Topic 'Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock' in forum 'PC Hardware Discussion/Reviews' - dslreports.com

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:46:26 EDT

Chrno posted : Crysis actually runs with the Intel integrated graphics and it's passable at low settings but what did you expect from a on-die graphics processing unit? You won't be able to run Crysis with full quality settings A10-5800K either.

I can run WoW with the Cata patch no problems on HD4000, screen res is 1600*900.

Too bad the whole market isn't made up of people who all want to run Crysis at full quality settings; otherwise you would right.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:00:01 EDT

me1212 posted : The compusa here went out of business when microcenter came to town.

Besides I've got an x6 1045t in my server right now, I'd just like a decent 8 core to come out that had a usable gpu for other stuff.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:48:41 EDT

C0deZer0 posted : As I said to someone in the store, "intel video for gaming is like being born HIV positive and your parents not having the decency to tell you."
--
Because, f*ck Sony

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:31:48 EDT

trparky posted : Intel integrated graphics may be enough to put some video on the screen and run Windows 7 Aero but that's about it.

When I say leave graphics up to the people who know graphics, I'm talking about those people who know how to make high-end graphics cards and chipsets that can run games such as Crysis at full quality settings. Don't even try running Crysis on an Intel integrated graphics chip! It's a futile effort!
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:29:06 EDT

trparky posted : Chrno , read what C0deZer0 said. He speaks truth!

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:49:53 EDT

C0deZer0 posted :

said by me1212:

I would buy an 8 core apu(assuming it was priced right) from amd in a heart beat. Decent graphics(assuming not gaming) and plenty of cores for good code compiling speed.

Well, for what it's worth, a recent trip to CompUSA here had an A10-5800K chip for $120. Four Cores and an integrated Radeon 7660 isn't too shabby.
--
Because, f*ck Sony

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:48:56 EDT

C0deZer0 posted :

said by trparky:

I seriously don't like integrated graphics. I've always gone with a discrete graphics card, even in notebooks. Leave graphics up to the people who know graphics and do it well, nVidia.

I'm not fond of it either, but AMD managed to do something that reasonably works with their Fusion chips.

What I still don't like is how intel can call theirs actual graphics at all, and how they continue to purport that these are gamer-worthy chips, when independent review sites demonstrate rather clearly that even their current top-end iGPU can't even physically run a third of the games meant for an entry-level graphics evaluation. And then when you read the fine print, their tested settings to get playable framerates involved running something like vanilla WoW on low or minimal settings, when...
•vanilla WoW is nowhere near as graphically intensive as even the current build of WoW, and
•If they wanted to impress, they could try instead running it against something intentionally taxing, like RAGE or Metro 2033.

If anything, it comes off as a sign of contempt from intel toward those that try to defend PC gaming as a viable platform. It certainly doesn't help when someone who is new to the paradigm and doesn't know any better ends up buying one of these pre-builds with their integrated graphics and finds that it can barely run even a two-year old PC game, much less to the same level of graphical quality and speed that the current-gen console could. They then get turned off and instead of upgrading as necessary, decide to swear off altogether and go with the console and say "PC sucks for gaming" on forums like this one.
--
Because, f*ck Sony

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:41:20 EDT

Chrno posted : Wow, that's a big laugh. Have you even tried running a game with the HD3000 or HD4000 processor graphics? Just a FYI, Intel owns more than 50% of the graphics market and the rest is split between nvidia and AMD. Leave graphics to the nvidia like how they did with the G84/G86/G92/G94 debacle. Lets not forget all those product renames. GTX 580M and GTX 570M one year while GTX 675M and GTX 670M the next. That's real innovation right there.

I can run Diablo 3 and WoW fine on my laptop which is running HD4000.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:44:40 EDT

me1212 posted : I would buy an 8 core apu(assuming it was priced right) from amd in a heart beat. Decent graphics(assuming not gaming) and plenty of cores for good code compiling speed.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:41:49 EDT

trparky posted : I seriously don't like integrated graphics. I've always gone with a discrete graphics card, even in notebooks. Leave graphics up to the people who know graphics and do it well, nVidia.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:15:51 EDT

C0deZer0 posted :

said by ccallana:

While I know nothing about the CPU performance, I think there are many other compelling attributes of Haswell over Ivy Bridge for several segments of the user base. Power consumption on certain SKUs is likely to be much better - making for thinner/lighter Ultrabooks. I'm pretty sure graphics performance will be increased as well - for those who care :) (most folks here put in add-in cards anyhow)

Haswell is not my program, so I can't speak definitively either way :)

Maybe now, Haswell's iGPU will actually run all the games on Anand's and Tom's Hardware's entry-level gaming tests. ;) For a change... ;)

Ooh, maybe by then AMD will make an 8-core Fusion with an integrated 7900 series GPU in it. But what am I saying...? One miracle at a time, right? :)
--
Because, f*ck Sony

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:18:12 EDT

me1212 posted : Thats assuming the developers properly optimize.

Still thats a good point. the IPC boost may not be much, and the igp may be useless to most of us here, but there are other features that could entice us to upgrade.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:02:21 EDT

trparky posted : That's one of the things that annoyed me about Intel for years but I overlook it because Intel has been pouncing on AMD for years ever since the Core 2 Duo came out and AMD has yet to really come back with an answer to Intel's dominance.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:00:32 EDT

trparky posted : Then why has AMD stuck with the same socket for years?

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:24:48 EDT

ccallana posted : New sockets are usually driven by some new external technology - DDR3 to DDR4 for instance, or the need for more power/ground connections. While I can't say for certain, some changes are made just to physically prevent older parts from getting plugged in - usually for a good reason, like the voltages are different, etc - because even though a package says "this isn't supported" - if it fits, somebody will plug it in, and then claim no fault. :) What I can say, is that the reason is never "oooh, oooh, here is a way we can screw the system builders and make them buy more parts, let's change the socket!"
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:20:29 EDT

signmeuptoo posted : Ok, and it doesn't actually affect me anyways because I can't afford it. But why a new socket?

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 07:21:03 EDT

pandora posted :

said by koitsu:

but I rarely upgrade my CPUs these days purely based on getting a performance boost.

THAT is a great point. I don't need increased CPU performance at this time. Lower TDP, and a much better GPU would be appreciated.

At the moment, the biggest issue for me is the 4000 GPU is almost good enough for stand along gaming. Work on the GPU, and eliminate the need to buy a video card, and I'll be upgrading just about everything (assuming increased GPU performance still lowers total TDP compared to a discrete GPU).
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman"

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:11:21 EDT

trparky posted :

said by ccallana:

*nobody* is saying here that Intel is backing away from the general PC business. What *I* am trying to say, is that the analysts, you know, the ones who basically make the stock market move up and down (it has very little to do with the actual performance of the company) - say something to the effect, "we think that the general computer PC business is dead, and the only area that means anything for a CPU company is making Tablet and Phone processors, and if a company doesn't, they are crap, and we won't invest in them"

I love it how the people who know absolutely shit about the market get to drive the market that they know nothing about. It makes no sense at all. But then again, whoever said that this world makes any sense.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:06:26 EDT

ccallana posted : *nobody* is saying here that Intel is backing away from the general PC business. What *I* am trying to say, is that the analysts, you know, the ones who basically make the stock market move up and down (it has very little to do with the actual performance of the company) - say something to the effect, "we think that the general computer PC business is dead, and the only area that means anything for a CPU company is making Tablet and Phone processors, and if a company doesn't, they are crap, and we won't invest in them"

So those people, who may or may not know *anything* about a PC, or even the PC business, have a say so in how things happen, and companies *have* to respond.

Intel is investing *heavily* in the standard user base. True, the market for PCs is shifting. The plain black/beige desktop box is sliding away, laptops have been out pacing desktops for a *long* time. I think in the "normal" user environment you will see 2 types of systems leading the way: The "ultrabook" type systems - super thin, super light, but not lacking in performance; and the "All-in-one" desktop system, a PC in a Monitor basically. (which really is just an ultrabook with a 27" screen as far as the hardware is concerned.) Sure, the build-your-own crowd will frown upon both of these options as non-expandable, non-configurable - so there is still a market for individual components, but I think your standard user will shy away from such systems.

As has already been said, Haswell doesn't even go on sale for *months* and many people here are already writing it off as a loser part. Perhaps we can wait until real units, and real numbers are available.... I do not believe for one moment that the architects and design engineers for Haswell said, ever, "you know, we don't really *need* to make this CPU any faster, so let's not". That is *never* part of the conversation. But there are tradeoffs that have to be made - so *if* (and I say that because we don't really know at this point) the CPU gains are not as large as perhaps was expected by the know-it-alls who do *not* design chips for Intel, it is only because it was deemed more important to put effort elsewhere.

As far as I know, nobody here is an actual chip designer for Intel here in this thread - if you are, and you know more about this than I do, please, correct me. :)

(btw - for those who don't know, I *am* an Intel employee. Currently Software testing for tablet graphics drivers, but formerly a CPU and Chipset validation engineer. My comments are my own, based on public information - I do not speak for the company in any official or unofficial way, and nothing here should be construed as such)
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:06:02 EDT

Da Man posted : Haswell introduces AVX2,FMA3,BMI2, and TSX. Don't expect much from legacy programs but it should give a big increase to optimized programs.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:13:48 EDT

Octavean posted :

said by ccallana:

30% gains in any product are not reasonable year on year. Especially in a mature market.

And I would venture to say Intel is *not* slowing down on CPU performance - but if you look at the general computing market, for the *vast* majority of users, there is no need for huge jumps in performance. So where the huge volumes are, there is no need to spend a bunch of money to increase basic desktop/laptop CPU performance by huge leaps and bounds. So in the volume products, other areas are likely being focused on. In the performance markets, Workstation, Server, high-end desktop, etc - there is plenty of new horsepower coming.

Keep in mind Intel is a publicly traded company, with a huge advantage in their old market, but is a nobody in the market that most people care about these days - tablets and phones. As a company, they *have* to become a major player in that market, or be moved into irrelevance. So don't be surprised when much of the company's energy is being sent that way - it is vital for the survival of the entire company.

To be honest I didn't expect much of a (CPU) performance increase from Ivy Bridge and I don't expect much of a (CPU) performance increase from Haswell.

Everything you said above is basically what I expected or surmised and I thought I said something similar earlier in the thread.

So no I wouldn't be surprised by a shift in priorities on such products.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:30:39 EDT

trparky posted : Aren't we only talking about basic benchmarks here? We've not seen numbers from real-world applications. So really we can't say what is going on here.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:24:56 EDT

signmeuptoo posted : But WEI moved up even so. I'm not so sure that Win7 wasn't a new challenge to hardware on some levels. And Win8 is something of a significant change under the hood and in interface.

Even so, if a new OS flately and absolutely doesn't justify a measurable increase in performance, there is still software, games, apps, more demanding web use...

The bottleneck hasn't been the CPU in countless years, I hope it won't be in the coming years.

If Win8 would mean my aged Phenom Quad would deliver more performance, maybe I need to get it? What measure of increase in performance is there? I've heard nothing of this, so I have to ask.

Furthermore: if the only improvements are a better iGPU and less power used, why must consumers have to live in yet another socket change? Is intel expecting they have the right to force people into a new socket and new mainboard chipset because of those reasons?

Sounds more like change for changes sake as I reflect on this. I guess it's good since I cannot afford a new build anyways. My old Phenom II Quad will remain adequate then, so why bother getting an Intel system? Better I put any money I have into SSDs perhaps?
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:10:51 EDT

trparky posted :

said by signmeuptoo:

A new Win OS is out. With every new rollout of OSs there has been a need for more "horsepower" or the new OS meant a slower system. There IS a need to provide hardware that will work up to the OSs ramp up.

Actually, Windows has gotten smaller as of late. Remember the release of Windows Vista and how high the Recommended Specifications were? Then Windows 7 came out and its Recommended Specifications were lower.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:06:02 EDT

signmeuptoo posted : Show us a provable significant drop in PC and laptop sales that will support them backing away from those consumers.

A new Win OS is out. With every new rollout of OSs there has been a need for more "horsepower" or the new OS meant a slower system. There IS a need to provide hardware that will work up to the OSs ramp up.

You don't slough off a hand that feeds you because you see another hand in the distance. Sure, Intel NEEDS to get on the ball with the new industries, but this is hardly the time to back away from their loyal consumer base that got them to where they are, they have a responsibility to their consumers.

But debate aside. What percentage performance increase IS reasonable?1/10 of 1%? or something measurable? When AMD failed to give noticeable increases, they were slammed badly. Why shouldn't Intel taste the same medicine from critics?

OR at least a reasonable explanation of what is going on.

Just a more electrically efficient processor after years of more power is not going to settle well with the cognoscenti out there. There needs to be justification to spending a whole, what, $150-$600 on a new mainboard, plus $100-$300 on RAM, plus $100-$1000 on a new CPU, or even more.

To remain relevant you need to keep your customers, and give them a reason to buy something new over something old. Not taking risks, not pushing the envelope, shifting resources significantly away from established consumers? If that is what is happening, AMD might have a chance at a comeback...

I think Intel is jumping the gun if they are already backing out of the PC business. Are they? Are they partly?

Over reacting to the infancy of a shift in consumer attitudes, walking away from a bread basket, that certainly doesn't bode well for the new base.
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:40:24 EDT

ccallana posted : 30% gains in any product are not reasonable year on year. Especially in a mature market.

And I would venture to say Intel is *not* slowing down on CPU performance - but if you look at the general computing market, for the *vast* majority of users, there is no need for huge jumps in performance. So where the huge volumes are, there is no need to spend a bunch of money to increase basic desktop/laptop CPU performance by huge leaps and bounds. So in the volume products, other areas are likely being focused on. In the performance markets, Workstation, Server, high-end desktop, etc - there is plenty of new horsepower coming.

Keep in mind Intel is a publicly traded company, with a huge advantage in their old market, but is a nobody in the market that most people care about these days - tablets and phones. As a company, they *have* to become a major player in that market, or be moved into irrelevance. So don't be surprised when much of the company's energy is being sent that way - it is vital for the survival of the entire company.
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:16:49 EDT

signmeuptoo posted : I think what Octavean is saying is right and reasonable. Has Intel backed off because they don't have competition? Are we reaching a wall already in the tech? I should think that expecting 30% performance gain in the CPU for the dollar should be reasonable. I realize a wall is approaching with lithography, but we're not there yet, are we?
--
Join Teams Helix and Discovery. Rest in Peace, Leonard David Smith, my best friend, you are missed badly! Rest in peace, Pop, glad our last years were good. Please pray for Colin, he has ependymoma, a brain cancer, donate to a children's Hospital.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:08:38 EDT

Octavean posted :

said by ccallana:

Performance gains in CPU maybe are not as big, but performance gains in the GPU are increasing significantly. More and more die space is being used for GPU instead of CPU (percentage wise).

I wouldn't say the direction is similar to Microsoft's at all.....

That depends on ones perspective,....

I personally don't really care much about iGPU. My main system right now is Core i7 3930K based.

The Intel iGPU does have its place (Quick Sync, mobile and so on) but not everyone is into that. Keeping CPU performance stagnant in favor of increasing iGPU performance isn't a decision that I find favorable.

Mobile computing may receive Windows 8 a little better then desktop so it might be a lot more like it IMO then one might think.

And for the record I use Windows 8 Pro (3 licenses) with the new UI / Metro and like it just fine. I'm not sour on Windows 8 I'm just using it as an example and that example is that it isn't for everyone,....

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:12:36 EDT

ccallana posted : Performance gains in CPU maybe are not as big, but performance gains in the GPU are increasing significantly. More and more die space is being used for GPU instead of CPU (percentage wise).

I wouldn't say the direction is similar to Microsoft's at all.....
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:10:27 EDT

Krisnatharok posted :

said by jchambers28:

I Hope Intel does not scrap sockets.

»www.tomshardware.com/news/LGA-BG···594.html

Buddy... this has been discussed ad naseum.

I think we will have sockets stay for a couple desktop models, but the trend will be towards doing away with them for small form factor/mobile applications.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:46:58 EDT

Octavean posted : We've seen changes before in the industry,....

The race to 1GHz and overall raw speed gave way to dual cores / quad cores / oct core with speed-step / turbo. Smarter processors and so on,....

Right now it looks like Intel is very concerned with competition from ARM, which, necessitates focusing on the efficiency that the industry shift towards mobile computing requires.

So performance gains look like they are being sacrificed for efficiency gains or at least that has been my prediction for a while now. With little to no competition from AMD it makes sense for Intel to go after the ARM threat. The problem with that though is that its an approach similar to Microsoft's approach with Windows 8,...that is to say going in a direction that not everyone cares to go in.

Its still a little too early to say what the performance of Haswell will be.

However, if Ivy Bridge wasn't a significant performance increase over Sandy bridge then Haswell really should be IMO.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:04:23 EDT

jchambers28 posted : I Hope Intel does not scrap sockets.

»www.tomshardware.com/news/LGA-BG···594.html

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:19:27 EDT

ccallana posted : I agree they know crap - but the reason Intel stock is still at $21 is because of what *they* say.

Intel is king of the existing market, is making huge strides in the low power space and has a killer lineup of products over the next few years - but all the analyst folks can say is "the pc is dead, so Intel must be dead too"

Intel will still serve the top end of the market, that is not going away. Anyone who actually thinks that hasn't followed things very long. :)
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:50:11 EDT

KrK posted : Actually, it's more important then you think. Less power usage and less heat allows for more shrinkage and circuits onto ever smaller areas of silicon. In effect, less power usage and lower heat production allows for more powerful CPU's in a smaller form factor.

The Haswell has several revolutionary aspects to it. The new form of "3D" (ug) Transistors, for example.

Clearly, however Haswell IS aimed at the "whole system on a chip" applications such as tablets, Ultrabooks, etc etc.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:21:53 EDT

CylonRed posted :

said by Morris0:

We don't need innovation to save power. The slower existing processors do that just fine.

They want to use less power (cooler) with no drop-off in performance.
--
Brian

"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:19:13 EDT

pnjunction posted : That's fine for consumer stuff but people like me doing CAD and stuff still want all the performance they can get. I'm not going to have as much motivation to drop huge money on new compute servers and workstations if the performance gains aren't significant. The machines we are buying now pack two Xeon E5-2690's that run about $2k each, that's $4k straight to Intel of the ~8k price!

More performance per watt is obviously good, it means more cores per chip with the same power consumption.

Unfortunately however not every computation is threaded to take advantage of many cores. We see this in the gaming scene where a dual core i3 can beat an 8-core AMD CPU because it's single-thread performance is superior. »www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far···9-7.html And let's not forget that in the consumer market, gamers are the ones dropping the big cash for high-end CPUs on relatively short upgrade cycles.

I think much of this could be addressed in software. Not sure about the games but I know for a fact that calculations that could be threaded in the software I use are not. For example I want to analyze a circuit at 1000 different frequencies, and I bang my head on the desk as I watch 1 core of my 16-core process each frequency in order. That is a blatant example that could be fixed pretty easily, but there are other problems that are much harder to break up.

(One piece of good news on the gaming front is that both next-gen Xbox and Playstation are rumoured to be packing 8-core AMD CPUs. This may give game developers the kick they need to develop increasingly multi-threaded games, and x86/64 compatible to boot.)

