# All's Well That Haswell?



## btarunr (Nov 9, 2011)

Here are the first slides detailing Haswell, Intel's next generation processor architecture that succeeds Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. Intel follows a "tick-tock" product development model. Every year, Intel's product lineup sees either of the two. A "tock" brings in a new x86 architecture, a "tick" miniaturizes it to a newer silicon fabrication process. For example, Sandy Bridge is Intel's latest architecture, and is based on the 32 nm fab process. Ivy Bridge is a miniaturization of Sandy Bridge to 22 nm. Likewise, Haswell will be a brand new architecture, it will use the 22 nm fab process cemented by Ivy Bridge. 

If all goes well with Intel's 22 nm process, Haswell is scheduled for Q2 2013. 2012 (Q2 onwards) will be led by Ivy Bridge. But then here's a "shocker": Haswell's desktop version will use a brand new socket, LGA115*0*, and will be incompatible with LGA1155. This is because of drastic changes in the pin map of the package. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge share the LGA1155 socket, and will hence, have kept the socket alive for over 2 years. A major change with the component arrangement in the platform that is affecting Haswell's pin map is that Haswell will have a higher bandwidth chipset bus, rearranged PCIe pins (with FDI pins), rearranged power pins, and miscellaneous pins. It does away with a separate power domain for the integrated graphics controller. 



 

 

 

 




Haswell will bring several new features to the table, including next-generation RapidStart quick boot capabilities that reduce cold-boot times to 2 seconds. The processor's IPC will be increased over Ivy Bridge. The mobile version will include features that will further increase battery life of mainstream notebooks. Haswell will feature improved media HD to HD transcoding capabilities. It will bring technologies such as NFC (near-field communication), and Thunderbolt (10 Gbps interconnect) to the masses.

Moving on to the platform itself, it is named "Shark Bay", and will be available in 2-chip quad-core and 1-chip dual-core variants. The quad-core chips and some dual-core chips will use the usual socketed motherboards with a single-chip chipset (PCH) which is smaller than today's PCH chips, while the some dual-core chips will completely integrate the PCH into the processor's package, eliminating an external chipset. The dual-core chips will be available in BGA packages.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 9, 2011)

Meh, if they have to make a new socket for early 2013 to make their new architecture work, that's fine. Look at AMD holding themselves back with the same sockets and chipsets for the last few years to respect "compatibility." You would think they would have to change the pin map *significantly* at least once within the last nearly 6 years to make something NOT resemble an Athlon 64 X2? You wouldn't use a Pentium III Coppermine board for a 3.8GHz P4 EE, would you?


----------



## qubit (Nov 9, 2011)

Sounds interesting.

I don't mind the change in motherboards required for a new architecture, as compatibility often puts constraints on performance and compatibility.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 9, 2011)

qubit said:


> Sounds interesting.
> 
> I don't mind the change in motherboards required for a new architecture, as compatibility often puts constraints on performance and compatibility.



Do you really think they couldn't of managed it with their current socket? ( not nesscerily this one as I don't know all the details, but the others they've done and are out now)

It's defitnitely a deliberate way to make people upgrade their entire system rather than just one part.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 9, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.



Preferably every day. It's a company, their sole purpose is to make money.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 9, 2011)

[Price of true performance increases.  Though intels cpus are way more powerful than what we typically need them for. First gen Ix could last u for several years.without much problems. But  If you want a benz u gotta pay for a benz and its up keep.[/INDENT]


----------



## Feänor (Nov 9, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Do you really think they couldn't of managed it with their current socket? ( not nesscerily this one as I don't know all the details, but the others they've done and are out now)
> 
> It's defitnitely a deliberate way to make people upgrade their entire system rather than just one part.



Agreed. With the budget of their R&D department, which could be the one of a small country, i really don't think they can change socket every two years. As architecture advance, there will be necessary socket changes, but they don't act like they're trying avoid it. And god it fit with the intel attitude of these last years: Dominate. And charge whatever you like amount of cash for that performance.


----------



## qubit (Nov 9, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Do you really think they couldn't of managed it with their current socket? ( not nesscerily this one as I don't know all the details, but the others they've done and are out now)
> 
> It's defitnitely a deliberate way to make people upgrade their entire system rather than just one part.



Could be, but without having the fine details of both architectures, I wouldn't want to speculate one way or the other. There could be little gotchas here and there that would hold things back significantly. Could be also be a mix of profiteering and technical improvement for all I know. Dunno without said details.



