Haswell model specs leaked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,237
5,020
136
@ NTMBK
Yeah my point was that IB didn't see much benefit from higher DDR3 clocks(unlike Trinity which was Radeon based). Is intel officially supporting higher specced DDR3 modules with Haswell(compared to IB)?

According to that chart, they're only supporting up to DDR3-1600, hence my original comment. ;) The reason we didn't see much benefit from speeds higher than that on IB was because the graphics hit other bottlenecks at that point due to the weak graphics EUs. If Intel are bulking up the Haswell graphics, they'll need more bandwidth to feed the beefier/more numerous EUs.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,601
2
81
Most 2500K and 2600K could hit 4.5 GHz, too. What was the model name of that 4.5 GHz Xeon btw? Just because Intel only released one CPU of that kind, doesn't mean anything.
If you want to stay at the same process, take Yorkfield -> Nehalem. Not higher clocks, but a hefty 30% higher IPC (in games).

10% more performance is disappointing in my opinion. I don't doubt Intel could have put 10% higher clocks into a 95W TDP envelope if they had wanted to.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
For the TDP, remember the VRM goes ondie. So 84W Haswell can easily use alot less than a 77W Ivy. Since the platform usage will be lower. Plus as said, in unoptimized code Haswell is 10-15% faster. And in optimized code it can be over 100% faster.

But again, I wouldnt put much trust into that picture yet. It also looks way too homebrew ;)

People gives rumours too much credit and runs with it like truth.
 
Last edited:

dma0991

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2011
2,723
1
0
The stated TDP could be plausible as Haswell will have a much beefier IGP than SB and IB. I'm still wondering if the naming of Core i5 4670K instead of Core i5 4570K has anything to do with them having more model numbers for lower end mobile SKUs.
 

jones377

Senior member
May 2, 2004
450
47
91
The stated TDP could be plausible as Haswell will have a much beefier IGP than SB and IB. I'm still wondering if the naming of Core i5 4670K instead of Core i5 4570K has anything to do with them having more model numbers for lower end mobile SKUs.

Intel claims they got twice the performance/power for the graphics in Haswell compared with Ivy. It sounds a bit unreal since it's built on the same process. They could also mean the GT3 mobile version specifically and not the GT2 desktop version. In any case I wouldn't expect the iGPU to use more power in a 4770K compared to a 3770K, and should deliver quite a bit higher performance.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
If accurate this is brutal. Just think, once AMD is all but gone from desktop performance CPUs, we'll get not just paltry performance increases - but price hikes to boot. :p

10% more performance, 25% more expensive. :colbert:
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Now there are increased prices too? Well this just keeps getting worse and worse!
Lets completely ignore that Intel still needs to actually sell things, so having price increases and no performance increases will do nothing for them, as people simply won't buy them, meaning lower sales, and less profits.

A lot of people already talk about "fast enough", how are you going to get people to buy something no faster but much more expensive (without being Apple)?

Then there's the other competition, ARM, which will pressure mobile processor pricing and performance, in laptops, tablets and phones.

Don't be stupid and assume that less AMD means Intel can suddenly do what they want, they have plenty of price competition and requirements to improve value to consumers from many areas.

Add in GPUs in servers, and they can't just balloon their prices even more there either, plus ARM servers in the lower power/performance requirement areas.

Intel has plenty on their plate to force them to stay competitive in pricing and keep adding performance, no ned to be stupid and think AMD are relevant to keepign Intel "in line" as it were. Consumers and competition from other people can do a fine job of that.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Probably wasn't buying CPUs in the days before the A64.

As I just posted, that's irrelevant. We're not living in pre-A64 days, so what happened in pre-A64 days has less than no bearing on what will or could happen today. Be sensible and realistic, don't live in tin foil hat land please.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Probably wasn't buying CPUs in the days before the A64.

I was. CPUs have never been cheaper than they are today. And that got zero to do with AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta, VIA, NexGen, IDT etc.

What makes most profit? Selling 400mio CPUs at a 121$ margin? Or selling 100mio CPUs at a 250$ margin? Not to mention the factory issue.

And innovation aint relaxed either. Nothing new=no new buy.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,698
4,018
136
According to that chart, they're only supporting up to DDR3-1600, hence my original comment. ;) The reason we didn't see much benefit from speeds higher than that on IB was because the graphics hit other bottlenecks at that point due to the weak graphics EUs. If Intel are bulking up the Haswell graphics, they'll need more bandwidth to feed the beefier/more numerous EUs.
I have no doubts that intel improved the execution "strength" of the EUs but I was under impression the key improvement in Haswell would be sheer number of EUs compared to IB. So what we have is Haswell will be 20EUs in GT2 @ 800-1200Mhz vs 16EUs in IB(+some % due to "ipc" increases) and 40EUs @ 800Mhz (according to SA-only in mobile parts?). If GT3 variant was to end up on desktop, it would be ~33% faster than GT2 with those clocks for both.

So if GT3 is not for desktop ,we will have maximum of 20 improved EUs that work at around the IB's GPU clock(maximum Turbo for IB GPU is 1.15Ghz and for GT2 in Haswell is 1.2Ghz- a 4% difference). All summed up for GT2 vs HD4000: ~10%(?) more IPC,4% clock and 25% more EU. In perf. numbers: 1.1x1.04x1.25=1.43 or 43% faster than HD4000. GT3 in turn would be 1.43x1.33=1.9x or 90% faster than HD4000 (if it hits desktop).

The question : will 43% more GPU performance than HD4000 be enough to trigger the memory BW bottleneck?
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
As I just posted, that's irrelevant. We're not living in pre-A64 days, so what happened in pre-A64 days has less than no bearing on what will or could happen today. Be sensible and realistic, don't live in tin foil hat land please.

It's hardly tinfoil. Maybe taking my 25% price hike comment too literally. With zero competition whatsoever, prices will go up on CPUs. How much who knows, but they can push them up $50 a pop.

AMD CPUs are pretty crap, but they would be more attractive if Intel charged $50 more for every CPU they have. Take them out of the equation and what choice do you have ?

Competition drives prices down, when there is no competition... I mean there is hardly any right now as it stands, but it looks like there may be none at all at some point.
 

dma0991

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2011
2,723
1
0
Intel claims they got twice the performance/power for the graphics in Haswell compared with Ivy. It sounds a bit unreal since it's built on the same process. They could also mean the GT3 mobile version specifically and not the GT2 desktop version. In any case I wouldn't expect the iGPU to use more power in a 4770K compared to a 3770K, and should deliver quite a bit higher performance.
Most certainly the slight bump isn't caused by the IGP alone. There are also other factors that have already been mentioned earlier by other forumers. From what I know, the doubling in IGP performance is only for GT3 which is mostly for mobile while desktops get a lower performing version but Haswell desktop IGP should still be better than IB's. Am I the only one happy to see that the TDP went up again?
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
It's hardly tinfoil. Maybe taking my 25% price hike comment too literally. With zero competition whatsoever, prices will go up on CPUs. How much who knows, but they can push them up $50 a pop.

AMD CPUs are pretty crap, but they would be more attractive if Intel charged $50 more for every CPU they have. Take them out of the equation and what choice do you have ?

Competition drives prices down, when there is no competition... I mean there is hardly any right now as it stands, but it looks like there may be none at all at some point.

I think you confuse CPUs with milk or gas....
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,237
5,020
136
What makes most profit? Selling 400mio CPUs at a 121$ margin? Or selling 100mio CPUs at a 250$ margin? Not to mention the factory issue.

You're assuming a very high price elasticity there! Does anyone know if significant research has been done into price elasticity of processors? As far as we know, without a reasonable competitor to run to, it could be closer to 300mio @ $250 margin. But either of our numbers is just wild speculation without research to back it up (which I happily admit I don't have).
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106

Competition in the semiconductor business can actually drive up costs or lower quality due to design costs. And its all about volume and cashflow. If Intel hiked its prices Intel would go belly up. Plain simple. Remember the first chip cost billions, the next one cost a few $. Higher volume=higher profit until a certain point. And intel had no competition since 2006.

Also the goal of capitalism and competition is monopoly if you really want to go that way. And competition is far from always good, specially when its the race to the bottom.

And lastly, you dont need a new CPU. Intel needs to give you a reason for buying it. Its not like milk or gas you need daily. And without sales, Intel got no cashflow and no profit. And its chapter 11 before you can blink with an eye.
 
Last edited:

kuroimahou

Junior Member
Nov 1, 2012
3
0
0
84W TDP, no increase in clocks, not even a single MHz
Call me disappointed, very disappointed.

84W TDP with ondie VRM which will result in lower platform power consumption and complexity.

Clockspeed does not equal performance. You have no idea about OC clocks which can top IB clocks as intel knows the process more.

Increased performance, lower power consumption, lower platform cost, some still complain.
Call me disappointed, very disappointed.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Most certainly the slight bump isn't caused by the IGP alone. There are also other factors that have already been mentioned earlier by other forumers. From what I know, the doubling in IGP performance is only for GT3 which is mostly for mobile while desktops get a lower performing version but Haswell desktop IGP should still be better than IB's. Am I the only one happy to see that the TDP went up again?

Well, if this slide is correct, I dont see it as a good thing. I would be happy to see the TDP go up if the chip was suddenly clocked to 4 ghz or something (or if it had more cores). But if the TDP goes up only to give better GPU performance, on the desktop I consider that a step back. I cant imagine buying a chip this powerful and not adding a discrete card. If the increased TDP is because of IPC increases or integrating more of the MB functions, it could be ok as well.

But overall, the more I see about Haswell, the less impressed I am for it as a desktop processor. Just depends on the IPC increase I guess, but I was hoping for an increase in base clocks and maybe turbo to 4+ ghz, or if keeping the same performance, even lower power consumption.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Competition in the semiconductor business can actually drive up costs or lower quality due to design costs. And its all about volume and cashflow. If Intel hiked its prices Intel would go belly up. Plain simple. Remember the first chip cost billions, the next one cost a few $. Higher volume=higher profit until a certain point. And intel had no competition since 2006.

Also the goal of capitalism and competition is monopoly if you really want to go that way. And competition is far from always good, specially when its the race to the bottom.

And lastly, you dont need a new CPU. Intel needs to give you a reason for buying it. Its not like milk or gas you need daily. And without sales, Intel got no cashflow and no profit. And its chapter 11 before you can blink with an eye.

Some people don't seem to understand that.
Intel having competition. IT'S THEMSELVES. Intel needs to put price and value pressure against their own products. As well as ARM and GPUs in other markets.

(There's pretty elastic demand for CPUs. Increase the prices, and volumes drop more than the price goes up by, resulting in an overall reduction in revenue and contribution/margin, meaning Intel gets less money from higher prices, because no one buys their chips, because no one needs to buy their chips, because they already have a fast enough computer. End result? Intel is competing against themselves, they don't need AMD around to have competition).

Or, to use an analogy to illustrate the point, with cars, because everyone loves cars.

Intel = Ford.
They are now the only car manufacturer left, everyone else has gone belly up.
Motorbikes = ARM
Public transport and bicycles = GPUs

Ford can't raise car prices because most people already own cars, and don't need to buy new ones. If they raise prices, people simply just won't buy a new car.
They may also consider buying a motorbike or using other transport because it's better value than the now super expensive cars, and just as viable for their needs (generally speaking of the population of the world as a whole, not some guy who lives in the sticks and has a 2 hour commute because he doesn't want to live near work).
End result, Ford needs to get people to buy new cars in order to stay in business, and even though people need cars, they have cars, and new ones don't offer that much more, so they need an incentive to buy a new car.
Higher prices are not an incentive to buy a new car!
 
Last edited:

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,108
1,260
126
Competition in the semiconductor business can actually drive up costs or lower quality due to design costs. And its all about volume and cashflow. If Intel hiked its prices Intel would go belly up. Plain simple. Remember the first chip cost billions, the next one cost a few $. Higher volume=higher profit until a certain point. And intel had no competition since 2006.

Also the goal of capitalism and competition is monopoly if you really want to go that way. And competition is far from always good, specially when its the race to the bottom.

And lastly, you dont need a new CPU. Intel needs to give you a reason for buying it. Its not like milk or gas you need daily. And without sales, Intel got no cashflow and no profit. And its chapter 11 before you can blink with an eye.

How much of the market is made up of enthusiasts who upgrade their CPU every time a new generation comes out though ? I don't have the numbers, but I think we're in the minority. And those of us that do, are already upgrading for another 15% performance at about the same price point. The reason the small minority that upgrades every new CPU release shells out the coin is that 15% performance improvement and having the newest shiny. Don't know about you, but I'd spend another $50 if they hiked the prices to get that improvement. I wouldn't suddenly stop because of the hike, I'd just take it.

It's not a stretch to go from doing that to doing it for a 15% performance hike at a higher cost. You'd simply adjust to the higher price point and get used to it.

Of course there would be new circumstances at play. Every AMD CPU that was being sold before would now be an Intel CPU being sold, so they'd be selling more. That could certainly affect the drive to hike prices.

Either way AMD is likely gone from CPUs soon and we'll see if prices rise afterwards on Intel CPUs. One thing is for certain, if they can charge more they will. And there is no better climate to start hiking prices than when you're the only option out there. Sometimes it doesn't even take being the only player in town, if your products are far and away better, you can still take consumers to the cleaners. 8800GTX @ $800 comes to mind. Fairly sure the reason we don't see pricing like that on GPUs any more is because of good competition, not a lack of wanting to charge more.

Being the only player in town is the best situation to charge what you can get away with. Naive to believe Intel will not raise prices once they are the only player in the desktop space, even more so if you are talking about the enthusiast market. Enthusiasts will pay because that will be the only way to play.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,601
2
81
84W TDP with ondie VRM which will result in lower platform power consumption and complexity.

Clockspeed does not equal performance. You have no idea about OC clocks which can top IB clocks as intel knows the process more.

Increased performance, lower power consumption, lower platform cost, some still complain.
Call me disappointed, very disappointed.

Not everyone overclocks. And you don't expect 20% higher IPC, do you? You can plagiarize my comment all you want, doesn't change the probable outcome - that Sandy Bridge gave us way more bang for the buck compared to its predecessor than Ivy did or Haswell will.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
How much of the market is made up of enthusiasts who upgrade their CPU every time a new generation comes out though ? I don't have the numbers, but I think we're in the minority. And those of us that do, are already upgrading for another 15% performance at about the same price point. The reason the small minority that upgrades every new CPU release shells out the coin is that 15% performance improvement and having the newest shiny. Don't know about you, but I'd spend another $50 if they hiked the prices to get that improvement. I wouldn't suddenly stop because of the hike, I'd just take it.

It's not a stretch to go from doing that to doing it for a 15% performance hike at a higher cost. You'd simply adjust to the higher price point and get used to it.

Of course there would be new circumstances at play. Every AMD CPU that was being sold before would now be an Intel CPU being sold, so they'd be selling more. That could certainly affect the drive to hike prices.

Either way AMD is likely gone from CPUs soon and we'll see if prices rise afterwards on Intel CPUs. One thing is for certain, if they can charge more they will. And there is no better climate to start hiking prices than when you're the only option out there. Sometimes it doesn't even take being the only player in town, if your products are far and away better, you can still take consumers to the cleaners. 8800GTX @ $800 comes to mind. Fairly sure the reason we don't see pricing like that on GPUs any more is because of good competition, not a lack of wanting to charge more.

Being the only player in town is the best situation to charge what you can get away with. Naive to believe Intel will not raise prices once they are the only player in the desktop space, even more so if you are talking about the enthusiast market. Enthusiasts will pay because that will be the only way to play.

So much wrong.... o_O

Well good luck with your "price increase" theory in an elastic segment.

Due to the business model, I would actually claim that prices will drop a tiny bit (Possible just eaten up by inflation correction.) when AMD goes belly up. History also shows this is what normally happens in this type of segment.
 
Last edited:

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,237
5,020
136
So much wrong.... o_O

Well good luck with your "price increase" theory in an elastic segment.

Due to the business model, I would actually claim that prices will drop a tiny bit (Possible just eaten up by inflation correction.) when AMD goes belly up. History also shows this is what normally happens in this type of segment.

Ah, are there actually studies showing that CPUs are a very elastic segment? I would have thought people just buy a PC when they need a new one because the old one died, most of the time.
 
Last edited: