Haswell-E, 8 cores, DDR4

[crashtech]

Droves? One can dream...

 

[Pheesh]

]"intel white papers clearly state solder interface are higher cost, lower yields, developed for maintaining specs at stock"

Appreciate the links, but I didn't see that clearly stated anywhere in them.

Where are you concluding that flux/solder is more expensive than TIM on a raw material basis? What I have seen in the industry indicates otherwise.

The introduction of Pb-free solder-based TIM materials
posed significant integration challenges. The STIM
needed to relieve the mechanical stress caused by CTE
mismatch of the integrated heat spreader lid and the
silicon die and to minimize stress transfer to the silicon
die during thermal cycling [6].

And this kind of supports the point that the interface between IHS and the die can be bigger concern for mechanical stresses than the die to PCB.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Sounds like a real winner and honestly I'm surprised Intel didn't release an 8 core sooner. They probably declined to do so since they couldn't practically stick it in a laptop. Apparently they must now realize that the desktop market is still important and with the new Mac Pro making a bit of a splash, they know their are probably droves of Windows PC users who would want more than 4 cores. Maybe MS pressured them?

Could this also be a little bit of why the desktop market is stagnating? When you use the same chips for laptop and desktop (more or less), then you can get the same horsepower in a high-end laptop as you can with a high-end desktop (well, minus the high-end multi-GPU rigs).

If you could get 8-core on the desktop, but only 4-core on a laptop, wouldn't some customers with high demands, stick with desktop, instead of going mobile? Thus keeping the desktop market relevant and healthy?

 

[Ayah]

Could this also be a little bit of why the desktop market is stagnating? When you use the same chips for laptop and desktop (more or less), then you can get the same horsepower in a high-end laptop as you can with a high-end desktop (well, minus the high-end multi-GPU rigs).

If you could get 8-core on the desktop, but only 4-core on a laptop, wouldn't some customers with high demands, stick with desktop, instead of going mobile? Thus keeping the desktop market relevant and healthy?

Comes back to the world of "good enough" computing. Heavy users will still use workstations, at least until we go more "cloud"-type, as in offloading heavy duty computing to a fixed emplacement. (could be a local setup).
Still can't get a laptop with >100GB of ram and >40Gb/s network speeds. Though if there was actually demand for it, I can totally see someone doing a DP laptop.

Considering how many people (enthusiasts) went IVB over SB-E, "good enough" computing seems fine. Especially with the abysmal memory capacity of LGA115[5/0]. People who use non G34 AMD also fall into this category.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Give consumers the capacity to buy a better product and perhaps they'll buy into it. While quad core i series users don't have to worry at all about getting good game performance for the most part, perhaps with coming multiplatform games optimized for 8 cores/thread consoles + GPGPU, 8 full speed (>3.0 GHz) cores of computing power will help to guarantee a general performance advantage, especially as the generation drags on. While a PS4 or XboxOne game might use GPGPU on the consoles, it could forgo GPGPU on the PC because the CPU provides the necessary GFLOPS (depending on application and implementation).

Skipping an included IGP, an 8 core Haswell would be pretty awesome at a decent price point, but being a premium CPU part, Intel would likely charge $1000.

 

[aigomorla]

Nooo! You can hold out . We should start a Nehalem club for us that have these old geezer CPUs.

i cant..

pci-e 2.0 can not handle 3x780GTX.

which i think is the direction i am gonna go this xmas... unless ATI can suprise me with a Zeus which dances with titans at half price.

 

[IntelUser2000]

If you could get 8-core on the desktop, but only 4-core on a laptop, wouldn't some customers with high demands, stick with desktop, instead of going mobile? Thus keeping the desktop market relevant and healthy?

Not necessarily.

Because only certain subset of people will care for it. You gotta think of not "whether people will upgrade because its faster" but "whether people will upgrade based on whether that faster is worth paying for".

The latter is significantly less than the former. You'd have lot of people who'd buy video cards because theirs lags on their game they currently play and care about. But you'd have lot less upgrading to go from 30 to 60 fps. And lot less after that. It's a "need" vs "want".

Then for companies like Intel that's trying to keep a business, the matter becomes whether its worth it to keep continuing based on that ever shrinking market..

 

[moonbogg]

If you care about gaming, you can get Haswell-E performance for your games right now. Just buy a quad core Haswell.
At first I was excited about this, but not so much anymore. As a gamer, an 8 core Haswell would go precisely 50% to waste.

 

[Kippa]

Do you think realistically that a 6 core IVY could meet the demands of a next gen console port running on a 4k res pc? I am not so sure.

 

[crashtech]

Maybe not, but what at that point would be better? If Ivy-E is soldered as speculated, it should give deliver higher performance per core than Haswell due to higher clockspeed and other goodies that come with the LGA2011 platform.

 

[Blitzvogel]

If you care about gaming, you can get Haswell-E performance for your games right now. Just buy a quad core Haswell.
At first I was excited about this, but not so much anymore. As a gamer, an 8 core Haswell would go precisely 50% to waste.

At the current moment sure, but in 2014 with the new consoles out, CPU needs might go way up. Even if the 8 Jaguar cores at 1.6 GHz are barely half the capability of a 3.0 GHz quad Ivy or Haswell, it's necessary to consider what you may need when the consoles, especially the PS4, actually make real use of GPGPU. What would be even more interesting is if PC games next gen actually make use of GPGPU when an AMD APU is present.

 

[moonbogg]

Do you think realistically that a 6 core IVY could meet the demands of a next gen console port running on a 4k res pc? I am not so sure.

The res has nothing to do with the CPU, right? Quad core games run OK on a dual core with HT, so it may follow that a game designed for 8 cores would run well on a 6 core with HT.
I also wonder if all of those 8 cores in the consoles will be used for running the game itself. Maybe there are some specific functions that some of those cores will be doing that are not directly related to the game engine. Some of those cores may be used for motion sensing, network activity or something else right? In any case, I think it will be several years before games make good use of 8 threads.
Tell me i'm wrong please. Tell me that next year I will need an 8 core CPU for the latest games.

 

[Enigmoid]

Do you think realistically that a 6 core IVY could meet the demands of a next gen console port running on a 4k res pc? I am not so sure.

Well that ivy core is running more than twice as fast with significantly better IPC....

 

[moonbogg]

I did some reading, and i'm not the only one who is skeptical. Some of those cores (maybe half of them) are likely reserved for other tasks that the consoles are designed to do besides gaming. I'm willing to bet that a modern i5 CPU will be enough to survive the entire lifespan of the PS4 ports.

 

[Sweepr]

Interesting slide:

Haswell-E is coming in just two flavour: 6C/12 and 8C/16T.

Time for the $300 6C/12T Intel CPU we've been waiting for? Maybe Haswell Refresh will cover lower price points.

 

[x3sphere]

Interesting slide:

Haswell-E is coming in just two flavour: 6C/12 and 8C/16T.

Time for the $300 6C/12T Intel CPU we've been waiting for? Maybe Haswell Refresh will cover lower price points.

Maybe. Guessing the 8C part will cost $1k though :\

 

[tential]

u see why i rage so hard at intel lately?

i have no freaken clue on what intel is exactly trying to do.

And yes i also feel they are trying to kill the mainstream of overclocking..
slowly stringing u guys to death sort of speak.

And trying to push overclockers into the more expensive territory known as enterprise.

For the longest time us overclockers have been milking the lower end cpu's and pushing them way above the extreme end cpus even.

Seems like intel doesn't like that anymore and they are starting to punish...



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

+1

my new name!! fromgulftown->SB-E Ivy-E Haswell-E *pending scratch*

Yes, because intel cares MOST about overclockers. Because they represent SO MUCH of the CPU buying population. I swear, almost every CPU in a PC with intel inside is probably overclocked.

/sarcasm

You know exactly what intel is doing. Focusing on making money by selling CPUs the 99% of people need, instead of purchasing a CPU that can be overclocked past a $1000 cpu level and cannibalizing their own sales.

 

[exar333]

Do you think realistically that a 6 core IVY could meet the demands of a next gen console port running on a 4k res pc? I am not so sure.

All you really need is a circa C2Q and you have the same CPU performance.

I think you are confused between the CPU and GPU...

 

[Sweepr]

Maybe. Guessing the 8C part will cost $1k though :\

I'd be happy to spend $300 on an 6C/12T Haswell-E.
It would be the spiritual successor to my good old i7 920 D0.

 

[tweakboy]

I doubt youll see a Haswell 8 core chip. 8 core will be for Xeon line of processors. Its gonna remain 6core until Haswell E 8 core possibly.

 

[Makaveli]

dude i cant even wait til 2015...

My gulftown system will be so ancient old its like a classic being displayed.

i guess im back at looking at Ivy...

If I can do it so can you

High-end Westmeres are still a force to be reckoned with. Lots of heat to dissipate, but unlike 8350 they have the chops to back it up if you can use software that will load them down.

Agreed with proper cooling you still got a beast old beast but still...

 

[escrow4]

Hmmm, looks like this is fairly definite for 2014, so I'll be skipping IB-E, and sinking $2K into Haswell-E instead. My 3930K will easily last another year and a bit.

 

[Hixbot]

All you really need is a circa C2Q and you have the same CPU performance.

Lets not forget that developers are able to bleed more end-result performance out of a slow console than a similiar spec'd PC.
Console SDK platforms allow coding much closer to metal than Windows with Direct X/OpenGL. Developers can also tweak the game design around a specific hardware platform with consoles while with PCs they have no such luxury, and it's usually a port that suffers much inefficiencies.
Developers can also make use of GPU compute in consoles knowing exactly the compute abilities of the hardware, while with PCs it is not so simple to expect specific GPU compute abilities.
The overhead of a multi-purpose OS like Windows and it's many background services is also a factor.

 

[rge2]

Maybe. Guessing the 8C part will cost $1k though :\

Ivy E likely coming with $300 4 core, and $500 6 core, and $1000 6 core with slightly higher stock MHz/more cache.

So hopefully Haswell E will be coming similarly, $300 6 core, then $500 and $1000 version of 8 core.

Im waiting now for Haswell E as well, and will get $500 version 8 core if they have it....unless they only release $1000 version first and I have no patience at that point.

And regardless of the unsourced nonsensical internet rumor about cant solder small dies...Haswell E with TDP of 130W+ will come soldered, plus 8 cores for benching, + incremental ips gain, and better mobo features than my current one, works for me.

 

[crashtech]

Still "waiting for Haswell," aren't we. :\