Actuallyy, no, since Haswell-based chips are LARGER than IVB chips, and are on the same process as IVB chips. Any of the rest, to me, is due to poorly set expectations. But I personally didn't have these expectations
I was comparing to Sandy Bridge.
Greater functionality and performance at the same cost?
Really??? By what slim margin, given the current rate of inflation and so-called "progression" in technology with respect to Moore's Law?
Definitely not a desktop HIGH-PERFORMANCE chip. This is a mainstream chip. IT's not meant to be Intel's fastest, never was. 1155/1150, they have iGP for a reason...when has a real PERFORAMNCE chip had an IGP?
oops, I sit corrected again. My bad. Okay, we're talking low performance then. *whew* Glad I didn't buy it.
920 is a good chip, for sure. But I think my Haswell chips WILL outperform your 920, by quite a bit. The question is what will sue that added grunt, and you'd be right to think that it won't really be much.
Of that I have little doubt. I can't even clock this excuse for a motherboard, never mind overclock it, but the price was right at the time and it has served me well in spite of its obvious limitations. Alas, my XMP memory is overkill in this crate and I need a board I can put at least 6 dims of ram into, preferably 8. In this respect Haswell motherboards have failed me miserably :::shrugs::: Okay, okay, I expected too much for a low performance combination.
At least THIS time I didn't buy it. *whew*²
The biggest difference, is that with a 920, at stock, it's a bit underperforming. They are pretty good at 4 GHz and up, however. Yet I find that Haswell performs like a 4 GHz 920...at stock.