Wednesday, November 9th 2011

All's Well That Haswell?

Here are the first slides detailing Haswell, Intel's next generation processor architecture that succeeds Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. Intel follows a "tick-tock" product development model. Every year, Intel's product lineup sees either of the two. A "tock" brings in a new x86 architecture, a "tick" miniaturizes it to a newer silicon fabrication process. For example, Sandy Bridge is Intel's latest architecture, and is based on the 32 nm fab process. Ivy Bridge is a miniaturization of Sandy Bridge to 22 nm. Likewise, Haswell will be a brand new architecture, it will use the 22 nm fab process cemented by Ivy Bridge.

If all goes well with Intel's 22 nm process, Haswell is scheduled for Q2 2013. 2012 (Q2 onwards) will be led by Ivy Bridge. But then here's a "shocker": Haswell's desktop version will use a brand new socket, LGA1150, and will be incompatible with LGA1155. This is because of drastic changes in the pin map of the package. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge share the LGA1155 socket, and will hence, have kept the socket alive for over 2 years. A major change with the component arrangement in the platform that is affecting Haswell's pin map is that Haswell will have a higher bandwidth chipset bus, rearranged PCIe pins (with FDI pins), rearranged power pins, and miscellaneous pins. It does away with a separate power domain for the integrated graphics controller.

Haswell will bring several new features to the table, including next-generation RapidStart quick boot capabilities that reduce cold-boot times to 2 seconds. The processor's IPC will be increased over Ivy Bridge. The mobile version will include features that will further increase battery life of mainstream notebooks. Haswell will feature improved media HD to HD transcoding capabilities. It will bring technologies such as NFC (near-field communication), and Thunderbolt (10 Gbps interconnect) to the masses.

Moving on to the platform itself, it is named "Shark Bay", and will be available in 2-chip quad-core and 1-chip dual-core variants. The quad-core chips and some dual-core chips will use the usual socketed motherboards with a single-chip chipset (PCH) which is smaller than today's PCH chips, while the some dual-core chips will completely integrate the PCH into the processor's package, eliminating an external chipset. The dual-core chips will be available in BGA packages.Source: ChipHell
Add your own comment

69 Comments on All's Well That Haswell?

#1
radrok
by: btarunr
i7-2700K is more like $350~$370. So i7-3820 could be $384. It has a locked BClk multiplier, but you can OC using BClk, the old fashioned way.
This, and the fact that you get probably more features than a 2600k/2700k setup, especially the option to upgrade later to a 6 core system :)
Posted on Reply
#2
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: n-ster
TBH, you are right, at this point it is a guess. But IMO, to whomever is thinking of purchasing a 2600K or 2700K setup soon, wait for SB-E and seriously consider it
I agree, I'm not advising anyone to upgrade right now. If anything, when Sandybridge-E comes out, it should lower prices slightly on Sandybridge.

by: btarunr
i7-2700K is more like $350~$370. So i7-3820 could be $384. It has a locked BClk multiplier, but you can OC using BClk, the old fashioned way.
I thought the BCLK was still pretty limited, like Sandybridge. However, Intel has included BCLK multipliers that affect only the CPU speed. There are only two BCLK multipliers, x1.25 and x1.66. Making the effective BCLK 125 or 166 +/-5%. You aren't free to just adjust the BCLK to whatever you want "the old fashioned way".

So if you look a the i7-3820 with a clock speed of 3.6GHz, or a multiplier of 36. Lets say I'm aiming for 4.0GHz. I have to raise the BCLK, so I bump it to the next available option of 125. That puts it at 4.5GHz, so then you have to lower the multiplier to 32, which gives you 4.0GHz. Now of course, overclocking isn't a matter of just picking a target, I'm just giving how you get to a certain clock. Where this system becomes a hassle is when you are trying to find your max overclock. Instead of just raising one figure(be it multiplier or BCLK) you now have to fool around with balancing two to find the clock that works best for you.
Posted on Reply
#3
buggalugs
Theres just no point saying 1155 is a better option than 2011 when we havent even seen benchmarks yet.

It only has to be 10-15% faster than socket 1155 to be a success and for enthusiasts to choose socket 2011 over socket 1155.

Anything over 15% performance will be a bonus and they will sell like hotcakes to the enthusiast crowd.

