Two things worth highlighting in case anyone missed it, the Intel benchies are done via an normal 2600, not a K, so has only the HD2000 graphics making their comparison a bit like AMD showing 7970 benchmarks against a 6770 to show a bigger difference.
Considering a HD3000 is anywhere from 50-100% faster than a HD2000, its pretty much a joke to compare the HD2000 with the new one, oh well.
As for Haswell, I point you to Bulldozer, and how many people like to call it a 4 core.
Just because Haswell is a "4 core", doesn't mean its can't offer ways around MASSIVE increases in speed. Its been long talked about as bringing huge performance bump to more mainstream prices.
It could also be that Haswell brings with it a "enthusiast" platform as yet not announced that offers quad channel but much cheaper 6-8 core chips.
Considering the ones they've listed so far its the same platform for mobile as desktop, and both use dual channel, just 2 more cores. I still have some hope that Haswell will have the "i3" type chip as a quad core by then, and either i5/i7 will be on quad channel mobo's with 6-8 core range from say £150-400/500, so a 6 core Haswell at roughly speaking 2500k pricing, with quad channel mobo's and the option of the 8 cores at £250ish, then the top bin 8 cores at some silly premium price.
Hell by then I wouldn't be surprised to see native 12-16 core Server chips, and that could still run along in the really enthusiast Intel line of £600-800 chips.
This is the thing, eventually you get things that are too expensive for the low end, like quad channel mobos/chips, but you get chips that are fast enough to require more than dual channel. SO you'd expect the current quad channel and more cores to filter down to new price points eventually, but still have a lower end "cheapo" platform.
Intel don't want to offer 2x16x pci-e slots and quad channel + 6 cores in the mainstream now , but when they do it would still be very expensive to push in Dell £300-600 machines which is where the real volume is.
