Monday, March 18th 2013

Intel Core i7-4770K "Haswell" Tested, Not a Leap Ahead of i7-3770K, But Consistent

Intel's upcoming performance desktop processor Core i7-4770K, based on its next-generation "Haswell" micro-architecture, got its first formal performance preview by Tom's Hardware, which compared it to its two predecessors, the Core i7-3770K "Ivy Bridge" and Core i7-2700K "Sandy Bridge." The three were put through a battery of synthetic and real-world tests, including SiSoft SANDRA, real-world media transcoders, MSVS code compilation, and 3DSMax 2012.

In some tests, the i7-4770K offers as much of a performance upgrade over the i7-3770K, as it does over the i7-2700K, in others, it's less than linear. In its conclusion, Tom's Hardware notes that it found the i7-4770K on average, 7 to 13 percent faster than the i7-3770K in today's multi-threaded workloads, which is roughly consistent with what the i7-3770K offered over its predecessor, the i7-2700K. Find the entire preview in the source link below. Intel's Core "Haswell" line of desktop processors are expected to launch in June, 2013.

Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

104 Comments on Intel Core i7-4770K "Haswell" Tested, Not a Leap Ahead of i7-3770K, But Consistent

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: cadaveca
From my perspective, it's really bad news, since many companies make their boards based off of the Intel reference(like ECS, Biostar, etc). These brands then take that base board, and add their own twist. This also means that the base BIOS is much better than AMD products from the same board maker. You might call Intel BIOSes buggy, but...AMD is a bit worse in that regard, IMHO. Heck A LOT worse.

After doing board reviews for a couple of years now, this is what really separates one brand from another...quality of materials used, and BIOS. I cannot say I have learned anything else from doing reviews, other than that the bit of extra access I had hoped for just isn't there.

Intel does a lot to help board partners, in a way that I don't see from AMD, when reviewing boards. I guess it's good, since that will allow greater difference between brands, but then I realize that there are only about 4 people globally with the skills to really deliver a great board product. The market is going to shift quite a bit after this all ends, I fear, and it might make things quite bad for the consumer.
Intel will just do what AMD does: design reference boards for manufacturers only.

Meet "Annapurna," AMD's reference socket FM2 board from 2011 (when it first made it to our labs):



AMD makes reference boards for each new socket and chipset. I imagine Intel doing the same.
Posted on Reply
#2
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: btarunr
AMD makes reference boards for each new socket and chipset.
But they don't do as good of a job as Intel does, and I am 1000% sure this is because AMD doesn't sell board products of it's own. There is NO reason for AMD to refine anything other than basic operation. For Intel, with boards on store shelves, they put way more effort into it.

So, I kind of expect the same of Intel, when Intel does the same. We'll then be relying on that same sort of reference product as the base.
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: cadaveca
But they don't do as good of a job as Intel does, and I am 1000% sure this is because AMD doesn't sell board products of it's own.
Non-commercial reference boards (those which never reach stores) needn't do a "good job."

It's not like today's AMD platform boards designed by partners are any worse than their boards based on the Intel platform (in terms of construction, components, layout, etc.)

Anyways, Intel's Desktop Board exit is another thread's discussion, not this one. In my closing opinion, Intel Desktop Board's exit should have zero impact on other manufacturers' quality.
Posted on Reply
#4
arbiter
by: RejZoR
I'll just wait for Skylake. I'm pretty confident that my Core i7 920 will be enough till then. In the meanwhile i hope AMD will make a breakthrough so i'll have more options...
Keep asking and praying for that miracle.
Posted on Reply
#5
Ikaruga
by: btarunr
Non-commercial reference boards (those which never reach stores) needn't do a "good job."

It's not like today's AMD platform boards designed by partners are any worse than their boards based on the Intel platform (in terms of construction, components, layout, etc.)

Anyways, Intel's Desktop Board exit is another thread's discussion, not this one. In my closing opinion, Intel Desktop Board's exit should have zero impact on other manufacturers' quality.
Intel has two mb department (both are very small teams compared to other mainboard manufacturers btw). The first which makes reference boards and test boards (for chipsets, new CPUs, etc or architecture development, research) will continue to operate, and only the second team which makes end-user boards will shut down gradually. Last time I checked, the actual production of the commercial boards was always outsourced to Foxconn, a company which you also praised in the past for their quality production. I - of course - can't (and obviously would never want to) tell you what to do, but as an Editor & Senior Moderator of an enthusiast site, I'm surprised to see that you "feel good" about losing a competitor and a contributor from the industry.

Please don't get this all wrong (it was you who replied to my post at the first place anyway), so this is just well-intentioned criticism, and I do like and appreciate the work you guys doing on this great site:toast:
Posted on Reply
#6
NeoXF
by: arbiter
Keep asking praying for that miracle.
Troll harder, no one heard you the first time. In the meantime, work on your sentences.


