So there's almost no performance boost with a "brand new" architecture?
Nice to see AMD providing stiff competition to Intel.
We'll only gain if it clocks higher and has a proper soldered heatspreader and that remains to be seen.
from my understanding of the haswell presentations alot of the focus was on the new voltage regulation and how haswell can scale much better to different tdps, ivy bridge wasnt designed with 22nm in mind it was just a die shrink, with haswell intel can use all the bells and whistles of the process node
If I have to guess, I think it will be about much lower power consumption instead, since that's the area Intel is focusing on the most lately.
its more than just power consumption, its scaling. ivy bridge brought much better performance/watt over sandy bridge due to the shrink but couldnt scale any higher than sandy did because its the same architecture
A number of confirmed changes to Haswell could support this. Intel definitely is playing the power consumption card and they're going to beet it to death. Intel's CPUs are plenty fast already. I think they're working on the easier things to improve at this point because you can only get clock speeds and your IPC so high before you run into the diminishing returns problem.
If Intel can get a CPU to consume less power but perform just as well, that's a win.
and this is what amd saw when designing bulldozer, except they jumped ship a bit too early, and this is when their winner multicore scaling design starts to pay off, intel on the other hand working on their strengths and making all new instruction sets multicore ready
am i missing something? take cpu A at 2.8 ghz. take cpu B which can do much faster than that and bring it down to the speed of cpu A. how is that a good comparison of the two cpus? After all you are spending your money on what the processor can do... It's not like i am going to buy cpu B and downclock it and then act disappointed at the results...
no one here is disapointed at the result, only at the progress if this is true, but like many mentioned here this doesnt tell us anything about power consumption and tdp because that sure is very important, ivy brought substantial performance/watt over sandy bridge, but enthusiats didnt benefit much because ivy didnt scale well, there is a reason the highest ivy bridge is rated at 77w and not 95 like sandy, and no its not the new standard, its because the architecture doesnt scale well to higher tdps without running into binning problems or what not, the only way to get there is by just adding more cores, and what was impossible with sandy bridge(8 core cpu) might now be possible with ivy bridge extreme when it comes out, maybe there people will realize the benefit of performance/watt
haswell on the other hand if i intel isnt bluffing is supposed to have a much wider range of operating voltage, that doesnt only mean lower tdp like some understood it, but also higher tdp for the higher voltage models, that means higher stable clocks without running into problems
Not in this instance. For IVB, CPU cache speed is directly linked to core clock...they run the same speed.
SO by downclocking an IVB chip, you are not reporting actual performance. you are reporting a gimped performance, with L3 running at a lower speed than intended.
Haswell breaks this design, and has L3 clocked independently, so C2C compare at low clocks doesn't tell you anything, but what a broken IVB does vs a non-broken Haswell.
Which makes this compare stupid, and that's why it was allowed. It's not a "real" performance compare.
so are you suggesting ivy bridge has really bad performance scaling with clockspeed?
well this is exactly why haswell took the other approach, so no its a fair comparison, as fair as it can get actually because not every ivy bridge chip is sold at 3.4ghz clockspeed
Am I seeing this wrong? The 3770K has a TDP of 77w and the 4770K will have a TPD of 84w.
That's not really what I call lower power consumption. Or does Intel only mean the mobile ones?
Kinda weird.
i second what i said earlier, there is a reason the highest quad core ivy is rated at 77watt and not 95watt like sandy, its because clocking it accordingly to the 95watt envelope will pretty much get it near its limit and run into binning and stability problems for comfort, not to mention dissapointment for overclockers(who already saw no benefit from moving from sandy) because of a cpu clocked near its limit, haswell is supposed to address that issue
