, if they can they will! Plus it keeps the motherboards manufacturers busy, which is good for them also.
 
lol 4 cores again. The fanboys will not be pleased!!

Possibly, we don't know what's in those cores yet ;)

If Intel added a second interger core and had 4 modules, but decided to still call them cores, it would be a fundamentally different chip......

Core count means nothing, core composition is everything.

I was under the impression for a while now that Haswell will be the move to 6 or 8 cores in the mainstream, and it makes sense when you consider the size of the die and frankly, how long they've been on quad cores. Was the Q6600 out in 2006-2007 maybe?

Honestly right now SB is tiny and thats with a gpu, Ivy will have a bigger gpu but the chip will still be significantly smaller, a octo core without gpu would be, or should smaller than a current Sandy bridge.

Die size dictates cost realistically, 22nm should have seen an increase in core count, if not an increase in individual core size, which would happen if each core got much stronger. I said before bulldozer, and after, what you call it is irrelevant. Hopefully Haswell will offer a big increase in performance, if not, meh :(
 
Drunkenmaster, die size may dictate manufacturing cost, but performance dictates pricing. If the new cores are say 20% faster clock-for-clock than Ivy, then theres not much reason for Intel to up their mainstream core count (well unless Piledriver turns out to be something special). Yes, i'd love an eight core Intel chip for under £300, but TBH I can't see it happening any earlier than 2014 or even 2015.
 
Drunkenmaster, die size may dictate manufacturing cost, but performance dictates pricing. If the new cores are say 20% faster clock-for-clock than Ivy, then theres not much reason for Intel to up their mainstream core count (well unless Piledriver turns out to be something special). Yes, i'd love an eight core Intel chip for under £300, but TBH I can't see it happening any earlier than 2014 or even 2015.

Did the 2600k cost roughly 30% more than the previous top quad core i7, no. Is the 2500k cheaper than many of the previous gen quad cores, yet faster, yes.

Was the 6970 more expensive than a 5870, was a 480gtx more expensive than a 285gtx, was a x6 more expensive than the previous x4's. no, no, no, no and no is the answer.

Performance does not, and has NEVER dictated price.


Intel have had chips at roughly £250 and £150, for a decade, these are price points they can sell chips at. What those chips can be is determined by die size, they won't sell a 500mm2 core at £150, and they won't see a 80mm2 for £300.

Octo cores would be unviable with Intel's target margins till it hits a certain size.

As I said, the general thinking was that Haswell would be a relatively similar core design to now but move to an octo core, even with a slight bump per core.

Remember a dual core was a MASSIVE leap over single core performance, and a quad core was a massive leap over dual core, yet one of their first quad cores, the Q6600, was the same price point as the current 2500k for most of the time it was available.

Core size increases, cache is a big problem(roughly half of the 8 core bulldozer is the 16mb cache) as you move up cores as the only real way to solve keeping 8 cores full is better AND more cache(something Bulldozer only got half right).

Anyway, octo core, 4 "fat cores", 8 "narrow" cores, 16 ultra narrow cores or 2 mega stupid wide cores, I have no interest in PR, but how it works. The 2 generation shrinking of die sizes of quad cores should be leading to fitting a huge increase in cpu power soon, be that 4 fat cores or 8 narrow cores.

If a die is 250mm2, then changing the 4 cores to 4 fat cores that maybe adds 30-40% to the die size, would make a chip that is too big for Intel to get the margins they want. They could sell bigger chips at higher costs but Intel wants a £150 and a £250 chip because they'll sell 1000 x more £150 chips than they can sell £350 chips. Haswell was always touted at a very big leap in performance.

As I said, being quad core doesn't prevent that, but 8 Ivy cores seems a pretty natural move over 4 much more complex cores. If as said we end up with another quad core with a minor bump in IPC then, meh.

By your logic of, if they can improve single core IPC, well, there would never have been a dual core, or a quad core, or a hexcore. Single thread IPC now is massively ahead of p4 single thread, or Conroe single thread, yet Intel still went to quad cores, and with higher IPC and gave us pretty much a doubling in performance twice before(well 3 or 4 times before now).
 
that sums up my debate over the Bulldozer architecture in the not too distant past, which is Bulldozer is more cores and more cycles rather than more instructions/cycle. the reason for this was due to software heading in any ever more multi-threaded direction, we can't stay at this inefficient time forever so sooner or later Bulldozer is going to become a mature architecture and its merits will be shown for once, people will see it for its potential rather than how they see it now, based on its flaws rather than strengths. ;)
 
ill be following my current line of tech purchases wether it be pc or iphone, buy the older one when the new comes out. probably means ill buy SB when IB is out unless i can make my Athlon X4 wait till haswell but i doubt that.

maybe amd felt pressured in the release of BD as they were loosing ground to SB in some ways wich resulted BD being not was it was made out to be... just a thought?
 
Drunkenmaster, what i'm saying is that Intel will charge as much for the 8 cores as they can while still getting a good margin/sales ratio. Of course price/performance relative to the previous gen will go up (not including eol sales), but if the 4 core or 6 core haswells pawn everything else out at the time then theres no reason for Intel to have cheap 8 cores. Same with gulftown and sandy-e, Intel could sell them for much cheaper and still make a decent margin, but what would be the point?
 
maybe amd felt pressured in the release of BD as they were loosing ground to SB in some ways wich resulted BD being not was it was made out to be... just a thought?

Not sure how accurate this is but there was a rumor that B2 (i.e. 8150/8120) was only released because any more delays would be a PR disaster, and B3 (supposedly 8170) is what Bulldozer was supposed to be from the start.
 
Not sure how accurate this is but there was a rumor that B2 (i.e. 8150/8120) was only released because any more delays would be a PR disaster, and B3 (supposedly 8170) is what Bulldozer was supposed to be from the start.
Possibly true but I doubt B3 will be much better. At most it'll probably bring IPC in line with Phenom II, which is still significantly behind Sandy Bridge,with Ivy Bridge probably being slightly better still. It may just be slightly higher clocks though, or maybe power consumption improvements so you can run them overclocked without turning your room into a furnace.
 
Back
Top Bottom