Lackluster performance considering generation change + the bothersome socket change (plus another one coming shortly after, for DDR4 if nothing else) + higher TDP + the USB3.0 bug + the off-chance that overclocking will suck like on Ivy-Bridge... yeah, it's about time Intel took a narrow to the B. Hopefully AMD can capitalize on that, so the playing field gets leveled.
Posted on Reply
#7
Ikaruga
by: NeoXF
Troll harder, no one heard you the first time. In the meantime, work on your sentences.


Lackluster performance considering generation change + the bothersome socket change (plus another one coming shortly after, for DDR4 if nothing else) + higher TDP + the USB3.0 bug + the off-chance that overclocking will suck like on Ivy-Bridge... yeah, it's about time Intel took a narrow to the B. Hopefully AMD can capitalize on that, so the playing field gets leveled.
I'm really curious: how is something what is actually (in fact) faster than anything previous ends up as "Lackluster" in your book? I think that Sandy Bridge was so awesome (compared to pretty much everything what was out there at that time), that people now just expect Intel to do miracles like that with every new release they have. I also wish for better Intel or AMD CPUs of course because more competition would lead to price-war and faster development, but you can't seriously expect a steady and smoothed out progression curve from any company at all the times, or do you? There are highs and lows for everybody and Intel is no exception, not to mention that this "low" doesn't look that much bad after all.
Posted on Reply
#8
Hood
Great Answer!

by: Jstn7477
I don't get why people get so bent out of shape about Intel making ~10% improvements each generation, in the same power envelope nonetheless. Ivy Bridge from my own experience consumes a lot less power than Sandy Bridge, yet is slightly faster and has better graphics. Haswell continues to build on this with even better graphics and another fair improvement in the x86 cores while maintaining the similar power envelope, if not even less. Nobody said you had to upgrade through every generation or something. I hope a Haswell-E processor comes out and shows everyone how meaningful the power consumption difference would be, especially if Intel decides to put out an 8 core consumer version.

I like to buy efficient products, so this is just my two cents. Why should I waste my electricity on an older or under-performing product that will also increase my cooling costs because it's just dumping out extra heat? It's why I've switched to Intel for many of my machines, as the processors perform great and are quite conservative for their performance. I'd love to help AMD out more, but I feel like the energy and cooling costs greatly outweigh Intel's higher initial cost, especially when using the chip under full load 24/7 for a few years. I'll be keeping an eye on their future products, though.
Very well said! That's why I never recommend AMD except for certain low-budget gaming machines - the savings just aren't worth the heat/noise/energy waste, not to mention hardware/software compatibility issues and spotty RAM support
Posted on Reply
#9
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
What seems funny to me is that if this were an AMD chip no one would be saying this! Intel is improving every time they turn out a new CPU line and all you hear is this? You people are complaining about Intels line? What about AMD? Man just look at how FAR behind AMD is! Yet you see this new CPU from Intel and all you can do is bitch? WOW!
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
by: trickson
What seems funny to me is that if this were an AMD chip no one would be saying this! Intel is improving every time they turn out a new CPU line and all you hear is this? You people are complaining about Intels line? What about AMD? Man just look at how FAR behind AMD is! Yet you see this new CPU from Intel and all you can do is bitch? WOW!
Wow indeed the hypocrisy amazes me.
Intel are not daft they shit lidded the last few lines on purpose, they've probably a farely substantial performance leap held ransom in their back pocket, ready to unleash if amd getsclose oh and amd aren't the best but there not so bad.
Posted on Reply
#11
Prima.Vera
This is what worries me. Intel keeping his big boy in case AMD pull some miracle of it's sleve. Common, this is already the 3rd generation that is basically the 1st one with some minor improvements, nothing revolutionary. Only fools can think that Intel wasted all those years just to bring an update processor and not investing in something more substantial...
Only time will tell.
Posted on Reply
#12
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: Prima.Vera
This is what worries me. Intel keeping his big boy in case AMD pull some miracle of it's sleve. Common, this is already the 3rd generation that is basically the 1st one with some minor improvements, nothing revolutionary. Only fools can think that Intel wasted all those years just to bring an update processor and not investing in something more substantial...
Only time will tell.
That is just the way business works the weak are weeded out while the strong get stronger.
I beg to differ with you on the " Nothing revolutionary", 3D transistors ring a bell. Does AMD have them? Not to mention the speed and over all performance increases with every new line. You may not see any revolutionary strides from one to the next from AMD but Intel is at least giving us some really great fast CPU's!
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
by: Prima.Vera
This is what worries me. Intel keeping his big boy in case AMD pull some miracle of it's sleve. Common, this is already the 3rd generation that is basically the 1st one with some minor improvements, nothing revolutionary. Only fools can think that Intel wasted all those years just to bring an update processor and not investing in something more substantial...
Only time will tell.
They have been throwing all the RnD they can at Lv and mobile chips as they are fully aware arm and qualcom are spanking them in the mobile arena and making serious money too , qualcom are growing ridiculousy fast... its on their mind hence the drive for efficiency over raw performance.
Posted on Reply
#14
arbiter
by: NeoXF
Troll harder, no one heard you the first time. In the meantime, work on your sentences.


