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

[Shephard]

I think the 'waiting' game is the worst thing you can do. There is always something new and better coming out.

I was debating waiting for Haswell in February 2012, just 2 months shy of Ivy Bridge release... Then I debated it again in August but just went for it.

I am sure some people on this forum upgrade every year or two because they got the money and want the newest. I had the same build for 6 years. Other than the GPU the AMD was still doing really good. No upgrade options though with DDR2 and a micro AM2 board.

I am happy I chose Ivy Bridge instead of waiting. It's already more than fast enough at stock for any game or task I need it to do. It should be fast enough for quite a few years. I got PCI 3.0 which isn't even fully taken advantage of yet, good DDR3 ram, and a good gpu. I got all good deals on my components.

Seems like the jump from generation are not as big as before.

AMD X2 > Phenom II for example.

or...

Core2Quad > Sandy Bridge.

those were big jumps. Now not so much. 10% here and there.

 

[Fjodor2001]

he is saying all 8 won't be used by the game. at least 1 will be strictly for the os and maybe others for streaming or downloading etc etc. at most those games will be coded for 7 cores. weird number tho so maybe 6?
just my opinion on how i took his post and it makes sense to me

Ok, but then the PS4/XBOX720 might pave the way for 8 core desktop CPUs after all.

 

[FearfulSPARTAN]

The Xbox360 got 3 cores. I dont even think a single game used all. They like to assign cores to different functional tasks on consoles. 1 alone goes to the OS.

I dont think near future AMD desktops will have 8 cores. The next SR FM2 core is still "quadcore" and on 28nm. And AM3+ seems dead, meaning the "octocore" is actually dead on the desktop for now.

No, I am 98% sure that modern games on xbox use all the cores, however I do agree that 1 core will be used for the os and another will be used for kinnect leaving six cores for gaming use on the next consoles

 

[lau808]

Ok, but then the PS4/XBOX720 might pave the way for 8 core desktop CPUs after all.

i believe they will. eventually everyone will jump onboard but this will speed it up a little. not everyone will jump onboard right off the bat tho

 

[frozentundra123456]

i believe they will. eventually everyone will jump onboard but this will speed it up a little. not everyone will jump onboard right off the bat tho

Maybe I am oversimplifing, but doesn't the clockspeed make a difference as well? Couldn't a quad core at twice or more the clockspeed of the cores in the consoles perform two threads per core for very similar final performance?

 

[lau808]

Maybe I am oversimplifing, but doesn't the clockspeed make a difference as well? Couldn't a quad core at twice or more the clockspeed of the cores in the consoles perform two threads per core for very similar final performance?

i would think so. iirc double the clockspeed and double the cores don't give double performance. don't remember which is more efficient tho but it should be in the same ballpark.

 

[videogames101]

First of all, we havent seen 10 to 15 percent performance gains since SB came out, and wont see it with Haswell either.

I know Intel is focused on mobile, probably with justification.

However, I do think they have become complacent in high performance desktops and are relying too much on high IPC and hyperthreading, at the expense of increasing clockspeeds and core counts.

Where have you been the last 3 years? :hmm:

AMD took one road, Intel the other.

We can all see how it turned out.

 

[biostud]

One haswell or ivy bridge core @ 4.8 GHz is more powerful than 2 1.8ghz cores in the ps4.

 

[lau808]

One haswell or ivy bridge core @ 4.8 GHz is more powerful than 2 1.8ghz cores in the ps4.

the same could be said about six cores in the ps4....

 

[Homeles]

One haswell or ivy bridge core @ 4.8 GHz is more powerful than 2 1.8ghz cores in the ps4.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

 

[Accord99]

i would think so. iirc double the clockspeed and double the cores don't give double performance. don't remember which is more efficient tho but it should be in the same ballpark.

John Carmack in this Twitter discussion stated:

"all apps are better with half the cores at twice the performance, the question gets more nuanced if the trade is at 1.5x perf"

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/304607913853476864

 

[Ajay]

Depending on how you want to look at it, they are doing exactly what the market told them it wanted when they struggled to sell Prescott against AMD X2's.

If the market really wanted 125W TFP 8-core chips then Rory would be having a very different conversation with shareholders and analysts.

I wonder, sometimes, if the IPC of Bulldozer had been on the order of 50% higher than Nehalem, would people be so bullish on Intel's lower power, but lower performing CPUs. AMD would have had the upper hand in the server, gaming and enthusiast markets. All water under the bridge now, of course, but interesting to think about.

 

[UaVaj]

will take a 14ghz single core over a 3.5ghz quad core any day.

 

[VirtualLarry]

will take a 14ghz single core over a 3.5ghz quad core any day.

I wouldn't. You know why? Because the pipeline would have to be elongated, adding many more stages, and increasing latency, causing higher delays if the pipeline ever had to be flushed (missed branch prediction, etc.).

I would take the 3.5Ghz quad-core for improved responsiveness any day.

 

[ShintaiDK]

i would think so. iirc double the clockspeed and double the cores don't give double performance. don't remember which is more efficient tho but it should be in the same ballpark.

Double the clockspeed is the absolute winner without doubt. Double the cores depends on amount of serial code.

The consoles got what they got due to cost and power consumption. Not due to performance.

 

[ShintaiDK]

One haswell or ivy bridge core @ 4.8 GHz is more powerful than 2 1.8ghz cores in the ps4.

A standard stock 3570K/4670K is alot faster than the console CPUs will ever be.

Even a 4.8Ghz dualcore would beat the weak 8 cores in the console.

 

[ShintaiDK]

John Carmack in this Twitter discussion stated:

"all apps are better with half the cores at twice the performance, the question gets more nuanced if the trade is at 1.5x perf"

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/304607913853476864

It also saves millions in software development with less faster cores.

People live in an illusion about cores.

 

[krumme]

Performance preview
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461.html

 

[CHADBOGA]

Performance preview
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461.html

Disappointing.

 

[Tsavo]

Performance preview
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461.html

Wow, that's almost exactly what I expected out of it. Can't wait to see the mobile reviews, since that's what I'm getting Haswell for.

 

[krumme]

Disappointing.

It looks like the historic x86 trend of continuing huge ipc increase for the desktop stopped with SB. I feel like a geek standing in the corner of the school yard, with a bunch of other nerds no one likes to play with, while the rest of the school is playing with the play store.

Then i take comfort tapping on my black box with the overclocked 3750

 

[SPBHM]

as much as the performance increase is not impressive in many of the things they tested,

this was good

and they didn't include power usage tests.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Performance preview
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461.html

Wow. Is Intel truly THAT f-ing retarded?

NO "TSX" (transactional memory support) on "K" models. Ok, I can understand leaving out VT-d support, but lacking TSX support is REALLY going to hurt games going forward, as they become more multi-core aware.

Stupid me, I thought that Intel WANTED to be the "best" gaming CPU. Guess I was wrong.

Edit: Maybe there's more to this? Maybe the TSX support in the pipeline won't clock faster than 3.5Ghz, while the rest of the design will do 4.5? Seems like grasping at straws for a technical excuse for Intel's decision. Personally, I would find it hard to imagine that Intel wouldn't validate the entire pipeline for whatever their max expected clock speed was going to be.

Edit: No GT3 on desktop chips either. Intel is really screwing the pooch here.

Edit: I noticed something very peculiar. In the various gaming benchmarks, they also benchmark an A10-5800K. But it doesn't get shown in the graphs, only mentioned in the text. Is this part of Intel's review guidelines, that their new Haswell chips are NOT to be benchmarked against AMD's chips, especially the GPU portion? Things like this are what hurts AMD. They lose out on the psychological impact that having AMD show up in "first place" on the graphs would have, and when people link the graphs from other sites, they don't get the information that was in the text, that AMD came out better than Haswell, when talking about their IGPs.

IMHO, if something is good enough to benchmark and mention in the text, then it's good enough to put into the comparison graphs as well. To do anything otherwise, smacks of bias and sleazeball journalism.

"I want to wait for Intel's final silicon and drivers before putting AMD into the same charts as Haswell-based chips, but based on the numbers I've been running, it appears likely that processors equipped with GT2 will come up short against AMD's fastest APUs on the desktop."

It's not like Intel's GPU is magically going to get much better with final silicon, IMHO. However, the drivers could improve substantially. Still no reason not to leave them off of the graphs.

 

[Borealis7]

why would you want GT3 on a desktop? for gaming? get a discrete card.
GT3 for mobile only makes perfect sense.

 

[Tsavo]

why would you want GT3 on a desktop? for gaming? get a discrete card.
GT3 for mobile only makes perfect sense.

+1.

Only thing I'd like to see in HW desktop parts is their ability to OC well without high volts, and if they get rid of the frog snot TIM on their K parts.