• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Upgrading to haswell

J

jmachin

Member
I was just wondering whether a z77 board will support Haswell when it's released or would I have to buy a new board to go with it? Because I plan on building a PC in January but I want to have the option of being able to upgrade if Haswell CPUs end up being much better.

Cheers
 
Z77 won't support Haswell. Haswell is LGA1150, Z77 is LGA1155.

Haswell also won't be anything earth shattering in terms of CPU performance, but will improve greatly on iGPU performance and power consumption (especially idle), among architectural improvements and features.
 
Haswell is a very big step forward with 256bit execution units for AVX2, TSX, SOix states and ondie VRM.

Socket is LGA1150 and as said the VRM is moved ondie.
 
Edrick said:
Then you have been living in a hole if you actually think that.
Click to expand...

That's very convincing.

All the news I've read say CPU performance will be up by 10%, possibly up to 20%, plus more OC headroom. Certainly a bigger improvement than Ivy was over Sandy, but not so big you should sweat over whether you can upgrade from Ivy to Haswell without changing the motherboard. Best to wait for Broadwell since an overclocked Ivy will be certainly be faster than a stock Haswell.
 
No matter how high you oc an ivy. Haswell at stock will give a better out of the box experience with future applications. Period. Always has happened in the past and always will happen.
 
Well, I'll quote you on that when Haswell is released. Did a stock 2600K outperform a heavily OC'd i7-8xx? Barely, and that's mainly because of the higher stock clock speed of the 2600K. Did stock Bulldozer outperform an overclocked Phenom II? Certainly not, even with the higher stock clock speed.
 
For me it'll be all about the IPC, not Mhz machismo. I'll dump my Ivy in a NY minute if it's >10%, sports solder not glue and has a healthy unlock. Thank god for ebay!
 
probably around 5% real world improvement (if that) compared to Ivy Bridge.

either way I'll buy one... but anyone expecting anything phenomenal other than OC potential and better mobility devices for this processor is out of their mind.
 
lehtv said:
That's very convincing.

All the news I've read say CPU performance will be up by 10%, possibly up to 20%, plus more OC headroom. Certainly a bigger improvement than Ivy was over Sandy, but not so big you should sweat over whether you can upgrade from Ivy to Haswell without changing the motherboard. Best to wait for Broadwell since an overclocked Ivy will be certainly be faster than a stock Haswell.
Click to expand...

Everything you said only holds true on legacy software. As soon as software is optimized for Haswells instructions, you will see upwards of 80% improvement and in some cases over 100%.

And with this type of increase available, I do not think developers will wait long to take advantage of that. (Games may be sooner than anything else since most currrent games already support FMA).
 
From Nehalem -> Haswell (approx) : 1 x 1.1 x 1.03 x 1.1 = 1.25
Higher clocks and 25% IPC improvement? If it clocks to 5GHz, that's be equivalent to a 6.25GHz Nehalem 😱
 
Edrick said:
Everything you said only holds true on legacy software. As soon as software is optimized for Haswells instructions, you will see upwards of 80% improvement and in some cases over 100%.

And with this type of increase available, I do not think developers will wait long to take advantage of that. (Games may be sooner than anything else since most currrent games already support FMA).
Click to expand...

So...2 years or more? IB will be obsolete by then anyway.
 
Barfo said:
So...2 years or more? IB will be obsolete by then anyway.
Click to expand...

So....pulling numbers out of your arse?

Remember, most games already use FMA instructions (video cards have supported that for many years already). It will not take 2 years in a lot of cases.
 
Edrick said:
Everything you said only holds true on legacy software. As soon as software is optimized for Haswells instructions, you will see upwards of 80% improvement and in some cases over 100%.
Click to expand...

That holds only for algorithms which can be parallelised like that.

And with this type of increase available, I do not think developers will wait long to take advantage of that. (Games may be sooner than anything else since most currrent games already support FMA).
Click to expand...

Do you have a list of games that make use of FMA? Because I'm extremely dubious of that.
 
Edrick said:
So....pulling numbers out of your arse?
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

Remember, most games already use FMA instructions (video cards have supported that for many years already). It will not take 2 years in a lot of cases.
Click to expand...

Good god man, are you serious? That has nothing to do with using FMA on a CPU algorithm.

If developers put FMA into their code, either they will have to provide multiple codepaths increasing complexity and cost, or they will have to abandon support for every processor shipped to date apart from Piledriver and Bulldozer. It's not happening for a long time.
 
NTMBK said:
Do you have a list of games that make use of FMA? Because I'm extremely dubious of that.
Click to expand...

Nvidia and AMD have had FMA instructions in their GPUs for many years. It is ONE of the reasons why GPUs are so much faster than CPUs. I doubt you will be able to find a game specifically say it uses FMA (since that means nothing to most people), anything that says its optimized for the latest GPUs, most likely will have it.

Now, I am not saying it will work on Haswell right out of the box (in most cases, it will need to be optimized for it), but it will not take 2 years, thats for sure.
 
NTMBK said:
Pot, meet kettle.

If developers put FMA into their code, either they will have to provide multiple codepaths increasing complexity and cost, or they will have to abandon support for every processor shipped to date apart from Piledriver and Bulldozer. It's not happening for a long time.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

FMA instruction will be able to use the legacy instruction if the CPU does not support FMA instructions. No extra work and not extra code paths.
 
Edrick said:
Nvidia and AMD have had FMA instructions in their GPUs for many years. It is ONE of the reasons why GPUs are so much faster than CPUs. I doubt you will be able to find a game specifically say it uses FMA (since that means nothing to most people), anything that says its optimized for the latest GPUs, most likely will have it.

Now, I am not saying it will work on Haswell right out of the box (in most cases, it will need to be optimized for it), but it will not take 2 years, thats for sure.
Click to expand...

"Need to be optimized"? How about, "is entirely not relevant to the discussion"? Have you ever written code which uses these instruction set extensions you love so much?
 
NTMBK said:
"Need to be optimized"? How about, "is entirely not relevant to the discussion"? Have you ever written code which uses these instruction set extensions you love so much?
Click to expand...

Yes. And it is clear you haven't.

Now stop attacking me and go back to your games.
 
Edrick said:
Wrong!

FMA instruction will be able to use the legacy instruction if the CPU does not support FMA instructions. No extra work and not extra code paths.
Click to expand...

Will it ah heck. If a CPU which does not support FMA3 receives an FMA3 instruction, it will not have a clue what to do.

You can have alternate paths in your code which avoid the FMA instruction and instead issue separate multiply and add instructions, but as I pointed out that adds complexity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top