DanTheBanjoman said:


> Preferably every day. It's a company, their sole purpose is to make money.



Since when? I'm shocked!


----------



## parelem (Nov 9, 2011)

Very interested in seeing the BGA offerings...


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 9, 2011)

parelem said:


> Very interested in seeing the BGA offerings...



Is that referring to the old Ball Grid Array assembly packaging?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Nov 9, 2011)

qubit said:


> Since when? I'm shocked!



Good, my sole purpose is to shock you. Isn't it nice how everything has a purpose?


----------



## gumpty (Nov 9, 2011)

Feanor said:


> As architecture advance, there will be necessary socket changes, but they don't act like they're trying avoid it.



Why would they bother to avoid it? Something like 95% of their processors are sold to people who don't know what a socket is, in a generic box with a power button that makes the screen run some funny windows program.

EDIT: Of course there is the cost incurred on partners who have to develop and engineer new motherboards.


----------



## qubit (Nov 9, 2011)

gumpty said:


> Why would they bother to avoid it? Something like 95% of their processors are sold to people who don't know what a socket is, in a generic box with a power button that makes the screen run some funny windows program.



Oh god yes, that does sound like the clueless 95% of users. Cue my workplace...

"makes the screen run some funny windows program." Excellent, love it.


----------



## Drone (Nov 9, 2011)

Today everyone changes their pc like you change your socks. *"*New*"* sockets no longer surprise anyone


----------



## erixx (Nov 9, 2011)

99% don't change mobos nor processors so... 
and we the elite don't care, even better, we love to change'em moar and moar, we have spare time and money to burn haha

no seriously: mobos are of the few parts that still contain excitement and evolution!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 9, 2011)

Who care's if it's a new socket every 2 years, it was a new chipset every 2 years with LGA775 that you needed to buy a new motherboard for if you wanted the latest chip, there's no difference.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 9, 2011)

I think it's fine for a company to change their product line every two years.  As long as the change is a process of technological innovation then why complain?  I've had my x58 for over 2.5 years now.  I know there are folk out there with *much *older set ups still going strong.

Nobody forces us to buy a new platform - it's a freedom we get to choose.  There really is no point trying to pin your product evolution on the premise that we must please our users (especially if that premise holds back our development).  If we've pleased our users enough, then the product they've got should last comfortably for more than two years.

Upgrading is a choice, not an obligation.


----------



## freaksavior (Nov 9, 2011)

here we go again.... thanks intel.


----------



## parelem (Nov 9, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Is that referring to the old Ball Grid Array assembly packaging?



Yes, which will be used for embedded systems. I've been less than impressed with the current embedded core i series offerings, these Haswell chips should provide what I'm looking for.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 9, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Who care's if it's a new socket every 2 years, it was a new chipset every 2 years with LGA775 that you needed to buy a new motherboard for if you wanted the latest chip, there's no difference.



Exactly. Plus, there will likely be stuff like full SATA 6Gb/s controllers and built-in USB 3.0 by then.


----------



## micksh (Nov 9, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Who care's if it's a new socket every 2 years, it was a new chipset every 2 years with LGA775 that you needed to buy a new motherboard for if you wanted the latest chip, there's no difference.


It didn't have to be that way.
I still have ASrock 775Dual-VSTA motherboard with VIA PT880 chipset that was made for Pentium 4/Pentium D. It works with at least 4 generations of CPUs. From 90nm Pentium 4 to 45nm Core 2 Duo. Got both DDR1/DDR2 and AGP/PCIe support too.


----------



## Enmity (Nov 9, 2011)

funny how the great intel is still only bringing out 4 core cpus in 2013 according to those slides - surely the slides must be only pointing to the lowest end haswell cpus rather than 6, 8 and 12 core cpus.

I remember a few years ago there was this big hoo haa over by the time 2012 hits, we'll be seeing up to 32 core cpus - granted this was just a prediction. If competition was as fierce as it was back then, then i suppose we probably could have seen an increase to at least 20+ cores. Since then though we've all found out that by simply slapping on more cores is no good either...coughbulldozercough.


----------



## qubit (Nov 9, 2011)

micksh said:


> It didn't have to be that way.
> I still have ASrock 775Dual-VSTA motherboard with VIA PT880 chipset that was made for Pentium 4/Pentium D. It works with at least 4 generations of CPUs. From 90nm Pentium 4 to 45nm Core 2 Duo. *Got both DDR1/DDR2 and AGP/PCIe support too.*



Yeah, that's one thing I like about AsRock, they bring out these handy hybrid mobos that no one else does. More companies should follow their lead in this respect, I think.


----------



## erocker (Nov 9, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.



I'm sure Intel would love it if you bought a new motherboard every two hours. Thing is, it's really not up to Intel but the end-user. In two years will you need a new motherboard/CPU if you're using something from their existing lineup? Doubt it.


----------



## 20mmrain (Nov 9, 2011)

This is stupid! Hopefully bulldozer will come to in to it's own by then.


----------



## Delta6326 (Nov 9, 2011)

Why is everybody crapping their pants about new socket every 2 years? Do you honestly have to get a new processor and mobo every 2 years? my LGA 775 is still running perfect with ni hiccups and it runs at 100% all the time I got it back in 2008.

I think people should be asking the question why did we loose *5 pins?* It seems backwards to get less pins, but this may mean they have made it more efficient.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 9, 2011)

*flying red pigs*



20mmrain said:


> This is stupid! Hopefully bulldozer will come to in to it's own by then.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 9, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.



you don't already?


----------



## qubit (Nov 9, 2011)

Delta6326 said:


> Why is everybody crapping their pants about new socket every 2 years? Do you honestly have to get a new processor and mobo every 2 years? my LGA 775 is still running perfect with ni hiccups and it runs at 100% all the time I got it back in 2008.
> 
> I think people should be asking the question why did we loose *5 pins?* It seems backwards to get less pins, but this may mean they have made it more efficient.



CPU's typically come with a large number of ground pins dotted around. I'd hazard a guess that they've just lost a few of those. Perhaps it's also the case that the new design doesn't need as many signal lines as the old one? Only a detailed breakdown of the pinouts of both will answer this question.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 9, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Who care's if it's a new socket every 2 years, it was a new chipset every 2 years with LGA775 that you needed to buy a new motherboard for if you wanted the latest chip, there's no difference.



The only excepting being the 965P, that chipset supported pretty much every 775 chip in existence(except the 1600FSB ones).

But, yeah, agree with you in principle.  Most people upgrade their motherboard when they upgrade their processor(most upgrade the whole damn computer).  And the enthusiasts are probably the select few that upgrade processors alone.

I'm at least happy that they have left Ivy Bridge on the same socket, unlike the 1156 users(like myself) that saw one generation of high end processor and that was it.

And for anyone that wants a reasoning behind changing sockets when moving to new architectures, ask AMD.  They themselves have commented on how they've had to make sacrifices to the product in order to maintain compatibility.


----------



## Riotpump (Nov 9, 2011)

eh sticking with 1155 for a while...can upgrade to Ivy B whenever down the road.  This is definitely one "tock" that I will wait at least for it's "tick" until I make another socket switch.  1150...where did my pins go?  See you guys in 2014, which there maybe some actual software worth upgrading for then.


----------



## v12dock (Nov 9, 2011)

and who are they licensing the gpu from, and they have not given up on thunderbolt yet


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Nov 9, 2011)

1366 -> 1156 -> 1155 -> 1150 ...

...at this rate, if I wait long enough, I will be able to recycle my s775


----------



## Edgarstrong (Nov 9, 2011)

I would be surprised if they *didn't* implement a new socket. I can't see any reason why this is even being discussed.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 9, 2011)

So socket 2011 will be irrelevant in a year save for people needing lots of cheap ram.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> So socket 2011 will be irrelevant in a year save for people needing lots of cheap ram.



I wouldn't recommend anyone buy 2011, it is just like 1366, very little benefit over the "mid-range" socket for a price premium(unless you really need 6-cores for something).  The only reason most people buy 1366, and the reason most will buy 2011, is to e-peen factor and that is it.


----------



## qwerty_lesh (Nov 10, 2011)

1366, the first nehalem (tylersburg platform) when released introduced a huge performance increase over the existing 775 platforms, granted you could get QX9770's that performed well, but for people who were on lower end C2D's/Athlons and such, it was well worth the expense.

lynnefield 1156, brought no benefits to those who had already adopted tylserburg nehalem, and was a value choice for people who were still on an older platform. those who waited for 1155 sandy bridge architecture from 775 would have had the best performance - value ratio, upgrading to a value mainstream platform which outperformed the already two generations old tylersburg nehalem. 
anyone upgrading to Sandy bridge-E (patsburg) who's using anything newer or faster then 775 or lynnefield platform is not going to be gaining value for money, as it would be too much a side-grade and a waste. but for someone who's still on a 1156 or 775 platform would benefit greatly even if it is considered an extreme platform.
of course, the more platform generations that release and the longer you can wait, the better the performance to value ratio gets, but you have to pick your platform type and architecture carefully.

It will  be a while before something tops the lga1155/2600 performance to value ratio, but it will happen. It doesn't mean that other platforms are completely pointless, they may be so to anyone on anything that can perform well at the moment, but are still a vast improvement to anybody who's running a dated or slow platform.

purple monkey dishwasher!


----------



## btarunr (Nov 10, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> 1366 -> 1156 -> 1155 -> 1150 ...
> 
> ...at this rate, if I wait long enough, I will be able to recycle my s775



It's like this:

1366 -> 2011 

1156 -> 1155 -> 1150. 

Those are two parallel product lines. 1366 isn't dead, it's waiting for replacement by 2011 this Monday.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 10, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I wouldn't recommend anyone buy 2011, it is just like 1366, very little benefit over the "mid-range" socket for a price premium(unless you really need 6-cores for something).  The only reason most people buy 1366, and the reason most will buy 2011, is to e-peen factor and that is it.



I disagree... LGA 2011 will have a 4-core chip at around 2600K price (perhaps even lower!). The only thing that is more will be the mobo, so you choose LGA 2011 if you want certain features and an upgrade path (6-core SB-E, 4/6/8 core IB-E). You also get quad-channel RAM, more PCI-E lanes, better OCing (closer to a mix of LGA 1366 and lga 1155), more SATA ports, more RAM slots (up to 8, so having 32GB of RAM is much cheaper here) and few other perks of having the highest end board. So yes, you do pay ~150$ more, but there are reasons to pay 150$

For me, the 8 RAM slots, the PCI-E lanes, the style of Ocing AND the future upgrade path are all the reasons I am going 2011. I need the RAM (not going to pay for 8GB modules), I prefer the style of OCing, I like to have the option of having a lot of PCI-E lanes as I often go multi-GPU and I am interested in going RevoDrive, and I'd like to keep my setup for longer than the LGA 1155 would let me, I do not want to be limited to 4 cores in the future


----------



## bostonbuddy (Nov 10, 2011)

2011 is good for people interested in cf or sli setups, even tho the perf diff of the extra lanes has been showed to be fairly negligible I'm gonna want 32 lanes damnit


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 10, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.



As far as I think, it's OK. There are 2 ways..
1. Create an Architecture to an existing socket
2. Create an Architecture 1st and then create a socket to the Architecture.

AMD is doing the 1st and Intel is doing the 2nd. The 2nd way is better than first in most ways. It will give the developers full freedom, they can integrate whole ideas, no problems when offering new features and give them relatively lower complexity to develop both the processors and socket.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 10, 2011)

screw you intel n your constant socket changes


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I disagree... LGA 2011 will have a 4-core chip at around 2600K price (perhaps even lower!). The only thing that is more will be the mobo, so you choose LGA 2011 if you want certain features and an upgrade path (6-core SB-E, 4/6/8 core IB-E). You also get quad-channel RAM, more PCI-E lanes, better OCing (closer to a mix of LGA 1366 and lga 1155), more SATA ports, more RAM slots (up to 8, so having 32GB of RAM is much cheaper here) and few other perks of having the highest end board. So yes, you do pay ~150$ more, but there are reasons to pay 150$
> 
> For me, the 8 RAM slots, the PCI-E lanes, the style of Ocing AND the future upgrade path are all the reasons I am going 2011. I need the RAM (not going to pay for 8GB modules), I prefer the style of OCing, I like to have the option of having a lot of PCI-E lanes as I often go multi-GPU and I am interested in going RevoDrive, and I'd like to keep my setup for longer than the LGA 1155 would let me, I do not want to be limited to 4 cores in the future



Yes, by the time 2011 has a Quad at around the same price as the 2600K, the 2600K will be priced lower.

The extra PCI-E lanes don't really make any difference, especially not at PCI-E 3.0.  

And the ability to adjust BCLK with that odd multiplier setup isn't really helping that much, especially with the sacrifice of the unlocked CPU multiplier.  I'd take an unlocked CPU multiplier over a locked with an odd BCKL multipler setup anyday.  I don't see why anyone would prefer the 2011 style of overclocking.  Just having a straight unlocked multiplier is by far the best.

There are 1155 boards that offer up to 10 SATA ports already(and that is on a $160 board), if you need more than that you probably shouldn't be using onboard anyway.

Like I said, the only reason to go 2011 is if you really need 6-cores for something, but since most don't need 6 cores, I wouldn't recommend spending more money for a bunch of stuff that looks nice on paper, but gives no real world benefit to 99% of people looking to buy.


----------



## buggalugs (Nov 10, 2011)

newtekie1, 

You're assuming performance on socket 2011 is going to be about the same as a socket 1155/ 2600k but I expect a good improvement around 30%.

The memory system is going to bring the biggest % of performance increase, not because its quad channel but because they doubled the memory bit bus from the CPU.

 Its not going to be the same situation like dual channel vs triple channel where the memory bit bus stayed the same.

 Socket 2011 has unlocked CPU multiplier AND unlocked bclk so they have both options and There will be a reasonably priced non-extreme CPU with unlocked multi.


 Clock for clock, socket 2011 should be at least 30% faster than socket 1155, If its not, Intel wont sell many systems. They are targeting socket 1366 owners who still get good performance, so unless socket 2011 is good people will just stick with socket 1366 and new buyers will go with socket 1155.

  I doubt very much that socket 2011 will be similar to socket 1155 performance.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 10, 2011)

The LGA 2011 quad that is coming out in less than a week is supposed to be [around] the 2600K price...

If you are looking to keep this setup for a long time, PCI-E bandwidth may start to be a problem in the future... especially if you are thinking of multi-GPU + RevoDrive etc. Ans so far, I do not see many PCI-E 3.0 mobos, is SB even PCI-E 3.0 compatible or will it be a IB only feature?

As said, I was referring to BCLK + multiplier unlocked.

You don't have to need 6 cores right now, but in 3 years? Also, the 4-core should be the same price, and the only premium you would be paying is on the mobo. For the upgrade path and the quad-channel and the RAM slots and the PCI-E lanes and the slightly higher performance, I'll go SB-E

Perhaps the 2011 socket is probably not 30% faster, but it will stll be faster than SB for sure, probably enough to make some kind of difference


----------



## btarunr (Nov 10, 2011)

n-ster said:


> The LGA 2011 quad that is coming out in less than a week is supposed to be 2600K price...



It's a couple dozen dollars over 2700K.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 10, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It's a couple dozen dollars over 2700K.



Still not bad, around what, 350$?

I was thrown off by that newegg price lol

I wonder what Microcenter will be selling it for xD


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2011)

buggalugs said:


> newtekie1,
> 
> You're assuming performance on socket 2011 is going to be about the same as a socket 1155/ 2600k but I expect a good improvement around 30%.



You can expect it all you want, but I haven't seen it, and I've heard performance isn't all that much better.



buggalugs said:


> The memory system is going to bring the biggest % of performance increase, not because its quad channel but because they doubled the memory bit bus from the CPU.
> 
> Its not going to be the same situation like dual channel vs triple channel where the memory bit bus stayed the same.



We'll see, but I don't see a huge performance as you do.



buggalugs said:


> Socket 2011 has unlocked CPU multiplier AND unlocked bclk so they have both options and There will be a reasonably priced non-extreme CPU with unlocked multi.



Yeah, no there won't, not sure where you got that info.  All the lower end will be locked. Why else would Intel hold a press conference on overclocking a locked SandyBridge-E?  don't expect anything unlocked under $500, and AFAIK none of the quads will be unlocked.



buggalugs said:


> Clock for clock, socket 2011 should be at least 30% faster than socket 1155, If its not, Intel wont sell many systems. They are targeting socket 1366 owners who still get good performance, so unless socket 2011 is good people will just stick with socket 1366 and new buyers will go with socket 1155.



As I said, I disagree, but we won't know for sure until it is released and reviewed.  I don't believe it will be anywhere near 30% faster than 1155.  And plenty of systems will sell, for the reason I already said, e-peen.



buggalugs said:


> I doubt very much that socket 2011 will be similar to socket 1155 performance.



And as I said, I doubt it will be very different.



n-ster said:


> The LGA 2011 quad that is coming out in less than a week is supposed to be [around] the 2600K price...



Try more than 2700K price.



n-ster said:


> If you are looking to keep this setup for a long time, PCI-E bandwidth may start to be a problem in the future... especially if you are thinking of multi-GPU + RevoDrive etc. Ans so far, I do not see many PCI-E 3.0 mobos, is SB even PCI-E 3.0 compatible or will it be a IB only feature?



PCI-E 3.0 is IB only, AFAIK, so that means no PCI-E 3.0 for SandyBridge-e too.  But no, even an x8/x8 setup with multi-GPU setups isn't bandwidth limitted(except maybe with a couple dual-GPU card, but if you can afford those, by all means get 2011).  But in general, I don't see PCI-E x8 being a limitting factor.  And the RevoDrive can go in the 3rd x16 slot that runs at x4.



n-ster said:


> As said, I was referring to BCLK + multiplier unlocked.



The problem is the Quad you keep talking about that is going to be "around" the 2600k price isn't unlocked.  So you'll be paying $600 for an unlocked processor.  So again, I'll take an unlocked processor over a odd BCLK multiplier anyway.



n-ster said:


> You don't have to need 6 cores right now, but in 3 years? Also, the 4-core should be the same price, and the only premium you would be paying is on the mobo. For the upgrade path and the quad-channel and the RAM slots and the PCI-E lanes and the slightly higher performance, I'll go SB-E



You don't even need 4 cores right now, so no I don't think we will need 6 in 3 years(especially not when the platform is being replaced in 2).  And no, as we've said, the processor isn't going to be anywhere near the same price.  So you are paying a premium for the motherboard, and the processor, and the actual performance will be almost identical.  Of course that is just my guess, which is as good as yours, but if the performance does turn out to be much better, then I'll change my opinion.  But right now, with the info I have, 2011 doesn't look like something I can recommend.



n-ster said:


> Perhaps the 2011 socket is probably not 30% faster, but it will stll be faster than SB for sure, probably enough to make some kind of difference



I don't think so, but we'll see.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 10, 2011)

TBH, you are right, at this point it is a guess. But IMO, to whomever is thinking of purchasing a 2600K or 2700K setup soon, wait for SB-E and seriously consider it


----------



## btarunr (Nov 10, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Still not bad, around what, 350$?
> 
> I was thrown off by that newegg price lol
> 
> I wonder what Microcenter will be selling it for xD



i7-2700K is more like $350~$370. So i7-3820 could be $384. It has a locked BClk multiplier, but you can OC using BClk, the old fashioned way.


----------



## radrok (Nov 10, 2011)

btarunr said:


> i7-2700K is more like $350~$370. So i7-3820 could be $384. It has a locked BClk multiplier, but you can OC using BClk, the old fashioned way.



This, and the fact that you get probably more features than a 2600k/2700k setup, especially the option to upgrade later to a 6 core system


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 10, 2011)

n-ster said:


> TBH, you are right, at this point it is a guess. But IMO, to whomever is thinking of purchasing a 2600K or 2700K setup soon, wait for SB-E and seriously consider it



I agree, I'm not advising anyone to upgrade right now. If anything, when Sandybridge-E comes out, it should lower prices slightly on Sandybridge.



btarunr said:


> i7-2700K is more like $350~$370. So i7-3820 could be $384. It has a locked BClk multiplier, but you can OC using BClk, the old fashioned way.



I thought the BCLK was still pretty limited, like Sandybridge.  However, Intel has included BCLK multipliers that affect only the CPU speed.  There are only two BCLK multipliers, x1.25 and x1.66.  Making the effective BCLK 125 or 166 +/-5%.  You aren't free to just adjust the BCLK to whatever you want "the old fashioned way".

So if you look a the i7-3820 with a clock speed of 3.6GHz, or a multiplier of 36.  Lets say I'm aiming for 4.0GHz.  I have to raise the BCLK, so I bump it to the next available option of 125.  That puts it at 4.5GHz, so then you have to lower the multiplier to 32, which gives you 4.0GHz.  Now of course, overclocking isn't a matter of just picking a target, I'm just giving how you get to a certain clock.  Where this system becomes a hassle is when you are trying to find your max overclock.  Instead of just raising one figure(be it multiplier or BCLK) you now have to fool around with balancing two to find the clock that works best for you.


----------



## buggalugs (Nov 11, 2011)

Theres just no point saying 1155 is a better option than 2011 when we havent even seen benchmarks yet. 

It only has to be 10-15% faster than socket 1155 to be a success and for enthusiasts to choose socket 2011 over socket 1155.

Anything over 15% performance will be a bonus and they will sell like hotcakes to the enthusiast crowd.

The platform is coming out next week so how about we wait for benchmarks before writing off the platform?


----------



## Enmity (Nov 11, 2011)

heres a preview that hillbert did a while back - the gains are not so great really. but this is just an engineering sample and he was only allowed to show so much. take a look.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/sandy-bridge-e-and-x79-preview/


----------



## n-ster (Nov 11, 2011)

Didn't tomshardware do something also? Though I can't say TH is the most reliable source lol


----------



## paulprochnow (Nov 13, 2011)

*New Motherboards*

Intel does want you to buy a new motherboard every two years.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

paulprochnow said:


> Intel does want you to buy a new motherboard every two years.



Yes, not only does the permit them to have the best performance and the best features, in also gives them more sales. It's WIN WIN WIN for intel, WIN WIN LOSE for use (ie: more win then lose)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

more like a new motherboard and CPU, intel doesnt impress me at all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ok, so the numbers are in, and the conclusion?  2011 processors have almost no performance advantage over 1155 in games and most other apps.  The only exception being rendering apps that take advantage of the 6-cores(the 4-core model isn't out yet).  Oh, and the cheapest 2011 processor is $550...  Yeah, I'm not recommending 2011 to anyone unless they really need 6-cores for something.



eidairaman1 said:


> more like a new motherboard and CPU, intel doesnt impress me at all.



AMD's doing the same thing with FM2 so big deal.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

Dont Doubt FM2 will last longer than the constant board changes Intel is forcing on their users.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Dont Doubt FM2 will last longer than the constant board changes Intel is forcing on their users.



Its replacing FM1 after less than a year and a half...so...yeah...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Its replacing FM1 after less than a year and a half...so...yeah...



apparently FM2 is supposed to be the next Major Socket That replaces AM3, but In mean time they should have 1 or 2 more CPUs for AM3+ that will be on FM2, sort of like how opterons where then aswell


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> apparently FM2 is supposed to be the next Major Socket That replaces AM3, but In mean time they should have 1 or 2 more CPUs for AM3+ that will be on FM2, sort of like how opterons where then aswell



If you mean they will have a few AM3+ CPUs that will work with the FM2 socket, you are wrong.  FM2 will be completely incompatible with FM1 and AM3+.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> If you mean they will have a few AM3+ CPUs that will work with the FM2 socket, you are wrong.  FM2 will be completely incompatible with FM1 and AM3+.



u didnt understand what i meant, ok think about the Opteron of the time, it came in 1 way, 2 way and 8 way- 1 way was compatible with 939. I suspect that the fix bulldozer arch or w/e is next will come in both AM3+ and FM2 and then after that first or second batch of FM2 AM3+ will be phased out, considering the FM2 is supposed to handle both CPUs and APUs.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> u didnt understand what i meant, ok think about the Opteron of the time, it came in 1 way, 2 way and 8 way- 1 way was compatible with 939. I suspect that the fix bulldozer arch or w/e is next will come in both AM3+ and FM2 and then after that first or second batch of FM2 AM3+ will be phased out, considering the FM2 is supposed to handle both CPUs and APUs.



Oh, yeah, I see what you mean.  Yeah, AFAIK, that is what they are supposed to do.  Release a few FM2 processors on AM3+.  But then that kind of makes we wonder why even release FM2?  Why not stick with AM3+ if the processors will work with AM3+?

But that is Intel's strategy, and I like it.  They aren't holding back designs and sacrificing performance to maintain compatibility.  They just go balls out, design a processor the way they want, then design the platform around it.  That is why people with 1366 have been able to keep their platforms for 3 years now, and can continue to use their platforms for at least another year.  And AMD has yet to really even catch up to 1366.  So you keep being not impressed with Intel, I'm quite impressed with the fact that a platform they put out over 3 years ago is still outperforming AMD's platform released a few weeks ago.  I'm not impressed with AMD, but plenty impressed with Intel.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Oh, yeah, I see what you mean.  Yeah, AFAIK, that is what they are supposed to do.  Release a few FM2 processors on AM3+.  But then that kind of makes we wonder why even release FM2?  Why not stick with AM3+ if the processors will work with AM3+?



its to get those final sales of AM3+ out n then phase out AM3/AM3+ and go fully FM2 for all desktop performance, budget and Mainstream systems. Recall 939 having the opteron- that CPU Lineup was locked but could overclock further than even the AMD FX Series. What would be pretty cool is if the APU has an FPU already but then when u put in a discreet vid card the vid controller becomes a fulltime FPU for the APU. I suspect FM2 to implement PCI Express 3.0 and Quad Channel DDR3/4 Memory Capability. I wouldnt doubt the CPU becomes totally the APU in the future.

For my Brothers machine which has an AsRock 970 Extreme 4 with a Phenom II X2 555 BE with 8 gigs Ripjaws 8CL and 6770 Vid Card. Windows 7 HP 64 (CPU Unlocked to the X4 B55/955 BE Status) it Performs effin fast already (Built in August/September). I will drop in the Fastest and final AM3+ CPU Produced and then max the ram out after upgrading 7 to Pro, then he probably wont have another upgrade till say 7-10 years down the road. this was going from an Old P4 2.4Ghz machine


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> its to get those final sales of AM3+ out n then phase out AM3/AM3+ and go fully FM2 for all desktop performance, budget and Mainstream systems. Recall 939 having the opteron- that CPU Lineup was locked but could overclock further than even the AMD FX Series. What would be pretty cool is if the APU has an FPU already but then when u put in a discreet vid card the vid controller becomes a fulltime FPU for the APU. I suspect FM2 to implement PCI Express 3.0 and Quad Channel DDR3/4 Memory Capability. I wouldnt doubt the CPU becomes totally the APU in the future.
> 
> For my Brothers machine which has an AsRock 970 Extreme 4 with a Phenom II X2 555 BE with 8 gigs Ripjaws 8CL and 6770 Vid Card. Windows 7 HP 64 (CPU Unlocked to the X4 B55/955 BE Status) it Performs effin fast already (Built in August/September). I will drop in the Fastest and final AM3+ CPU Produced and then max the ram out after upgrading 7 to Pro, then he probably wont have another upgrade till say 7-10 years down the road. this was going from an Old P4 2.4Ghz machine



Yeah, I remember 939, I remember it replacing 754 in under a year, and then itself being replaced with AM2 in under 2 years.

As I said, Intel users with 1366, or even 1156, are set for just as long as a AM3+ user.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, I remember 939, I remember it replacing 754 in under a year, and then itself being replaced with AM2 in under 2 years.
> 
> As I said, Intel users with 1366, or even 1156, are set for just as long as a AM3+ user.



Ya the major caveat of putting a ddr Controller on the CPU means a socket change, AMD could of gotten away with sticking with DDR way longer and just moved to DDR3 when time was right. But On another note, it would be worthy for FM2 to eventually implement a DDR3 and DDR 4 controller in later Life on the CPUs then move to DDR 4 completely while stayin with FM2 but put a warning on the CPU and Motherboards that the machine must USE DDR4 or the system will not boot. At the Time of 754 AMD didnt see it necessary to have Dual Channel DDR because it was overly faster than the fastest Athlon XP with Dual channel anyway.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 15, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ya the major caveat of putting a ddr Controller on the CPU means a socket change, AMD could of gotten away with sticking with DDR way longer and just moved to DDR3 when time was right. But On another note, it would be worthy for FM2 to eventually implement a DDR3 and DDR 4 controller in later Life on the CPUs then move to DDR 4 completely while stayin with FM2 but put a warning on the CPU and Motherboards that the machine must USE DDR4 or the system will not boot. At the Time of 754 AMD didnt see it necessary to have Dual Channel DDR because it was overly faster than the fastest Athlon XP with Dual channel anyway.



The memory controller was already on the CPU with 754, the memory slots were already wired to the CPU, so moving to Dual-Channel would not have needed a socket change, just a controller change on the CPU itself.  And if you used an older CPU you got single channel, and a newer you got dual.  Even still, I don't see why it is OK for AMD to replace a socket in under a year because they lacked foresight, but not OK in your eyes for Intel to replace the socket every 2 years to keep the progress of technology unhindered.

If AMD really wanted to maintain compatibility, if it was really a concern of theirs, they would have left the DDR controller on the Athlon 64 architecture and just added a DDR2 controller for AM2 sockets and keep support for 939.  AMD only uses the compatibility thing because they have to because they are behind on performance.  If they were ahead, they'd be changing out sockets like crazy, just like they did when they were ahead.


----------