The platform is coming out next week so how about we wait for benchmarks before writing off the platform?
Posted on Reply
#5
n-ster
Didn't tomshardware do something also? Though I can't say TH is the most reliable source lol
Posted on Reply
#6
paulprochnow
New Motherboards

Intel does want you to buy a new motherboard every two years.
Posted on Reply
#7
n-ster
by: paulprochnow
Intel does want you to buy a new motherboard every two years.
Yes, not only does the permit them to have the best performance and the best features, in also gives them more sales. It's WIN WIN WIN for intel, WIN WIN LOSE for use (ie: more win then lose)
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
more like a new motherboard and CPU, intel doesnt impress me at all.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Ok, so the numbers are in, and the conclusion? 2011 processors have almost no performance advantage over 1155 in games and most other apps. The only exception being rendering apps that take advantage of the 6-cores(the 4-core model isn't out yet). Oh, and the cheapest 2011 processor is $550... Yeah, I'm not recommending 2011 to anyone unless they really need 6-cores for something.

by: eidairaman1
more like a new motherboard and CPU, intel doesnt impress me at all.
AMD's doing the same thing with FM2 so big deal.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
Dont Doubt FM2 will last longer than the constant board changes Intel is forcing on their users.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: eidairaman1
Dont Doubt FM2 will last longer than the constant board changes Intel is forcing on their users.
Its replacing FM1 after less than a year and a half...so...yeah...
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
by: newtekie1
Its replacing FM1 after less than a year and a half...so...yeah...
apparently FM2 is supposed to be the next Major Socket That replaces AM3, but In mean time they should have 1 or 2 more CPUs for AM3+ that will be on FM2, sort of like how opterons where then aswell
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: eidairaman1
apparently FM2 is supposed to be the next Major Socket That replaces AM3, but In mean time they should have 1 or 2 more CPUs for AM3+ that will be on FM2, sort of like how opterons where then aswell
If you mean they will have a few AM3+ CPUs that will work with the FM2 socket, you are wrong. FM2 will be completely incompatible with FM1 and AM3+.
Posted on Reply
#14
eidairaman1
by: newtekie1
If you mean they will have a few AM3+ CPUs that will work with the FM2 socket, you are wrong. FM2 will be completely incompatible with FM1 and AM3+.
u didnt understand what i meant, ok think about the Opteron of the time, it came in 1 way, 2 way and 8 way- 1 way was compatible with 939. I suspect that the fix bulldozer arch or w/e is next will come in both AM3+ and FM2 and then after that first or second batch of FM2 AM3+ will be phased out, considering the FM2 is supposed to handle both CPUs and APUs.
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: eidairaman1
u didnt understand what i meant, ok think about the Opteron of the time, it came in 1 way, 2 way and 8 way- 1 way was compatible with 939. I suspect that the fix bulldozer arch or w/e is next will come in both AM3+ and FM2 and then after that first or second batch of FM2 AM3+ will be phased out, considering the FM2 is supposed to handle both CPUs and APUs.
Oh, yeah, I see what you mean. Yeah, AFAIK, that is what they are supposed to do. Release a few FM2 processors on AM3+. But then that kind of makes we wonder why even release FM2? Why not stick with AM3+ if the processors will work with AM3+?

But that is Intel's strategy, and I like it. They aren't holding back designs and sacrificing performance to maintain compatibility. They just go balls out, design a processor the way they want, then design the platform around it. That is why people with 1366 have been able to keep their platforms for 3 years now, and can continue to use their platforms for at least another year. And AMD has yet to really even catch up to 1366. So you keep being not impressed with Intel, I'm quite impressed with the fact that a platform they put out over 3 years ago is still outperforming AMD's platform released a few weeks ago. I'm not impressed with AMD, but plenty impressed with Intel.
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
by: newtekie1
Oh, yeah, I see what you mean. Yeah, AFAIK, that is what they are supposed to do. Release a few FM2 processors on AM3+. But then that kind of makes we wonder why even release FM2? Why not stick with AM3+ if the processors will work with AM3+?
its to get those final sales of AM3+ out n then phase out AM3/AM3+ and go fully FM2 for all desktop performance, budget and Mainstream systems. Recall 939 having the opteron- that CPU Lineup was locked but could overclock further than even the AMD FX Series. What would be pretty cool is if the APU has an FPU already but then when u put in a discreet vid card the vid controller becomes a fulltime FPU for the APU. I suspect FM2 to implement PCI Express 3.0 and Quad Channel DDR3/4 Memory Capability. I wouldnt doubt the CPU becomes totally the APU in the future.