In summary performance, and thread performance, are still important to many consumers and businesses, not to mention the consumers and businesses which are buying the highest quantities of Intel's most expensive processors.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:15:33 EDT

Morris0 posted : We don't need innovation to save power. The slower existing processors do that just fine.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:05:00 EDT

me1212 posted : To buggery with the 'analysts', they know crap. The desktop is not dead, nor will any of the computing markets ever die.

I'm all for getting lower power consumption and more PPW, but that is no excuse to not progress technology power. Just because the isheep dont use a desktop doesn't mean those parts cant be used to progress out world.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:45:28 EDT

ccallana posted : What, like sell a bazzilion processors and hold 80%+ of the tradition client market?

What the big chip companies did "best" last year is no longer good enough. Low power is the name of the game - performance per watt. That is where the effort is going these days :) Go read the analysts reports. According to them, the "pc" is dead - mobile computing is where it is at. Can't put a Core i7 in a tablet.... (yet). Of course, still can't make the top end *slower*.. :)
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:36:42 EDT

me1212 posted : Most of us here have getter gpus anyway, and amd may even have better gpus. Intel is ignoring the one thing they did best.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:56:40 EDT

Chrno posted : I think they are missing the point here. The current processor performance metric shouldn't be superpi anymore as the modern processor contains 1 or more arithmetic as well as 1 or more graphics processing cores. I think the major focus for this tock is on the GPU which they failed to take measure of. If my guess is correct, there should be a 150%-200% increase in performance for the on-die GPU.

BTW, a tick is suppose to be a new processing node while a tock is new architecture

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:59:00 EDT

El Quintron posted :

said by racer9876:

Hickory dickery dock.

The mouse didn't run up the clock...
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:07:21 EDT

racer9876 posted : Hickory dickery dock.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:07:09 EDT

ccallana posted : Tock is the new process with older architecture - Sandy Bridge.
Tick is the new architecture with proven process - Ivy Bridge.

Haswell is the Tock - sticking with the 22nm process, new micro-architecture.

--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:54:01 EDT

Mike posted : Haswell appears to be the "flop"

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:18:15 EDT

trparky posted : I thought that Sandy Bridge was the "tick" and Ivy Bridge was the "tock".

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:03:39 EDT

Krisnatharok posted : I wouldn't put too much stock in an early engineering sample. That said, I want to believe it's a significant improvement, so perhaps I should just buy an i5-3570k and be done with it. :(
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:02:39 EDT

koitsu posted : So let's pretend for a moment the performance between the two models is more or less the same (just assume give or take 3-5%). That's not a big improvement, agreed -- but I rarely upgrade my CPUs these days purely based on getting a performance boost.

So what does Haswell offer that Ivy Bridge doesn't? Lower TDP? Lower average power usage (not the same as TDP)? More on-die features? I haven't researched the model.

My point is this: if Haswell is "marginally faster" (~3%), yet its power draw is, say, 25% less, then that's a still an improvement, just not in the performance category. This sort of thing would matter especially to folks who run in low airflow environments or hae mass numbers of these processors (25% power savings is pretty dramatic when you have, say, a hundred boxes).
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:35:46 EDT

me1212 posted : I think intel may be giving amd a chance to catch up, so they dont become a monopoly which could cause the government to break them up. Kinda like how the p4 and PD werent as good as amd so they got a bit more cash, then the c2d/c2q came out and BOOM.

Is what I would say were I a conspiracy theorist.

In reality they are trying to catch up to amd's apus. The integrated haswell gpu went toe to toe with a 650m supposedly(»Haswell iGPU will equal GT 650M performance). Truth be told I would be surprised if amd's next gen apu wasnt better than that since they are already so far a head of intel.

Putting their emphasis on the gpu makes the cpu lack behind.

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:28:22 EDT

ccallana posted : While I know nothing about the CPU performance, I think there are many other compelling attributes of Haswell over Ivy Bridge for several segments of the user base. Power consumption on certain SKUs is likely to be much better - making for thinner/lighter Ultrabooks. I'm pretty sure graphics performance will be increased as well - for those who care :) (most folks here put in add-in cards anyhow)

Haswell is not my program, so I can't speak definitively either way :)
--
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis