Friday, June 14th 2013

Intel Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" and Core i3 "Haswell" Series Detailed

We know from older reports that Intel will refresh its socket LGA2011 HEDT (high-end desktop) product family with three new parts, based on the new 22 nm "Ivy Bridge-E" silicon. A table detailing their clock speeds was leaked to the web. In addition, we got details of what Intel's entry-level Core i3 "Haswell" line of dual-core processors would look like, specs-wise. The Ivy Bridge-E silicon, is to a large part an optical shrink of the Sandy Bridge-E silicon, with a few improvements. The chip is fabricated on Intel's 22 nm node with tri-gate transistors, the IMC natively supports DDR3-1866 MHz, the PCI-Express root complex is gen 3.0 certified, and the CPUID features the new RdRAND instruction set. Aside from these clock speeds are increased across the board, although TDP isn't lowered from the previous 130W.

Leading the Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" pack is the Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition, with its 3.60 GHz core, 4.00 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, unlocked base-clock multiplier, and 15 MB L3 cache. This six-core chip will command a four-figure price. Next up, is the Core i7-4930K, with 3.40 GHz core, 3.90 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, unlocked base-clock multiplier, and 12 MB L3 cache. This chip could be 30-40 percent cheaper than the i7-4960X. The cheapest of the lot, though, is the Core i7-4820K. This quad-core part, interestingly, features unlocked base-clock multiplier, unlike its predecessor, the i7-3820. Perhaps Intel didn't want a repeat of Core i7-3770K cannibalizing the i7-3820. The i7-4820K features 3.70 GHz core, 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost, and 10 MB of L3 cache. The chip may be priced in the same range as the i7-4770K. All three parts feature quad-channel DDR3 integrated memory controllers, with native support for DDR3-1866.

Intel kicked its 4th generation Core "Haswell" desktop family off earlier this month, but only with quad-core parts spread across the Core i7 and Core i5 brand extensions. The entry-level is still stuck with Core i3 "Ivy Bridge," but it won't be for long. Before October, Intel plans to launch three Core i3 parts based on the "Haswell" micro-architecture. These dual-core chips lack Turbo Boost, but feature HyperThreading, which enables four logical CPUs, two out of three feature the same HD 4600 graphics core as other Core "Haswell" processors, while one of them features the slower HD 4400. HD 4600 is good enough for 4K Ultra HD desktop usage, while HD 4400 isn't recommended for desktop usage on displays higher than 1600p. The dual-channel IMCs of all three feature native support for DDR3-1600. TDP of all three chips is rated at 54W. The Core i3 "Haswell" lineup is led by the i3-4340, with its 3.60 GHz clock speed, HD 4600 graphics, and 4 MB L3 cache. Next up, is the Core i3-4330 with 3.50 GHz clock speed, HD 4600 graphics, and 4 MB L3 cache. The most affordable of the lot is the Core i3-4130, with its 3.40 GHz core, HD 4400 graphics, and 3 MB L3 cache.

The mystery of Core i7-4771 is cracked, too. While the unlocked Core i7-4770K features 3.50 GHz clock speed and 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost, the "locked" Core i7-4770 starts out at 3.40 GHz clock speed, and 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost. The Core i7-4771 is an intermediate. It features the clock speeds of the i7-4770K (3.50 nominal, 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost), while being "locked" like the i7-4770. We expect it to eventually replace the i7-4770 from the product stack.
Add your own comment

36 Comments on Intel Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" and Core i3 "Haswell" Series Detailed

#26
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
shovenoseAMD is just too power hungry and slow and not worth the small savings up front.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. It is a mystery why the people building the fastest super computers pick AMD Opterons over Intel...:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#27
xenocide
newtekie1Yeah, I know what you're talking about. It is a mystery why the people building the fastest super computers pick AMD Opterons over Intel...:rolleyes:
You're comparing apples to oranges. Just because something is good en masse for insanely complex calculations like a supercomputer would do, doesn't mean it's the best on a significantly smaller scale for workstation purposes (graphics design, video and audio production, CAD work, etc).
Posted on Reply
#29
Mif
Same old shit. Still can't see a reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#30
KainXS
newtekie1Yeah, I know what you're talking about. It is a mystery why the people building the fastest super computers pick AMD Opterons over Intel...:rolleyes:
the titan might use opterons but I'm pretty sure that there are more xeon based supercomputers than operaton based.:wtf:
Posted on Reply
#32
Melvis
shovenoseWhy is it that an old Intel i7 860 quad core 2.8GHz is equivalent in benchmarks to the latest AMD FX-8350 which runs at 4GHz and uses much more power??
I find that hard to believe. I have a i7 940 rig here and ive put it up against my 8350 and my old 1055T and used them in real life situations like transcoding or file conversion etc with different programs and I can tell you this now the i7 940 is about 10% faster then my 1055T and my FX 8350 smashes both of them out of the water at around 30-40% faster at least.

If you can find programs that can use 4/6/8 threads well then you will see what I mean ;)
Posted on Reply
#33
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
xenocideYou're comparing apples to oranges. Just because something is good en masse for insanely complex calculations like a supercomputer would do, doesn't mean it's the best on a significantly smaller scale for workstation purposes (graphics design, video and audio production, CAD work, etc).
Not really, Workstation loads are typically very multi-threaded. So the more cores the better, which is why Opterons are great choices. Like I said, you get 32-Cores for the price of 8 Intel cores. Even if you assume the AMD cores perform at half the performance of the Intel, and they they aren't anywhere near that low, the AMD machine still comes out ahead.
KainXSthe titan might use opterons but I'm pretty sure that there are more xeon based supercomputers than operaton based.:wtf:
Probably, but Titan is the leader and it was built with power consumption in mind, and they still decided on Opterons. There are a lot of Operton SuperComputers, if they are so terrible no one would be using them, but yet they are. My point is there are reasons why they pick Opterons. Cost, performance, and power consumption all play a part. You can get more raw computing power for the money with AMD, and the power consumption is not really any higher.
Posted on Reply
#34
drdeathx
shovenosedidn't ignore it, just didn't have anything to say :d
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Posted on Reply
#36
Brusfantomet
so the i7-4771 isn't a 4770 with crystalwell? too bad, 128 MiB of L4 cash could have been sweet.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 25th, 2024 08:47 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts