- Nov 1, 2011
- 2,602
- 5
- 81
http://chinese.vr-zone.com/43824/in...luding-4770k-4670k-for-overclocking-12112012/
84W TDP, no increase in clocks, not even a single MHz
Call me disappointed, very disappointed.
I am suspicious about that TDP too. I was expecting something more or less in line with IVB's TDP, especially considering that Intel's had plenty of time to optimize the power efficiency for Haswell AND these specs indicate the same clock speed. From what I recall, the desktop SKUs will be running GT2 iGPUs which contain modified version's of IVB's shaders, so I do not expect a 7W increase solely due to the iGPU.
I think its a little sketchy. Currently ivy bridges TDP is 17 - 77w depending on the model.
Source: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/65504
Intel is all about power efficiency with Haswell.
Why would we get such high TDP products without a performance increase, and also no low TDP products available for purchase. Although clock speed != performance. Im still excited either way, I hope they dont drop the ball on this one.
http://chinese.vr-zone.com/43824/in...luding-4770k-4670k-for-overclocking-12112012/
84W TDP, no increase in clocks, not even a single MHz
Call me disappointed, very disappointed.
I don't know why people expected higher clocks with haswell, it's a WIDER core with more EXECUTIONS units build on the SAME process. And IPC is supposed to be improved. If they wanted to deliver higher clocks they would have to deepen the pipeline which would make it really hard to increase IPC.
And why do you think GPU will be BW starved? They have the same fast 8MB L3 cache connected to memory (just as in IB's case;GPU in IB does not scale with DDR3 speeds that much if at all IIRC,unlike Llano or Trinity's GPUs).
Sandy Bridge improved IPC AND clocks. Ivy Bridge didn't improve much, barely at all. I read somewhere that Ivy was not fully optimized for the 22nm process but Haswell is. So I expected Intel to catch up a bit.
I'm sure reviewers will use different memory speeds in their tests so we can see how new GPU scales with them . I'm not convinced we will see some huge gains with higher memory clocks. The main point is that GPU will be decently faster while core is being done on the same node as IB.The reason IB's graphics doesn't scale much with memory is because it's terrible. It doesn't take much bandwidth to feed the EUs if there aren't many of them and they aren't doing much work. Given that Haswell is meant to be a big jump in graphics performance, that's not going to hold any more. If they're aiming to match or beat Trinity graphics performance, then they're going to need more bandwidth. The L3 cache will help, but not that much.
Sandybridge clocks just a tiny bit better then westmere, probably because it has deeper pipeline, but it does not have more executions units.
i7 880? What happened to lga1366 CPUs? You had i7 975 which was 3.33/3.6Ghz 4C/8T part ,very close to 3.4/3.8Ghz on SB. Performance wise it was on the tail of 2600K as you can see here(SB was 6% faster in apps and 7% faster in games,overall).If we look at the desktop, the fastest CPU of the performance segment was the i7-880 at 3.06 GHz. The 2600K, its successor, clocked 10% higher and had 10-15% higher IPC, too.
My point is, we haven't seen these seizable jumps since Sandy Bridge.
If we look at the desktop, the fastest CPU of the performance segment was the i7-880 at 3.06 GHz. The 2600K, its successor, clocked 10% higher and had 10-15% higher IPC, too.
My point is, we haven't seen these seizable jumps since Sandy Bridge.
I'm sure reviewers will use different memory speeds in their tests so we can see how new GPU scales with them . I'm not convinced we will see some huge gains with higher memory clocks. The main point is that GPU will be decently faster while core is being done on the same node as IB.
i7 880? What happened to lga1366 CPUs? You had i7 975 which was 3.33/3.6Ghz 4C/8T part ,very close to 3.4/3.8Ghz on SB. Performance wise it was on the tail of 2600K as you can see here(SB was 6% faster in apps and 7% faster in games,overall).
There was a westmere Xeon at 4.5GHz, too.
I'm aware of the split in 2 segments intel did back then,but what was the price of 2600K at launch(300$?) and what was the price of top i7s for 2 other(older) sockets(965/975 and 880)? IIRC they were all cheaper than 2600K and perf./$ increase when going from either of them to new SB was not that large(look at the hardware.fr chart I linked).They belong to a different segment. Back then Intel started to split their enthusiast and performance lines up like it is today. TDP and price differ quite a bit on the 975 and the 880. You would have to compare socket 1366 CPUs with socket 2011 CPUs in the same price and TDP range.
They belong to a different segment. Back then Intel started to split their enthusiast and performance lines up like it is today. TDP and price differ quite a bit on the 975 and the 880. You would have to compare socket 1366 CPUs with socket 2011 CPUs in the same price and TDP range.
And that is relevant for the average consumer, how?
Ah yes it was because of the Extreme/X model number,you are correct. But still around the same clocks the increase was not stellar ,the main difference between the platforms was the (relatively fast) iGPU in SB core which was a big plus.The 965X and 975X had an MSRP of $999, the 880 was at $583 (they dropped the $583 performance SKU and stayed at $294-ish since then). The 2600K was much cheaper compared to these.