Haswell i7 Engineering Sample Pinned Up Against i7 3770K

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power 🙁.
 
It's not a big deal - they don't have to increase performance cause AMD is so behind, if AMD however caught up, I'm sure Intel would have something up their sleeve, but I wouldn't worry. This performance is still decent, especially since its not gonna be a MASSIVE architectural change like Penryn to Nehalem.
 
[citation][nom]fearless1333[/nom]Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .[/citation]

AMD isn't laughably behind, Yes the single threaded IPC is lower and gaming sure especially with CPU dependent games like skyrim staring it down. Also power consumption can vary wildly when overclocking and is generally more inefficient than Intel CPU's. Thing is though It is very competitive on multi-tasking chores and can be a great cheap alternative for those running those kinds of work loads. That's where that architecture shines, it was born for that and for such a small company against the goliath that is Intel the fact AMD is in the ring is pretty sweet. Everyone just clammers for the crown holder like a bunch of pre-schoolers when you have to evolve your mindstate on the entire picture rather than isolated reasons. It's a give and take.
 

This is software dev's fault, not AMD's.
The only incentive you'd want 30% better CPU than the current generation is if you're doing video/3D rendering and that has been the trend for ~5 years now. I own i5 760, which is 3 years old now and there's not a single game on the market that comes even close to being bottlenecked by it. And lastly, the software used by majority of mainstream users (media players, internet browsers, office suites) can be run on today's dual core CPUs used in phones.
 
"The new Haswell chips will be built on a smaller manufacturing process". --? Still 22nm as before. Broadwell will be the 14nm shrink.

I don't think we'll see any significant single core performance increases until the Skylake/Skymont era. Right now Intel is concentrating on GPU performance and integrating voltage regulators (Haswell) and the South Bridge (Broadwell) into the CPU package.
 
[citation][nom]fearless1333[/nom]Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .[/citation]

Intel's HD 2000-4000 GPUs are no match against AMD's APUs, assuming you don't stick in a single channel 1066 MHz RAM.
 
[citation][nom]payturr[/nom]It's not a big deal - they don't have to increase performance cause AMD is so behind, if AMD however caught up, I'm sure Intel would have something up their sleeve, but I wouldn't worry. This performance is still decent, especially since its not gonna be a MASSIVE architectural change like Penryn to Nehalem.[/citation]

Intel's main competitor is ARM, and they want to capture the tablet/phone market that ARM dominates in.

And meanwhile, ARM is trying to push into the server market, which is Intel's major money maker.
 
will there be a selection of high end i5/i7 Haswell chips without an IGP? From an enthusiast standpoint it seems like that part of the chip would be a waste.
 
This new CPU is all about faster integrated graphic chip from my gather so far. CPU performance wise should be same as Ivy Bridge but Video Chip will be much better.
 
I agree... we're just seeing the fruit of AMD not being able to compete with Intel in games or on the high end... Intel is getting to be fat and lazy.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. As someone has already stated, the problem isn't AMD. The problem is lack of market demand which is the result of mainstream software not needing anything more than a 5 year old CPU to run well. Storage/internet speeds have long since passed the CPU as the bottleneck in mainstream PC performance. Even in highend gaming PC's, the graphics subsystem has been the bottleneck for a few years now. The high powered PC is going to go the way of the mainframe. Where as the mainframe was replaced largely by cheaper commodity PC's, the home PC is going to be replaced with mobile devices. The shift is already well on its way.
 
As good as intel is on the cpu side over amd, amd holds the crown on the gpu side.Haswell's gpu should rank it slight above Llano gpu performance. With that said it will still be two generations behind amd apu gpu when richland comes out around the same time and 3 generations behind kaveri's apu gpu when it debutes later this year.
 
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]This new CPU is all about faster integrated graphic chip from my gather so far. CPU performance wise should be same as Ivy Bridge but Video Chip will be much better.[/citation]

Agreed, but it sucks for "us enthusiasts" running discrete graphics cards. We're not gaining anything because the increased transistor count on new CPU's is just going to waste on integrated graphics. Plus the low TDP allows Intel to use crappy thermal paste under the IHS. The 2600K/2700K CPU's are going to be very long-lived tech.
 
[citation][nom]fearless1333[/nom]Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .[/citation]
the market isnt in desktop computing power. the market is in the mobile market/laptop area. current gen cpus are primarily designed for maximizing laptop performance to power consumption ratio, intels main concern is to decrease the gap between its igpu and amds igpu in their APU's to have a standing on the ultrabook/low end laptop builds, as lower end laptops and ultrabooks/sleekbooks are the major %age of purchases in the market, outside of tablets and smartphones. Desktop priority comes after.
 
As mentioned above, unless AMD pushes forward, Intel has no reason to do so.
Would not surprise me if last year Intel i7-3770k would outperform future-this year AMD CPUs.
 
[citation][nom]downhill911[/nom]As mentioned above, unless AMD pushes forward, Intel has no reason to do so.Would not surprise me if last year Intel i7-3770k would outperform future-this year AMD CPUs.[/citation]
AMD won't have anything to compete with any i7. They already announced they can't compete with Intel on the high end. The company is in real trouble and they are downsizing hard.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html
 
[citation][nom]wdmfiber[/nom]AMD won't have anything to compete with any i7. They already announced they can't compete with Intel on the high end. The company is in real trouble and they are downsizing hard.http://www.tomshardware.com/news/a [...] 15741.html[/citation]

I like AMD - my first CPU was 1GHz Duron and then I had few more (Sempron etc.).
But I totally hate people running(ruining AMD).
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]You are beyond naive if you think that lack of competition doesn't play into this. If AMD suddenly pulled a miracle and had a chip that beat the crap out of Intel's 3960X, you can bet your ass that Intel would be improving its x86 performance more than 5-10% per model refresh.Where's the competition currently? Low-wattage and iGPU. So that's what Intel focuses on, leaving x86 to more or less stagnate since nobody can compete with them there anyways (and before you AMD fanboys freak out, that's a generalization for the sake of brevity and argument).Anyways, your post smacks too much of someone pretending to have been to the future, and also someone ignorant of the market that does exist for high end x86 CPU performance.[/citation]

You're wrong. If the market demanded faster CPU's, Intel would make them and bury AMD. If no one wants faster CPU's, intel isn't going to waste the huge amount of resources it takes to rapidly force out faster CPU's. Products without a market aren't developed.
 
Where's the competition currently? Low-wattage and iGPU. So that's what Intel focuses on, leaving x86 to more or less stagnate since nobody can compete with them there anyways (and before you AMD fanboys freak out, that's a generalization for the sake of brevity and argument).
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The market determines where the competition is, not vice versa. Companies aren't going to compete for customers that don't exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom