Are you buying Haswell?

[tential]

Haswell isn't going to be the downfall if intel, but think of this. Next-gen, intel continues with the "good enough" idea. Then, AMD releases a mildly surprising CPU. Intel keep their pricing, AMD keeps theirs. Now, the generation after that, AMD gets a little bit better, and intel keeps the "good enough" theory. I'm not saying intel will become AMD, nor the other way around, but it might get a bit more competitive and that'll make us happy.

I don't see it happening. Even if AMD released a chip 50% faster than intel right now, it wouldn't change anything for 99% of the consumer users of PCs. They don't have applications that can use the speed. How much faster will my web page load with it?

You're thinking from an enthusiast standpoint, from a general user standpoint who just does wordprocessing, webbrowsing, listens to music/youtube, you can still use core2duo and do all of those things easily. I STILL do. My Haswell machine is strictly for gaming and storing media. If I want to browse the internet, I have my laptop and I don't need a new one because this one is still able to do everything I need.

If AMD focuses on performance, they will fall FURTHER behind intel.

Desktop PC sales are declining like mad. You want AMD to focus on a declining market?

Tablets, Laptops, Mini PCs, Phones are where sales are being made. Not performance parts.

AMD needs to focus on getting their power consumption down so that they can be viable in those markets. They are doing this already. When the power consumption is low, combined with AMD's low costs, and good enough performance, they'll do much better and be viable alternatives for OEMs, maybe even preferred, to put into the markets that are growing.

Stating that AMD should be worried about outperforming intel in performance is just shortsighted, even backwards thinking. This all mattered 8 years ago. The second Core2Duo released, we stopped seeing much of the benefits of high performance CPUs in anything other than gaming, servers, etc.

Word Processing, Web Browsing, etc general computing, won't see a boost because you release a much faster CPU. Neither AMD nor intel care about a dying market, so I don't see why you think any of what you said would happen.

I won't be buying one. I am currently running an e6400 and playing games at 1920x1200. Bought an SSD a year ago so games would load faster and have been fine up until some of this year's games (Neverwinter MMO is an example).

Based on the reviews I've seen unless you really need the newer tech I'm shooting for a 2500k. Seems to be the cheapest option for me to run games well. I thought about just getting a q6600 since I would only need the CPU but I don't think that is going to be enough.

Point proven just look at the amount of people on sandybridge or before. A much lower percentage of software stresses the CPU, so much less emphasis on CPU speed and more on efficiency.

 

[Remobz]

This thread makes me feel a little sad about the future of CPU advancement.

 

[tential]

This thread makes me feel a little sad about the future of CPU advancement.

It's advancing, just in a different direction.

To clarify what I said simply ask yourself this:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU processing power do for you?

Then ask yourself:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU efficiency do for you?

I'm positive that only 1% of people (enthusiasts) would be happy with the first option.

The other 99% (general users) would be happy with the second option due to being able to now have a faster phone, tablet, or macbook air.

 

[blackened23]

I understand what you're saying, but if you're talking general users they probably won't be found here. This forum isn't geared towards that - While I understand what intel is doing w.r.t. mobile/efficiency focus, I think asking those questions here are misplaced.

IF you ask *me*, of course I want more CPU processing power. Will it help me? Hell yeah it will - I split my usage up between PC, tablet, and smartphone and I use my desktop when I want to game or have the performance, and for general browsing I don't use my PC most of the time. If browsing is what you do on a desktop, I don't see why - clearly the perks of a PC lie elsewhere. You can browse on anything.

Again. Do I want more IPC? More performance? Hell yeah. I think most here would also agree with that sentiment. This isn't a "General user" forum, these are mostly power users/enthusiasts with a reason for owning a desktop. (Although - again, I completely understand WHY intel is focusing on mobile, that's where general users go)

 

[lagokc]

You know, Intel focusing on performance/watt instead of all out performance could really be a good thing for enthusiasts.

You've been complaining that we've been stuck at quad-cores since 2006 and while 6-cores are still fine, look at the clock speeds of the 8-cores. The E5-2687 sandy bridge 8-core runs at 3.1ghz and boosts to 3.8 on 150w TDP. As long as we're TDP limited, how many Haswell cores can you fit within 150w running at 3.5GHz or so? I'd guess around 12. Clockspeeds have hit a roadblock but lowering the TDP per core means the potential to add more cores within the same thermal envelope.

If we're lucky, Skylake will be designed to support both low power per core as Haswell/Broadwell for mobile use but also target server/enthusiasts by packing lots of cores within <150w TDP for those willing to pay for more cores.

 

[scannall]

I'm not sure why the Ivy Bridge owners are so incensed. Haswell is an upgrade. just not a very big one for YOU. For a Nehalem owner it's great.

Be happy and celebrate the fact you don't need to run out and spend a big bundle of cash on your computer.

 

[tential]

I understand what you're saying, but if you're talking general users they probably won't be found here. This forum isn't geared towards that - While I understand what intel is doing w.r.t. mobile/efficiency focus, I think asking those questions here are misplaced.

IF you ask *me*, of course I want more CPU processing power. Will it help me? Hell yeah it will - I split my usage up between PC, tablet, and smartphone and I use my desktop when I want to game or have the performance, and for general browsing I don't use my PC most of the time. If browsing is what you do on a desktop, I don't see why - clearly the perks of a PC lie elsewhere. You can browse on anything.

Again. Do I want more IPC? More performance? Hell yeah. I think most here would also agree with that sentiment. This isn't a "General user" forum, these are mostly power users/enthusiasts with a reason for owning a desktop. (Although - again, I completely understand WHY intel is focusing on mobile, that's where general users go)

I was simply just saying that improving efficiency, bringing desktop like performance to mobile platforms is much more important right now than the performance benefits of increased CPU power. The diminishing returns on increasing CPU power is ridiculous. Very few applications benefit at this point.

And I do have a desktop in the works, it's strictly for gaming like I said. I don't need that performance for anything else really.


I don't doubt that because it's an enthusiast forum people want more CPU performance. I just think it's stupid when people say that AMD should focus on beating intel there when clearly doing so would make them lose out. Or that people say intel needs to release a performance part. Why would they waste R&D money in more performance for little profit (actually at a loss) when the money is in mobile.

You didn't answer my question though and I'm curious to see how people respond here. What would you do with more CPU power? Which applications do you use that would benefit? From my understanding most applications consumers use aren't CPU bound (maybe GPU bound).

You know, Intel focusing on performance/watt instead of all out performance could really be a good thing for enthusiasts.

You've been complaining that we've been stuck at quad-cores since 2006 and while 6-cores are still fine, look at the clock speeds of the 8-cores. The E5-2687 sandy bridge 8-core runs at 3.1ghz and boosts to 3.8 on 150w TDP. As long as we're TDP limited, how many Haswell cores can you fit within 150w running at 3.5GHz or so? I'd guess around 12. Clockspeeds have hit a roadblock but lowering the TDP per core means the potential to add more cores within the same thermal envelope.

If we're lucky, Skylake will be designed to support both low power per core as Haswell/Broadwell for mobile use but also target server/enthusiasts by packing lots of cores within <150w TDP for those willing to pay for more cores.

Or being able to fit Laptop GPU performance into a Tablet, Desktop Gaming into Laptop (already pretty much there), etc.

Until we start getting severely CPU limited, I prefer the motion we're moving towards.

 

[cmdrdredd]

For a notebook I might but I dont think I will be buyng one soon. For my desktop no. Not necessary.

 

[2is]

I'm not sure why the Ivy Bridge owners are so incensed. Haswell is an upgrade. just not a very big one for YOU. For a Nehalem owner it's great.

Be happy and celebrate the fact you don't need to run out and spend a big bundle of cash on your computer.

As an enthusiast, you like to see hardware progress (more so than what we're seeing) IB, being the "tick" in Intel's cycle, was expected to be marginal, as was the case with other "ticks". Haswell, being the "tock" in Intel's cycle was expected to be significant, as it has been with previous "tocks"

That said, I'm not in the market for a new desktop CPU anyway, but I am in the market for a new laptop (still running a Core 2 Duo in mine) so I'm anxiously awaiting the LV/ULV sku's to make their way into a few ultra books and read the reviews. If they're as efficient and offer the performance and battery life as the rumors leading up to Haswell's release suggest it would, then Haswell will have some redeeming qualities in my eyes.

 

[Vaux]

I picked up a 4770k and Asus Z87-A bundle from Microcenter for only $389. Pretty good deal I thought.

 

[cytg111]

It's advancing, just in a different direction.

To clarify what I said simply ask yourself this:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU processing power do for you?

Then ask yourself:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU efficiency do for you?

I'm positive that only 1% of people (enthusiasts) would be happy with the first option.

The other 99% (general users) would be happy with the second option due to being able to now have a faster phone, tablet, or macbook air.

That, and where would it really end ? 1000 watt tdp cpus ? Noone wants that space heater in their home. The only way to increase top processing power is to get perf/watt under control first. Haswell is a step in the direction.

 

[tential]

As an enthusiast, you like to see hardware progress (more so than what we're seeing) IB, being the "tick" in Intel's cycle, was expected to be marginal, as was the case with other "ticks". Haswell, being the "tock" in Intel's cycle was expected to be significant, as it has been with previous "tocks"

That said, I'm not in the market for a new desktop CPU anyway, but I am in the market for a new laptop (still running a Core 2 Duo in mine) so I'm anxiously awaiting the LV/ULV sku's to make their way into a few ultra books and read the reviews. If they're as efficient and offer the performance and battery life as the rumors leading up to Haswell's release suggest it would, then Haswell will have some redeeming qualities in my eyes.

But like I've asked multiple times before. What applications do you use that would benefit from more CPU processing power?

 

[Lepton87]

This thread makes me feel a little sad about the future of CPU advancement.

Nah, it shouldn't. CPU are advancing quite fast when it comes to MT performance and have almost stagnated their ST performance(not really, as I'll show you below). Don't look at consumer products, it's just marketing not technology, look at this way: 32nm Westmere-EX, SB-EP 22nm IVY-EP, IVY-EX. From 10 and 8 cores to 10 and 15 cores. Westmere-EX to IVY-EX: 50% more cores, 20% more IPC and probably higher clocks, nice, huh? SB-EP to IVY-EP is slightly less impressive, but 25% more cores and 8% higher IPC, probably higher clocks and lower TDP to boot.

So it's going well, it's us, regular customers who are screwed.

 

[2is]

But like I've asked multiple times before. What applications do you use that would benefit from more CPU processing power?

Benchmarks of course

Fore me, it's not so much the raw performance of the CPU that I'm unhappy with, but the limited overclockability that's been getting worse the last couple generations.

 

[tential]

Benchmarks of course

Fore me, it's not so much the raw performance of the CPU that I'm unhappy with, but the limited overclockability that's been getting worse the last couple generations.

So.... the only application that would benefit from higher performance that you use is a benchmark?
OCing counts as higher performance so what else do you do other than arbitrary benchmarks that benefits from more CPU power?

 

[2is]

So.... the only application that would benefit from higher performance that you use is a benchmark?
OCing counts as higher performance so what else do you do other than arbitrary benchmarks that benefits from more CPU power?

Not a whole lot, encoding, certain games here and there, but you're clearly missing the point. It's not about what we "need' it's about what we want. Many people over clock not because they need to, but because they want to and it's fun for us geeks to see what we can get. It's a let down when we increase the multiplier by 2 or 3 digits and immediately hit a thermal barrier, especially when we paid a little more and got a little less, as far as new instructions goes, to have that unlocked processor. [enter car analogy] If I could afford a Ferrari, there's very few places I'd be able to take advantage of it's capabilities but I'd still go out and buy one because I want it. I'd buy a separate car if my main goal was efficiency.

If you're trying to get me to understand why Intel is doing what it's doing, you don't need to. I get it, I just don't particularly like it, and not "needing" more performance doesn't make me dislike the situation any less, but it is what it is, and I'll deal.

 

[toyota]

I personally would not overclock if I did not "need" to. there would be no point as I get no entertainment from looking at 4.4 in cpu z.

 

[tential]

Not a whole lot, encoding, certain games here and there, but you're clearly missing the point. It's not about what we "need' it's about what we want. Many people over clock not because they need to, but because they want to and it's fun for us geeks to see what we can get. It's a let down when we increase the multiplier by 2 or 3 digits and immediately hit a thermal barrier, especially when we paid a little more and got a little less, as far as new instructions goes, to have that unlocked processor. [enter car analogy] If I could afford a Ferrari, there's very few places I'd be able to take advantage of it's capabilities but I'd still go out and buy one because I want it. I'd buy a separate car if my main goal was efficiency.

If you're trying to get me to understand why Intel is doing what it's doing, you don't need to. I get it, I just don't particularly like it, and not "needing" more performance doesn't make me dislike the situation any less, but it is what it is, and I'll deal.

So... we could go back to the P4 days if you want. That'd be a lot of fun.
Hey, at least we'd see high numbers in CPU-Z!

Joking by the way before people freak out.

 

[2is]

I was thinking more the Core 2 through Sandy Bridge days. Good IPC AND good overclocks.

 

[chizow]

Holy sh*t!
I just keep saving money on my purchase. Thanks for the heads up, will head to MC to get my price protection adjustment.

Nice! Glad it saved you a couple bucks! Yeah once you get into that $120-130 range for one of these boards that are selling for ~$200 at Newegg, it really becomes a killer deal.

I finally got around to finalizing my install (spent a few days trying to recover my RAID array) and got around to overclocking a bit. So far I'm stable at 4.3GHz at 1.238V (+0.030V offset), I don't want to go higher right now with the cooler I have installed. It's a bit too weak imo, so I'll probably wait to push it harder until I get an H100 or equivalent in there.

 

[dinker99]

But like I've asked multiple times before. What applications do you use that would benefit from more CPU processing power?

Cinema 4D, Adobe Creative Suite, Sony Vegas Pro, etc.

A computer should do everything instantly, quite frankly I don`t know how people can use the average laptop.

I bought an X79 board last year because it was plain that Intel were going down the low-power IGP route. I now have an upgrade path which does not involve Haswell, Ivy Bridge Extreme.

 

[Michael Meio]

Other than the new color scheme on 1150 MoBo's from Asus, I couldn't care less.

If Intel thought about the market segment I belong to, they would be selling Integrated Graphics-free Haswells today.

If MoBo manufacturers other than MSI -that I know of- have had a bios out supporting Xeons, which is the only line that as of today has no embedded stupidity, I'd consider.

But no. Haswell is not for us.

I want no bull integrated graphics just sitting there, consuming more pow and demanding more cooling. I want MoBos without any graphics connector and more USB or buttons on the I/O shield.

What we really want is dedicated GPU.

I will not buy or build with Haswells for as long as possible. They offer no RL benefit and the way I can still set up a Xeon w/ H77 is and will be perfect for more than everyday average needs, cheaper, cooler and stable.

They are ugly, I reckon!

ciao

 

[JBT]

Notebook sure. 2500K still kicking just fine.

 

[poohbear]

It's advancing, just in a different direction.

To clarify what I said simply ask yourself this:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU processing power do for you?

Then ask yourself:
What benefits would a 25% increase in CPU efficiency do for you?

I'm positive that only 1% of people (enthusiasts) would be happy with the first option.

The other 99% (general users) would be happy with the second option due to being able to now have a faster phone, tablet, or macbook air.

U hit the nail on the head with this.

Even for gaming @ 1080p + u wont see a difference with a more powerful cpu, its all GPU bound @ that point. So yes the question still stands, what WOULD anyone do with more cpu power?

 

[Name User]

what WOULD anyone do with more cpu power?

videogames are for babies, i'd rather create than consume

if you want a flashback to turbo button era computing, try running a few linear phase equalizers at a high sampling rate

it's not that computers have gotten fast but it's the things that we use them for have gotten slow, it's commodity fetishism with no application

watch some streaming 1080p product placement, play something derivative, listen to something selected for you

oh wait I'm sorry I'm still on Anandtech forums? Woops I thought I was on libcom.org