# Intel Haswell and Broadwell Silicon Variants Detailed



## btarunr (Dec 26, 2012)

It's no secret that nearly all Intel Core processors are carved out of essentially one or two physical dies, be it the "2M" die that physically features four cores and 8 MB of L3 cache, or the "1M" die, which physically features two cores and 4 MB of L3 cache. The two silicons are further graded for energy-efficiency and performance before being assigned a package most suited to them: desktop LGA, mobile PGA, mobile BGA, and with the introduction of the 4th generation Core "Haswell," SoC (system on chip, a package that's going to be a multi-chip module of the CPU and PCH dies). The SoC package will be designed to conserve PCB real-estate, and will be suited for extremely size-sensitive devices such as Ultrabooks. 

The third kind of grading for the two silicons relates to its on-die graphics processor, which makes up over a third of the die area. Depending on the number of programmable shaders and ROPs unlocked, there are two grades: GT2, and GT3, with GT3 being the most powerful. On the desktop front (identified by silicon extension "-DT,") Intel very much will retain dual-core processors, which will make up its Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processor lines. It will be lead by quad-core parts. All desktop processors feature the GT2 graphics core.






Haswell-H consists of mobile quad-core parts in the BGA package, which will go into making mainstream notebooks and probably all-in-one desktops and NUC. Chips of these kind make for the bulk of Intel's processor sales. These chips are naturally not replaceable on the notebook. Intel will release two kinds of Haswell-H chips, based on the two integrated graphics variants. 

The Haswell-MB consists of mobile chips in the replaceable PGA package, interestingly, Intel includes dual-core "1M" parts. Lastly, there's the SoC package (-ULT extension), which probably is the most expensive to make and sell, since it's a multi-chip module (MCM) of the CPU and PCH (chipset) dies. The package itself shouldn't be much bigger than Haswell-H (BGA), but conserves board footprint for a separate PCH chip, and a ton of wiring on the main board. There are no quad-core parts in this series, and they're graded on iGPU, and energy-efficiency. The most efficient one features the faster GT3 iGPU (since there's little room for discrete graphics) and just 10W TDP. 

Last and most interestingly, it's reported that Intel will indeed have an LGA1150 desktop processor based on its "Broadwell" 5th generation Core architecture, which makes perfect sense, given that Broadwell is essentially die-shrunk Haswell micro-architecture. Its silicon lineup is charted out much in the same way as Haswell.

What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package. So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards).

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Dec 26, 2012)

Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.

LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 26, 2012)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET.



Partly, read the very last paragraph I just added.


----------



## Protagonist (Dec 26, 2012)

I thought GT3 was the faster one, Oh well my thoughts were wrong, good for us desktop users will be getting the faster GT2


----------



## PatoRodrigues (Dec 26, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Partly, read the very last paragraph I just added.



Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe


----------



## btarunr (Dec 26, 2012)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe



Those BGA motherboards should still have a PCI-Express x16 slot, and the CPU cooling solutions they bundle should still be enough to cool the CPU while gaming (but it throws all overclocking out of the window).


----------



## Protagonist (Dec 26, 2012)

btarunr said:


> What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package.



Makes sense, coz they wanted many consumers to be on a quad core chip by now and they are late. maybe we'll see 6 cores and above when broadwell comes out


----------



## Nordic (Dec 26, 2012)

You couldn't overclock dual core sandy or ivy's anyways. Seems reasonable to me. I would rather them make dual cores overclockable again though.


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 26, 2012)

james888 said:


> You couldn't overclock dual core sandy or ivy's anyways. Seems reasonable to me. I would rather them make dual cores overclockable again though.



AMD will chomp at the bit on this one.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 26, 2012)

Protagonist said:


> I thought GT3 was the faster one, Oh well my thoughts were wrong, good for us desktop users will be getting the faster GT2



Yeah, GT3 should be faster than GT2 with GT1 being the graphics used in the Pentium and Celeron SKUs, although Haswell was rumoured to offer three levels of graphics with Haswell GT2  (rumoured to be HD 4600) meant to be faster than Ivy Bridge GT3 (HD 4000). So something doesn't add up here...


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 26, 2012)

Do I see that right as Broadwell possibly being a future upgrade to Haswell on socket 1150?


----------



## Wark0 (Dec 26, 2012)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Yep, LGA for Broadwell. The questionable rumors of BGA after Haswell are dead.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE PC MARKET.


Sorry to disappoint you but the source of that is here

http://technewspedia.com/detailing-the-new-nomenclature-for-intel-cpus-2013-2014/

Here we can read

"Note 1: Although we have based this on one published by PC Watch, they have not mentioned anything about Broadwell-D, but since Intel said that there will be a variant Broadwell LGA package, and sigiendo logic of the new nomenclature, is most likely to be called Broadwell-D, but is also the possibility that Intel decided to use a different code name, so we will update this article if Intel uses a different nomenclature."

So, nothing new... just assumptions...


----------



## Am* (Dec 26, 2012)

btarunr said:


> So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards).
> 
> Source: Expreview



Good thing I went for a Pentium Ivy Bridge with my server build then. Doubt I'm ever going to see a Haswell motherboard with 6 legacy PCI slots and a decent CPU to match. Even though I'll likely never go above a dual core for my server build, I really like having the flexibility there just in case, to be able to upgrade whenever and to whatever I want. If these rumours of BGA taking over the lower end builds are going to be true, then I only see Intel shooting themselves in the foot with that move.

And for God's sake, kill the Celeron/Pentium names already. Even my ex-system building friends laughed at me when I told them I bought a Pentium, until I mentioned it was Ivy Bridge architecture, because they assumed that brand name ended with socket 775.

I will be skipping both Haswell and Broadwell for desktops (unless they release some 8-core variants, which I very much doubt), but will very likely end up buying an Ultrabook with one of these processors, if Intel's claims of 20+ hour battery life are true.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 26, 2012)

so intels increasing their ass slapping opertunities still further, by making only their high end Sku's Lga and evrything else is BGa and locked in as many areas as possible, too many godam fuses on haswell for my likeing:shadedshu

chipzillas going to charge the earth for that 1150 socket haswell chip, you all know that dont ya


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

Am* said:


> Doubt I'm ever going to see a Haswell motherboard with 6 legacy PCI slots and a decent CPU to match.



Why would you want 6 PCI slots (not PCI-E) on a new platform.


----------



## dwade (Dec 26, 2012)

PatoRodrigues said:


> Oh, you updated it. Sad news for the bugdet-oriented gaming PC's, i believe


Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

dwade said:


> Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.



Of course not, but it's fun nonetheless.


----------



## Frick (Dec 26, 2012)

dwade said:


> Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.



Overclocking is very different nowadays, it's pretty much only for those who has it as a hobby, or possibly just need all the power they can get. For most folks it's useless. Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT), and they cost more, and for me that kind of kills the point of overclocking.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT), and they cost more, and for me that kind of kills the point of overclocking.



That's part of the reason why I went with the SB-E and the 3820. I can overclock and still have VT-d despite it not being a K edition CPU. Also all SB-E chips (except the first 6c SB-E released due to a glitch,) sport VT-d, K and non-K. All skt1155 K edition chips don't.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 26, 2012)

No GT3 with LGA as well.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222 (Dec 26, 2012)

And the plans unfold..


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> Intels K chips are crippled too (no vt-d or TXT)


That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.

I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way.


----------



## Supercrit (Dec 26, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.
> 
> I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way.




When people pay more for a K but they get another feature removed due to no much reason at all, they don't feel good, even if they don't use it.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2012)

Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!





EDIT: Just noticed this gem -> "What's even more interesting, and reinforces the "desktop BGA apocalypto" theory, is the fact that there won't be a dual-core Broadwell processor in the LGA1150 package. So most entry- thru mainstream chips, which are dual-core, will be built in the BGA package. So for anyone with less than say $200 to spend on motherboard+CPU, motherboards with CPUs hardwired will be sold in the markets (much like graphics cards)."

Perhaps I didnt read/understand something in your first post, but how does there not being a dual core in that package 'reinforce' that all Intel CPU's, as the rumor(s) mention, are moving that way? I took that as a pretty inoccuous mention personally and not sure how this reinforces anything with the enthusiast line - which iirc, is what intel said would still be LGA.


----------



## Konceptz (Dec 26, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.
> 
> I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way.



Incorrect, I know several admins that are running 600-800mhz overclocks on their servers and aside from hard drive/ raid card failures...never an issue. Just like with everything else, there is a right and a wrong way to overclocking....


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2012)

There are exceptions to every rule (though that wasn't a rule). I simply posted they would be 'out of their mind' to do so in an enterprise environment. You have to think of, for a large data center, how to dissipate the extra heat, pay for the power consumption, and how do you justify the performance increases versus the additional cost to support the overclocked CPU's. What if one is not really stable and bombs applications they run on? What if one in 100 are? They would mean 3 of our servers wouldn't make our uptime SLA's (smallest shop I work in now). I have worked at some fairly large places (Abbott Labs - they make Similac, Ensure, Pedialyte and Pharmaceutical drugs, as well as a 8th largest water utility in the US) so perhaps that is how my opinion is molded.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> There are exceptions to every rule (though that wasn't a rule). I simply posted they would be 'out of their mind' to do so in an enterprise environment. You have to think of, for a large data center, how to dissipate the extra heat, pay for the power consumption, and how do you justify the performance increases versus the additional cost to support the overclocked CPU's. What if one is not really stable and bombs applications they run on? What if one in 100 are? They would mean 3 of our servers wouldn't make our uptime SLA's (smallest shop I work in now). I have worked at some fairly large places (Abbott Labs - they make Similac, Ensure, Pedialyte and Pharmaceutical drugs, as well as a 8th largest water utility in the US) so perhaps that is how my opinion is molded.



+1: As a system admin, I would never overclock our production servers at work. If a server can't handle the load I would put in a requisition order for an upgrade or a new server unless the software can be tweaked. Stability is the number one thing I keep in mind when it comes to altering server configurations.


----------



## Nordic (Dec 27, 2012)

dwade said:


> Not like gamers need to overclock CPU anyways.



...some do. I have a 2500k and in the two games I play most I get dramatic fps differences by how much I overclock. That is for high settings. If anything, on those two games, I am held back by my cpu. The games are natural selection 2 and planetside 2.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 27, 2012)

james888 said:


> ...some do. I have a 2500k and in the two games I play most I get dramatic fps differences by how much I overclock. That is for high settings. If anything, on those two games, I am held back by my cpu. The games are natural selection 2 and planetside 2.



Planetside 2 needs some ridiculous processing power in heavy battles. I was OC-ing a E3-1230V2 in a B75 for somebody a couple of days ago, which was basically a "cheap" i7 running at 3.8Ghz, and things still went down to 25-30 fps sometimes.


----------



## happita (Dec 27, 2012)

If what that graph says is true, then I'm definitely going to get me a low-power 4770S for my HTPC I'm gonna finish up building by the summer. And if I feel like upgrading, I can always switch it out with another low-power Broadwell CPU since it's going to be on the same 1150 socket, sweet!


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 27, 2012)

I have to have some help understanding here.  I'm working under the assumptions that:
1) Overclocking is for enthusiasts only.
2) The mainstream wants lighter/smaller devices.
3) The mainstream doesn't care about raw performance.
4) Intel wants to make money, so they largely cater to the mainstream.


Utilizing these assumptions, Intel moving to BGA with their mainstream offerings makes sense.  A person willing to spend $600 on a computer requires more flexibility (LGA) than someone looking to spend $400 (BGA).  As long as Intel focuses BGA packaging on the lower end, no harm no foul.

I will raise hell if the 3570s descendants wind-up as BGA.  That will get me to switch to AMD over night (performance be damned).  Intel might do some stupid things, but they aren't stupid enough to kill all of the motherboard manufacturers (read: we still aren't the reason they keep LGA, there's too much money at stake for Intel to cut out the other manufacturers).  


For Pete's sake, get some perspective here people.  Intel is aiming itself at ARM and tablets.  The traditional PC is going to take a back seat for a while.  Intel already confirmed this with socket 2011.  The back seat sucks, but what sucks worse is if PCs were to have the gloomy outlook of the home console.  Enjoy the PC, because no other device can yet do everything that it can.


----------



## Frick (Dec 27, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.



Of course it is.



EarthDog said:


> Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!



It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.


----------



## Protagonist (Dec 27, 2012)

Supercrit said:


> When people pay more for a K but they get another feature removed due to no much reason at all, they don't feel good, even if they don't use it.



True



Frick said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> 
> It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.



That's why i ditched my 2500K for the 3770, i realized i felt bad that the feature was not in my 2500K that i dint overclock anyway, i bought it for the HD3000, and oddly it used to display HD2000

now I'm very happy with my i7-3770 with all its features at my disposal plus it has HD4000.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 27, 2012)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> 1) Overclocking is for enthusiasts only.


I know plenty of people who aren't enthusiasts who express interest in overclocking.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> 3) The mainstream doesn't care about raw performance.


That's crap. I've heard time and time again that the mainstream user thinks their laptop is slow after buying a 300 USD laptop. My wife doesn't do much on the computer, but there are plenty of things where an Athlon X2 or Celeron/Pentium doesn't cut it. Cheaper and fast computers will make the mainstream user happier, no doubt about it. They just don't care about it as much as we do, but they do care.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> 4) Intel wants to make money, so they largely cater to the mainstream.


I'm not sure which for-profit company doesn't want to make money. 


lilhasselhoffer said:


> I will raise hell if the 3570s descendants wind-up as BGA.


Not me, I would consider make a very small HTPC if that was the case because it would be small and fly at the same time. If you really want LGA, then that is what you want, so you will look at their LGA lineup and I'm willing to bet that it won't be incredibly different from what is offered now. BGA might not be on your radar, but there are a lot of people and applications where BGA is a big plus.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> The traditional PC is going to take a back seat for a while. Intel already confirmed this with socket 2011.


What? Last time I checked, my SB-E chip handles everything I throw at it. I don't care that I can't upgrade to IVB-E yet because I don't need to?  Yeah, I would like to upgrade for the sake of upgrading but honestly, I'm perfectly content with my 3820.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't. It's cruppling. It has nothing to do with binning chips, it has nothing to do with anything besides Intel just straight up disabling those options, and that is crippling.


I don't miss anything I don't need... Pretty simple (to me). And I suppose fo rthe .1% of people that want to overclock and run VM's it would be crippling to them... to which they go to SB-E anyway for a slightly higher cost (mobo) and having bclk gearing to overclock or spend the coin on 3930k.



Aquinus said:


> I know plenty of people who aren't enthusiasts who express interest in overclocking.


I think that is the cart before the horse, no? I mean someone who overclocks is an enthusiast. Someone who doesn't, is not (to me). I suppose by definition you can be an enthusiast and not overclock, but... in my feeble head, an enthusiast overclocks. Someone who doesn't care about PC's and just uses it is not an enthusiast. 

EDIT: I can really see it both ways, LOL!



> That's crap. I've heard time and time again that the mainstream user thinks their laptop is slow after buying a 300 USD laptop. My wife doesn't do much on the computer, but there are plenty of things where an Athlon X2 or Celeron/Pentium doesn't cut it. Cheaper and fast computers will make the mainstream user happier, no doubt about it. They just don't care about it as much as we do, but they do care.


Well, dont buy a Mustang V6 if you need the performance of a V8 GT. They(that example) purchased wrong for their needs so of course they are disappointed. You dont buy a $300 laptop and expect the world of it. Thats budget stuff.



> What? Last time I checked, my SB-E chip handles everything I throw at it. I don't care that I can't upgrade to IVB-E yet because I don't need to?  Yeah, I would like to upgrade for the sake of upgrading but honestly, I'm perfectly content with my 3820.


+1. Thought Im under the mindset of go big(hex) or go home(to SB/IB) in s2011, the 3820 is on par with a 2600K which can also handle anything you throw at it.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 27, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Interesting perspective... even though one doesn't use it, one may feel bad its gone anyway? That is a mindfunk right there!



I don't know if it goes that far 

There are some examples in life where compromises need to be made, a sports cars has fewer cup holders than a mini-van for example. However, I never had to make a compromise when choosing a Windows edition. To get domain join with Pro, I didn't have to give up any exclusive Home feature because there are none. Paid more, got more, lost nothing.

From another perspective, I rarely sell hardware. Pieces are re-purposed throughout their usable lifetime. Features unused now may became useful in the future. Now I fully comprehend that I'm in the minority here, that's why I'm not complaining. Simply stating to Intel that I will not consider the K CPUs for purchase. (a minor threat these days, I'm no longer in charge of hardware purchases at my current job)


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 27, 2012)

You make some good points! 

One could make a solid argument and say you shouldnt be buying "K" CPU's for business 
in the first place. There isnt a NEED to overclock for the VAST majority of business PC users really and that is all they bring to the table are higher overclocking potential. Look like a superstar and get the systems under budget by saving $20 /CPU.

I dont know, if I dont use it, I dont miss it. Now here is the real mindfunk of it all is I occasionally will run VM's on my 3770K. I only use it to simulate my office environment for DR testing so I do not really need the benefits of VT-d when its just there to to be stood up not to crunch info.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 27, 2012)

True, it's mostly mental.

In reality, all the other CPUs in the Haswell family are more attractive to me, whether it's for personal or business use. I was stripped of my "overclocker" title a long time ago


----------



## p3ngwin1 (Dec 28, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> That is crippled? Virtual technology that the vast majority of people dont use is crippling? TXT is crippling? Im a bit confused at that comment.
> 
> I mean I can see Vt-d alienating a very VERY small amount of people (power users at home that want to overclock and run VM's more efficiently), but how many people really do that? I mean no Server Admin in their right mind will be overclocking on a small business/enterprise level, so... Im just not sure why you feel that way.



you're missing the point, that many people using VT would love to buy the best processor according to the *speed *and *features *they want, but *can't* because Intel only allow VT on their expensive chips.

imagine you want a $200 CPU, but you also require a certain feature that is also only available on $500+ CPU's. It's like being forced to buy a Ferrari when you only wanted a Prius.

how happy would you be to buy $300's worth of processor potential you didn't ask for just to get the feature that _absolutely _could be made available to lower speed processors, but Intel decides to gouge it's customers on ?

*"oh you want that popular feature? yeah that's only available on my most expensive chips"* - Intel


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 28, 2012)

p3ngwin1 said:


> you're missing the point, that many people using VT would love to buy the best processor according to the *speed *and *features *they want, but *can't* because Intel only allow VT on their expensive chips.
> 
> imagine you want a $200 CPU, but you also require a certain feature that is also only available on $500+ CPU's. It's like being forced to buy a Ferrari when you only wanted a Prius.
> 
> ...



Wrong. Most of Intel's chips support VT. Even on an i3 or Pentium. It's VT-d that is lacking on the k-edition chips on skt1155, which is supposed to improve virtualized I/O performance. Almost all of Intel's chips support VT-x but not VT-d. (Virtualization extensions vs Virtualization with directed I/O.)

You also can get VT-d on non-k edition 1155 CPUs, which completely renders your argument invalid. The only disadvantage is that skt1155 doesn't let you overclock and have it and most of the time people won't want VT-d and be able to OC. (Even if I do.)


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 28, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Wrong. Most of Intel's chips support VT. Even on an i3 or Pentium. It's VT-d that is lacking on the k-edition chips on skt1155, which is supposed to improve virtualized I/O performance. Almost all of Intel's chips support VT-x but not VT-d. (Virtualization extensions vs Virtualization with directed I/O.)
> 
> You also can get VT-d on non-k edition 1155 CPUs, which completely renders your argument invalid. The only disadvantage is that skt1155 doesn't let you overclock and have it and most of the time people won't want VT-d and be able to OC. (Even if I do.)


This. Spot on.

To add to that a bit, you can still overclock non K chips... just not terribly far. In a best case scenario, you can lock in the turbo multiplier for all cores and push bclk to 105ish (YMMV) on IB chips. So clearly you do not have the same headroom as with a K type chip, but you can eek out more performance in most chips that have turbo. 

Speaking of no VT-d on K SKUs... check this out: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/15iaet/iama_cpu_architect_and_designer_at_intel_ama/c7mq2sd


----------