For my Brothers machine which has an AsRock 970 Extreme 4 with a Phenom II X2 555 BE with 8 gigs Ripjaws 8CL and 6770 Vid Card. Windows 7 HP 64 (CPU Unlocked to the X4 B55/955 BE Status) it Performs effin fast already (Built in August/September). I will drop in the Fastest and final AM3+ CPU Produced and then max the ram out after upgrading 7 to Pro, then he probably wont have another upgrade till say 7-10 years down the road. this was going from an Old P4 2.4Ghz machine
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: eidairaman1
its to get those final sales of AM3+ out n then phase out AM3/AM3+ and go fully FM2 for all desktop performance, budget and Mainstream systems. Recall 939 having the opteron- that CPU Lineup was locked but could overclock further than even the AMD FX Series. What would be pretty cool is if the APU has an FPU already but then when u put in a discreet vid card the vid controller becomes a fulltime FPU for the APU. I suspect FM2 to implement PCI Express 3.0 and Quad Channel DDR3/4 Memory Capability. I wouldnt doubt the CPU becomes totally the APU in the future.

For my Brothers machine which has an AsRock 970 Extreme 4 with a Phenom II X2 555 BE with 8 gigs Ripjaws 8CL and 6770 Vid Card. Windows 7 HP 64 (CPU Unlocked to the X4 B55/955 BE Status) it Performs effin fast already (Built in August/September). I will drop in the Fastest and final AM3+ CPU Produced and then max the ram out after upgrading 7 to Pro, then he probably wont have another upgrade till say 7-10 years down the road. this was going from an Old P4 2.4Ghz machine
Yeah, I remember 939, I remember it replacing 754 in under a year, and then itself being replaced with AM2 in under 2 years.

As I said, Intel users with 1366, or even 1156, are set for just as long as a AM3+ user.
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
by: newtekie1
Yeah, I remember 939, I remember it replacing 754 in under a year, and then itself being replaced with AM2 in under 2 years.

As I said, Intel users with 1366, or even 1156, are set for just as long as a AM3+ user.
Ya the major caveat of putting a ddr Controller on the CPU means a socket change, AMD could of gotten away with sticking with DDR way longer and just moved to DDR3 when time was right. But On another note, it would be worthy for FM2 to eventually implement a DDR3 and DDR 4 controller in later Life on the CPUs then move to DDR 4 completely while stayin with FM2 but put a warning on the CPU and Motherboards that the machine must USE DDR4 or the system will not boot. At the Time of 754 AMD didnt see it necessary to have Dual Channel DDR because it was overly faster than the fastest Athlon XP with Dual channel anyway.
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: eidairaman1
Ya the major caveat of putting a ddr Controller on the CPU means a socket change, AMD could of gotten away with sticking with DDR way longer and just moved to DDR3 when time was right. But On another note, it would be worthy for FM2 to eventually implement a DDR3 and DDR 4 controller in later Life on the CPUs then move to DDR 4 completely while stayin with FM2 but put a warning on the CPU and Motherboards that the machine must USE DDR4 or the system will not boot. At the Time of 754 AMD didnt see it necessary to have Dual Channel DDR because it was overly faster than the fastest Athlon XP with Dual channel anyway.
The memory controller was already on the CPU with 754, the memory slots were already wired to the CPU, so moving to Dual-Channel would not have needed a socket change, just a controller change on the CPU itself. And if you used an older CPU you got single channel, and a newer you got dual. Even still, I don't see why it is OK for AMD to replace a socket in under a year because they lacked foresight, but not OK in your eyes for Intel to replace the socket every 2 years to keep the progress of technology unhindered.

If AMD really wanted to maintain compatibility, if it was really a concern of theirs, they would have left the DDR controller on the Athlon 64 architecture and just added a DDR2 controller for AM2 sockets and keep support for 939. AMD only uses the compatibility thing because they have to because they are behind on performance. If they were ahead, they'd be changing out sockets like crazy, just like they did when they were ahead.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment