Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by BloodTotal, Jan 1, 2013.
I hope it will be at least 30% faster.
Probably only about 10% or less. The graphics section may be a lot better though.
No more than 25% although 15% would seem likely clock for clock. They haven't really announced new features so it's hard to measure the level
I thought haswell was like piledriver, essentially the same as previous gen, just refined a bit. I wouldnt think it would be much more powerful at all, they seem to be going for improved power consumptions and IGP over anything else. clock of clock i can see it being a few percent better, but the real changes are in the graphics and power area.
I also hope they wont make the same mistake with the IHS like they did for Ivy,as for the Size margin of the Cores on the die,it could even decrease further.
This. I think that the CPU itself might be 5-10% faster clock for clock but no more. The big highlights of Haswell are the changes to the graphic subsystem and VRM control. We might see higher clocks with Haswell without using more power though because I suspect the VRM changes should result in more consistent power distribution which should help stability at any given voltage.
All in all, I think it will run a tiny bit faster using less power for the cores. The only thing Intel is really lacking on is the iGPU performance and even that has been getting better.
Edit: Ah, I forgot that Haswell might sport a flexible bclk like my 3820 has on skt2011. That would be nice for more finely adjusting the memory speed and overclocking non-k edition CPUs. A big plus in my book if that's true, because then the i3 can overclock again assuming the i3 won't be strictly BGA.
It wasn't really a mistake. Ivy Bridge runs pletty cool if you have the resources to do so.
10% maby 15% in certain area's
Well, that depends... If it is going to be marketed by Apple, then 2,6X faster than 3770k (the only test being BF3, medium settings). For real, I expect no more than 10% increase, no less than 5%, and much better extreme OC than ivy.
Well if you look at it from Intel's prospective its not a mistake,they saved on money while still making sales,if you take a general look at ivy bridge then you will see that it is far from being a failure,but that particular move was a mistake,i bought my ivy bridge knowing that and i dont regret it,but i wish that they would solder it.
I suppose if they're going to delay it we'd have time to do a petition asking for solder specifically on "K" Haswell chips.
Confirmed new features
Haswell New Instructions (includes Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (AVX2), gather, bit manipulation, and FMA3 support).
New sockets — LGA 1150 for desktops and rPGA947 & BGA1364 for the mobile market.
Intel Transactional Synchronization Extensions (TSX)
Graphics support in hardware for Direct3D 11.1 and OpenGL 4.0
DDR4 for the enterprise/server variant (Haswell-EX)
Variable Base clock (BClk) like LGA 2011.
Supervisor mode access prevention (SMAP)
Shrink PCH from 65 nm to 32 nm.
A new cache design.
Up to 32MB Unified cache LLC (Last Level Cache).
Support for Thunderbolt technology.
There will be three versions of the integrated GPU: GT1, GT2, and GT3. According to vr-zone, the fastest version (GT3) will have 20 execution units (EU).Another source, SemiAccurate, however says that the GT3 will have 40 EUs with an accompanying 64MB cache on an interposer. An additional source, AnandTech, agrees that GT3 will have 40 EUs, and states there will be a version with up to 128MB of embedded DRAM, but makes no mention of an interposer. Haswell's predecessor, Ivy Bridge, has a maximum of 16 EUs.
New advanced power-saving system.
Fully integrated voltage regulator, thereby moving a component from the motherboard onto the CPU.
37, 47, 57W thermal design power (TDP) mobile processors.
35, 45, 65, 84, and ~100W+ (high-end, Haswell-E) TDP desktop processors.
10W TDP processors for the Ultrabook platform (multi-chip package like Westmere) leading to reduced heat which results in thinner as well as lighter Ultrabooks, but performance level will be lower than the 17W version.
It's looking more and more like Haswell will mostly benefit those whom are looking for an affordable laptop that will play all but the most demanding games.
Yup, 10-15% per clock in general which is the normal increase for architectures that don't include very big changes. (IMC was a big change for example.) If clocks go up some too that could make the real increase greater. This is for programs without any special compiling, if there is anything that has AVX or AVX2 or TSX (drool) then the increases could be huge. I expect the processor will continue to get better over time as more programs implement these instructions.
You didn't have to copy that out of Wikipedia.
At least say where you got it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)
Intel made a presentation of Haswell many months ago. Here's a good read about it.
It doesn't say though how much faster it's gonna be...
Same manufacturing technology.
Same transistor structure.
Unknown if solder or paste will be used.
Unknown how much of an improvement in VRM there will be.
Statements from Intel confirming that the new iGPU might actually compete with an APU.
Lower TDPs confirmed.
I see minimal differentiation (10-15% cycle-per-cycle at most) for the CPU. The GPU component is where Intel is focusing development. For that, a more moderate (20-30% minimum, but a host of newer features) improvement seems likely. The inclusion of new instruction sets is interesting, but any gains there are well outside of comment.
Of course, this is all based around Intel putting real effort forward with their processors. They are already tooled up to switch focus to mobile computing, and a company as big as Intel doesn't make that leap without forcing some market segments to wither...
Intel didn't care about enthusiasts when they put that inferior heatspreader on it, that's the bottom line. IB would have made a nice point upgrade to SB otherwise.
Perhaps it was the beancounters forcing the engineers to put this in? We'll probably never know.
Pretty much. I don't suspect there will be any reason to upgrade my 2600K in the next year or so.
Also the new consoles coming out are gonna be a bucket of fail also so PC users are safe for YEARS to come with gaming.
IvyBridge was 5% on average faster per clock than SandyBridge..... There is no telling till it is released but I would say 10% or so.
Graphics is anywhere between 200~300% faster, processing is 10~15%.
Source: my magic arse.
I DO have a question in this area for any of you who are knowledgeable in this field. I built a gaming PC for My basement, it consists of an i5 2500k, a WD HDD, a Samsung HDD, Plenty on RaM, and a good GPU,Do You think I should upgrade in the next year??
Or do You think this build will hold up for a while?
I DO realize an SSD would be a good step, and that IS coming, but as far as the CPU goes, How long do You think I'm good for?
And you sir are the Para Brahman of BS.
One million percent
This question would be better asked in your own thread and with the exact specs of your system, especially the graphics card.
Separate names with a comma.