Thursday, December 26th 2013

Intel Core i7 "Haswell-E" to Launch in Q3 2014

Intel is planning to launch its 4th generation Core i7 HEDT (high-end desktop) platform, codenamed "Haswell-E," in the third quarter of 2014 (after June), which should space its launch roughly a year from Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E." With Haswell-E, Intel is expected to increase core counts across the board, launching an "affordable" six-core part around the $400 mark, an eight-core part around the $600 mark, and an Extreme Edition eight-core part around the $1,000 mark. The three will be based on the LGA2011-3 socket, which has the same pin count as today's LGA2011, yet is incompatible with it, because the pin map of Haswell-E will differ from its predecessors'. Driving the platform will be Intel's X99 Express chipset, with support for up to ten SATA 6 Gb/s ports, and a large number of USB 3.0 ports. Some of the first X99 motherboards are expected to be unveiled at Computex 2014.

Source: WCCFTech, Image Courtesy: VR-Zone
Add your own comment

63 Comments on Intel Core i7 "Haswell-E" to Launch in Q3 2014

#1
ensabrenoir
msamelis said:
Incompatible sockets? Again Intel? :wtf:


is there truly anybody in the enthusiast community that is not aware of intel's tick - tock modus operandi ?
and please with the amd is cheaper.... we know....and don't care.......

...o.k. you can hate me now..
Posted on Reply
#2
HisDivineOrder
Finally, we'll have REAL, genuine 8-core CPU's on the market.

Not fake ones using slightly-better-than-hyperthreading nonsense to give themselves pseudo-octacore and then repeat it long enough that people actually forget that's what they're offering.

Intel will be offering genuine octacore's with hyperthreading to boost the thread count up to 16. It's only taken... years and years?
Posted on Reply
#3
ArbitraryAffection
HisDivineOrder said:
Finally, we'll have REAL, genuine 8-core CPU's on the market.

Not fake ones using slightly-better-than-hyperthreading nonsense to give themselves pseudo-octacore and then repeat it long enough that people actually forget that's what they're offering.
This.

Not saying that AMD's '8-core' solutions are bad, per se, just that it's always irritated me how said solutions can be bested by Quad-cores.

I'm considering the 5930K or whatever the cheapest, non extreme 8-core (if there is one) to replace my 2600K and P67 chipset. IB-E didn't really offer the performance improvement that I was looking at, not to mention the older chipset released at the same time as my P67.
Posted on Reply
#4
Octavean
msamelis said:
Incompatible sockets? Again Intel? :wtf:
That is a fairly common complaint and understandably so,........... provided one actually bought into the platform in the first place.
Posted on Reply
#5
lilhasselhoffer
JDG1980 said:
I agree that SB/SB-E is still a competitive CPU, but the X79 platform really has to go. No USB 3.0 support at all? Only two 6Gbps SATA ports? Not to mention how hot it runs because of the outdated 45nm process on which it's fabricated. For an enthusiast-oriented platform, this is an embarrassment. I don't think anyone will miss the plethora of third-party USB and SATA controllers that motherboard vendors have had to hack in to make their current LGA 2011 products workable.
I have to say, this answer confounds me. I've railed against the X79 PCH in past threads. It always seemed like a cheap solution from Intel, that should have been replaced by X89 when IB-e came out. They should have focused on getting all the SATA ports to properly work at the SATA III standards initially leaked slides indicated. That said, I'm not spending a couple thousand dollars (new PSU, RAM, CPU, mobo, and cooling block) in order to get them.

The Haswell-e offering, including PCH, is what I was expecting from SB-e (with the exception of DDR4). Given that, it isn't a reasonably intelligent expenditure to get features I've managed without for two years already. Assuming the pricing was a bit more reasonable, or I was replacing something older than SB-e, Haswell-e makes sense. Right now, a new platform for incremental improvements and extra connectivity isn't capable of justifying the cost.
Posted on Reply
#6
buildzoid
ArbitraryAffection said:
This.

Not saying that AMD's '8-core' solutions are bad, per se, just that it's always irritated me how said solutions can be bested by Quad-cores.

I'm considering the 5930K or whatever the cheapest, non extreme 8-core (if there is one) to replace my 2600K and P67 chipset. IB-E didn't really offer the performance improvement that I was looking at, not to mention the older chipset released at the same time as my P67.
Intels hyper threading only increases performance when the operations being done do not use the same part of the CPU core. So you can run floating point addition and integer addition in parallel on one core but you can't run integer addition in parallel with integer addition on one core. This results in AMDs octa cores rivaling 3930Ks in video encoding and other repetitive operations.

Also Haswell cores are not much faster than Ivy cores which are barely faster than Sandy cores when you talk clock per clock performance and unfortunately this difference get wiped out because most Sandy cores can do 5Ghz+ but only some Ivys can get 5Ghz and almost no Haswells get to 5Ghz. Now take of 100mhz of of the max OC for ever 2 extra cores and you end up with Haswell-e octas looking like they will average 4.5Ghz on water.
Posted on Reply
#7
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
As a cruncher, I am curious on how the 8 core will perform. I think $600 is a little high, but will wait to see how it performs/over clocks. I paid close to that for my first 6 core i7 970 shortly after they were released.
Posted on Reply
#8
Patriot
Aquinus said:
...and considering the number of PCI-E lanes, it's not like you can't throw a RAID card in it if you have money to blow on a 4960X which is why I think the "X79 chipset is old and out dated" argument is really kind of lame. If you need more bandwidth, you probably need a RAID card anyways. 40 lanes of PCI-E is a benefit in and of itself. It's not like 1155 or 1150 where you're stuck 16 lanes worth of PCI-E bandwidth which is only enough to drive crossfire or SLi with two cards, forget anything else. When you have 40 PCI-E lanes and a CPU that was initially designed for servers, you need to consider what the platform was targeted for. Having been a system admin, I can tell you that RAID cards provide much more bandwidth than a PCH will. Also, i should note that X79 does offer 8 PCI-E lanes as well.
Aye ... I have 8.2TB R5 hanging off a p212 in my current "x79" rig ... 80 pcie lanes is vunderful
Posted on Reply
#9
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
About it needing a new socket btw: Weren't they supposed to move the eletrical stuff off the CPU?
Posted on Reply
#10
JTristam
Svarog said:
Either too much money or trolling.
Or just saying my opinion. That's what I've been planning since Ivy Bridge. What's wrong with that? Either you didn't have better things to do or you didn't have better things to do. Look at the mirror, you are the one who's trolling. Hypocrite.

Frick said:
YOU CAPITALIST PIG YOU.

Also, you did use the word "rig", which usually describes the entire computer.
Oh come now Frick, what's so capitalist about that? I didn't switch to Haswell because I've been waited for Haswell-E. And rig, yeah, you're right. Usually. But I meant for "most of it" not "the whole". 4960x is the last thing and probably the only last thing I want to replace. Unfortunately switching to x99 will "force" me to replace my brand new 4960x. But as I said, no lost. 8 core worths it. At least I have a decent spare CPU and I've been saving money by skipping two generations so no problem with upgrading.

Aquinus said:
...and considering the number of PCI-E lanes, it's not like you can't throw a RAID card in it if you have money to blow on a 4960X which is why I think the "X79 chipset is old and out dated" argument is really kind of lame. If you need more bandwidth, you probably need a RAID card anyways. 40 lanes of PCI-E is a benefit in and of itself. It's not like 1155 or 1150 where you're stuck 16 lanes worth of PCI-E bandwidth which is only enough to drive crossfire or SLi with two cards, forget anything else. When you have 40 PCI-E lanes and a CPU that was initially designed for servers, you need to consider what the platform was targeted for. Having been a system admin, I can tell you that RAID cards provide much more bandwidth than a PCH will. Also, i should note that X79 does offer 8 PCI-E lanes as well.
Very good opinion and I know those facts about x79. That's not the reason why I planned to upgrade. But old and outdated part? It's old, but not outdated, mate. :D

Good Lord I don't know why some folks took my decision to upgrade way too seriously. What's wrong with swithcing to x99? Wait until Q3 2014 then you all can judge whether my decision to upgrade is pointless or not. Remember, we don't know what a x99 board can do yet. So hold your horses.

radrok said:
I'm expecting the stock 8 core Haswell-E to perform slightly more than a 5,0 Ghz SB-E/IVB-E 6 core.
You can quote me on this next year, when Haswell-E gets benched :toast:
I bet. With this and Kaveri, 2014 surely is going to be an interesting year.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#11
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
JTristam said:

Good Lord I don't know why some folks took my decision to upgrade way too seriously. What's wrong with swithcing to x99? Wait until Q3 2014 then you all can judge whether my decision to upgrade is pointless or not. Remember, we don't know what a x99 board can do yet. So hold your horses.
Oh, nothing is wrong with it. It's just that most people have no need for more cores and considering you have a 1000 USD CPU and that you'd have to replace if you go to 2011-3 to upgrade is what boggles me. Upgrading just to get a better PCH is a little nuts since it's not like Intel is going to be improving its CPU's IPC by all that much.

If more cores really helps you do what ever you're doing (no, it won't help with gaming at the moment,) then you can already get a 12c/24t 2011 Xeon. Considering it appears that you're willing to dump as much money as is needed into it, then go by two of them and a server board and completely forget the PCH because you'll have 80 PCI-E lanes to use.

Most people don't have the money to afford a 4960x, forget two Titans. Money probably means a bit more to a lot of people here than it does to you. I'm just saying.
Posted on Reply
#12
AsRock
TPU addict
Frick said:
YOU CAPITALIST PIG YOU.

Also, you did use the word "rig", which usually describes the entire computer.
I just thought the people who used the word RIG was just to make them feel more like men lol.


But on topic 2 pricey and i cannot say i need the extra cores anyways.
Posted on Reply
#13
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
AsRock said:
But on topic 2 pricey and i cannot say i need the extra cores anyways.
That's really the point I've been trying to make. ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
Vario
buildzoid said:
Intels hyper threading only increases performance when the operations being done do not use the same part of the CPU core. So you can run floating point addition and integer addition in parallel on one core but you can't run integer addition in parallel with integer addition on one core. This results in AMDs octa cores rivaling 3930Ks in video encoding and other repetitive operations.

Also Haswell cores are not much faster than Ivy cores which are barely faster than Sandy cores when you talk clock per clock performance and unfortunately this difference get wiped out because most Sandy cores can do 5Ghz+ but only some Ivys can get 5Ghz and almost no Haswells get to 5Ghz. Now take of 100mhz of of the max OC for ever 2 extra cores and you end up with Haswell-e octas looking like they will average 4.5Ghz on water.
Really pretty much spot on here. Sandy and Ivy are still probably the way to go unless you want more sata 6. Sadly z77 boards are starting to disappear. If your average Haswell does 4.3 on air, sandy does 4.8 on air, and ivy does 4.6 on air, the average sandy and ivy will perform better.


Possibly the haswell-e will have the soldered on IHS and this will help a lot I bet.


Also guys don't feed the troll.

Brusfantomet said:
hmm, maybe ill go from x58 to x99 then? Time will show.
Probably by then your x58 might be worth upgrading finally (since they are still really badass processors) or it may be better yet to go for a used older ivy/sandy and break even on cost for a 15-20% improvement.
Posted on Reply
#15
Patriot
AsRock said:
I just thought the people who used the word RIG was just to make them feel more like men lol.


But on topic 2 pricey and i cannot say i need the extra cores anyways.
huh.... I thought it was because we viewed them as work horses rather than toys.

I call mine rigs and boxen.... but I fold for a hobby so... that's why the high core count on everything.


I just wish intel didnt lock the high core count models. :(


I have lots of high end parts floating around... I don't really have more money to throw around than the average person I just put a higher portion of my income at computing than most.
My rigs are definitely worth more than my car. It is just a matter of priorities.
Posted on Reply
#16
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Patriot said:
I don't really have more money to throw around than the average person I just put a higher portion of my income at computing than most.
My rigs are definitely worth more than my car. It is just a matter of priorities.
I'm glad you're in a such a situation where you can prioritize something like that. A lot of people can't just "adjust funds" to be able to indulge. I suspect you either have less living expenses than most (someone may be helping to support you in some way, shape, or form,) or you actually have more money than you think you do.

My priority is that my family comes first, not my computer, but that's just me and my situation.
Posted on Reply
#17
radrok
Patriot said:
huh.... I thought it was because we viewed them as work horses rather than toys.

I call mine rigs and boxen.... but I fold for a hobby so... that's why the high core count on everything.


I just wish intel didnt lock the high core count models. :(


I have lots of high end parts floating around... I don't really have more money to throw around than the average person I just put a higher portion of my income at computing than most.
My rigs are definitely worth more than my car. It is just a matter of priorities.
Man let's just avoid talking about cars, you just remember me how much I spent on mine :oops:

That's a damn costly hobby!


I'm with you on the Intel's locked Xeons, for what they cost Intel could just leave the multiplicator unlocked, atleast on higher end parts!
Posted on Reply
#18
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
radrok said:
That's a damn costly hobby!
Speaks the guy with two water cooled Titans in SLI. :p
Posted on Reply
#19
radrok
Aquinus said:
Speaks the guy with two water cooled Titans in SLI. :p
That's about the cost of an unpainted aero kit :P
Posted on Reply
#20
Vlada011
This will be nice upgrade. Maybe is Q3 little early for me because 3770K will be still fast for games, but I count Q 2015 until we see more motherboards and memories.
2011 is long time on market, 3 years. Maybe they need to change something to improve performance. 2011 was for two Extreme generation, that's not bad.
Posted on Reply
#21
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
radrok said:
That's about the cost of an unpainted aero kit :p
I don't need an Aero kit. I'm perfectly happy with my 2001 Saab 9-5 Aero. :P

In all seriousness though, 2011 has been out for a while and all things considered, it has held up pretty well against even newer CPUs that are coming out. Much like how X58 still serves a lot of people very well.
Posted on Reply
#22
jihadjoe
Frick said:
About it needing a new socket btw: Weren't they supposed to move the eletrical stuff off the CPU?
DDR4 means they'll still need a new socket.
Posted on Reply
#23
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
jihadjoe said:
DDR4 means they'll still need a new socket.
...and a new CPU with a DDR4 controller, but that tends to come hand-in-hand with a new socket. If 2011-3 uses DDR4, then I think that most of the complaints about a socket change are over-exaggerated. Remember when SB-E came out, it has features that weren't yet available on Sandy Bridge (like PCI-E 3.0 and a faster IMC). I suspect that there will be little things that will make Haswell-E a bit better, but the real question is, "is it worth it?"

For me, my 3820 performs exceptionally and only when I do media encoding do I really max out the CPU, but I don't do that all that often. Until I need more cores, I doubt I'll upgrade it.
Posted on Reply
#24
Octavean
AsRock said:
I just thought the people who used the word RIG was just to make them feel more like men lol.


But on topic 2 pricey and i cannot say i need the extra cores anyways.
I've always hated the term "Rig". It seemed rather childish to me or maybe a little ignorant. It's the same term some drug addicts use to refer to the end product / preparation of some types of narcotics.

I much prefer the term "system" or to just call it what it actually is rather then some slang term.
Posted on Reply
#25
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Octavean said:
I've always hated the term "Rig". It seemed rather childish to me or maybe a little ignorant. It's the same term some drug addicts use to refer to the end product / preparation of some types of narcotics.

I much prefer the term "system" or to just call it what it actually is rather then some slang term.
As much as I enjoy going off topic (I do agree, I like calling it a "computer" :P), try to at least have something to add to the current topic so we don't digress.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment