# Intel Core "Haswell" Quad-Core Desktop CPU Lineup Detailed



## btarunr (Dec 12, 2012)

2013 promises to be another year, with another new line of processors by Intel, and like every alternate year, the company will introduce a new client desktop CPU socket. With its 4th generation Core "Haswell" processor family, Intel will introduce a brand new CPU architecture that steps up IPC over current Core "Ivy Bridge," hence, Intel's Core desktop processor lineup will not ship with higher clock speeds, yet higher performance. The new chips will be built in the LGA1150 package, and will be accompanied by Intel's 8-series "Lynx Point" chipset.

By Q2-2013, Intel will have launched as many as 14 Core desktop CPU models, including six in the mainline, and eight power-optimized ones. Its nomenclature is somewhat similar to that of current Core "Ivy Bridge" lineup, except the 4000-series numbering. Leading the pack is the Core i7-4770K (unlocked) and i7-4770, clocked at 3.50 GHz with 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost, featuring eight threads with HyperThreading, 8 MB of L3 cache, Intel HD Graphics 4600 iGPU clocked up to 1250 MHz, with 84W TDP; followed by Core i5-4670K (unlocked) and i5-4670 clocked at 3.40 GHz with 3.80 GHz Turbo Boost, and 6 MB L3 cache. The Core i5-4570 and i5-4430 are clocked at 3.20 GHz (3.60 GHz Turbo) and 3.00 GHz (3.20 Turbo). 






Intel's mainline Core desktop processor lineup is overshadowed by as many as eight energy-efficient processor models. The Core i7/i5 "S" series reduce TDP to 65W while maintaining clock speeds, while Core i7/i5 "T" series reduce TDP to 45W, with a little help from lower clock speeds.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 12, 2012)

I am SO glad I waited and Stayed with My 2500k(instead of Upgrading to W/ Ivy Bridge), Now I Can Sort of Reasonably justify My upgrading to a 4670k with out feeling TOO bad.


----------



## hellrazor (Dec 12, 2012)

They have core i7s with a lower TDP than my venice (I think) Athlon64 3000+ (single core).

I need to get a job....


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 12, 2012)

Check out the 4765T. Full spec in a 35w package.


----------



## Novulux (Dec 12, 2012)

The time to throw off these chains that are my current i3 and mobo is nigh.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 12, 2012)

so.....this is what a giddy little school girl feels like..... 

drooling in anticipation for ivy-e  though


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 12, 2012)

hmm 84w TDP well that places it under 95w and would be extention mean Haswell would use TIM instead of solder but I could be wrong.


----------



## KieX (Dec 12, 2012)

Impressive work on the TDP.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Dec 12, 2012)

Fantastic, I might upgrade to this and skip Ivy


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 12, 2012)

4770k shall be my next CPU


----------



## Absolution (Dec 12, 2012)

Argh just building a new i7 2600k and already 2 generations behind -_-

With no AMD releases in sight, these are going to be so expensive.


----------



## Novulux (Dec 12, 2012)

Absolution said:


> Argh just building a new i7 2600k and already 2 generations behind -_-
> 
> With no AMD releases in sight, these are going to be so expensive.



Nah, even if AMD doesn't release any competing products soon after, Haswell will not be such an extreme increase in CPU performance that it won't have to compete with Intel's other CPUs. The fact is that Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge are fast enough for almost all purposes, and Intel would not endanger possible upgrades with exorbitant prices...hopefully.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Dec 12, 2012)

It would have of been nice if they kept the same TDP as ivy and increased the clock speeds instead.


----------



## DoomDoomDoom (Dec 12, 2012)

Seems cool. Thinking my 2500K will last for a good, long while though, especially at 4.5GHz. Sandy Bridge CPUs have got to have another 2 years of life in it, easy (Current owners. Intel will probably kill off 155 with 1150's release).


----------



## Nordic (Dec 12, 2012)

I was thinking about getting a 3770k when they get cheap... You can get a 2500k for $100... I don't know, haswell looks tempting.


----------



## Protagonist (Dec 12, 2012)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> hmm 84w TDP well that places it under 95w and would be extention mean Haswell would use TIM instead of solder but I could be wrong.



But Ivy Bridge has a TDP of 77w, just pointing out. On the other hand I take performance improvement any day. I might just hop on the i7-4770 or i7-4770K all coz of the IGP improvement, other than that i guess clock for clock CPU wise Ivy & Haswell are dead even on paper.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Dec 12, 2012)

I like my 3770K, and compared to my 2600K at an equivalent speed, it uses 20-50w less electricity which is amazing. I wanted to hold out until Haswell, but my 2600K system is still used 24/7 anyway so it doesn't really matter that I upgraded now instead of a year from now.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 12, 2012)

st.bone said:


> But Ivy Bridge has a TDP of 77w, just pointing out. On the other hand I take performance improvement any day. I might just hop on the i7-4770 or i7-4770K all coz of the IGP improvement, other than that i guess clock for clock CPU wise Ivy & Haswell are dead even on paper.



Intel usually if a CPU has a TDP under 95w will use TIM under the IHS vs Solder

this means that at 84w the Chip using 22nm and 3D transistors will run hot just as Ivy does, 

where as Sandy being 95w and using solder ran 20'C cooler by comparison, granted if the performance gain is worthwhile and it can clock roughly the same no big deal but right now it seems if you want more performance and cooler running CPUs socket 2011 which will continue to use solder will be the better bet from the looks to bad Haswell for HEDT platform will be a ways off as Ivy still hasnt hit 2011 yet.

if Haswell uses Solder it could be a damn good clocker on top of the IPC improvement.


----------



## a_ump (Dec 12, 2012)

meh, to be honest its not the cpu aspect but the iGPU that i'm interested in. This HD Graphics 4600. Intel does keep getting better and better, and with more money than AMD and Nvidia combined to spend on improving and manufacturing them lower nodes/manu tech compared to the competition, i figure its just a matter of time till Intel is right there beside AMD and Nvidia, i give it 2016-2018.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 12, 2012)

I guess no-one here stopped to think that the TDP increase might have something to do with the new GPU rather than any major difference in the CPU part. Considering that they've put a larger GPU in these chips, I'd expect that to be what caused the TDP increase rather than anything else.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 12, 2012)

The GPU? I'd look to the VRM integration first.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 12, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> The GPU? I'd look to the VRM integration first.



It only integrates the VRM controller, not the VRM itself (for uniform new-spec VRD compliance). The VRM IC logic should barely add to the TDP.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 12, 2012)

I knew it's gonna be too soon, but I still expected HD5000 a little bit. Well, it's still nice that they keep improving the already awesome SB/IV lineup, even if there is no TDP decrease this time (not on paper at least, and perhaps it's the new GPU indeed as how TheLostSwede suggested).


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Dec 12, 2012)

Still only 4 cores for the mainstream...

Thanks AMD, thanks for being so useless as to provide Intel with absolutely no reason whatsoever to push 6 cores into the mainstream in 2013.

Thanks AMD...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 12, 2012)

btarunr said:


> It only integrates the VRM controller, not the VRM itself (for uniform new-spec VRD compliance). The VRM IC logic should barely add to the TDP.



That's weird. Makes it essentially a far more minor change than people were anticipating. So much for the promise of cheaper small boards.


----------



## Fourstaff (Dec 12, 2012)

The Quim Reaper said:


> Still only 4 cores for the mainstream...
> 
> Thanks AMD, thanks for being so useless as to provide Intel with absolutely no reason whatsoever to push 6 cores into the mainstream in 2013.
> 
> Thanks AMD...



And the reason mainstream needs 6 cores is ... ?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 12, 2012)

Still rocking on a Core 2 Quad Q9650 and no plans to upgrade...hehe.


----------



## acerace (Dec 12, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> And the reason mainstream needs 6 cores is ... ?



Because he have no idea what's he is talking about.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Dec 12, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> And the reason mainstream needs 6 cores is ... ?



5yrs ago people were asking why the need for 4 cores...


----------



## Fourstaff (Dec 12, 2012)

The Quim Reaper said:


> 5yrs ago people were asking why the need for 4 cores...



Come back in 5 years, every peasant and their cattle will have 6 cores, but for now 4 cores (with or without HT) is the king


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 12, 2012)

AMD does have 6 and 8 cores but look at the multi threaded benches compared to a 3770K with HT. As you can see it still looses to a real quad core chip with 8 threads

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=697

So those "REAL CORES" don't do squat that HT could not do.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 12, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> AMD does have 6 and 8 cores but look at the multi threaded benches compared to a 3770K with HT. As you can see it still looses to a real quad core chip with 8 threads
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=697
> 
> So those "REAL CORES" don't do squat that HT could not do.



But = to a 2600K? meh so what? http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,1.html

On topic, the question realy is HOW much of an increase over the last gen? as ivy over sandy was nothing to write home about.


----------



## Raw (Dec 12, 2012)

*Where would you buy a new 2500K for $100.00?*



james888 said:


> I was thinking about getting a 3770k when they get cheap... You can get a 2500k for $100... I don't know, haswell looks tempting.



REALLY??
Where? I WANT ONE!

Where would you buy a new 2500K for $100.00?

They sell for $220.00 today on Newegg and $210.00 on Amazon, how about >$200.00 on EBay...that's a good represetation of current pricing anywhere in the world.


----------



## repman244 (Dec 12, 2012)

Melvis said:


> On topic, the question realy is HOW much of an increase over the last gen? as ivy over sandy was nothing to write home about.



Ivy wasn't a new architecture.

It would be reasonable to expect ~10% increase, it could of been more since clocks stayed the same.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Dec 12, 2012)

Raw said:


> REALLY??
> Where? I WANT ONE!
> 
> Where would you buy a new 2500K for $100.00?
> ...



Microcenter in the US tend to offer silly deals on CPUs, mate of mine got a 3570K for $170 there a couple of weeks back...
I guess they're still going for $170 - http://www.microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor
No 2500K's on their website though...


----------



## Frick (Dec 12, 2012)

Now I want a 4770 and 4770's in Crossfire just for the sake of it. 

Anyway, needs more cores. Not really, but it would be nice.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 12, 2012)

Novulux said:


> Nah, even if AMD doesn't release any competing products soon after, Haswell will not be such an extreme increase in CPU performance that it won't have to compete with Intel's other CPUs. The fact is that Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge are fast enough for almost all purposes, and Intel would not endanger possible upgrades with exorbitant prices...hopefully.



AMD hasn't had a competing product since AMD Athlon 64, or almost a decade ago.  The prices will be more slightly inflated than the last upgrade that we call the 3k series.

The good news is this is finally a viable upgrade from a 900 series i7.  (for the non-enthusiast anyway)


----------



## dj-electric (Dec 12, 2012)

K CPUs dont get VT, why? becuase F@#k you thats why


----------



## Frick (Dec 12, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> AMD hasn't had a competing product since AMD Athlon 64, or almost a decade ago.  The prices will be more slightly inflated than the last upgrade that we call the 3k series.
> 
> The good news is this is finally a viable upgrade from a 900 series i7.  (for the non-enthusiast anyway)



For normal folks there haven't been a viable upgrade since the Core 2 Duos. They are still more than enough for them.

And AMD is competing alright, just not at the high end. 

EDIT: I have a feeling I'm not doing the grammar well today.


----------



## NHKS (Dec 12, 2012)

haswell cores have similar clocks to ivb/sandy cores(eg: 4770K, 3770K & 2700K) so whatever performance improvement we are likely to see is purely architecture/ipc enhancements, which is always a good thing... this along with full SATA III support from the platform is tempting.. a factor that can hamper the interest in this platform is another price hike over IVB - i hope the prices atleast remain similar if not lower.. 

still not clear why 4770K will be rated 84W while 3770K is 77W.. and i thought haswell would have iGPU named GT1/2/3 (3 being full spec) rather than HD4600... and 4600=GT3?.. 

those low power models are really tempting for an always-on/crunching setup!


----------



## Octavean (Dec 12, 2012)

Raw said:


> REALLY??
> Where? I WANT ONE!
> 
> Where would you buy a new 2500K for $100.00?
> ...



It was a limited time offer at Microcenter:

 Microcenter i5-2500k for $99.99 (today only 11/16/2012) 

My concern with Intel at this point isn’t one of ridiculously high prices.  Its more an issue of focus and goals.  With little to no competition form AMD and ARM becoming more and more relevant every day, I suspect Intel will focus on efficiency increases more so then performance increases.  The shift to mobile computing makes this even more likely IMO.

I personally want to see “significant” performance increases on desktop class processors.  If I don’t see that then I’m fine with what I have until such time as said performance increases are made apparent.


----------



## chodaboy19 (Dec 12, 2012)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> K CPUs dont get VT, why? becuase F@#k you thats why



That is unfortunate, I was expecting VT-d and AES. Sandy bridge and Ivy Bridge both have AES at least.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Dec 12, 2012)

boring.... less than impressed:shadedshu


----------



## THU31 (Dec 12, 2012)

Wow, what a fail. Exactly the same clocks. What is the point of these CPUs? The tick-tock is now completely pointless. Same clocks, same number of cores, and a 10% architecture performance boost? What a waste of money for whoever upgrades from Sandy or Ivy, especially considering a new mobo is needed.

Unfortunately this is AMD's fault. Intel can do whatever they want without competition.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 12, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Check out the 4765T. Full spec in a 35w package.



I think the 4770T is more interesting since it has a boost clock that is still respectable and still keeps it under 45w.



Dj-ElectriC said:


> K CPUs dont get VT, why? becuase F@#k you thats why



The K series have VT, they don't have VT-d which is just direct I/O.  People who really want VT-d don't overclock so they have no reason to buy K series processors.



chodaboy19 said:


> That is unfortunate, I was expecting VT-d and AES. Sandy bridge and Ivy Bridge both have AES at least.



The K series processors do have AES, and as I said, people that actually use VT-d don't overclock so paying extra for the K processor doesn't make sense anyway.


----------



## Covert_Death (Dec 12, 2012)

The Quim Reaper said:


> Still only 4 cores for the mainstream...
> 
> Thanks AMD, thanks for being so useless as to provide Intel with absolutely no reason whatsoever to push 6 cores into the mainstream in 2013.
> 
> Thanks AMD...



yea blame AMD cause that's the fun thing to do 

if your going to blame someone blame the software and game companies out there that still live in the 90's and refuse to code for 4+ Cores still... yes it's a littler harder to do but damn get with the times it's what NEEDS to be done


----------



## btarunr (Dec 12, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> That's weird. Makes it essentially a far more minor change than people were anticipating. So much for the promise of cheaper small boards.



In its own way, it's a major change. You won't find Gigabyte or ASUS vomit copious amounts of chokes/pseudo-phases around their sockets, because there are only so many phases the CPU-integrated controller logic can handle.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 12, 2012)

Interesting. Intel DONT WANT overclocked servers/workstations.


----------



## Fourstaff (Dec 12, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> Interesting. Intel DONT WANT overclocked servers/workstations.



Or course not, since its going to reduce their profits.


----------



## Covert_Death (Dec 12, 2012)

Octavean said:


> It was a limited time offer at Microcenter:
> 
> Microcenter i5-2500k for $99.99 (today only 11/16/2012)
> 
> ...




I didn't even know I had one of these stores ~30 minutes from me... i know where i'm going next week!
http://www.microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor


----------



## Octavean (Dec 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I think the 4770T is more interesting since it has a boost clock that is still respectable and still keeps it under 45w.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not so sure that is 100% accurate in all cases:

 Intel Fixes VT-d Bug in Sandy Bridge-E CPUs 

http://ark.intel.com/products/70845/Intel-Core-i7-3970X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-3_50-GHz

So apparently there are “K” series processors with VT-d support,….

***edit***

Even the Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3820 has VT-d support and while not an unlocked "K" series part it can still be OCed:

http://ark.intel.com/products/63698


----------



## Disparia (Dec 12, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> And the reason mainstream needs 6 cores is ... ?



Because it would be easier for the rest of us to get them of course.




Dj-ElectriC said:


> K CPUs dont get VT, why? becuase F@#k you thats why



Note to self: Never consider K models and that one S model.

Back in my day, only had to remember one set of specs per CPU family and the only variable was the Mhz/Ghz of each model. Now there's exceptions all over the place and some of my most visited links are the CPU lists at Wikipedia and ark.intel.com.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 12, 2012)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Wow, what a fail. Exactly the same clocks. What is the point of these CPUs? The tick-tock is now completely pointless. Same clocks, same number of cores, and a 10% architecture performance boost? What a waste of money for whoever upgrades from Sandy or Ivy, especially considering a new mobo is needed.
> 
> Unfortunately this is AMD's fault. Intel can do whatever they want without competition.



,,,.... research & re-read and you'll see the benefits.   And to all the "PRICERS" who constantly complain about intel prices...If you want a Porsche with Porsche performance you gotta pay Porsche prices,,,, don't worry though hyundai  will always make something... almost... just kinda ...sorta  like it ....minus the performance, quality and class. Which ever one fits you... go with it


----------



## radrok (Dec 12, 2012)

Well to be honest there isn't that much to complain about Intel prices, at least they haven't been increasing them for their mainstream platform lately, as far as I remember though.

I do agree that if there was a bit of competition on the higher end we could've had lower prices / more cores.

Also mainstream needs 6 cores so the HEDT platform gets more than 6 stagnant cores we've been having since Gulftown.


----------



## Delta6326 (Dec 12, 2012)

Awesome news indeed, can't wait to get rid of this Q6600, I want the i7 4770K or T/S dunno if I will OC, they are already fast enough.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 12, 2012)

Octavean said:


> Not so sure that is 100% accurate in all cases:
> 
> Intel Fixes VT-d Bug in Sandy Bridge-E CPUs
> 
> ...



Of course it isn't 100% accurate in all cases.  But it is probably accurate in 99% of cases.  VT-d is a high level professional feature, and when used in that kind of professional environment people don't overclock.  The instability risk isn't worth it.  I'm sure there are a few enthusiasts that might like to play around with VT-d, but that isn't what the technology was developed for.

And yes, Sandy Bridge-E is a totally different beast.  Every processor can be overclocked on that platform due to the way the platform is designed.  That doesn't mean everyone overclocks that use it.

And don't confuse the Extreme edition processor with K series processors.  The Extreme Edition processor offer more than just an unlocked multiplier.  Professionals do use those processors and don't overclock them.  There is no locked equivalent to the 3970X, it is just a flat out bad ass processor.  However, there are locked equivalents to the K series processors.  There is a 3770 that matches the 3770K, the K is unlocked and the non-K has VT-d.



Jizzler said:


> Note to self: Never consider K models and that one S model.
> 
> Back in my day, only had to remember one set of specs per CPU family and the only variable was the Mhz/Ghz of each model. Now there's exceptions all over the place and some of my most visited links are the CPU lists at Wikipedia and ark.intel.com.



Read my post, the K processors do have VT.

And exactly how far back is "your day"?  I mean even going back to 80386 different models had different sets of specs.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Dec 12, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Back in my day, only had to remember one set of specs per CPU family and the only variable was the Mhz/Ghz of each model. Now there's exceptions all over the place and some of my most visited links are the CPU lists at Wikipedia and ark.intel.com.



Well, there is one less variable to consider: all the processors have the same integrated graphics (within 50MHz).  Of course, that could mean that all the desktop processors have the GT1 graphics, which would be a shame, but I remain optimistic that they all have the GT2 version.

Edit: I also like the 35W desktop quad cores.


----------



## Octavean (Dec 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Of course it isn't 100% accurate in all cases.  But it is probably accurate in 99% of cases.  VT-d is a high level professional feature, and when used in that kind of professional environment people don't overclock.  The instability risk isn't worth it.  I'm sure there are a few enthusiasts that might like to play around with VT-d, but that isn't what the technology was developed for.
> 
> And yes, Sandy Bridge-E is a totally different beast.  Every processor can be overclocked on that platform due to the way the platform is designed.  That doesn't mean everyone overclocks that use it.
> 
> And don't confuse the Extreme edition processor with K series processors.  The Extreme Edition processor offer more than just an unlocked multiplier.  Professionals do use those processors and don't overclock them.  There is no locked equivalent to the 3970X, it is just a flat out bad ass processor.  However, there are locked equivalents to the K series processors.  There is a 3770 that matches the 3770K, the K is unlocked and the non-K has VT-d.



Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say with respect to your earlier post newtekie1.  

I was only pointing out that the LGA2011 platform has processors that can OC and have VT-d (3970X, 3960X, 3930K and 3820). The “K” nomenclature is peppered in there as you know.  As far as I know all the Sandy Brdige-E processors C2 stepping and above have functional VT-d support in hardware with OC support and that includes the Core i7 3930*K*. 

There aren’t that many “K” processors to begin with. Considering only the most current processor line available  (Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E) the percentage of K processors that support VT-d is 33.3% or 1/3 (out of the 3930K, 3770K and 3570K). If you consider OCable  processors as a metric all the Sandy Bridge-E processors can OC so the percentage there (with Ivy Bridge) with respect to VT-d support would be 60% with VT-d support. 

The value of OC + VT-d is up to the individual. I agree that most people who want one of these features doesn’t necessarily care about the other.


----------



## Binge (Dec 12, 2012)

hardcore_gamer said:


> It would have of been nice if they kept the same TDP as ivy and increased the clock speeds instead.



What??? that's like saying to lower the TDP and keep the same clocks.  When -YOU- overclock the proc it will have TDP like ivy bridge lol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 12, 2012)

Octavean said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say with respect to your earlier post newtekie1.
> 
> I was only pointing out that the LGA2011 platform has processors that can OC and have VT-d (3970X, 3960X, 3930K and 3820). The “K” nomenclature is peppered in there as you know.  As far as I know all the Sandy Brdige-E processors C2 stepping and above have functional VT-d support in hardware with OC support and that includes the Core i7 3930*K*.
> 
> ...



But what I'm saying is that the 2011 platform is a totally different beast.  Every processor is overclockable.  And the processors that do have unlocked multipliers don't have equivalents that are locked.  For example, there is no standard 3930, there is only the 3930K.  So if someone wants that level of performance, even if they plan to run it at stock, the 3930K is the only option, so including VT-d is a must on that processor.  However, on the mainstream platform that isn't the case.  There is a 3770 and a 3570, so including VT-d on the K processors isn't necessary.  If someone wants VT-d they are going buy the 3770 not the 3770K.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Read my post, the K processors do have VT.
> 
> And exactly how far back is "your day"? I mean even going back to 80386 different models had different sets of specs.



Oh, I know. Whether it's VT/VT-d or just VT-d doesn't change whether I'd ever buy them. I simply found DJ's post the most accurate description of Intel's reasoning. "Fvck you, that's why!" works as an answer to "Why?" 97% percent of the time. The other 3% I actually see a clear reason as to why Intel chose to do what they did.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 12, 2012)

Jizzler said:


> Oh, I know. Whether it's VT/VT-d or just VT-d doesn't change whether I'd ever buy them. I simply found DJ's post the most accurate description of Intel's reasoning. "Fvck you, that's why!" works as an answer to "Why?" 97% percent of the time. The other 3% I actually see a clear reason as to why Intel chose to do what they did.



In this case the reasoning is that people buying the K processors are extremely unlikely to ever use VT-d.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 13, 2012)

Covert_Death said:


> yea blame AMD cause that's the fun thing to do
> 
> if your going to blame someone blame the software and game companies out there that still live in the 90's and refuse to code for 4+ Cores still... yes it's a littler harder to do but damn get with the times it's what NEEDS to be done



lol, indeed..
when intel release something news or rumor on their upcoming processor line up, i'm just laughing


----------



## radrok (Dec 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> But what I'm saying is that the 2011 platform is a totally different beast.  Every processor is overclockable.  And the processors that do have unlocked multipliers don't have equivalents that are locked.  For example, there is no standard 3930, there is only the 3930K.  So if someone wants that level of performance, even if they plan to run it at stock, the 3930K is the only option, so including VT-d is a must on that processor.  However, on the mainstream platform that isn't the case.  There is a 3770 and a 3570, so including VT-d on the K processors isn't necessary.  If someone wants VT-d they are going buy the 3770 not the 3770K.



You could always buy a skt 2011 Xeon, the high clocked 6 core variant doesn't cost much more than a 3930K, there are 6 cores under 3930K price point too if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Nihilus (Dec 13, 2012)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Wow, what a fail. Exactly the same clocks. What is the point of these CPUs? The tick-tock is now completely pointless. Same clocks, same number of cores, and a 10% architecture performance boost? What a waste of money for whoever upgrades from Sandy or Ivy, especially considering a new mobo is needed.
> 
> Unfortunately this is AMD's fault. Intel can do whatever they want without competition.



The core 2 had lower clocks than the pentium 4 and that worked out pretty well.  Don't judge on something that hasn't been benched yet.  Sandy Bridge was your 5.4L Triton engine.  Ivy Bridge added 3v per cylinder.  Haswell is your spanking new Coyote 5.0L - Still 8 cylinders, runs at similar RPM's, but much more powerful!  AMD would be your 5.3L Chevy.... still using OHV.


----------

