Friday, February 1st 2013

Intel "Haswell" Quad-Core CPU Benchmarked, Compared Clock-for-Clock with "Ivy Bridge"

Russian tech publication OCLab.ru, which claims access to Intel's next-generation Core "Haswell" processor engineering-sample (and an LGA1150 8-series motherboard!), wasted no time in running a quick clock-for-clock performance comparison with the current Core "Ivy Bridge" processor. In its comparison, it set both chips to run at a fixed 2.80 GHz clock speed (by disabling Turbo Boost, C1E, and EIST), indicating that the ES OCLab is in possession of doesn't go beyond that frequency.

The two chips were put through SuperPi 1M, PiFast, and wPrime 32M. The Core "Haswell" chip is only marginally faster than Ivy Bridge, in fact slower in one test. In its next battery of tests, the reviewer stepped up iterations (load), putting the chips through single-threaded SuperPi 32M, and multi-threaded wPrime 1024M. While wPrime performance is nearly identical between the two chips, Haswell crunched SuperPi 32M about 3 percent quicker than Ivy Bridge. It's still to early to take a call on CPU performance percentage difference between the two architectures. Intel's Core "Haswell" processors launch in the first week of June.

Source: OCLab.ru via X-bit Labs
Add your own comment

118 Comments on Intel "Haswell" Quad-Core CPU Benchmarked, Compared Clock-for-Clock with "Ivy Bridge"

#1
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Prima.Vera
Maybe I am wrong, but probably this next gen will be some minor tweaking over prev gen, an increase in transistor count and maybe higher frequencies. This is how Intel plans for idiots to change their mobos into new one. Dark deal made with the mobo manufacturers.
Very well said. At this rate, I'll be sticking to my trusty 2700K Sandy Bridge CPU.
Posted on Reply
#2
Ikaruga
by: qubit
Very well said. At this rate, I'll be sticking to my trusty 2700K Sandy Bridge CPU.
If I have to guess, I think it will be about much lower power consumption instead, since that's the area Intel is focusing on the most lately.
Posted on Reply
#3
tacosRcool
So power consumption is the only thing Haswell got vs Ivy Bridge since there is not a big performance difference
Posted on Reply
#4
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
I'm feeling pretty good about investing in a skt2011 rig right now with IVB-E down the road.
Posted on Reply
#5
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
No need to upgrade from my 2500k i guess.... money well spent!
Posted on Reply
#6
iO
This is either a fake, a very early ES or Intel goes the Microsoft route and says "Screw you desktop, them all want mobiles!"...
Posted on Reply
#7
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: iO
... or Intel goes the Microsoft route and says "Screw you desktop, them all want mobiles!"...
A number of confirmed changes to Haswell could support this. Intel definitely is playing the power consumption card and they're going to beet it to death. Intel's CPUs are plenty fast already. I think they're working on the easier things to improve at this point because you can only get clock speeds and your IPC so high before you run into the diminishing returns problem.

If Intel can get a CPU to consume less power but perform just as well, that's a win.
Posted on Reply
#8
Crap Daddy
Can't say I'm too surprised. The desktop era is coming to a close and fast. Haswell has to offer competitive TDP and power consumption in the war x86 vs. ARM. It's the future man. Everybody has gone insane with the mobile stuff. Intel has to deliver very soon chips that will make the ultrabooks and surfaces or whatever smack the ipads and nexuses on the head from different points of view than sheer performance (which is unquestionable).
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
So no point for anyone to upgrade to this CPU/Socket unless your running a Socket 775 or AM2 still?

Good chance for AMD to catch up then i guess if this is true?
Posted on Reply
#10
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Melvis
So no point for anyone to upgrade to this CPU/Socket unless your running a Socket 775 or AM2 still?

Good chance for AMD to catch up then i guess if this is true?
If you're an avarage, "normal", user still no point.
Posted on Reply
#11
Melvis
by: Frick
If you're an avarage, "normal", user still no point.
To true, im talking about high end junkys and gamers more so
Posted on Reply
#12
radrok
At this point the only exciting release will be the new Ivy lineup for socket 2011.
I mean I'm all for refining and cutting power consumption but as an hardware addict that's just not enough, I want performance on top of it.

Let's just hope Intel goes wild on the core count on skt 2011.
Posted on Reply
#13
phanbuey
just wait and see- i mean superpi and wprime are not exactly all-encompassing benchmarks. My sandy bridge laptop gets close to those numbers in superpi, but i guarantee you it would get stomped by a haswell or ivy quad in everything else.
Posted on Reply
#14
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
am i missing something? take cpu A at 2.8 ghz. take cpu B which can do much faster than that and bring it down to the speed of cpu A. how is that a good comparison of the two cpus? After all you are spending your money on what the processor can do... It's not like i am going to buy cpu B and downclock it and then act disappointed at the results...
Posted on Reply
#15
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Easy Rhino
am i missing something? take cpu A at 2.8 ghz. take cpu B which can do much faster than that and bring it down to the speed of cpu A. how is that a good comparison of the two cpus? After all you are spending your money on what the processor can do... It's not like i am going to buy cpu B and downclock it and then act disappointed at the results...
It's a clock for clock comparison to show the architectural improvements, so it makes sense to do this. Only if the new architecture has something up its sleeve with higher clocks will it offer any advantage to performance enthusiasts (us lot).

According to Intel's slides a while back, Haswell has some wicked overclocking features, so that might be enough for us to upgrade our SB/IB to it if it clocks significantly higher. It'll be on the same 22nm process however, so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.
Posted on Reply
#16
BrooksyX
Its funny. I used to buy budget CPU's and would upgrade almost every year. But this time around I decided to go with the high end (2500k) and I really see no reason to upgrade my cpu at least for another 1.5~2 years.
Posted on Reply
#17
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
by: qubit
It's a clock for clock comparison to show the architectural improvements, so it makes sense to do this. Only if the new architecture has something up its sleeve with higher clocks will it offer any advantage to performance enthusiasts (us lot).

According to Intel's slides a while back, Haswell has some wicked overclocking features, so that might be enough for us to upgrade our SB/IB to it if it clocks significantly higher. It'll be on the same 22nm process however, so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.
i understand that. we want to see if the new line has architectural improvements. but all my wallet cares about is how much faster is it going to load programs and perform mathematical computations.
Posted on Reply
#18
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Easy Rhino
i understand that. we want to see if the new line has architectural improvements. but all my wallet cares about is how much faster is it going to load programs and perform mathematical computations.
Indeed, it's a bit like the old Athlon XP / Pentium 4 situation from a decade ago, isn't it? The Athlon was more IPC efficient, but the P4 clocked higher, so it won even though it was so inefficient.

The answer you're looking for (and so is everyone else, lol) will be answered when the official reviews come out. It's just that to me, I think the fact it's on the same 22nm process means it will perform similarly to IB.
Posted on Reply
#19
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
by: qubit
I think the fact it's on the same 22nm process means it will perform similarly to IB.
or a superclocked SB ;)
Posted on Reply
#20
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: ...PACMAN...
That's a different point entirely. Obviously if they are the same speed as each other at the same clocks, then the one clocked higher is faster. However, this is when other elements of the benchmark come into effect, i.e. does it clock higher? Has there been any power revisions or die shrink?

In the case of various phenom II revisions they could all pretty much be clocked to the same area of 3.8/4Ghz but effectively(as they were the same architecture) gave the same performance at the same clocks.

C2C is best used when it's between two different architecures.
Not in this instance. For IVB, CPU cache speed is directly linked to core clock...they run the same speed.


SO by downclocking an IVB chip, you are not reporting actual performance. you are reporting a gimped performance, with L3 running at a lower speed than intended.

;)


Haswell breaks this design, and has L3 clocked independently, so C2C compare at low clocks doesn't tell you anything, but what a broken IVB does vs a non-broken Haswell.



Which makes this compare stupid, and that's why it was allowed. It's not a "real" performance compare.
Posted on Reply
#21
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
@Easy Rhino

Looks like Cadaveca's answered your question nicely - this performance test isn't valid. :)
Posted on Reply
#22
Jorge
If those benches are accurate, Haswell is a bust just as IB was.
Posted on Reply
#23
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: Jorge
If those benches are accurate, Haswell is a bust just as IB was.
That's what I think, and have thought, for many many months.


This is not the first time Haswell has been shown running publically.

However, I need a board and to clock a chip myself before I am 1000% on that.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheHunter
I dont think its a bust, I mean look at what Haswell brings to the table,
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/6
if all these changes translate in a lousy 5-10% increase then they need to do some serious work.



But then again, like someone said why improve a dead x87 code anyway. Imo those leaked benches mean squat. I say bring on real applications and games that will love bigger registers, more execution branches, faster single threaded optimizations and what not. :)
Posted on Reply
#25
iLLz
Just stop. I don't think these are legit at all. Anandtech's Haswell Architecture article would leave me to believe we can expect 10-20% IPC increase depending on workload.

Also this: https://twitter.com/FPiednoel/status/296459612377468928

Edit: Also check out some of his other tweets in his timeline, he clearly states that if you have a "healthy" Haswell, under no circumstance will it be slower than IVB. He is Principal Engineer / Performance Architect at Intel so I am inclined to believe him.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment