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



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2013)

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.



 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## tacosRcool (Mar 18, 2013)

Its bandwidth is lower than the 3770k and 2700k, I wonder why that is?


----------



## 20mmrain (Mar 18, 2013)

So there is really no reason to upgrade from ivy bridge? Unless the overclocking potential is there..... or you want to use the stock on board GPU. Disappointing so far Intel disappointing. I hope things improve a little before real release.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't trust Tom's for anything....I can't wait to see real tests done at sites like this one and Anandtech...


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 18, 2013)

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...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 18, 2013)

Surprised Tom's got it again. Thought they'd go back to Anandtech.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2013)

Going by these numbers, you could upgrade only if you're coming from i5-750.


----------



## entropy13 (Mar 18, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Going by these numbers, you could upgrade only if you're coming from i5-750.



LOL yeah, a GPU upgrade is more 'effective' in my case.


----------



## jigar2speed (Mar 18, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Going by these numbers, you could upgrade only if you're coming from i5-750.



Exactly i am kindly of excited as i have been using Q6600 since almost 6 years.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 18, 2013)

20mmrain said:


> So there is really no reason to upgrade from ivy bridge? Unless the overclocking potential is there..... or you want to use the stock on board GPU. Disappointing so far Intel disappointing. I hope things improve a little before real release.



Why? It's not like this was unexpected. They been saying for a while that Haswell wasn't going to be a big performance boost over IB or SB. It's only suppose to be more power efficent. I'm actually a little surprised it's giving as performance boost as it is. I was expecting it to be the same as IB and about 10% better than SB performance wise.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 18, 2013)

It looks like a lot of these benchmarks that shows huge gains are mostly from the HD4600. CPU wise, not much has changed in performance.

Ugh...whatever it's tom's hardware.


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 18, 2013)

Its not too bad. Toms must be using a pre-production 1150 motherboard as well as an engineering sample CPU. A little tuning could improve things plus we get bclk overclocking back(as well as mutli) and 6 sata 6GB/s ports/USB 3 ports.

 The RAID crowd will much appreciate 6 Intel sata 6GB/s ports so they don't have to use dodgy third party controllers.

 If it overclocks easily to 5Ghz on low voltage could be a real winner.


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 18, 2013)

Title sums it all up nicely.


----------



## repman244 (Mar 18, 2013)

Expected results, Haswell is all about power consumption and new instructions.


----------



## Animalpak (Mar 18, 2013)

Enough with that integrated graphics bullshit ! 

WE STILL CONTINUE BUYING DEDICATED GRAPHICS CARD !!!


----------



## D4S4 (Mar 18, 2013)

soldered or tim?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 18, 2013)

Boring... I am still sitting on my LGA1366...

Till DDR4 invasion there is no sense spending money... gosh AMD give some competition to Intel  in this hideous plan of consumer robbery.


----------



## The DOOM SL4YER (Mar 18, 2013)

*intel Haswell*

i expected a better performance....


----------



## RCoon (Mar 18, 2013)

Lucifer666 said:


> i expected a better performance....



But but but intel improved the integrated graphics. That's what everybody wanted wasnt it? right? RIGHT?! Nobody buys a GPU with a 3770k nowadays right?

I expected nothing less than this.


----------



## sergionography (Mar 18, 2013)

Idk why everyone is complaining, 7-13%  ipc improvement is pretty significant, with the higher number in floating point workloads, remember this is at the same clockspeed. And haswell is supposed to bring better efficiency and probably higher clockspeed at the same tdp as u scale down to mobile. Now im an amd fan but its only fair that we keep unbiased, piledriver brought similar improvement over bulldozer with ipc and clockspeed combined, and with CPUs to get more than 15% bump in ipc is one year is almost impossible, the only reason u previously saw better improvements is because when first Gen i7s came out most had i7 920 clocked at like 2.6ghz, but after 3-4ghz scaling becomes worse even on smaller nodes. Now with steamroller we might expect more improvement than 15% but only because bulldozer had many obvious faults but hardly the case with ivy
Now the best thing Intel can do going forward is either bring more cores to the mainstream, or redesign the pipelines with more stages to scale at higher clockspeeds


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't remember, did everyone complain like this about Ivy?


----------



## repman244 (Mar 18, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't remember, did everyone complain like this about Ivy?



It was even worse, because everyone thought that Ivy was a new architecture but in reality it's only a tweaked SB.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 18, 2013)

Never the less, the first chart (almost 2x vs 2700k) is pretty impressive ihmo, especially that things will probably improve further after some compiler optimization will be added for the new processor.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 18, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> They been saying for a while that Haswell wasn't going to be a big performance boost over IB or SB.


Because they are waiting for AMD to catch up so they can have Benchmark competition fun once again


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 18, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't remember, did everyone complain like this about Ivy?


Yes of course they did but it's mostly the yearly update performance crowd which is fair enough I spose.
Intel have done it again.  Not much more but tempting for some


----------



## Rebel333 (Mar 18, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Surprised Tom's got it again. Thought they'd go back to Anandtech.



Nope, they did not, anandtech is a trashcan.


----------



## chinmi (Mar 18, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Going by these numbers, you could upgrade only if you're coming from i5-750.



yup... that's my current cpu 
totally gonna upgrade to haswell... 

but some of my "totally rich and need to have the latest kind of thing" friends that have ivy is also planned to upgrade to haswell (he previously upgrade from sandy to ivy), so i think as long as you can afford it, why not


----------



## Shihab (Mar 18, 2013)

D4S4 said:


> soldered or tim?



The TDP's higher than Ivy's. Hopefully, it will be soldered. The Higher end chips at least.


----------



## Pandora's Box (Mar 18, 2013)

Can't blame intel for focusing on integrated GPU this time. Their CPU performance is top notch already, iGPU performance is lacking compared to AMD.


----------



## badtaylorx (Mar 18, 2013)

chinmi said:


> yup... that's my current cpu
> totally gonna upgrade to haswell...
> 
> but some of my "totally rich and need to have the latest kind of thing" friends that have ivy is also planned to upgrade to haswell (he previously upgrade from sandy to ivy), so i think as long as you can afford it, why not



f' the upgrade then.....scoop up your rich friends sandy/ivy system


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 18, 2013)

My 2600K does way more than I need it to so upgrading for me will only be in the GPU department in the near future.


----------



## syeef (Mar 18, 2013)

Little performance upgrade + USB 3.0 issue = not worth upgrading if you ask me.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 18, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> My 2600K does way more than I need it to so upgrading for me will only be in the GPU department in the near future.



Yeah, you need to get rid of those 6950 cards, get you a 7970 and some pie.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 18, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Yeah, you need to get rid of those 6950 cards, get you a 7970 and some pie.



Honestly I have thought about offering them up for a GTX 670 to help a cruncher out since the GTX 670 is HORRIBLE on points.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 18, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> Honestly I have thought about offering them up for a GTX 670 to help a cruncher out since the GTX 670 is HORRIBLE on points.



Why would you get a 670 over a 7970 for a crunching rig? I know you know the 7970 is the best card for crunching, short of maybe Titan or workstation GPUs.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 18, 2013)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Why would you get a 670 over a 7970 for a crunching rig? I know you know the 7970 is the best card for crunching, short of maybe Titan or workstation GPUs.



The thing is barbaric I wouldnt be crunching the main anymore


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

I am quite satisfied with this jump in performance, remember guys Ivy shouldn't have brought us IPC improvements so basically you should compare this to Sandy Bridge and look at the leap forward it has made.

I am pretty sure that if Intel kept the IPC improvements from Ivy and released it all into Haswell you'd be all shocked about the performance leap, which is quite significant from SB to Haswell.

Anyway I can't wait to see how this translates into the real deal, the HEDT platform since the 1150/1155 socket is doomed to be gimped down to 4 cores and integrated graphics.

Would be insane to see an Haswell based 8 core CPU, the jump from a 3930K/3960X would be mind blowing.


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 18, 2013)

tacosRcool said:


> Its bandwidth is lower than the 3770k and 2700k, I wonder why that is?



Might've been because of slower memory used, inefficient mobo/bios, or because they changed the memory hierarchy. Apparently they're going back to a seperate plane for the L3 cache, so the GPU can also benefit from it when the CPU cores are clocked lower.

Interesting read.


----------



## rooivalk (Mar 18, 2013)

I though the last image is haswell performance using dedicated gpu lol.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 18, 2013)

radrok said:


> remember guys Ivy shouldn't have brought us IPC improvements



Why shouldn't it? I went from conroe to yorkfield for a reason.


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Why shouldn't it? I went from conroe to yorkfield for a reason.



Die shrink shouldn't give that much of an improvement, that's where I got my conclusion.

Intel has surely tweaked the architecture from SB to Ivy.


----------



## boogerlad (Mar 18, 2013)

Why do you guys want a soldered ihs? Removing the ihs is the best feature of ivy bridge.


----------



## Steven B (Mar 18, 2013)

voiding your warranty is a good feature?


----------



## boogerlad (Mar 18, 2013)

Well I assume a lot of people here overclock, so warranty isn't a huge concern. There's no purpose of ivy bridge otherwise, with a 3% ipc boost over sandy bridge.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 18, 2013)

my ivy bridge. Cheap, sips energy, performs much better than my Phenom II BE.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 18, 2013)

I think they have the IHS soldered to the die instead of using TIM?


----------



## jihadjoe (Mar 18, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> I think they have the IHS soldered to the die instead of using TIM?



I heard its stuck on using peanut butter.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2013)

Shihabyooo said:


> *The TDP's higher than Ivy's. *



WHUT?!?


Uh, no?

Ivy has 87W TDP, with no graphics.


I'd have expected desktop versions here(i7 3780, 8-thread, 3.6 GHz stock, 4.0 GHZ turbo, i7 3790, 8-thread, 3.7 GHz stock, 4.1 GHZ turbo), and haswell is stupid to me, but whatever, I don't work for Intel. I have said for over a year now haswell was underwhelming. I am not sure why anyone expected anything different. Same thing applies to solder under the IHS. Don't expect what isn't coming.








http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/29902/Ivy-Bridge


----------



## overclocking101 (Mar 18, 2013)

basically TH is saying they are unimpressed but in a nice way. I think everyone expected a little more out haswell


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2013)

I'll be getting the 4770k regardless.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 18, 2013)

not worth for sure


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 18, 2013)

I think I'll be sticking with my i7-875K for another generation.

Though I am contemplating a FX-8320 at this point just for something new to play around with, and they're dirt cheap...


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> I think I'll be sticking with my i7-875K for another generation.
> 
> Though I am contemplating a FX-8320 at this point just for something new to play around with, and they're dirt cheap...



For you, it'd be a great upgrade. For anyone with IVB, not so much. Same story as with IVB launch. Frankly, most people don't really need more CPU power than what's currently available, so I can't honestly say that I'm upset at all by this. Intel is lacking on IGP, and they have improved it. Surprise!

Moving to AMD, for gaming, might be the smart move. I'm seriously considering it myself. If only they could get a decent GPU driver out...


----------



## radrok (Mar 18, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> If only they could get a decent GPU driver out...



Did you just say... 

Seriously, I honestly hope that too


----------



## xorbe (Mar 18, 2013)

Look at that almost doubled L1 cache bandwidth on Haswell.  That could probably explain half of any of the small gains.  Man look at SB-E lay down the law still.  So many of those tests involved the on-die GPU, oh well.


----------



## techtard (Mar 18, 2013)

Looks like my i5-2500K will last until the next socket unless my computing needs drastically change in the near future.

People shouldn't really be expecting too much in the way of performance improvements on the CPU side of things, Intel is sacrificing pure IPC to fit their IGP on chip. Not a bad tradeoff for most.


----------



## TheHunter (Mar 18, 2013)

I said this on another forum, 
by processor multimeda float/integer/double its at least 40% faster.

That bandwidth int/float AVX could be sisoftSandra compatibility issue since 3gb/s slower, i doubt they would cripple memory bandwidth.


Also it will OC better, it has similar OC tweaks like SB-E unlocked bus? Imo another bonus, also fixed soldering like mentioned by Anandtech and option to upgrade to Broadwell 

btw im aiming for this i7 4770K


----------



## Hood (Mar 18, 2013)

*Soldered IHS Would Be Nice*

I have an i5-3570K, but would consider a 4670K if they fixed the heat problem by soldering the spreader.  My CPU just doesn't seem to be able to go to 4.4 and stay stable, at lowest stable voltage it hits 80c running IBT or Prime95, even in the Winter with 4 fans on my H100, and of course it's higher in Summer.  I keep it at 4.3 to avoid long term degradation from the heat.  K series chips are designed to overclock, so quit with the wimpy TIM, Intel, and go back to solder!


----------



## Jstn7477 (Mar 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## The DOOM SL4YER (Mar 18, 2013)

*Intel*



RCoon said:


> But but but intel improved the integrated graphics. That's what everybody wanted wasnt it? right? RIGHT?! Nobody buys a GPU with a 3770k nowadays right?
> 
> I expected nothing less than this.



i care not for the intergrated gpu i care about cpu performance according to these results there is no big difference between Ivybridge and Haswell so why should someone buy the 4770k....i will wait for next cpu core....


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 18, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> I don't trust Tom's for anything....I can't wait to see real tests done at sites like this one and Anandtech...



That must be a joke. They're both shills for intel. So, they both should be equal on this lol.

Sounds like a clock increase more than anything (better boost) aside from multimedia using the newer instructions that are tweaked.

Sandra is a joke. Even it can be made to show 15% more (saw 30% for a specific test lol) for IVB over SB LOL. What a worthless app.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Mar 19, 2013)

still getting one


----------



## Novulux (Mar 19, 2013)

Considering I purchased my i7-3770k for $229, I could probably get most of that back on resale. I've been wanting to upgrade my motherboard for a while.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 19, 2013)

I usually upgrade my CPU every other architecture.  Went from a Q6600 to my i5-2500k, and I plan on holding onto this thing for at least another year or two.  I always figured that's what most people do when it comes to buying Intel CPU's, there is very rarely a reason to upgrade year to year.  Also, those gains from HD4000->HD4600 are no joke.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 19, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> WHUT?!?
> 
> 
> Uh, no?



Sorry, am I missing something? Your pic shows Xeon processors. I was referring to the i7 3770k which has 77w TDP. While the i7 4770k is rated at 84w, if I chose to believe Tom's.

I believe Xeons and LGA2011/1366 chips do usually have higher TDP than lesser mainstream parts, no?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 19, 2013)

Shihabyooo said:


> Sorry, am I missing something? Your pic shows Xeon processors. I was referring to the i7 3770k which has 77w TDP. While the i7 4770k is rated at 84w, if I chose to believe Tom's.
> 
> I believe Xeons and LGA2011/1366 chips do usually have higher TDP than lesser mainstream parts, no?



THAT Xeon is still IVB.

And it still has no solder...


and, it's just the CPU core active, not the CPU core AND the GPU, which means that 87W is contained within a smaller space than any 3770K. There's nothing wrong with the current Paste-using chips, they don't wrong too hot...people's perceptions of what is too hot is what the problem is.


----------



## Shihab (Mar 19, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> THAT Xeon is still IVB.
> 
> And it still has no solder...
> 
> ...



The matter isn't whether the Xeon is Ivy bridge or not. Yes, having no igp would give us the x86 core TDP alone, but still, we can't compare two architectures by comparing 2 different SKUs for it. Xeons and mainstream i7 aren't just the same. We are yet to know how Haswell Xeons will fare to compare them to IB's xeons.

There is nothing for either of us to argue about here, what I said earlier wasn't wrong. Comparing CPUs from the same targeted segment, mainstream i7s, Haswell is rated for a higher TDP than Ivy Bridge.
Not saying you are mistaken though, the temperature increase is indeed negligible. But still, people's got right to wish for even a couple of degrees drop in temps.

P.S: I didn't say Haswell _will_ use solder, I think i threw in "hopefully" somewhere around.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 19, 2013)

Going back and reexamining the benchmarks for the 2700k vs 3770k the IPC difference on stuff that actually affects us is 0-3%. It's looking like that's what we'll end up with here too, which means the whole farm is bet on the overclocking potential. 5-5.2 GHz 24/7 is a must to get the enthusiast community upgrading. At this rate I think I was right on target when I figured Skylake would be the next viable upgrade for sandy owners.


----------



## overclocking101 (Mar 19, 2013)

im either gonna stick out with my ole i7 875k or upping to a 3770k setup but at this point it's really not worth an upgrade. intel just keeps realesing a new socket every time they launch a new cpu. It's straight dumb to screw the people over like that, intel could easily make their boards compatible with new cpu's just they did with 775 but they are greedy.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 19, 2013)

overclocking101 said:


> intel could easily make their boards compatible with new cpu's just they did with 775 but they are greedy.




It has nothing to do with Intel, and everything to do with Intel's board partners. Intel is leaving the motherboard business, even, over the next three years, so really, you are barking up the wrong tree there.

Boards are changing because power delivery is changing, really. That's all. Spending MILLIONS in R&D for socket and chipset tech wouldn't be done unless absolutely required. Intel needs more power for iGPU, and did it, but required new socket. We've known about these chips and the new socket for literally years now. It's not like they decided at the last moment to change...this a plan that has been years in the making, finally coming to fruition.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 19, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> ntel is leaving the motherboard business



this gave me sad, i like Intel boards:shadedshu


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2013)

Good riddance. Intel boards == cheap components/built, buggy BIOS.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 19, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Good riddance. Intel boards == cheap components/built, buggy BIOS.



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.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 19, 2013)

Not a bad look, better performance at lower power consumption = w1n!


----------



## trickson (Mar 19, 2013)

Looks great to me. I do not see what every one is bitching about.  At least Intel is giving us some real time power performance. Even if Tom's Hardware is off a tad the #'s are impressive.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 19, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Good riddance. Intel boards == cheap components/built, buggy BIOS.



Intel boards lack "extra" features, they usually pick from the cheapest reliable components, but they are rock solid stable most of the times, something you can always count on if you have to build machines what you don't want to "touch" for many years. They also act as a reference many times. 
Yes some boards they made didn't have solid caps and they indeed released some crap too, but which company didn't? They have good stable boards in every generations, and I like every good board regardless of the brand, so it's a loss for the industry imho.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> 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.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 19, 2013)

btarunr said:


> 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.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> 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.


----------



## arbiter (Mar 20, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> 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.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 20, 2013)

btarunr said:


> 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


----------



## NeoXF (Mar 20, 2013)

arbiter said:


> 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.


----------



## Ikaruga (Mar 20, 2013)

NeoXF said:


> 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.


----------



## Hood (Mar 20, 2013)

*Great Answer!*



Jstn7477 said:


> 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


----------



## trickson (Mar 20, 2013)

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!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 20, 2013)

trickson said:


> 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.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 20, 2013)

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.


----------



## trickson (Mar 20, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> 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!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 20, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> 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.


----------



## arbiter (Mar 20, 2013)

NeoXF said:


> 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.


----------



## trickson (Mar 20, 2013)

arbiter said:


> 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!


----------



## Melvis (Mar 21, 2013)

trickson said:


> This thread is not about AMD it is about the new Intel CPU and it is FANTASTIC!



But yet you started it??:shadedshu


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2013)

Melvis said:


> But yet you started it??:shadedshu



Yeah I am the one.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 21, 2013)

trickson said:


> Yeah I am the one.



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.


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 21, 2013)

trickson said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## trickson (Mar 21, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 21, 2013)

trickson said:


> 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 .


----------



## arbiter (Mar 22, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 22, 2013)

arbiter said:


> 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


----------



## xenocide (Mar 25, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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.


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Mar 25, 2013)

For those interested in pricing...

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013032401_Intel_Haswell_desktop_CPUs_are_available_for_pre-order.html


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 26, 2013)

xenocide said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> The 960t was noticabley worse than even first gen i7's.



Whilst I agreet with them haveing the performance , I ment sales , sold skus and money in ,qualcom and imagination tech are doing way better than intel in sales in mobile obv but all in we both agree intel can inovate and create a chip its sales tho
Dont get sidelined by the arm comment I mentioned them as imho they are intels r and d  focus nemisis not amd for eg


The 960t replaced a Q6600 and was a usable valid upgrade path since moneys tight yet I wanted 4x pciex my options we're amd but im not biased


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 4, 2013)

xenocide said:


> 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.



Wait a second.

Intel has been developing the x86-64 designed processors since the 80's.  If my math is correct, that's 30+ years to get the designs correct.  They've had time to learn how to boost power efficiency, increase operational frequency, and they've got a development budget that makes some nations look poor comparatively.  

ARM is an initiative by multiple entities that takes the less utilized RISC instruction set and agreed upon standards to make low power consumption chips.  Let's agree with that 20th revision ARM processor assumption.  If Intel only had 3 processor revisions during R&D every year, you're looking at 90th+ generation of Intel x86-64 processor.  Intel is ARM's senior by enough revisions to consider the two entities entirely separate of one another.



Back on topic.  4770~=3770 isn't something new.  Intel is focusing on mobile platforms (socket 2011 being the first casualty, but 1155 not lagging too far behind), and allowing higher performing segments to languish.  It's not a surprise to anyone who's been around in the past three years.

Intel is trying to squash ARM.  It's trying to prevent the APU from claiming any ground.  Intel is finding itself in a unique position where two competitors have had a lead into the market they want to be in.  AMD has graphics, ARM has power efficiency, and Intel is closing the gap.  I know that it isn't what power users want to hear, but at least the mobile computing market isn't stagnating.


----------



## NeoXF (Apr 5, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> The 960t replaced a Q6600 and was a usable valid upgrade path since moneys tight yet I wanted 4x pciex my options we're amd but im not biased



Didn't 960T's also have a slight chance of unlocking into hexa-cores? And by that, I'm pretty sure it would outpace any Core 2 Intels, maybe except a Skulltrail setup, LMAO.


Anyway, anyone know if Haswell Pentiums or at least i3s will have PCI-Express 3.0?


----------

