the chips feature a performance-optimized TIM

Official adoption of PCMA ?

"Devil's Canyon" - Basically the chip made properly like it should have been made from the beginning!

not bad that they're pushing out extreme products.


basic models for every day users
K chips for people who want a mild OC
insanely priced chips with huge OC advantages

works for me, i'll happily go the middle option there.

Maybe my potential upgrade will come from those. lol

Just to be clear, are there no new chips for Z87?

Intel better wake up and smell the coffee, bcoz all the API`s are reducing CPU overhead which is bad for Intel. But on the plus side are going Mulit-Core.

Still rockin' my Sandy Bridge i7-2700K and see no need to upgrade anytime soon.

SeventhReignStill rockin' my Sandy Bridge i7-2700K and see no need to upgrade anytime soon.

That's how I feel about my i7 3820.

EagleyeIntel better wake up and smell the coffee, bcoz all the API`s are reducing CPU overhead which is bad for Intel. But on the plus side are going Mulit-Core.

i had a massive FPS boost moving from a 'modern' AMD AM3 setup, to my current intel. JC316 noticed similar from his AM3+ -> 1150 update.

just because its heading that way, doesnt mean we'll get there any time soon. intels performance per core is going to be an advantage for some time to come.

SeventhReignStill rockin' my Sandy Bridge i7-2700K and see no need to upgrade anytime soon.

I feel the same way. Bought my i7-2600K for $100 through Intel's Retail Edge program when I worked at Best Buy part-time during the summer 3 years ago. I've upgraded my GPU's twice and still haven't felt any itch to upgrade my CPU. Talk about value town!

So Intel is saying there is a desktop Broadwell coming? Nothing to do with the Haswell +100 MHz refresh?

meh, my q6600 still plays games real niiiiiiiiiiiice.

yea what about that stupid Haswell refresh ("the new" 4th generation :D). I could not care less about that useless refresh, but from big buisness view point it would make no sence to put out a "brand new 4th generation" and 5th generation it the same time in the same price categories... so those wo are waiting for broadwell (me included) probably will be facing a some sort of "delay" for at least another 2 Q's, if not more :(. and that "new" 4th generation is coming that is for sure (just read headlines of the board manufacturer PR releases)

Easy Rhinomeh, my q6600 still plays games real niiiiiiiiiiiice.

Hell, my E8600 too.

I'm really interested in:

• How they are going to market and price the insanity chip.
• What's the potential of the graphics core update. When are they going to tackle 4K playback, lols

Sasqui

• How they are going to market and price the insanity chip.

They just did. They also just said "stop OC'ing the current Haswells, they aren't made for it"

Sasqui

• What's the potential of the graphics core update. When are they going to tackle 4K playback, lols

Well, the chips themselves seem to rival NVidia's huge graphics cores, but of course, there's that 128MB of cache to take most of that space. So what would an XBOX360 (which had 10 MB only) with 128 MB of CACHE be able to do? I imagine 4K should be no problem.

I've been saying that there has been no real update to the desktop since Z68/USB3/SATA3. (notice the people in this thread saying they're perfectly fine with their second generation i7's)Hopefully the sleeping giant has awaken. The fact that SATA-express is not in the 9 series chipset shows that Intel has been distracted. Sorry AMD, the hare has awoken.

Edit::oops: I don't like doing this and I think it's "bad form", but the write up on this over at The Tech Report is much more informative, IMHO.

SasquiHell, my E8600 too.

I'm really interested in:

• How they are going to market and price the insanity chip.
• What's the potential of the graphics core update. When are they going to tackle 4K playback, lols

Hasn't 4k video playback been supported since IVB (HD 4000)? I thought I remember reading something about Intel having tackled that already.

Easy Rhinomeh, my q6600 still plays games real niiiiiiiiiiiice.

you must play different games to me

i went Q6600 -> Xeon E3120 (roughly an E8400) -> x6 1080T -> i5, and every single step of the way was a massive improvement to performance.

Anyone else read this and immediately think that Intel is taking away individual people binning chips, and then adding a price premium? Not sure if good for the unlucky, or bad because premiums will basically allow you to buy two regular chips for the same price.

The rest of this crap is rather routine. Yes, Haswell will have an enthusiast chip. Yes, Haswell will have a successor. Yes, Intel is backing away from the decision to make everything tied irreparably into a motherboard choice. I'm less excited about that, though confirmation is good.


I'm also looking at this, and wondering exactly what is going to be used on those heat spreaders. It makes precious little sense to have a specific overclocking line, when you're cutting OCs by using cheap thermal paste. At the same time, Intel cutting costs by demonstrating viable chips with only paste will be a hard thing to get bean counters to back away from. That PCMA is interesting, but way more expensive than the thermal pastes they seem to already utilize. Whatever they choose, that kind of thing costs money and if AMD doesn't provide some high level competition then we're kinda screwed as consumers. Intel isn't shy about making consumers pay for their products.

Call me cautiously optimistic that Intel is promising reasonable tech in their future. I would be less than pleased if the SB-e (specifically the X79 chipset) style under-delivered final product was a recurring thing. I'm still looking for the 12 SATA III and 8 USB 3.0 ports on a board less than $1000, if it's being offered at all. Before someone comments, no I don't accept having 48 PCI-e lanes as a justifiable replacement. It's great for multi-gpu rigs, but when a new PCH has less native connectivity than the ICH10R south bridge there are some rather difficult questions to answer.

lilhasselhofferAnyone else read this and immediately think that Intel is taking away individual people binning chips, and then adding a price premium? Not sure if good for the unlucky, or bad because premiums will basically allow you to buy two regular chips for the same price.

The rest of this crap is rather routine. Yes, Haswell will have an enthusiast chip. Yes, Haswell will have a successor. Yes, Intel is backing away from the decision to make everything tied irreparably into a motherboard choice. I'm less excited about that, though confirmation is good.


I'm also looking at this, and wondering exactly what is going to be used on those heat spreaders. It makes precious little sense to have a specific overclocking line, when you're cutting OCs by using cheap thermal paste. At the same time, Intel cutting costs by demonstrating viable chips with only paste will be a hard thing to get bean counters to back away from. That PCMA is interesting, but way more expensive than the thermal pastes they seem to already utilize. Whatever they choose, that kind of thing costs money and if AMD doesn't provide some high level competition then we're kinda screwed as consumers. Intel isn't shy about making consumers pay for their products.

Call me cautiously optimistic that Intel is promising reasonable tech in their future. I would be less than pleased if the SB-e (specifically the X79 chipset) style under-delivered final product was a recurring thing. I'm still looking for the 12 SATA III and 8 USB 3.0 ports on a board less than $1000, if it's being offered at all. Before someone comments, no I don't accept having 48 PCI-e lanes as a justifiable replacement. It's great for multi-gpu rigs, but when a new PCH has less native connectivity than the ICH10R south bridge there are some rather difficult questions to answer.

...or maybe the PCH only does such much and even more so on skt2011 (which was derived from the Xeon workflow,) so more often than not if you're building a server, you use the PCH if you have to, but as soon as you need to do something important, you're using a RAID controller or extra network cards. Thanks to all of those PCI-E lanes 2011 offers.

Everytime someone says how skt2011 is useful for gaming is disappointing considering 2011 wasn't designed to be a gaming platform. So people need to stop treating it as such. skt2011 is more of a server platform than it is a gaming platform.

People seem to have the hardest time understanding that the PCH is the beginning to get you started, not the end and that in most cases, sysadmins won't even use the PCH if a RAID card is handy.

All in all, if you ask yourself what you use your computer for and you answer is "gaming" skt2011(-3) is not for you and you really should stick with 1150.

Also, saturating DMI is easier than one might think, another reason to not give the PCH more than it can bite off.

pjl321"Devil's Canyon" - Basically the chip made properly like it should have been made from the beginning!

LOL, my first thought exactly! That's the TIM that they stopped after SB. So basically, they are making the formerly normal way of doing business and making products the "high end."

Aquinus...or maybe the PCH only does such much and even more so on skt2011 (which was derived from the Xeon workflow,) so more often than not if you're building a server, you use the PCH if you have to, but as soon as you need to do something important, you're using a RAID controller or extra network cards. Thanks to all of those PCI-E lanes 2011 offers.

Everytime someone says how skt2011 is useful for gaming is disappointing considering 2011 wasn't designed to be a gaming platform. So people need to stop treating it as such. skt2011 is more of a server platform than it is a gaming platform.

People seem to have the hardest time understanding that the PCH is the beginning to get you started, not the end and that in most cases, sysadmins won't even use the PCH if a RAID card is handy.

All in all, if you ask yourself what you use your computer for and you answer is "gaming" skt2011(-3) is not for you and you really should stick with 1150.

Also, saturating DMI is easier than one might think, another reason to not give the PCH more than it can bite off.

We've had this debate before. I'll cover the highlights.

1) If you bought into the X79 chipset two years ago it was the enthusiast option. There was no Xeon server option for work loads. That and 1155 was the only other socket. If you are comparing a decision several years ago to the options today you are missing reality.
2) Initial slides promised huge connectivity from the PCH. It was not delivered. This is evident because some boards enabled this additional connectivity, though Intel did not officially support it. Talk about a mixed standard.
3) There is not a single PCH for socket 2011. People seem to forget, but C606 came out after X79. C606 seems far more geared toward workstations, than what one might call an enthusiast.

4) You can always add expansion cards. Fantastic. Why am I paying $300+ for an entry level board ($600+ for anything that is meant to be more robust) that has a PCH based on 45nm fabrication, with more cooling considerations than older tech? Doubling or tripling the PCI-e lanes is great, but that means less is coming from the board. Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't that mean I'm paying less for the board?


If I were buying a gaming rig today, as you seem to think I'm implying, then yes I'd get a socket 1150 board with a Z87 PCH. If it was November/December 2011, my option beyond the X79 chipset was Z77. There was no Xeon option, nothing but Ivy-bridge in socket 1155, and that is why I believe the X79 PCH underperformed. Intel knew AMD couldn't compete, pushed out a compromised solution, and because of the high price tag basically forgot that it existed. There is no X89 to address the shortcoming, despite IB-e being on the market. Intel seems to be focusing on the next enthusiast platform, and the pin incompatible "upgrade" of socket 2011. If there is a greater testament to compromised vision I do not know what it is.

This is why I'm hoping that the X99, or whatever Intel introduces for Haswell-e, is awesome. It's been more than 3 years, so looking forward to the level of connectivity that was expected for X79 doesn't seem unreasonable. If you'd like to continue defending X79 (which it doesn't need, from one X79 owner to another) then go ahead. I'm looking toward a brighter potential future.

lilhasselhofferWe've had this debate before. I'll cover the highlights.

1) If you bought into the X79 chipset two years ago it was the enthusiast option. There was no Xeon server option for work loads. That and 1155 was the only other socket. If you are comparing a decision several years ago to the options today you are missing reality.
2) Initial slides promised huge connectivity from the PCH. It was not delivered. This is evident because some boards enabled this additional connectivity, though Intel did not officially support it. Talk about a mixed standard.
3) There is not a single PCH for socket 2011. People seem to forget, but C606 came out after X79. C606 seems far more geared toward workstations, than what one might call an enthusiast.

4) You can always add expansion cards. Fantastic. Why am I paying $300+ for an entry level board ($600+ for anything that is meant to be more robust) that has a PCH based on 45nm fabrication, with more cooling considerations than older tech? Doubling or tripling the PCI-e lanes is great, but that means less is coming from the board. Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't that mean I'm paying less for the board?


If I were buying a gaming rig today, as you seem to think I'm implying, then yes I'd get a socket 1150 board with a Z87 PCH. If it was November/December 2011, my option beyond the X79 chipset was Z77. There was no Xeon option, nothing but Ivy-bridge in socket 1155, and that is why I believe the X79 PCH underperformed. Intel knew AMD couldn't compete, pushed out a compromised solution, and because of the high price tag basically forgot that it existed. There is no X89 to address the shortcoming, despite IB-e being on the market. Intel seems to be focusing on the next enthusiast platform, and the pin incompatible "upgrade" of socket 2011. If there is a greater testament to compromised vision I do not know what it is.

This is why I'm hoping that the X99, or whatever Intel introduces for Haswell-e, is awesome. It's been more than 3 years, so looking forward to the level of connectivity that was expected for X79 doesn't seem unreasonable. If you'd like to continue defending X79 (which it doesn't need, from one X79 owner to another) then go ahead. I'm looking toward a brighter potential future.

Intel didn't beef up their server-grade PCHs much beyond X79 either. My point is that Intel expects you to add functionality when you need it on a skt2011 machine. Also adding anything to a board makes it more expensive. 2011 pins means a lot more traces than your run of the mill 1155/1150 board. For that reason, the board does cost more to produce. It's not like the PCH costs all that much in retrospect, but beefing it up does expect DMI 2.0 to be adequate and it does expect that the increased price of the motherboard will result in better sales for this segment, neither of which I think would turn out to be true. Just my 2 cents.

Meanwhile, go use some of the PCI-E lanes when you start feeling the PCH is inadequate, that's whey they're there and why there are 40 of them no less. I don't know about you, but i don't plan on replacing my 2011 rig just because of the PCH.

I'm not trying to say X79 is good. I'm trying to say that if you need more than what it offers, you should be looking at expansion anyways. Cost-wise, replacing everything doesn't make sense to just add some more drives or to get USB 3.0. Anything along those lines.

I see cruise control is in full swing.

There will be no reason to go to broadwell b/c it should overclock worse and heat up more. Yay.

I'd rather go back to 2004.

TheGuruStudI'd rather go back to 2004.

No problem. I'll start you off.