# Haswell-E - Intel's First 8 Core Desktop Processor Exposed



## Sin (Jun 16, 2013)

Another day, another Intel leak and a few surprises as well. During the last few days we covered Intel's desktop roadmap for the next twelve months, bringing you news and insights on Intel's plans for the aforementioned time interval. Today we bring you news on what's to follow in the second half of 2014, specifically, on Intel's Premium Desktop plans for the interval, namely Haswell-E, DDR4 and the X99 PCH.

Haswell-E will be Intel's last and best offering using the 22 nm fabrication process, it will come in two versions, core count wise, 8 core part(s) as well as 6 core part(s) with hyper-threading enabled, therefore, boasting no less that 16 execution threads for the 8 core chips and 12 execution threads for the 6 core version(s). Judging by that alone, Haswell-E should constitute a far superior upgrade over Ivy Bridge-E, compared to what the latter will be in relation to Sandy Bridge-E, Haswell-E offering two additional physical cores that translate into four additional execution threads. The new chips will boast 2.5 MB of L3 Cache per core, summing up to 20 MB total L3 cache for the 8 core parts. TDP will remain in the same neighborhood it was in the case of its predecessors, around 130-140 W.



 

 

 

 

Haswell-E will of course be accompanied by a new platform, dubbed Wellsburg, the X99 chipset will bring a host of new features, the most important one being quad channel DDR4 support. With four basic frequency settings, starting at 1333 MHz and moving up in increments of 266 MHz to a maximum of 2133 MHz, at which point overclocking should be employed to attain superior clocks. However we sincerely doubt that any DDR4 modules/kits, clocked below 2133 MHz, will be made available for this platform. Modestly clocked (1333 MHz), low voltage (1.2 V) kits are supported by the new platform as well. The DIMM connector was also modified to support Non Volatile DIMMs, receiving four more pins for the purpose (288 instead of 284), modification that will not negatively impact compatibility with 284 pin modules in any way.

Other points of interest regarding the X99 chipset are: 
Up to six USB 3.0 ports
Up to eight USB 2.0 ports
Up to ten SATA 6 Gbps ports
Integrated Clock support
TDP of 6.5W
The LGA 2011 socket will be updated too, dubbed LGA 2011-3, the socket will see the pin layout changing while remaining numerically the same. The change, going by Intel's own slides, claiming superior efficiency. The chip's IHS received a makeover as well, looking very different from current Intel offerings.

Given the information at hand, trying to quantify performance gains, speculate on overclocking potential and other such conclusory attempts to wrap up the above presented information, I admit is quite enticing and intriguing, but I'll end here and outsource the pleasure of doing that to you.

Post Scriptum
A big hand for radrok, for bringing this to my attention.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## DRDNA (Jun 16, 2013)

I knew I was holding out on upgrading for a reason, I cant wait to build this into a system!


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 16, 2013)

This might actually be worth upgrading to.

Still no Thunderbolt? Come on Intel, you're going to let it go the way of firewire.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2013)

So you need to once again replace your motherboard, its not a drop in replacement? and im guessing the price will be around $1500?


----------



## TheHunter (Jun 16, 2013)

Well this would have been my dream machine, been wanting to upgrade to a true 8core.. ah well, Im still very happy with 4770K @ 4.4ghz atm. 

Although it would be nice to have 16threads at 4.6ghz or something like that, but i know cpu price will be "nice" too 600-800€ + if not more for sure :S


----------



## ivybridge (Jun 16, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> This might actually be worth upgrading to.
> 
> Still no Thunderbolt? Come on Intel, you're going to let it go the way of firewire.



This depends on whether the motherboard manufacturer is willing to add it. I know that Gigabyte and MSI have both added this feature in their z77 lineup... not too sure about 2011 socket though.


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 16, 2013)

yeah, but since it's an Intel spec you'd expect to see it integrated into their chipsets by now.


----------



## Sinzia (Jun 16, 2013)

The problem with thunderbolt is it needs a iGPU to run the displayport part of the spec. If there's no iGPU, then no thunderbolt.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> So you need to once again replace your motherboard, its not a drop in replacement? and im guessing the price will be around $1500?



Haswell wasn't a drop in replacement for Ivy Bridge, I don't know why anyone would expect Haswell-E to be a drop in replacement for Ivy Bridge-E.

And Intel said they are using a Tick-Tock roadmap, with a major update requiring a new platform and then a minor one that doesn't.  So this is the way forward with them.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Haswell wasn't a drop in replacement for Ivy Bridge, I don't know why anyone would expect Haswell-E to be a drop in replacement for Ivy Bridge-E.
> 
> And Intel said they are using a Tick-Tock roadmap, with a major update requiring a new platform and then a minor one that doesn't.  So this is the way forward with them.



Yea I know and i thought that to be crazy as the difference between the two was near nothing  I guess im just used to using AMD and having many CPU choices from even three gens back to use in my current mobo  unless there is some major major difference, hell even Steamroller is meant to fit AM3+ right?

To me Intel is just making it confusing with all these new sockets, but that's just me.

I can under stand I guess with this new 8 core as its intels first and all, but i just don't get it with socket 1150, that socket is going to be very short lived?


----------



## Protagonist (Jun 16, 2013)

This is good news, now i would be more happier if the mainstream gets a core count upgrade too, maybe broadwell will have a 6 core part next year.

If the mainstream will look like this:

4 Cores on:
Celeron & Pentium 4 Cores / i3 4 Cores, 8 Threads

6 Cores on: 
i5 6 Cores / i7 6 Cores, 12 Threads

This would be very nice just my thought, so that the new LGA 2011-3 to have a minimum of 6 Cores, 12 Threads. another good thing is TDP to be 84W < and below in relevance to CPU on the mainstream side and the Price to remain same for mainstream and performance.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Yea I know and i thought that to be crazy as the difference between the two was near nothing  I guess im just used to using AMD and having many CPU choices from even three gens back to use in my current mobo  unless there is some major major difference, hell even Steamroller is meant to fit AM3+ right?
> 
> To me Intel is just making it confusing with all these new sockets, but that's just me.



AMD isn't much better at times, 754, 939, and FM1 all only lasted for a single generation of processors.



Melvis said:


> I can under stand I guess with this new 8 core as its intels first and all, but i just don't get it with socket 1150, that socket is going to be very short lived?



Actually, this isn't Intel's first 8-Core.  There are 8-core Sandy Bridge-E processors.  And Socket 1150 will have the same life span as 1155 basically.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> So you need to once again replace your motherboard, its not a drop in replacement? and im guessing the price will be around $1500?



you mean $2000


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

Sin said:


> The LGA 2011 socket will be updated too, dubbed LGA 2011-3, the socket will see the pin layout changing while remaining numerically the same. The change, going by Intel's own slides, claiming superior efficiency. The chip's IHS received a makeover as well, looking very different from current Intel offerings.



i call BS on this. its just to make you all buy a new motherboard XD
long live AMD
i went from an am2 motherboard to am2+ to AM3+ with the SAME CPU XD


----------



## Protagonist (Jun 16, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> AMD isn't much better at times, 754, 939, and FM1 all only lasted for a single generation of processors.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, this isn't Intel's first 8-Core.  There are 8-core Sandy Bridge-E processors.  And Socket 1150 will have the same life span as 1155 basically.*



The mean the Desktop Part not the once marked for server, we know there are on the Xeon Part and Xeon can work on desktop, anyway they are talking the desktop variants.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> The mean the Desktop Part not the once marked for server, we know there are on the Xeon Part and Xeon can work on desktop, anyway they are talking the desktop variants.



No, he was specifically talking about the socket and how he can see how a new socket would be required because they're releasing an 8-core processor.  My point was that the current socket already supports 8-core processors.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

and its already stated that the new socket is just a restructuring of pins. its numerically the same. this is just so that people have to buy new boards. nothing esle.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> AMD isn't much better at times, 754, 939, and FM1 all only lasted for a single generation of processors.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this isn't Intel's first 8-Core.  There are 8-core Sandy Bridge-E processors.  And Socket 1150 will have the same life span as 1155 basically.



Yea I know AMD has had some very short lived sockets as well, but when it comes to there main socket witch is AM2/3 etc these have lived along time with many CPU upgrade paths. But can any CPU's from socket 1366/1150/1156/155/2011 be used in each others socket? I Honestly don't know lol



de.das.dude said:


> you mean $2000



 I dont want to know. I dont get over an i5 when building computers for clients  Theres just no need for anything more powerful. 



Protagonist said:


> The mean the Desktop Part not the once marked for server, we know there are on the Xeon Part and Xeon can work on desktop, anyway they are talking the desktop variants.



Yea i did mean the desktop part more so then the server part, as even AMD has had 12 core CPU's out for years but that hasn't come to the desktop lol. 

I did realize there have been 8 core CPU's from intel in the past called umm I cant remember started with a D? but it wasn't for desktop/main stream so never worried about it.



newtekie1 said:


> No, he was specifically talking about the socket and how he can see how a new socket would be required because they're releasing an 8-core processor.  My point was that the current socket already supports 8-core processors.



Which socket do you mean? the one that already supports 8-core processors? 1155?


----------



## Ikaruga (Jun 16, 2013)

First. I was like _"yeehaa ;D"_, then I saw _"second half of 2014"_ *:/*


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Yea I know AMD has had some very short lived sockets as well, but when it comes to there main socket witch is AM2/3 etc these have lived along time with many CPU upgrade paths. But can any CPU's from socket 1366/1150/1156/155/2011 be used in each others socket? I Honestly don't know lol



754 and 939 were their main socket.  And you can't exactly take a AM2 processor and put it in an AM3+ board, or an AM3+ processor and put it in an AM2 board.  AM2 only had 2 real generations of support too, Athlon 64 and Phenom.  AM2+ carried over Athlon 64 support, but by the time it came out Athlon 64 processors were already off the market, so what is the point in considering that as backwards compatibility?  And AM3 officially only supported one processor generation as well, Phenom II.



Melvis said:


> Which socket do you mean? the one that already supports 8-core processors? 1155?



The current socket 2011 supports 8-Core processors and the processors are already available.


----------



## erocker (Jun 16, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> this is just so that people have to buy new boards. nothing esle.



Are you positive?


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

intel is evill... hurr durr.
more boards bought = more revenue from manufacturers! win for everyone!


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 16, 2013)

So much bitching about new motherboards/sockets here, but clearly none of you noted that the new platform supports DDR4 which is highly likely the main reason for the socket change. Considering Intel would have to make major changes to the memory interface of the CPU, it's easy to see why they had to change the CPU socket.
If you don't want to pay for it, no-one's going to be forcing you to upgrade, so there...


----------



## buggalugs (Jun 16, 2013)

who cares about buying a new board....I expect a new board when a new enthusiast CPU comes out that has better features than previous. More sata 6GB/s ports, plenty of USB 3.0 ports etc. If you're spending $500-$600 on a 8 core processor, buying a new board isn't a big deal.

 Anyway the current X79 platform sucks, the sooner they kill that off the better. Maybe Haswell-e will save the highend.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

TheLostSwede said:


> So much bitching about new motherboards/sockets here, but clearly none of you noted that the new platform supports DDR4 which is highly likely the main reason for the socket change. Considering Intel would have to make major changes to the memory interface of the CPU, it's easy to see why they had to change the CPU socket.
> If you don't want to pay for it, no-one's going to be forcing you to upgrade, so there...



doensnt intel house the memory controller in the chipset?


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> 754 and 939 were their main socket.  And you can't exactly take a AM2 processor and put it in an AM3+ board, or an AM3+ processor and put it in an AM2 board.  AM2 only had 2 real generations of support too, Athlon 64 and Phenom.  AM2+ carried over Athlon 64 support, but by the time it came out Athlon 64 processors were already off the market, so what is the point in considering that as backwards compatibility?  And AM3 officially only supported one processor generation as well, Phenom II.



Those two sockets where AMD glory days of performance over intel, no one at that time line had compatibility. 

Actually you can > http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3581#

It might not support BD or PD but it supports everything else. And those CPU's can also be used in socket AM3+ Thats a pretty wide range. You wont find that support from intel anywhere. 

I get what you mean but the support is there one way or another if its an old mobo with a new upgrade to CPU or then if you want to have the use of USB3 etc you can still use your CPU from your AM2 mobo and put it into an AM3+ mobo, you don't have to buy two parts every time you wish to upgrade, you know what i mean?



newtekie1 said:


> The current socket 2011 supports 8-Core processors and the processors are already available.



So you mean server CPU's?? not desktop? and if that's the case why do they need a new socket then for this new 8-core desktop CPU's?  Ok yes for DDR4 but that's just silly.



buggalugs said:


> who cares about buying a new board....I expect a new board when a new enthusiast CPU comes out that has better features than previous. More sata 6GB/s ports, plenty of USB 3.0 ports etc. If you're spending $500-$600 on a 8 core processor, buying a new board isn't a big deal.
> 
> Anyway the current X79 platform sucks, the sooner they kill that off the better. Maybe Haswell-e will save the highend.



That might be ok for you but when you have spent alot of money on a top end mobo with all the bells and whissels on it (FYI AMD has had those features for yrs now 6GB/s ports and plenty of USB3 ports) I for one wouldn't like to dish out another 200-300$ just so I can support a new CPU each or next year. $500-600 for what 8 core processor? if you think this one from intel will be that cheap you best think again.


----------



## HammerON (Jun 16, 2013)

My next upgrade


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2013)

buggalugs said:


> Anyway the current X79 platform sucks, the sooner they kill that off the better. Maybe Haswell-e will save the highend.



You just don't learn do you? 40 PCI-E slots are there to be used and last time I checked the 4770k and 3770k aren't all that much faster than the 3820 so I don't see what your beef is. X79 is just like z68 and z77; it's an over-glorified PCH. Anyone who really wants good performance out of IO and really needs more than what X79 is offering should be looking at getting a better SATA controller and if you're going to complain about price, I'll say once again, you're investing in enthusiast level hardware, you do the math.

As an owner of a SB-E rig I can say, once again, that your hate for skt2011 and X79 is really pretty ridiculous. Even more so for someone who has never owned a skt2011 machine, so you really have no idea what you're talking about because it feels just as responsive as a skt1155 rig. I don't know what you're beef is, but skt2011 does not suck. Just because it doesn't have everything you ever wanted doesn't mean it is bad and unlike you, I actually have a ton of devices plugged into the PCH and I do a an X79 board and I can say that it performs admirably, so don't talk about what you don't know.

--

As far as the new Haswell-E revision of skt2011 is concerned, that would have been expected with the introduction of DDR4 so I'm not surprised in the slightest. I would also imagine that Haswell-E is probably, at bare minimum, at least a year away.



Melvis said:


> Ok yes for DDR4 but that's just silly.


Why? DDR4 works very differently than DDR3. They're ditching channels in favor of point-to-point links. That requires redoing the circuitry.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> I can under stand I guess with this new 8 core as its intels first and all, but i just don't get it with socket 1150, that socket is going to be very short lived?



Broadwell will be the drop-in upgrade to socket 1150, just as Ivy was the drop-in upgrade to 1155.

2011 is a completely different platform.


----------



## adulaamin (Jun 16, 2013)

"All Processors Unlocked" <<<


----------



## progste (Jun 16, 2013)

i thought there were already 8 core Xeon CPUs?


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2013)

adulaamin said:


> "All Processors Unlocked" <<<



Does it really matter? The 3820 showed that even locked SB-E chips can overclock plenty well if you kick the bclk strap up to 125Mhz. I would much rather have an unlocked i3 CPU as opposed to having all skt2011 chips being K edition CPUs. Heck, I run 4.5Ghz on my 3820 and I don't even touch Turbo to do it!



progste said:


> i thought there were already 8 core Xeon CPUs?


There are, but they're not overclockable at all afaict. I don't even think they will let you adjust the bclk strap. 
http://ark.intel.com/products/64597...E5-2665-20M-Cache-2_40-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI


----------



## Melvis (Jun 16, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Why? DDR4 works very differently than DDR3. They're ditching channels in favor of point-to-point links. That requires redoing the circuitry.



Can you give me a link to this? the difference etc? Id like to learn more about it. All ive seen since DDR1 is just speed increases, nothing more 



jihadjoe said:


> Broadwell will be the drop-in upgrade to socket 1150, just as Ivy was the drop-in upgrade to 1155.
> 
> 2011 is a completely different platform.



Ok yep I get ya and i can see that now, I don't keep up with Intel that much. 

They realy should of just kept skt 1155 for Haswell and Broadwell as well, that would of been a realy good socket to keep then? Not like there is a huge difference between them all is there?


----------



## Rayz (Jun 16, 2013)

*What*

No SATA Express?! The next extreme generation won't support it while the new mainstream one (Z97) will?! someone there in Intel got crazy. The next SSD's will be capable to exceed SATA3\6G speed, and the most common owners ones (the Extreme platforms users) won't be able to make a use of them?

ABSURD.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Can you give me a link to this? the difference etc? Id like to learn more about it. All ive seen since DDR1 is just speed increases, nothing more



How much depth? You can get the JEDEC spec here but it's rather verbose.


----------



## blibba (Jun 16, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> There are, but they're not overclockable at all afaict. I don't even think they will let you adjust the bclk strap.
> http://ark.intel.com/products/64597...E5-2665-20M-Cache-2_40-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI



There's really no reason Intel couldn't release a 12-core desktop part today, other than profit margins on Xeons.

Check out the Xeon E5-2697v2 when it's officially announced in the near future.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2013)

blibba said:


> There's really no reason Intel couldn't release a 12-core desktop part today, other than profit margins on Xeons.
> 
> Check out the Xeon E5-2697v2 when it's officially announced in the near future.



Or maybe because it will perform worse than a 4 core part for about 99% of most people's needs because of the low clock speed. If you really need a 12c rig, then go buy a Xeon but your regular consumer, even your regular enthusiast, doesn't need a 12c rig, nor would it perform better in most cases. There is zero motivation for Intel to release a 12c for your typical consumer when a quad-core does just as well.


----------



## Doc41 (Jun 16, 2013)

I don't understand why haven't they done that a long time ago, i looked around their site and found a 10 core Xeon E7 that was launched in Q2'11  but hey thats intel.

Anyway still good news and i might upgrade to this if my wallet allows at the time.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jun 16, 2013)

EDIT:

Thanks. Appreciate the quick reply.


----------



## D4S4 (Jun 16, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> doensnt intel house the memory controller in the chipset?



not since nehalem


----------



## blibba (Jun 16, 2013)

thunderising said:


> It's a SHAME that the AUTHOR didn't even THINK of PUTTING A SOURCE LINK to this article.
> 
> Really, a SHAME. Considering I'm the AUTHOR of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE.



It's a shame that the author of this comment formatted it in such a juvenile way. Really, a shame. Considering I'd have been sympathetic to his remarks otherwise.


----------



## Naito (Jun 16, 2013)

New socket revision most likely for DDR4 support. Currently, most Intel sockets seem to survive one tick-tock cycle, that should be long enough between upgrades. Throwing a newer CPU into an older board, or putting an old CPU into a new board would likely bring minimal increase in performance and/or features. This is especially true when newer technologies such as USB 3.0 and SATA 6GB/s are being added and the CPUs (within one tick-tock cycle) usually bring with them expanded connectivity.


----------



## Am* (Jun 16, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> i call BS on this. its just to make you all buy a new motherboard XD
> long live AMD
> i went from an am2 motherboard to am2+ to AM3+ with the SAME CPU XD



First of all, you're talking nonsense. There is no way on earth that you used an AM2 processor on an AM3+ board, since your Phenom is an AM3 processor -- some AM2+ motherboards were compatible with AM3 but required a NEWER PHYSICAL SOCKET to support them, most were already shipped with older sockets which were NOT forwards compatible, which means AM2+ is no better or more forward compatible than 1155 or 775 or any other common Intel socket that supports at least 2 generations of processors. You're completely confusing your processor with the Phenom II 940, which was specifically AM2/AM2+ socket ONLY. Oh and the only reason AM3 processors are backwards/forwards compatible is because they have BOTH an DDR2 and a DDR3 controller on the CPU.

Secondly, can you even read? People are complaining that Haswell-E CPUs will not work with current LGA 2011 boards, not the fact that their 3930/3820Ks are not forwards compatible with HW-E socket mobos. That's the equivalent of trying to stick a AM3 CPU in an AM2 motherboard -- not physically possible due to socket layout & feature changes. It is one thing to complain about occasional socket changes from Intel (I complained about it a fair bit back when 1156 was EOL'd & 1155 was announced, and for good reason) but for you to troll with your moronic "AMD is teh bestt cuz my CPU wurks on 2 socketz!!!1!!" is beyond retarded -- you swapped 3 motherboards to use the same slow-end CPU, and AM3+ is pretty much a fake socket, since 900 series chipset motherboards are merely re-branded 800 series anyway (with a slightly overclocked HyperTransport bus). Nothing there warrants a new socket anyway.



de.das.dude said:


> and its already stated that the new socket is just a restructuring of pins. its numerically the same. this is just so that people have to buy new boards. nothing esle.



How can you possibly say something so stupid? Did you even see that this new socket will use DDR4? Or the fact that Haswell houses certain voltage regulators on-die, which easily justifies a new socket on its own? Who are you trying to kid, other than yourself?



de.das.dude said:


> doensnt intel house the memory controller in the chipset?









Welcome to the 21st century. Memory controllers have been on CPUs since around 2008 for Intel, and all the way since at least 2003/04 from AMD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 16, 2013)

yeah, looked like i had some reading to catch up to. now that i did, its clearer


----------



## happita (Jun 16, 2013)

I love jumping ship to new hardware like the next person, but I feel like Haswell-E won't be bringing anything new that Haswell hasn't already brought to the table. Well, except 8-core variants. But then again, very, very few applications utilize 8-core CPUs. I knew holding onto my SB was a good idea. Broadwell, here I come


----------



## Am* (Jun 16, 2013)

happita said:


> I love jumping ship to new hardware like the next person, but I feel like Haswell-E won't be bringing anything new that Haswell hasn't already brought to the table. Well, except 8-core variants. But then again, very, very few applications utilize 8-core CPUs. I knew holding onto my SB was a good idea. Broadwell, here I come



Forget Broadwell, Skylake/Skymont is where it's at. We may even get 8 core processors & DDR4/PCI-E 4.0 on the mainstream socket by then. Also Intel said they will be hitting the limits of silicon with that generation, which will be a very interesting time for us enthusiasts to find out what the new material/manufacturing & binning processes will be.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 16, 2013)

So, let's take a look at this socket thing critically.

LGA 1366/1156 - Nehalem and Westmere
LGA 2011/1155 - Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge
LGA 2011-3/1150 - Haswell and presumably Broadwell

One socket gets two architectures (a new one, then die shrink).  The grand old days of LGA 775 don't exist any more.  This isn't a great thing for purchasing, but it is a very good thing for performance.  If you'd like to go the "AMD has better backward compatibility" route I'd like to ask you how you expect new features, when a chip is locked into a six year old socket.  If you don't subscribe to this theory then you can purchase an AMD setup.


Now, connectivity.  Aquinus makes the same point time and again, which I happen to disagree with.  Rather than rehash this, I'll just say X79 was intentionally crippled by Intel, due to heat.  This is the same reason all SB-e 6 cores are 8 cores with two cores lasered off.  That's a disappointment to me, but seems to be justified as "an expense inherent in the enthusiast level market."  I cannot abide this.


No Thunderbolt, no problem.  Intel requires an IGP to get Thunderbolt to work.  It produces insane amounts of heat, and still costs a small fortune to get a device.  Firewire is a very apt example of this crap, and Intel seems to be putting it into the same failed experiment shoe box.  It's cool, it'll still see some incorporation, but it isn't likely to be adopted by the mainstream.  I'm not seeing a huge problem here.


DDR4 is interesting.  It would offer a very good reason to restructure the socket.  I can't say I'm looking forward to its adoption, but it'll be nice to get DDR3 out of here.  Less power consumption, better connection to the memory controller, and higher bandwidth are always nice.  Wikipedia lays it out in pretty plain terms for those people who don't know about it already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR4



Finally, and the biggest caveat, late 2014.  Let's assume that the date is, for the sake of calculation ease, November 16 2014.  SB-e saw release November 16 2011.  You're going to tell me that three years on a platform is insufficient?  Socket 1155 ran from January 2011 to June 2013.  29 months as opposed to 36 from LGA 2011.  I don't see half as much vitriol for LGA 1150 as LGA 2011.  Why?  LGA 2011 has its problems, I do feel disappointed, but I don't feel cheated.  LGA 2011 is not a home run, but it is a solid base hit for people who want something more than a gaming rig.



Edit:
Changed spelling.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> They realy should of just kept skt 1155 for Haswell and Broadwell as well, that would of been a realy good socket to keep then? Not like there is a huge difference between them all is there?



Intel integrated voltage regulators into Haswell's die, do instead of the motherboard feeding 6 voltages to the CPU, it only sends 2 now. LGA 1150 boards essentially step down 12v to ~1.8v (user configurable) and the processor then takes that and makes your vcore, system agent voltage, etc. Essentially, this further reduces motherboard complexity.


----------



## radrok (Jun 16, 2013)

I've been crying for a consumer 8 core since the first time I saw that the 3930K/3960X were 8 core die with 2 cores fused off.

All I can say is about damn time Intel.




HammerON said:


> My next upgrade



Agreed!


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 16, 2013)

I'd love to have at least one of these to replace a pair of LGA 1155 systems, not to mention that it will probably use fluxless solder for the IHS TIM due to the power dissipation of the chip. 1st gen LGA 2011 really didn't appeal to me at all considering the current chips are now two generations behind the mainstream ones.


----------



## Naito (Jun 16, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You're going to tell me that three years on a platform is insufficient?  Socket 1155 ran from January 2011 to June 2013.  29 months as opposed to 36 from LGA 2011.



^This. A majority of people probably upgrade every two to three years anyway, which is the lifespan of the current sockets.


----------



## radrok (Jun 16, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> 1st gen LGA 2011 really didn't appeal to me at all considering the current chips are now two generations behind the mainstream ones.



Agreed,

I'm so damn pissed about the fact that Z87 Haswell is such a better platform than X79 SB-E that it was about time Intel did something for its flagship.


----------



## Jorge (Jun 16, 2013)

Sort of...

By pretty much all reviewer accounts Haswell brings almost no performance gains over IB which brought almost no perfomance gains over SB - other than the GPU section. Intel does continue to lower power consumption which is useful for laptops but it really means nothing for desktop unless you are paying some astronomical rates for electricity which most folks aren't. Using a toaster or other common household device would consume way more than any power saving from Haswell. AMD has also lowered their power consumption on laptop Trinity and Richland APUs so Haswell really has no advantage there and is woefully inadequate in GPU performance.

For Intel to release an 8-core consumer desktop CPU, you know they are feeling the heat of poor performance from IB and now Haswell, especially with AMD about to launch Kaveri and Steamroller in Q4. It's all good for consumers because you can pick your poison be it best performance and value or over-priced exploitation. The choice is completely yours.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2013)

Jorge said:


> By pretty much all reviewer accounts Haswell brings almost no performance gains over IB which brought almost no perfomance gains over SB - other than the GPU section.



I don't hold that opinion myself. The performance gains of today aren't as large as they have been in years past, but the difference in actual performance(not benchmarks) between SandyBridge and Haswell is very noticeable for me personally. Is there reason to upgrade through that series of CPUs? No, not really. But processing requirements by software has hardly increased, so the actual performance benefits are not noticed when they do exist.


