Intel Core i5, i7 Haswell Processors to be Released in June

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]yeungl[/nom]I remember Intel said, no need for faster CPU, because there is no competition.[/citation]
Guess if there was no competition we would still be in the pentium 2 era atm at 1000$ a celeron, i really really hope AMD will find it`s way back to the top soon for the good of Intel and AMD fans. As for the need for faster CPUs .. well programs still struggle to find what to do with 4 cores , and don`t wait any wonders from games as well since they are console hardware bound and we won`t see anything happen in the gaming department till the next gen consoles arrive.
 
[citation][nom]xurwin[/nom]nice! new socket. there goes my investment on past sockets. damn :| why cant they just stick to one socket for even 3years. but well its good to know they're moving up. Good job intel! now just benchmarks and price then we can decide![/citation]
Makes one wonder if they keep changing sockets just to milk more cash from us.
 
Where's the software to take advantage of these? It's not AMD's fault Intel has been dragging along for a couple of years. It's the fault of mainstream software that no longer runs perceptively faster on upgraded systems. Why continuing increasing performance at a breakneck pace when the average person can't tell the difference between state of the art and a 5 year old computer when using MS Office, iTunes, Facebook, and watching movies? Even highend gaming today is almost always GPU limited. The modern CPU has practically become irrelevant from an overall system performance perspective.
 
My overclocked i5-750 is still going strong and does everything I need it to do very well...if it ain't broke don't fix it. I see no reason to upgrade until the next generation of fully-developed 20nm gpu's arrive, which is probably two years out. It is fun to assemble a new rig, but it's an expensive proposition for a minor upgrade. I'm sure in two more years all the bells and whistles will be up and running along with very affordable ssd's.
 
[citation][nom]Sakkura[/nom]They can still be more efficient. There's just more performance there, especially on the iGPU side.[/citation]

Yep. They use the TDP advantage to get better GPU. Interesting to see how close AMD they can get... AMD will be ahead in GPU speed even after this, but soon the difference can be so small that even GPU speed is not reason big enough to chose AMD APU. AMD needs a lot of money and fast if we are gonna see some serious upgrades in CPU front in the future. Just wondering if Bill Gates foundation can give a helping hand, just to keep the CPU side interesting ;-)
 
So it is obvious that Intel have no incentive to give us significantly faster CPUs. They could have ommited the iGPU to make a 4GHz+ 4-core CPU but they chose not to make such a model.
 
the real question will be is this going to be actually worth the upgrade from the sandy bridge/ivy bridge platform now if you are still on nehalem /westmere patform then thats another story it will prob be worth the upgrade, but i'd actally like to see benchmarks to see how much performance diff this has over the sandy bridge/ivy bridge platform.
 
[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]...I just noticed the TDP was increased slightly. I thought these were more efficient.[/citation]
These are way more efficient than Ivy Bridge, the reason for the raised TDP is because the iGPU is ~2x bigger than Ivy. So if you disable the iGPU you can expect the actuial CPU to only take a little more than 1/2 the TDP, which makes for one stone cold processor... just with no major performance gain on the CPU side.
[citation][nom]milktea[/nom]I think I'll wait for the DDR4 support before upgrading.[/citation]
Same here. I am quite happy with my Sandy Bridge. I either need a major tech upgrade like DDR4, or a major motherboard upgrade to justify upgrading. I think most of my future PC budget will be sunk into graphics whenever the GTX7xx series comes out.
[citation][nom]hrmes[/nom]So it is obvious that Intel have no incentive to give us significantly faster CPUs. They could have ommited the iGPU to make a 4GHz+ 4-core CPU but they chose not to make such a model.[/citation]
I agree with you, but I think Intel thinks too much of their GPU efforts to cut it out. Having GPU on every die lowers the overall production cost compared to making seperate runs, plus there is all of the quicksync stuff which, cool as it is, is not as cool as Intel thinks it is so they will never cut it out.
 
As far as I can tell there is practically no difference between IB and Haswell. Looks like I made the right choice when I decided my i5-3570k would last me 5+ years. Until AMD makes a killer CPU (Praying for Steamroller), intel is just gonna make 5% performance improvements.
 
I am not going to upgrade until I can buy an 8-core CPU. Still using a Core2 Quad 9450 and very happy with it!
 
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]no 8 core???...are they going backwards?[/citation]
Haswell is mainstream so it's limited to 4 cores. Get X79 if you want more than 4 cores.
X79 gets 6 cores and up to 8 cores on the Xeon E5.
6 cores may get to mainstream when high-end gets 12 cores.
 
There are only two reasons to upgrade your CPU/MB:

1. You want to use your computer to do something it currently won't do
2. Your hardware fails

Hardware capabilities are so far ahead of software development, almost all 5-year old systems can do everything the average user needs.

If you are interested in making your system faster, SSD and GPU upgrades are much better options. SSD will improve the speed of normal browsing/email/office type applications, and GPU is the obvious choice for gamers.

There really isn't much reason to buy anything more expensive than Sandy Bridge for most people. With that said, "most people" aren't reading this right now.
 

No, that's not the question, because upgrading every 1-2 years is only very rarely worth it. 3 years is the minimum before the upgrades really start to become worth it. And maybe more this time around; I don't see Broadwell being all that much better than Sandy Bridge unless something unexpected happens.
 
Was expecting a bit better specs but overall looks like a good time to upgrade my 2600k to a 4770k this Summer and a GTX 780 card from my 580.
 
1. LGA 1150 owners, this isn't for you.

2. Yeah this is the second time that table's been published on toms, and we had a huge discussion on the increased TDP this time.

3. somehow my inference from the increased tdp is a soldered IHS.
 

Do you mean LGA 1155? If so, I agree. Incremental upgrades are rarely worth it, unless you're also upgrading from low-end to high-end models (so Pentium G860 to Core i5-4670k is a good upgrade, Core i5-2500k to Core i5-4670k not so much).
 
Looks like a 4770K will replace my 5 year old Q9300. Due to motherboard issues (DX38BT) I was unable to overclock the old quad core (even 1 MHz), so hopefully this new build will last me 6+ years!
 
[citation][nom]getochkn[/nom]New MB's again for no real new features on the chips themselves except a slighter better graphics chip that may run bf3 at 19fps instead of 12fps?[/citation]
One of the reasons for the new socket is that (part of) Haswell's VRM is integrated on the CPU package to provide faster VRM response time when switching from suspend to active state. This is the key enabling factor for Haswell's ~10X lower idle/low-load power vs Ivy Bridge.
 
[citation][nom]hrmes[/nom]I am not going to upgrade until I can buy an 8-core CPU. Still using a Core2 Quad 9450 and very happy with it![/citation]

Ditto. My Q9450 is still giving me all the performance I want/need for the time being.
 

This is about desktop processors, not laptop processors. For the desktop, Core i3s will arrive a few months after the Core i5s and i7s, just like with Ivy Bridge. Pentiums and Celerons may come even later.

The first mobile Haswell processors may actually arrive slightly sooner than on the desktop, but on the other hand it's up to OEMs to actually start throwing them at consumers. I suspect that they'll begin with the high-end processors first, like on the desktop.

The good news is that you'll be able to get better integrated graphics than on the desktop. The bad news is it'll probably be pricey, and quite possibly not available for the budget processors (Core i3 included).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom