Core i7-4770K is performance crippled

[Magic Carpet]

Yet plenty of people claiming they have rock solid OCs.

I've had a "rock-solid" overclock of my E2180 for 5 years. Still going strong. Only had to change a few caps on the board, though (yeah, it's some cheap Biostar mobo).

Of course, it varies from component to component, piece to piece. If you know, there is hidden potential, you can use it no problem with that. It's a problem, when a component is already operating on the verge of its parameters and you try to ask more (>10%) from it, that's usually inviting for problems. In general, it's not advisable, unless you know what you are doing and ready to deal with the consequences.

Anyway, modern CPU overclocking is pretty straightforward and simple. Why not use that 10-15% extra of speed at the cost of slightly more power and heat output. I don't see a problem with the right components used. Just keep it balanced. Now we have a choice though, get a "crippled" 4770K for some extra raw speed or, 4770 with more features, but with a speed-limit in place. So, a regular luxury car @ 230-250 km/h, or a spartan car @ 300+ km/h. Choice is yours.

 

[sm625]

They disable TSX for the same reason they installed a huge gap between the IHS and the die: to limit performance. It seems intel is more focused on limiting performance than they are providing the best product possible in any given price range. The market responds by moving away from x86 in droves.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

or a spartan car @ 300+ km/h. Choice is yours.

Latest news, Intel have moved into car production.
The all new spartan car @ 300+ km/h has the following "benefits" since last years model...

1. We have replaced the all metal radiator, with a new plastic interface material, it saves us nealy $0.01, but ONLY overheats if you overclock the accelerator
2. The more you pay, the LESS features you get, so as the most expensive model, you get the advantage of LOSING nearly all features
3. For your added convenience, the engine is PERMENANTLY soldered to the chassis, so never worry about engine upgrades again, as it is impossible
4. We have significantly increased the cost, but it is more than made up for by the INCREASED fuel consumption of 84 rather than 77 Litres per 100 miles. It goes a full 1% faster now (as long as you use the right benchmarks to test it, made using our special compiler, which slows down if someone else made the car)
5. We discovered that some customers really liked the overdrive gearbox on the previous non-K model, which allowed a delightful 4 bin overclock/overdrive capability. Our technology team have managed to remove that capability on this and all future non-K models, whilst increasing the price by 10%

 

[Magic Carpet]

@ SOFTengCOMPelec

and I applaud you for the effort. Intel ought to take aboard new policy :thumbsup:

 

[Ketchup]

As I read this thread, I can't help but wonder if Intel will release a K series processor with this feature, for a nice bump in price.

 

[BenchPress]

The application also needs to have well-known locking issues for the feature to become relevant. Just because a game spawns multiple threads doesn't mean it has locking issues.

Keep in mind that the software is a chicken-and-egg problem. Games don't have too many thread synchronization issues because they avoid it by using few, coarse-grained locks. But while that effectively results in less total overhead from locks, it doesn't offer the best performance! It results in idle time. Fine-grained locking with low overhead per lock gets you the highest performance. But you need TSX for that.

Database applications don't get to choose what the workload looks like so they are helped out in a very direct way with TSX, but games currently just dumb down the A.I., physics and graphics so the CPU can cope with it. In other words, TSX would allow game developers to create more compelling games. But with Intel not offering it on the i7-4770K they'll be reluctant to adopt it. Which means there will be less software for it. Which means fewer people will get a CPU with TSX support. Which means there's less of a reason for developers to adopt it... etc.

It's always hardware first, software second. You can't blame the developers for slow adoption if half of the CPUs what were supposed to support a new feature, don't. It's outrageous that they fundamentally crippled the flagship i7-4770K. It is not worthy of being called a 4th gen Core i7, because it lacks a major feature of that architecture.

 

[BenchPress]

One more thing about games. Graphics drivers are likely to pick up TSX pretty quickly, which means DirectX 11's multi-threaded rendering will be faster on an i7-4770 than on an i7-4770K, even with existing games.

 

[blackened23]

It's always fun to see a hyperbole laden post here at what is now AMD zone. Let me get this straight - TSX, a new feature that has never been implemented before, is not present on the 4770k.

This means the obvious conclusion being, the 4770k is performance crippled and is the worst processor ever produced in decades. This is, of course, despite the fact that the 4770k consistently has higher IPC than the prior 3770k which it replaced. Which, oddly enough, doesn't have TSX. Am I getting this correct, benchpress?

This forum never ceases to amaze. And I suppose you have absolutely no quantifiable proof (IE BENCHMARKS) showing TSX to have a tangible benefit, no? Just press releases? Yeah, figured.

 

[mrmt]

It's always hardware first, software second. You can't blame the developers for slow adoption if half of the CPUs what were supposed to support a new feature, don't. It's outrageous that they fundamentally crippled the flagship i7-4770K. It is not worthy of being called a 4th gen Core i7, because it lacks a major feature of that architecture.

Haswell flagship is the 4950HQ, not the 4770K. The 4770K is just the higher clocked, unlocked part. It does make sense from a marketing POV too, as there are more people willing to pay more money for a more efficient part in a smaller form factor than for a power hog in a big desktop case.

 

[NTMBK]

It's always fun to see a hyperbole laden post here at what is now AMD zone. Let me get this straight - TSX, a new feature that has never been implemented before, is not present on the 4770k.

This means the obvious conclusion being, the 4770k is performance crippled and is the worst processor ever produced in decades. This is, of course, despite the fact that the 4770k consistently has higher IPC than the prior 3770k which it replaced. Which, oddly enough, doesn't have TSX. Am I getting this correct, benchpress?

This forum never ceases to amaze. And I suppose you have absolutely no quantifiable proof (IE BENCHMARKS) showing TSX to have a tangible benefit, no? Just press releases? Yeah, figured.

The 4770k is meant to be Intel's desktop flagship and offer top performance for top dollar. Instead it is missing two features which are meant to improve performance- TSX, and the L4 cache.

 

[Phynaz]

One more thing about games. Graphics drivers are likely to pick up TSX pretty quickly, which means DirectX 11's multi-threaded rendering will be faster on an i7-4770 than on an i7-4770K, even with existing games.

Highly unlikely. Where in a graphics driver would fine grained locking of shared data structures be required?

TSX is a data center function.

 

[mrmt]

The 4770k is meant to be Intel's desktop flagship and offer top performance for top dollar. Instead it is missing two features which are meant to improve performance- TSX, and the L4 cache.

Intel is pouring a lot of resources in iGPU and lower power consumption. Most of the transistor budget and engineering resources are being directed to those two areas. Also the server market, that clamoured for more raw performance is nowadays extremely focused in core scaling and efficiency, further diminishing the resources devoted for raw performance.

In this market context, I don't think Intel really cares too much about desktop anymore, or that it would be correct to call a mainstream desktop product a flagship anymore.

4770k is just the best Intel mainstream overclocker, but it's not the chip where you can get all the premium features, and isn't supposed to sit on the form factors where you can get the most of those premium features.

 

[blackened23]

The 4770k is meant to be Intel's desktop flagship and offer top performance for top dollar. Instead it is missing two features which are meant to improve performance- TSX, and the L4 cache.

Nope. Intel's flagship enthusiast processor is not the Haswell. That is their mainstream, cheap line of processors. Their flagship line for desktop are the x79, SB-E and upcoming IB-E CPUs. You can see this in their roadmap where they specifically refer to the 3770/4770k as mainstream, and the SB-E (and upcoming IB-E) as flagship/enthusiast.

In any case, you are you complaining about a feature which is not implemented with no quantifiable benchmarks. I hope you can see how ridiculous that appears to be, especially when the OP claims that the lack of a feature "cripples" the performance. Give me a break, man. Until there is proof and quantifiable, solid benchmark numbers there's really no need for the ridiculous hyperbole present in this thread. Even still, if such quantifiable benchmarks existed we would again have to acknowledge that the 4770k is in fact NOT the intel flagship desktop CPU.

 

[beginner99]

Fine-grained locking with low overhead per lock gets you the highest performance. But you need TSX for that.

No you don't, see my previous post in this same thread which you conveniently over-read. Java offers this functionality in it's standard library since Java 5, or 2004, almost 10 years. And you could "roll your own" before.

And in this previous post I showed you a link to an anandtech article explaining this and were you can clearly see that HLE has very limited benefit if you already use fine-grained locking. So you are plain wrong.

 

[jackstar7]

Definitely means there is a market for the Haswell refresh (if that slide is correct) which includes these "missing" features.

 

[grimpr]

Some more info on TSX

http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/?d=qa&f=ben_mem_hle

Excellent info and proof that TSX is an important "feature" of the cpu just like Hyperthreading, i wouldnt trade it for a K edition for any reason whatsoever, the chip is hot, it doesnt hit 5ghz without some super cooling and with TSX disabled there are already 4! features of the cpu that are disabled on the unlocked skus, Ks are not "disables" nowdays, they are "cripples", Core i7 4770S is as of now my preffered Haswell Core i7 SKU.

 

[grimpr]

Here's the gold nugget of info.

"TSX is available on (some) 4th generation Intel Core CPUs (Haswell) as well as (some) future AMD CPUs"

"Once operating systems will be updated to use it, the performance of the OS as well as locking API should improve."

http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/?d=qa&f=ben_mem_hle

 

[Idontcare]

Intel is doing that thing they did with Willamette (ala Rambus) and Prescott (hardly any clockspeed or IPC improvement) where they completely lose focus on delivering a product that the consumer can understand.

Between the crystalwell vs. non-crystalwell situation (where CPU performance is impacted by a decidedly GPU-centric hardware option), to the confusingly annoying market segmentation of key features like VT-D and now TSX, combined with the already frustrating non-solder situation for enthusiasts...and it is pretty clear that the marketing and sales departments are succeeding in derailing the train once again

History will repeat itself, broadwell will come along as "BGA only" and the nail will be in the coffin at that point. Hubris, thy name is Intel.

With haswell, no one will have a clear idea of what exactly is the performance product. Is it crystalwell? Is it the 4770K? Is it IB-E?

Who knows? And by the time people make some sense of the six-ways-to-sunday mess that marketing has made of the product options the consumers will have long gotten bored and moved on to the kewl stuff happening with new gaming consoles and mobile form factors.

We all knew it would take an Intel-sized f*ck-up to be their own doing, it wasn't going to come from cash-starved AMD this time, but I do personally believe we are witnessing the early moments of that impending supernova.

I was really thinking about getting a 4770K, but it soon became clear crystalwell was even neater, but even still its not without its uncool aspects for an enthusiast, and the whole situation is kinda stinky to begin with...

So I took my $350 and bought a Kindle Fire HD 8.9" instead. Intel can stay in the 2010's for all I care, I'm moving myself into the second decade of this 21st century.

For the diehards, silver lining for you in all this is you don't have to worry about crystalwell or TSX, you get to have last year's technology in a 6-core package finally with your well behind the curve SB-E Hooray? :\

 

[SiliconWars]

It's always fun to see a hyperbole laden post here at what is now AMD zone.

Had you intended that it would have been hilarious.

 

[mrmt]

Intel is doing that thing they did with Willamette (ala Rambus) and Prescott (hardly any clockspeed or IPC improvement) where they completely lose focus on delivering a product that the consumer can understand.

IDC, wouldn't this come from a bigger market scope?

Because with Willamette we have to build a big, black desktop box and that was it. Today Intel must think on tablets, convertibles, ultrabook, notebooks, mobile workstations, NUC, mini-ITX and the big black desktop box, all with the same core.

I can see the line up confusion, but I also see the reason for such a complex line up. They are testing the market, which is in a very dynamic state now. They could take the risk AMD took and design a leaner line up and be done with it, but if this line up failed they would be in similar trouble to AMD. Instead what they are doing is design a myriad of SKUs and test market and OEMs to see which ones they will prefer (and will be willing to pay the higher price).

From what we can see they are pretty much writting off the desktop market. They killed their MB bussiness, the bulk of their engineering efforts isn't desktop oriented and if rumor is correct they won't bring BRW to desktops. But is this Intel fault, or is it a marketing trend? Because not even AMD want to pick the pieces in the desktop market anymore, AMD is moving full steam to mobile/low power too.

 

[blackened23]

IDC, wouldn't this come from a bigger market scope?

Because with Willamette we have to build a big, black desktop box and that was it. Today Intel must think on tablets, convertibles, ultrabook, notebooks, mobile workstations, NUC, mini-ITX and the big black desktop box, all with the same core.

Agreed. The bigger picture is that desktop is dwindling in sales while mobile is skyrocketing. Intel is going where the money, and their relevance a decade from now, will be. Besides which, I don't remember seeing quite THIS many complaints about IVB when it was released? Sure, there were a lot of complaints about heat while overclocking but Haswell has the same IPC increase over IVB as IVB had over sandy bridge - so i'm completely confused as to why anyone would be surprised by Haswell's final performance. If anything, it was completely 100% predictable.

I'm sure their shareholders would be ecstatic if intel focused on desktop while simultaneously allowing ARM SOCs dominate the mobile market. Their shareholders would love it if intel focused on a market making less money, as compared to a market making far more money with more growth. It does suck for us desktop users but it's nice to step out of the reality distortion field now and then, and realize why intel is focused on efficiency rather than desktop IPC.

 

[USER8000]

This is not so good:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected

It appears ES samples sent to system integrators overclocked much better than the production CPUs they got.

 

[beginner99]

IDC, wouldn't this come from a bigger market scope?

Because with Willamette we have to build a big, black desktop box and that was it. Today Intel must think on tablets, convertibles, ultrabook, notebooks, mobile workstations, NUC, mini-ITX and the big black desktop box, all with the same core.

And what hinders intel to offer a k version with TSX and the eDRAM / l4 cache?

The only reason is marketing. Such a chip could be faster than upcoming IB-E...even in multi-threaded scenarios vs a 6-core.

 

[grimpr]

This is not so good:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/382267/intel-haswell-hotter-and-slower-than-expected

It appears ES samples sent to system integrators overclocked much better than the production CPUs they got.

Cherry picks that were used for the "leaks & rumours" by overclockers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

One thing that can be hard for people to accept, including myself, is that desktops is a minority market and its going down fast. And the form factors are going down in size inside the desktop segment itself as well. MiniITX is becoming the last king.