Lackluster performance considering generation change + the bothersome socket change (plus another one coming shortly after, for DDR4 if nothing else) + higher TDP + the USB3.0 bug + the off-chance that overclocking will suck like on Ivy-Bridge... yeah, it's about time Intel took a narrow to the B. Hopefully AMD can capitalize on that, so the playing field gets leveled.
Sorry if i just stated the facts, AMD hasn't had an answer for intel cpu's really since day core 2 was released to the market.
Posted on Reply
#15
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: arbiter
Sorry if i just stated the facts, AMD hasn't had an answer for intel cpu's really since day core 2 was released to the market.
Thing is who cares?! This thread is not about AMD it is about the new Intel CPU and it is FANTASTIC!
Posted on Reply
#16
Melvis
by: trickson
This thread is not about AMD it is about the new Intel CPU and it is FANTASTIC!
But yet you started it??:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#17
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: Melvis
But yet you started it??:shadedshu
Yeah I am the one. :slap:
Posted on Reply
#18
theoneandonlymrk
by: trickson
Yeah I am the one. :slap:
Your like a city fan, more interested in who beats United then if city win.;p
This would indeed be a fine upgrade for some, and yes poss me,, not , $$kint.
Posted on Reply
#19
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: theoneandonlymrk
Your like a city fan, more interested in who beats United then if city win.;p
This would indeed be a fine upgrade for some, and yes poss me,, not , $$kint.
I could not follow one word of this. :shadedshu

I love how Intel is producing CPU's that at the very least give 10% more than the last one. :D
Posted on Reply
#20
theoneandonlymrk
by: trickson
I could not follow one word of this. :shadedshu

I love how Intel is producing CPU's that at the very least give 10% more than the last one. :D
Ok so you know nothing about football, proper FOOTball thats ok.
But I didn't have you as a poor reader, 7-10% performance over Ivybridge is what's doing the rounds yet you say no less then ten , , well 7% is less then ten allbe it in some minds inc mine.
Posted on Reply
#21
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: theoneandonlymrk
Ok so you know nothing about football, proper FOOTball thats ok.
But I didn't have you as a poor reader, 7-10% performance over Ivybridge is what's doing the rounds yet you say no less then ten , , well 7% is less then ten allbe it in some minds inc mine.
So what? Even if it is only 7% over sandy what has AMD done for you? Yeah BD! Intel is giving us great new Chips and all any one seems to be able to do is bitch about it? Man you people! :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#22
theoneandonlymrk
by: trickson
So what? Even if it is only 7% over sandy what has AMD done for you? Yeah BD! Intel is giving us great new Chips and all any one seems to be able to do is bitch about it? Man you people! :shadedshu
AMD made crysis 3 run better for me, and more , but hows that relevant.
And its 7-13% I was a bit out , don't get me wrong fella , I think the 4770k is an ok improvement but then im always realistic, but if I win the euro lotto tomorrow id be buying one , im forced by economy at the moment as are many, its nice to see you about btw .
Posted on Reply
#23
arbiter
by: theoneandonlymrk
AMD made crysis 3 run better for me, and more , but hows that relevant.
And its 7-13% I was a bit out , don't get me wrong fella , I think the 4770k is an ok improvement but then im always realistic, but if I win the euro lotto tomorrow id be buying one , im forced by economy at the moment as are many, its nice to see you about btw .
Which cpu runs crysis 3 better? i doubt that its AMD. 7-13% is consistent with from 1st gen to sandy to ivy. Gpu got a major improvement over the previous ones.
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
by: arbiter
Which cpu runs crysis 3 better? i doubt that its AMD. 7-13% is consistent with from 1st gen to sandy to ivy. Gpu got a major improvement over the previous ones.
I agree the cpu in my main rig , which replaced a 960t to play it better but id go with this, as ive said prior.

I don't think out right hateing on companies helps so I take it alll as it comes , games play well on both setups in reality but better is better
Posted on Reply
#25
xenocide
by: theoneandonlymrk
They have been throwing all the RnD they can at Lv and mobile chips as they are fully aware arm and qualcom are spanking them in the mobile arena and making serious money too , qualcom are growing ridiculousy fast... its on their mind hence the drive for efficiency over raw performance.
ARM CPU's are barely edging out Intels second attempt at a true mobile CPU--with something like their 20th revision. Says a lot when Intel can come in half a decade late and catch up within two years. Last year Toms Hardware ran an article that I completely believe, making the bold claim that by the end of 2014 Intel would be making mobile CPU's that were at least as good as the ARM alternatives.

by: theoneandonlymrk
I agree the cpu in my main rig , which replaced a 960t to play it better but id go with this, as ive said prior.
The 960t was noticabley worse than even first gen i7's.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment