Although Haswell didn't break any records when it showed up on the desktop, there are definitely situations where it is clearly faster than even the fastest IVB-E SKU. Anything that doesn't make use of all six cores on a 4960X will likely be faster on a cheaper Haswell based 4770K. My guess is that this covers not only the overwhelming majority of the desktop market, but actually a good portion of the enthusiast desktop community as well.
The other downsides remain intact as well. Intel's X79 chipset remains very dated, even more so now that we have Z87 with Haswell. A fresh coat of paint and updated firmware isn't enough to hide the fact that you only get two 6Gbps SATA ports and no native USB 3.0 ports. All motherboard makers have worked around this by adding a plethora of 3rd party controllers to their motherboards, but I tend to prefer the native Intel solutions from a validation and compatibility standpoint. You also lose QuickSync support as there's no integrated GPU, although the two extra cores do help video transcoding go by a lot quicker.
In what I hope will be less than 22 months, Haswell E will likely fix many of these problems. Until that time comes, your decision is pretty simple. Ivy Bridge E picks up with Sandy Bridge E left off. If you have the money to spend and absolutely need any of the following:
1) More than 4 cores,
2) More than 4 DIMM slots,
3) More than 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
...then Ivy Bridge E is your only option, and it's not a bad one at that. My biggest complaint about IVB-E isn't that it's bad, it's just that it could be so much more. With a modern chipset, an affordable 6-core variant (and/or a high-end 8-core option) and at least using a current gen architecture, this ultra high-end enthusiast platform could be very compelling. Unfortunately it's just not that today. I understand why (Xeon roadmaps and all), but it doesn't make me any happier about the situation. Instead we're left with the great option that is Haswell/Z87. If what you need falls outside of what Z87 can deliver then you're left with a decent, but very compromised (and pricey) alternative.
Tom's Hardware said:Core i7-4960X is faster than Core i7-3970X and simultaneously about 30% more efficient.
Why did they leave my hero, the i5-4670k out of the MT results but include the i5-2500k?
4670k really put in some work for a $200 hasfail in the gaming section
I think the problem with 2011 is its dated like Anand said, and it really has no benefit outside workstation related workloads. For everything else the $200-$300 Haswell chips are a far more compelling option and offer the advantage of a superior, cutting edge platform.
4670K FTW:Why did they leave my hero, the i5-4670k out of the MT results but include the i5-2500k?
4670k really put in some work for a $200 hasfail in the gaming section
I think the problem with 2011 is its dated like Anand said, and it really has no benefit outside workstation related workloads. For everything else the $200-$300 Haswell chips are a far more compelling option and offer the advantage of a superior, cutting edge platform.
Funny how everyone was hating on Haswell when it came out yet now everyone wants to jump on board. Welcome to the dark side. Not only do we have cookies, we also have native USB 3.0 and SATA 3 and the highest IPC in the industry
This picture sais it all:
Here we have Intel's own promotional material, advertising their brand new, Extreme $999 processor as being 18% slower than their $330 CPU for everyday computing.
You should *not* have to make those compromises when you buy the most expensive consumer CPU the company has to offer.
It does take a while for reality to sink in, but it wasn't illogical to wait for this release for enthusiasts like me to finally embrace Haswell.Funny how everyone was hating on Haswell when it came out yet now everyone wants to jump on board. Welcome to the dark side. Not only do we have cookies, we also have native USB 3.0 and SATA 3 and the highest IPC in the industry
That says 18% LOWER, not *slower*. As for the question of "lower what?* they don't seem to say but whatever it is lower is supposed to be better. As the top blurb says "You'll get maximum desktop power for whatever you do" my best guess is that they're claiming 18% less power (as in electricity) consumption for everyday computing tasks. Lower power draw is the only real relevant benchmark I can think of for what would be considered everyday computing.
They are absolutely not claiming that everyday computing is 18% slower on a marketing slide. Even if it was a mistake it would never get past the marketing reviewers.
That says 18% LOWER, not *slower*. As for the question of "lower what?* they don't seem to say but whatever it is lower is supposed to be better. As the top blurb says "You'll get maximum desktop power for whatever you do" my best guess is that they're claiming 18% less power (as in electricity) consumption for everyday computing tasks. Lower power draw is the only real relevant benchmark I can think of for what would be considered everyday computing.
They are absolutely not claiming that everyday computing is 18% slower on a marketing slide. Even if it was a mistake it would never get past the marketing reviewers.
It does take a while for reality to sink in, but it wasn't illogical to wait for this release for enthusiasts like me to finally embrace Haswell.