As much as I wanted a Haswell rig, now I'm thinking twice about it.

[escrow4]

I'll be skipping too. I've chucked all my PC's except for my gaming desktop which is an i7/680 box. 90% of games run fine maxed at 1920x1200. Rest need some adjustment, but for those that do, you need something like Titan to push them to the limit so I'm fine with adjusting quality settings.

Haswell offers nothing. The i7 3770, even at stock is stupidly fast for gaming and perfectly suitable for heavy duty encoding too. Doesn't use a lot of power either. I'll look at Broadwell, but I'm not holding my breath. I was using a Phenom II until last year and even it did the job (way worse comparatively speaking, but still did it).

 

[TuxDave]

I'm skipping Haswell desktops. My Nehalem Extreme is good enough. I am all in for a Haswell mobile device.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I
Nah. We will get the same crappy 5 hour battery life, only in a 2 pound package instead of 2.5 pound package. :\ That is my prediction. Lower power draw = smaller battery for same battery life.

I hope that I'm wrong.

You probably won't. The PC industry has Intel, MS and OEMs actively undermining each other that the only way it could go is the usual cost cutting because consumers are so used to not seeing quality they want in PCs. Still remember ultrabooks and what a great success that is?

 

[Fjodor2001]

You probably won't. The PC industry has Intel, MS and OEMs actively undermining each other that the only way it could go is the usual cost cutting because consumers are so used to not seeing quality they want in PCs. Still remember ultrabooks and what a great success that is?

Quality in what sense? What should they do to improve "quality" in your opinion?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Quality in what sense? What should they do to improve "quality" in your opinion?

Crap 768p TN screens, flimsy keyboards, lousy batteries, creaky housings etc...

Do I need to go on? The fact there are $80 Chinese tablets with multitouch IPS screens should tell you how much $$$ went into the average laptop outside of the Intel CPU and the Windows license.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Crap 768p TN screens, flimsy keyboards, lousy batteries, creaky housings etc...

Do I need to go on? The fact there are $80 Chinese tablets with multitouch IPS screens should tell you how much $$$ went into the average laptop outside of the Intel CPU and the Windows license.

I agree ultrabooks are overpriced, and some laptops have poor quality, but you cannot even approach any kind of useful work on basically any tablet, much less a cheap 80.00 one. Any laptop OTOH has much greater functionality.

Believe me, I own a cheap tablet, and while I like the formfactor, it is an exercise in frustration to use it for anything but web browsing, and even then it cant find the wi-fi half the time and is painfully slow to load pages, and the browser crashes repeatedly.

 

[Homeles]

You probably won't. The PC industry has Intel, MS and OEMs actively undermining each other that the only way it could go is the usual cost cutting because consumers are so used to not seeing quality they want in PCs. Still remember ultrabooks and what a great success that is?

Ultrabooks are amazing. No more do I have to put up with a clunky, unwieldy, ugly and heavy piece of garbage.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Crap 768p TN screens, flimsy keyboards, lousy batteries, creaky housings etc...

Do I need to go on? The fact there are $80 Chinese tablets with multitouch IPS screens should tell you how much $$$ went into the average laptop outside of the Intel CPU and the Windows license.

Well you get what you pay for. If you pay $500 for a laptop don't expect top quality.

But do you really notice the crap you mentioned on higher-end laptops/ultrabooks too? Like e.g. the ASUS Zenbooks?

 

[phillyman36]

Just wondering if anyone is trading in their 3770k (Ivory) for a Haswell?

 

[Magic Carpet]

if you do not game. all you need is a pentium G processor.

For now maybe, but having bought a dual-core G2020 for HTPC duties I am starting to regret for not having bought a quad. CPU usage in non-gaming tasks on occasion reach 100% for both cores (e.g. installing updates and browsing), I am not comfortable with that. Dual core era has come to en end. Like it or not

Those FX-6300's are starting to appeal to me again (price / perf).

 

[Fjodor2001]

I was thinking of upgrading my computer last yeat but I really don't see huge benefits to justify it. I have a nice i7 970 six core cpu and although sandybridge has a six core as well, there hasn't been a huge jump in performance to justify upgrading at the moment. Perhaps if they bring out a 10 core cpu then maybe, but if it is less than 8 cores then smeg that. I do 3d rendering and video editing so I do use all the cores before someone says about them not being used.

Agree. The question is how long we'll have to wait for 8-core mainstream Intel CPUs (that correspond to 3570/3770K).

Broadwell, Skylake or beyond? The first should bring a die shrink enabling it. But I guess it's more a question of when Intel wants to provide it.

 

[jpiniero]

Agree. The question is how long we'll have to wait for 8-core mainstream Intel CPUs (that correspond to 3570/3770K).

8 Core? You are going to be waiting awhile. Even 6 core is likely Skymont at the earliest. And that's not even a given, especially if Intel makes the mainstream "default" laptop processor 17W. I still think Intel is going to use any die savings on integrating more functions (eg: chipset, wifi, ram, disk) onto the die/package, maybe more GPU EUs.

Now the Extreme line is a different story... although be prepared to pay.

 

[Fjodor2001]

8 Core? You are going to be waiting awhile. Even 6 core is likely Skymont at the earliest. And that's not even a given, especially if Intel makes the mainstream "default" laptop processor 17W. I still think Intel is going to use any die savings on integrating more functions (eg: chipset, wifi, ram, disk) onto the die/package, maybe more GPU EUs.

Now the Extreme line is a different story... although be prepared to pay.

In that case I won't be upgrading until beyond Skymont. Or I'll get an AMD rig.

 

[Emulex]

What about the ability to do 128 transactions? the move from 16 byte should give a huge advantage for apps that work like a database?

 

[rgallant]

Just wondering if anyone is trading in their 3770k (Ivory) for a Haswell?

-nope - pass , will have a look at the revision if I need/want a upgrade.

trade a 100% working ib system to maybe a beta testing nightmare FOR NO GAIN. in games.
-most mb bios programers still have issues with usb ,let alone a new chip lol.
I know every bother in law needs a job but why give them their first job as a bios programer then give them a 12 "mono chrome work station to do the programing on.

I waited for ib over sandy for some issues with sb mb's [AND NO pci-e 3.0 for the same money] ,then waited for a 2nd gen. z77mb to have a 50 /50 chance of getting a 100% working board , not rev. 1.00 only to find down the road rev. 1.1, 1.2.-this bios xxxx is better for 1.0 this one xxxx is better for 1.2-no thanks
intel still get's my money , but not on day 1.

 

[Idontcare]

Just wondering if anyone is trading in their 3770k (Ivory) for a Haswell?

Not me. I'm holding out for 14nm goodness. 22nm is already old school

 

[shady28]

Your entire argument is a fallacy, and is simply asking for a reach-around from the enthusiast community hivemind.

Intel has competition. It's called ARM, in case you haven't heard of it.

<delete remainder of juvenile blather>

Oh just what I wanted, a snot-nose to repeat something every Joe in the world knows about tech by reading People magazine.

My response was to the question of why Intel doesn't throw more cores at these processors, for one. My answer is that they have gotten lazy and greedy, and that will eventually bite them in the ass. This seems to bother you...

So, lets see how well Intel's strategy is working for them, shall we? Let's just keep it to facts :

Intel's Profit Falls 27% as PC Sales Drop - The New York Times
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...La4IWMPffB7P9WZMw0m8vKg&bvm=bv.43828540,d.b2U

Wow, nice job! Of course, still very profitable, for now...


And as far as the teenage banter of "they can't do anything about it blame physics" statement you made, please spend a few moments educating yourself :

http://techreport.com/review/23663/as-amd-struggles-intel-chip-prices-stagnate


"...almost two years after the release of the Core i5-2500K, Intel still doesn't offer an unlocked quad-core processor for less than $200. Meanwhile, Intel's gross margin has climbed to an eye-popping 63.4%, nearly 20 points higher than AMD's."



http://factions.in/article/Hardware...Intels_Lead_Over_AMD_Has_Help_Worsen_It/74347

"...Ivy Bridge duals have a die size of 94mm2. Do you realize how many i3s fit on a wafer? FX 8350 is 319mm2. i5s IBs are either 133mm2 or 160mm2. Do you have any idea what kinds of margins Intel must have on those chips? "


Basically, intel does not enhance the performance or add cores because they don't have to right now. They add to their profit margin with the smaller die, and charge a premium if you want a die 2/3s the size of an fx-8350 (ie, the i7 39xx 6 core chips).

That, just in case your great intellect missed it, has nothing to do with physics. It has to do with finance.

And of course, I don't suppose you ever considered why mobile is so big, now? I mean, we've had mobile a long, long time. Early 90s, we started getting smart mobile devices. Late 90s, we had touch screens. Why now?

Oh, that's right, because the devices got powerful enough to do cool things just like a desktop, right? Just like a desktop...

Is that the same desktop that's stagnated for the last 5 years maybe?

So maybe Intel ate its own lunch, you think, maybe? I mean, if they had actually had competition the last 5 years maybe the desktop would be something different, and maybe mobile would still be seen as a poor shadow of the desktop.

But it isn't, not anymore. My iPad browses amost as well as my macbook, and my 'apps' have replaced 'web sites'.

Never mind that a dual core ARM CPU from 2011 is only 1/5 the power of a dual core Atom, it is good enough for tasks we were doing 6 years ago on the desktop - and those are the same tasks we're doing today.

So yeah, you are right, Intel and MS are going to get killed by mobile - but it's not because it's mobile, it's because Intel and MS stupidly wasted half a decade.

 

[Homeles]

Dude, everybody else in this thread took a gigantic crap all over your post. You're all alone in your false thinking.

Justify being wrong by calling me "snot nosed" all you like. You're still wrong.

 

[Rebel44]

My OCed 2600K should last me looooong time - I intend to upgrade only when I can get reasonably priced 6 or 8 core intel (or AMD with same performance) CPU.

 

[jihe]

My OCed 2600K should last me looooong time - I intend to upgrade only when I can get reasonably priced 6 or 8 core intel (or AMD with same performance) CPU.

My entire extended family are still on budget Core2 duals. With SSD's they are still plenty fast for the family.

 

[Puppies04]

Doesn't that just grind your gears!? It grinds mine.

Billions spent developing power sipping processors and finfet process nodes and the OEMs take the opportunity as a chance to save five pennies by making the battery smaller. :\ Talk about your monumentally boneheaded product trade-offs

I want my laptop to last me a full day on the go. And I don't mean one of those mythical 8hr workdays that only school teachers and postal workers get to experience. (personal note: my mother, MIL, and two aunts are school teachers, and my father was a postal worker, so that ain't just me bashing, I know what a full work day or work week entails for those occupations )

I mean an honest to goodness 6am to 9pm workday without me spending every hour hunting for a chair near an unused power outlet.

^ Amen to that

I think the source of the problem comes down to there being too many players fighting for sales in the laptop business. It is a literal race to the bottom where companies are using advances in technology to justify cutting corners elsewhere.

Take HDDs for example, there have been the main bottleneck in the vast majority of computing tasks for years yet we are still seeing 5400RPM models fitted to nearly all laptops as standard, how much extra does a major laptop vendor really have to pay for a 7200RPM drive? Certainly no where near the amount they try to price gouge us on in the specs list. The average consumer really has no idea what all those numbers on the spec sheet mean (when they even bother to tell you the actual specs of the hardware in your machine) all they are bothered about is which one costs the least.

Imagine how much discount a company like dell could get for if they ordered a million SSDs, if they fitted them as standard to all their laptops with the option to replace them with standard HDDs if the user felt they needed the extra storage space then the average consumer would very quickly realise that dell laptops were more "snappy" than the competition. Instead we are still in a situation where you can't even spec most latops with SSDs or get charged a massive premium for installing them.

The same applies for:

Decent screens in laptops
Decent keyboards in laptops
single stick of RAM rather than dual channel being used
Crappy batteries

It is a sad situation .

 

[VirtualLarry]

Dude, everybody else in this thread took a gigantic crap all over your post. You're all alone in your false thinking.

Not really. I agree with him - Intel has slowed down their innovation, by not giving us more than 4 cores on a consumer CPU. Instead, as he has shown, they are just fattening their profit margins, because AMD is doing so poorly in competing with Intel.

Edit: Not that I would think that any powerful, monopolistic corporation would do any different, really. But I think that the claims that Intel wouldn't stagnate innovation, because they have to compete with themselves, is false. I do think that if AMD fails to compete, that Intel will stop competing with itself, and we will be stuck with the modern equivalent of the P4 for years to come. (P4 meaning the current status quo of CPUs at the time, rather than what could have been.)

Edit: Especially if the desktop market shinks, in response to mobile and ARM market. Intel will be a lot less willing to pour R&D funds into desktop CPUs, and their performance will level out, and then Intel will just simply milk what they have, for as long as they can, and as long as the market exists.

In fact, some, like the above poster, may seem to think that this is already happening, and the lack of anything more than a quad-core (which was introduced in 2007-2008) in the consumer space, is prima facie evidence of such.

As usual, it seems like AMD is out-innovating Intel, what with them giving 8-core CPUs to the consumer.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not really. I agree with him - Intel has slowed down their innovation, by not giving us more than 4 cores on a consumer CPU. Instead, as he has shown, they are just fattening their profit margins, because AMD is doing so poorly in competing with Intel.

Edit: Not that I would think that any powerful, monopolistic corporation would do any different, really. But I think that the claims that Intel wouldn't stagnate innovation, because they have to compete with themselves, is false. I do think that if AMD fails to compete, that Intel will stop competing with itself, and we will be stuck with the modern equivalent of the P4 for years to come. (P4 meaning the current status quo of CPUs at the time, rather than what could have been.)

Edit: Especially if the desktop market shinks, in response to mobile and ARM market. Intel will be a lot less willing to pour R&D funds into desktop CPUs, and their performance will level out, and then Intel will just simply milk what they have, for as long as they can, and as long as the market exists.

In fact, some, like the above poster, may seem to think that this is already happening, and the lack of anything more than a quad-core (which was introduced in 2007-2008) in the consumer space, is prima facie evidence of such.

As usual, it seems like AMD is out-innovating Intel, what with them giving 8-core CPUs to the consumer.

Adding cores is not innovation. And just because the industry doesnt go your way doesnt mean its all sour grapes as you write. You can already get the cores you wish, but as usual you do not want to pay for it.

Performance/watt have been increasing dramaticly. As well as integration. And this is what 95%+ of all customers ask for.

Haswell also contains the ability massively outperform SB/IB when AVX2 takes off.

And AMD dont give you 8 core. They give you a quadcore with CMT. Intel gives you a quadcore with SMT if we exclude LGA2011. Its simply 2 different paths, but both are quadcores.

Not to mention, I doubt you see those "8 cores" on FM2 or FM3. And AM3+ is dying fast. Sofar no SR core update in view.

When that is said, R&D budgets havent been bigger. Intel for example is throwing more money than ever before after x86. So they are certainly not slacking. And AMD is certainly not out-innovating Intel.

 

[Piroko]

Adding cores is not innovation. And just because the industry doesnt go your way doesnt mean its all sour grapes as you write. You can already get the cores you wish, but as usual you do not want to pay for it.

Performance/watt have been increasing dramaticly. As well as integration. And this is what 95%+ of all customers ask for.

I wouldn't say that they asked for it, but lower power is definitely welcomed.

When that is said, R&D budgets havent been bigger. Intel for example is throwing more money than ever before after x86. So they are certainly not slacking. And AMD is certainly not out-innovating Intel.

Intel is also broadening their portfolio, my guess is that actual investment in the big cores is stagnant or declining.

 

[Idontcare]

Intel is also broadening their portfolio, my guess is that actual investment in the big cores is stagnant or declining.

If you want to know where a company is investing the bulk of their R&D you need to look no farther than to the product they are releasing first on any given brand new node.

I don't say that as a matter of opinion, that is a matter of fact and accounting when it comes to semiconductor design and manufacturing.

The day Intel pushes out Atom or Xeon Phi or Itanium on a new node before they push out "big" core mainstream x86 products is the day you will have confirmation that their R&D monies have stagnated or declined in the big core x86 area.

Until that happens you have proof of where they are spending the bulk of their R&D, look at what was released first on 32nm, first on 22nm, and planned to be first for 14nm.