Haswell is exciting for me for other reasons. Not one single reviewer has touched on why. I fully understand why most are un-impressed. They lack vision. I hate to say that, because I respect a lot of these guys, but really...total lack of vision. Haswell-E isn't going to magically change that.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 16, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> I don't hold that opinion myself. The performance gains of today aren't as large as they have been in years past, but the difference in actual performance(not benchmarks) between SandyBridge and Haswell is very noticeable for me personally. Is there reason to upgrade through that series of CPUs? No, not really. But processing requirements by software has hardly increased, so the actual performance benefits are not noticed when they do exist.
> 
> 
> Haswell is exciting for me for other reasons. Not one single reviewer has touched on why. I fully understand why most are un-impressed. They lack vision. I hate to say that, because I respect a lot of these guys, but really...total lack of vision. Haswell-E isn't going to magically change that.



One of the reasons why I have upgraded through the last two generations was first for the nice power consumption decrease with Ivy, but the supposed 10% performance increase clock for clock for each generation was nice in my opinion. I know people are probably tired of me saying this, but I need every ounce of CPU performance for many games at 120Hz, and I can easily see the difference in TF2, even though it is relatively old. That game sees big differences with clock speed, as someone with a 5.2GHz 2500K beats out my 4.3GHz 4770K by a good 30 FPS (164 vs. 134 on the same recorded timedemo). Nobody seems to understand that maintaining 120 FPS even in some older multiplayer games is difficult though so I can't really argue with the "Phenom/FX people" who only play at 60 and don't see the CPU bottlenecks I see on my setup.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 16, 2013)

well it would appear Intel is not worth the point of going to if the Skt 2011 isnt supported for Haswell, Considering Haswell isnt any better than ivb or sb.


----------



## Filiprino (Jun 16, 2013)

This hardware could be my next upgrade. Or the server version with 10 cores in dual configuration. AVX2 is just too much improvement to resist 
PCIe 3.0 certified, DDR4, tons of USB 3.0 and SATA ports, integrated VRM, 6.5 W TDP on the southbridge. Great.

The motherboard manufacturers won't have much room for their gimmicks, like fans or heatpipes.

As for the DDR4, there's hope for the memory to rise up to 4266 Mhz (MT/s), with starting speeds on 2133 Mhz. Tons of bandwidth  random access latency times in absolute figures we know haven't decreased nor increased, just the ability to chain/interleave accesses or put more GBs without impacting performance. This must be challenging for the new instructions in Haswell that do gathering.

http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-cpu/2/


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Melvis said:


> hell even Steamroller is meant to fit AM3+ right?



Steamroller can fit in a AM2 or AM2+ board providing their is a bios update. I've seen a few boards from 2007 ish which are AM3+ compatible.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 16, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Steamroller can fit in a AM2 or AM2+ board providing their is a bios update. I've seen a few boards from 2007 ish which are AM3+ compatible.



Please find them because to my knowledge AM3+ CPUs no longer have a DDR2 controller in the IMC. AM3 was the last set of chips that could drive DDR2.


----------



## Am* (Jun 16, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> One of the reasons why I have upgraded through the last two generations was first for the nice power consumption decrease with Ivy, but the supposed 10% performance increase clock for clock for each generation was nice in my opinion. I know people are probably tired of me saying this, but I need every ounce of CPU performance for many games at 120Hz, and I can easily see the difference in TF2, even though it is relatively old. That game sees big differences with clock speed, as someone with a 5.2GHz 2500K beats out my 4.3GHz 4770K by a good 30 FPS (164 vs. 134 on the same recorded timedemo). Nobody seems to understand that maintaining 120 FPS even in some older multiplayer games is difficult though so I can't really argue with the "Phenom/FX people" who only play at 60 and don't see the CPU bottlenecks I see on my setup.



There is only so much expensive hardware you can throw at poorly optimized engines/games, do not waste too much money trying. I have several other games that suffer the same fate (Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, L4D and most other Valve games especially), and I do not ever intend to upgrade for them because they are released either with ancient development kits and never updated or when single cores were the only/main way to go (so devs were expecting 7GHz+ P4s by now, I presume, which of course never happened). Don't be too quick to blame your CPU though, I don't think TF2 is that CPU limited (it is poorly threaded, but shouldn't run that slow with such an OC'd processor), best way to be sure it is a CPU bottleneck is to run it at 1024x768 or another ridiculously low resolution and see the framerate then. If it goes up, it's a GPU bottleneck.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Steamroller can fit in a AM2 or AM2+ board providing their is a bios update. I've seen a few boards from 2007 ish which are AM3+ compatible.



Besides the fact that no AM3+ CPU has a DDR2 memory controller, and hence will not work in an AM2 or AM2+ motherboard, AM3+ CPUs are not even supposed to work in AM3 motherboardS.  AMD didn't change the pin layout, but they did change the pins to allow more current, and AM3+ CPUs do not officially support AM3 motherboards.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 17, 2013)

Am* said:


> There is only so much expensive hardware you can throw at poorly optimized engines/games, do not waste too much money trying. I have several other games that suffer the same fate (Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, L4D and most other Valve games especially), and I do not ever intend to upgrade for them because they are released either with ancient development kits and never updated or when single cores were the only/main way to go (so devs were expecting 7GHz+ P4s by now, I presume, which of course never happened). Don't be too quick to blame your CPU though, I don't think TF2 is that CPU limited (it is poorly threaded, but shouldn't run that slow with such an OC'd processor), best way to be sure it is a CPU bottleneck is to run it at 1024x768 or another ridiculously low resolution and see the framerate then. If it goes up, it's a GPU bottleneck.



It's okay, I use all of my systems for distributed computing and I replace old/dead ones with new ones, so I have no problem upgrading my main rig and passing down the parts to work in my farm. TF2 is CPU bottlenecked because I can literally turn down the CPU multiplier and my framerate goes down accordingly. My 7970 usually sits at around 15-40% utilization. Borderlands 2 is close to being CPU bottlenecked but my GPU gets maxed out first. I've seen CPU thread utilization as high as 90% for 1-2 threads in that game as well. Probably one of the worst performing games I have played is Planetside 2, but that's pretty much a given because there are tons of players on each server.


----------



## BorisDG (Jun 17, 2013)

It's funny how all of you are controversing about LGA1155 and LGA2011, but you are forgetting the real king - LGA1366 - may be the biggest leap in Intel's history. Also this is the chipset with longest life. Even till now, this is kick ass platform.  So, looking forward for Haswell-E. Everything else (LGA1150/2011) is just a joke.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 17, 2013)

BorisDG said:


> It's funny how all of you are controversing about LGA1155 and LGA2011, but you are forgetting the real king - LGA1366 - may be the biggest leap in Intel's history. Also this is the chipset with longest life. Even till now, this is kick ass platform.  So, looking forward for Haswell-E. Everything else is just a gimmic.



what sucks is Intel ditched it too fast- despite it being faster in certain tasks than 1156/1155.


----------



## BrainCruser (Jun 17, 2013)

Melvis said:


> Yea I know and i thought that to be crazy as the difference between the two was near nothing  I guess im just used to using AMD and having many CPU choices from even three gens back to use in my current mobo  unless there is some major major difference, hell even Steamroller is meant to fit AM3+ right?
> 
> To me Intel is just making it confusing with all these new sockets, but that's just me.
> 
> I can under stand I guess with this new 8 core as its intels first and all, but i just don't get it with socket 1150, that socket is going to be very short lived?



We are talking about a new memory type, that alone changes a lot of stuff on the mobo. Also you are paying 500+ $ for CPU you can fork out half of that for a new platform.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 17, 2013)

BorisDG said:


> It's funny how all of you are controversing about LGA1155 and LGA2011, but you are forgetting the real king - LGA1366 - may be the biggest leap in Intel's history. Also this is the chipset with longest life. Even till now, this is kick ass platform.  So, looking forward for Haswell-E. Everything else (LGA1150/2011) is just a joke.



LGA1366 was awesome.  Nice to see Intel throw an eight core bone *next year* to the performance category but I'm waiting on Skylake in 2015 if I can.


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 17, 2013)

Like most of people probably, and I decide to wait that Haswell 8 cores Black Box.
That worth waiting for people who have everything almost latest. 
Now only DDR4, SATA Express and more than 6 cores is important.
This platform worth waiting 100%. Even to everybody leave 50e every month it's enough for 
8 cores Intel Black and one Black motherboard.
IB-E is to similar with SB-E, Haswell is same as my 4 cores, DDR3, 7%, SATA III same speed, little better performance, 
20% worse OC. Motherboards are much better but for Haswell than for IB but X99 will be even better.
We must attack on Intel and press them to make that monster like people deserve, with 1000MHz OC possible on AIR and good performance difference.
At least 15% clear from IB-E/


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 17, 2013)

Vlada011 said:


> We must attack on Intel and press them to make that monster like people deserve, with 1000MHz OC possible on AIR and good performance difference.



Haha. What? Consumers don't disserve anything. It all comes down to what Intel can do and how many resources they devote to improving their platform. They have the market and there is absolutely no reason for them to keep pushing performance; there is no reason to. Any software that your average consumer runs will work fine on hardware that has been out for the last 3 years. Also my 3820 has a stock clock of 3.6Ghz (3.8Ghz boost) and it can overclock to 4.75 before needing too much voltage. Last time I checked that's just about 1Ghz and I'm running on air. I'm pretty sure that's my motherboard holding it back too because I've seen people with ROG boards pushing the 3820 to 5Ghz.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jun 17, 2013)

Melvis said:


> They realy should of just kept skt 1155 for Haswell and Broadwell as well, that would of been a realy good socket to keep then? Not like there is a huge difference between them all is there?



I would imagine integrating the VRM onto the chip would make the old socket incompatible, no matter the pin-counts. It's obviously a mobile-focused decision that unforunately affects all of us.

Question for all of us hold-outs is when does this actually release? If it comes out next year then Ivy Bridge-E could very well be the shortest lived product ever.


----------



## Random Murderer (Jun 17, 2013)

A little disappointing for us X79 owners who were actually looking forward to IVB-E, but at the same time I don't see myself hopping on the X99 bandwagon. The first generation of new RAM is generally pretty slow for its own generation. When DDR3 just came out, there was only a slight jump in speed over high-end DDR2(DDR2 was at 1200+, DDR3 launched at 1066 and 1333).
I'll take my quad channel, high speed DDR3 over that quad channel, same speed or only slightly faster DDR4 that requires a new board and CPU.
Besides, 32GB of DDR3-2800+ and a six-core IVB-E should be powerful enough for a few more years and by then X119 or whatever they plan on calling the next HEDT platform should be out and I'll be ready to upgrade again. Hell, X58 is just now starting to lag behind a little, and it's been around for what, nearly 6 years?
I suppose my point is this: I can justify an upgrade to IVB-E and some new RAM in six months, but I can't justify building an all-new system just for DDR4 and a slight CPU performance boost in a year and a half. To those that don't already have an HEDT platform, this may be appealing, but DDR4 needs time to mature on the open market before I'll consider going there...

EDIT: Another point is that with _any_ of the SB, SB-E, IVB, and Haswell i7 chips, you put a slight OC on them and you'd be hard-pressed to find a real-world application(not benches or crunching/folding) that actually stresses all cores, much less stresses all cores to 100%. Why waste time with four more threads that run a little slower when eight/twelve threads aren't being fully utilized? E-peen, that's all I can figure...
Looking back, I should have built an X58 rig when they were new. I would just now be looking to upgrade, lol. That being said, with this X79 rig I don't even need to upgrade to IVB-E and it should last a few more years. I'm really just looking forward to IVB-E for higher RAM speeds and a new overclocking adventure. I'm sure a lot of people will love their X99 rigs, but the appeal to me is really just getting a look forward.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 17, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Consumers don't disserve anything. It all comes down to what Intel can do and how many resources they devote to improving their platform.



What?  Consumers pay for product, if the product isn't up to snuff *Haswell or Ivy-E* then consumers will not buy, switch to AMD possibly or wait until the next upgrade cycle.  

You can't deny Intel is innovating [performance wise] at a slower pace than enthuisiasts or early adopters would like.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jun 17, 2013)

TRWOV said:


> This might actually be worth upgrading to.
> 
> Still no Thunderbolt? Come on Intel, you're going to let it go the way of firewire.



All the cool sounding names always go the way of the dodo rather quickly.



Melvis said:


> So you need to once again replace your motherboard, its not a drop in replacement? and im guessing the price will be around $1500?



Even if the CPU was drop in, they are going DDR4 which would require a motherboard upgrade anyway.


----------



## riffraffy (Jun 19, 2013)

TheLostSwede said:


> So much bitching about new motherboards/sockets here, but clearly none of you noted that the new platform supports DDR4 which is highly likely the main reason for the socket change. Considering Intel would have to make major changes to the memory interface of the CPU, it's easy to see why they had to change the CPU socket.
> If you don't want to pay for it, no-one's going to be forcing you to upgrade, so there...



I'll bet Intel could make DDR4 work on a 775 socket if they were incline to all they have to do is move around the furniture so to speak.What I'll like to know is why would they promote more motherboard sales if thats a business they are leaving, is it to sell more bridge-chipset and the like . When I buy a new CPU I pair it with a new mobo because of advances in both technologies (Like thunderbolt maybe) but it wound be nice if it were my choice .


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 19, 2013)

riffraffy said:


> I'll bet Intel could make DDR4 work on a 775 socket if they were incline to all they have to do is move around the furniture so to speak.



Yeah, if they wanted to redesign and replace the MCH and every DIMM slot on every skt775 board, then maybe, but that's ridiculous and stupid. It's not as easy as it sounds to just move a platform from what type of memory to another. Wherever the IMC is, it has to support it. So for the example for Haswell-E, they don't just have to re-do the circuitry for the DRAM, they have to redo the IMC in the Haswell-E chip itself to process DDR4.

It's astonishing how people think that it's so easy to change a CPU or how a modern computer works, it's completely outstanding and blows my mind. The reality of it is that it isn't that easy and the more changes you make the more money, time, and effort it will cost.



Hilux SSRG said:


> What?  Consumers pay for product, if the product isn't up to snuff *Haswell or Ivy-E* then consumers will not buy, switch to AMD possibly or wait until the next upgrade cycle.
> 
> You can't deny Intel is innovating [performance wise] at a slower pace than enthuisiasts or early adopters would like.



Just because Intel hasn't improved performance doesn't mean that they're not innovating. I see a number of changes to Haswell that aren't CPU performance related that are worthy of note.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jun 20, 2013)

riffraffy said:


> I'll bet Intel could make DDR4 work on a 775 socket if they were incline to all they have to do is move around the furniture so to speak.What I'll like to know is why would they promote more motherboard sales if thats a business they are leaving, is it to sell more bridge-chipset and the like . When I buy a new CPU I pair it with a new mobo because of advances in both technologies (Like thunderbolt maybe) but it wound be nice if it were my choice .



It's easy to make stuff work on a 775 socket because stuff (like the memory controller) was still on the north bridge and not integrated into the CPU. In fact, they could probably get DDR4 to work with an old Core2 on Socket 775, but they sure won't get it to work with any current Nehalem, Sandy or Ivy.


----------



## riffraffy (Jun 21, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Yeah, if they wanted to redesign and replace the MCH and every DIMM slot on every skt775 board, then maybe, but that's ridiculous and stupid. It's not as easy as it sounds to just move a platform from what type of memory to another. Wherever the IMC is, it has to support it. So for the example for Haswell-E, they don't just have to re-do the circuitry for the DRAM, they have to redo the IMC in the Haswell-E chip itself to process DDR4.
> 
> It's astonishing how people think that it's so easy to change a CPU or how a modern computer works, it's completely outstanding and blows my mind. The reality of it is that it isn't that easy and the more changes you make the more money, time, and effort it will cost.
> 
> ...



You're taking about redoing haswell I'm taking about from the get-go ..if they would stick to one platform longer why would that cost more money? the changes start at the CPU not the motherboard I'm a Intel guy along with 95% of after market CPU buyers because they ARE the best ,But to think they can't do better is stu------wrong.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jun 21, 2013)

riffraffy said:


> But to think they can't do better is stu------wrong.



I agree.  Intel developed Thunderbolt and yet its not in z87 mobos.  What gives?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 22, 2013)

jihadjoe said:


> It's easy to make stuff work on a 775 socket because stuff (like the memory controller) was still on the north bridge and not integrated into the CPU. In fact, they could probably get DDR4 to work with an old Core2 on Socket 775, but they sure won't get it to work with any current Nehalem, Sandy or Ivy.



they would need a conversion chipset


----------

