Intel's Haswell Refresh Processors Pricing Revealed Online

[N.Broekhuijsen]

There you have it -- tray prices of the Haswell Refresh CPUs from Intel.

Intel's Haswell Refresh Processors Pricing Revealed Online : Read more

 

[Mike Stewart]

thanks intel but i'll keep my LEGENDARY 2700K at 4.8 !!!! its easily on par if not faster than any i7-4790

 

[Osmin]

Waiting for Skylake for some truly refreshing technology. We should be a year away when it makes more sense for an upgrade. DDR4, PCI 4.0, SATA Express, and quadcore as lower tier with octacore processors as upper tier.

 

[CaedenV]

Agreed, waiting for skylake/mont before my next CPU upgrade. There is no need to upgrade the CPU anymore, it is all of the connectivity of having newer PCIe, SATA, DDR and Ethernet standards. To get any faster I would need to move up to the LGA2011 platform, but that is too rich for my blood, and I really don't need it.

 

[ocilfa]

@osmin: lol, let me know when we fully utilize the current versions of those technologies.

 

[TheAshigaru]

Why is a refresh even necessary? Isn't Broadwell coming out later this year anyway? I mean, I get the whole "tick-tock" philosophy, but this isn't even a tick...

On the whole, I'm with Osmin. I don't see a reason to upgrade the Mobo just to put in a new CPU. Wait for other reasons like DDR4. In the mean time, my Sandy Bridge won't let me down.

Here's to Skylake or (*gasps*) an AMD competitor!

 

[jimmysmitty]

thanks intel but i'll keep my LEGENDARY 2700K at 4.8 !!!! its easily on par if not faster than any i7-4790

Not to downplay SB, it was a great CPU and I loved my 2500K, but as fast or faster than a overclocked 4770K? Or what a 4790K will be (if the rumors of Intel improving the thermal connection of the CPU to the IHS is true it might make them OC even better).

On a per clock basis, Haswell is actually quite a bit faster than SB in many ways. Of course we wont see it as much as other places that can actually utilize those features.

Why is a refresh even necessary? Isn't Broadwell coming out later this year anyway? I mean, I get the whole "tick-tock" philosophy, but this isn't even a tick...

On the whole, I'm with Osmin. I don't see a reason to upgrade the Mobo just to put in a new CPU. Wait for other reasons like DDR4. In the mean time, my Sandy Bridge won't let me down.

Here's to Skylake or (*gasps*) an AMD competitor!

Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.

 

[nitrium]

Anyone know if the iGPU in the refreshes have been materially improved? Or is the iGPU unchanged?

 

[TheAshigaru]

Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.

Absolutely. I have a Trinity A10 in my laptop, and the performance is great for what I need. I've been glad to see all that AMD has done with their APUs.

On the flipside though, they're lagging behind Intel in terms of traditional computing power. I'm just hoping to see AMD back in the game seriously by the time Skylake comes around.

 

[danwat1234]

Any new high end mobile CPUs?

 

[danwat1234]

AMD needs to make some 47/57watt mobile CPUs/APUs instead of just 35w so they have a chance against Intel's mobile performance.

 

[cklein]

Anyone want to go in with me and 998 others and buy a tray?

 

[ratchet256]

Only in the iGPU sense. Intel has had the CPU advantage for quite a while and while I applaud their iGPUs, anyone has to admit that they have been way better than their older crap, they still are not on par with AMD. Skylake might change that and it will be an interesting change to see TBH.

Absolutely. I have a Trinity A10 in my laptop, and the performance is great for what I need. I've been glad to see all that AMD has done with their APUs.

On the flipside though, they're lagging behind Intel in terms of traditional computing power. I'm just hoping to see AMD back in the game seriously by the time Skylake comes around.

Agreed, even as a total Intel fan (I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I got an AMD CPU). I also hope AMD steps up their game.

No AMD = No competition for Intel = Monopoly = extremely bad for everyone.

 

[mapesdhs]

jimmysmitty writes:
> ... but as fast or faster than a overclocked 4770K? ...

Put bluntly, yes (though note the poster is referring to a 2700K).

A 2700K @ 5.0 is faster than a 4770K at 4.4, and is much easier
to cool. Every 2700K I've obtained (five so far) has been able to run
at 5.0 no problem, no fancy cooling required, just a simple TRUE
and two typical 120mm fans will suffice. I've been running tests on
another setup this week, an M4EZ with multiple 3GB 580s:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8194171
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8194291
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1966614
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1999089


> On a per clock basis, Haswell is actually quite a bit faster than SB in many ways.

Not really IMO. Certainly not 2 "generations" worth of improvements. The bump is
so small, it's almost as if the 3770K never existed.

Intel is sitting on its hands wrt desktop CPUs. S'funny, their financial results
reflect a PC sales dip, yet IMO at least some of the lack of sales have to be
down to poor upgrade options. If consumers are expected to adopt 4K, more
advanced gaming, etc., then where are the better CPUs to go with the better
GPUs? NVIDIA/AMD are both moving on the gfx tech, but at this rate we're
going to have a terrible CPU bottleneck in the PC gaming platform in a year
or so (it's bad enough already that so many reviews have to use an oc'd CPU
in order to reduce CPU bottlenecks). Intel isn't producing better desktop CPUs
because it doesn't have to, but I reckon there are a lot of enthusiast PC users
who are not spending their money atm on new builds because there's nothing
worth bothering with. We all know Intel could produce something waaay better
for desktops than is currently available, but without the commercial pressure,
they just won't bother.

Ian.

 

[vampelle]

hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138

 

[Someone Somewhere]

hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138

You're getting another 100MHz, too.

 

[ubercake]

Intel is sitting on its hands wrt desktop CPUs. S'funny, their financial results
reflect a PC sales dip, yet IMO at least some of the lack of sales have to be
down to poor upgrade options. If consumers are expected to adopt 4K, more
advanced gaming, etc., then where are the better CPUs to go with the better
GPUs? NVIDIA/AMD are both moving on the gfx tech, but at this rate we're
going to have a terrible CPU bottleneck in the PC gaming platform in a year
or so (it's bad enough already that so many reviews have to use an oc'd CPU
in order to reduce CPU bottlenecks). Intel isn't producing better desktop CPUs
because it doesn't have to, but I reckon there are a lot of enthusiast PC users
who are not spending their money atm on new builds because there's nothing
worth bothering with. We all know Intel could produce something waaay better
for desktops than is currently available, but without the commercial pressure,
they just won't bother.

Ian.

I agree completely. There just is no competition either. At this rate, I don't feel a need to upgrade my architecture (LGA2011) for two to three years and I consider myself to be a chronic upgrader.

 

[vampelle]

hi what is the advantage of L3cache. for i3? As i see they is 3Mb for $117 and 4mb for $138

You're getting another 100MHz, too.

i understand refresh haswell will be increased 100mhz. but what is L3cache 3mb vs 4mb.
faster processing?

and As i have Dell optiplex gx620 (ie very old pc pentium 4 2.8mhz), that why refresh haswell seems good for me, unless otherwise you can guide me should i go for older version.
Say one more thing, i read haswell need more power than sandy, turning my electric bill higher? is this true.

And AMD not here in Pakistan for very long time now. and importing will over cost the processor. and mainly no warranty

 

[TheAshigaru]

Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.

 

[vampelle]

Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.

Thank you. i also was thinking the same thing, but needed to confirm

can you also help in the other question of mine.

 

[mf Red]

@vampelle haswell is more energy efficient than sandy. You will spend less on your power bill.

 

[ubercake]

Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.

Thank you. i also was thinking the same thing, but needed to confirm

can you also help in the other question of mine.

Also the speed of L1>L2>L3 so having more L1 is better than having more L3.

 

[TheAshigaru]

Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.

Thank you. i also was thinking the same thing, but needed to confirm

can you also help in the other question of mine.

I can give it a shot, but you have to ask it first.

Also, +1 to what ubercake said. L1 cache is fastest and most important.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Cache is kind of like RAM that's built into the processor that runs at the same speed as the processor.

As you know, CPUs are quite good at their jobs performing complex computations, but something has to supply them with the information they need to run said computations. In the old days, the CPU would fetch information from the memory on the motherboard, which worked well enough for the time.

As CPUs began to get faster, however, the RAM did not keep pace. This resulted in a problem where the CPU could make computations faster than it could be supplied with information. The classic bottleneck, if you will. To fix the problem, engineers developed Cache. Cache is memory on the CPU die that runs at the same speed as the CPU itself, therefore eliminating the bottleneck of slower RAM.

What cache does is essentially try to guess what information the CPU will need next, get it from the RAM, and have it on standby for the exact moment it's needed. It's logical that the larger the cache is, the more information it can have on standby for the CPU when it's needed. So when you're asking about the difference between 3Mb and 4, it will make the CPU less likely to miss a beat without having to go back out to the much slower RAM to get what it needs.

You'll also notice that there are different levels of cache; hence L1, L2, L3. Really they all do the same thing, they just each provide a different set of options for computation that the CPU has right on hand. Think of it like three boxes that the CPU has sitting right next to it containing the items it uses most often. Bigger boxes are better, so 4Mb is better than 3.

Just as a note, this is all relatively simplified, so my metaphors aren't perfect by any means.

Thank you. i also was thinking the same thing, but needed to confirm

can you also help in the other question of mine.

Also the speed of L1>L2>L3 so having more L1 is better than having more L3.

True but as well L3 is larger and when utilized properly can be of benefit. Intel has it now so that the L3 stores all instructions so that if needed by L1 or L2 it can be accessed easily and much faster than having to call to RAM or even to the HDD/SSD again.

 

[vampelle]

I also read that Haswell when ideal save more. Well you see i use my pc from 9am to 1am daily and out of that, i my ideal (meaning no torrents or streaming) is not more than 1 hour and when i am not using at all. I simply close my pc completely. So total Power Saving
now i need to save while running it. My running cost need to be saved, not in ideal mode.

Ok L1 is the primary, than L2 when L1 is fill and lastly L3 is the last one. So that does make L1 more important, but again as stated above in i3 processor one is have 3mb and other 4mb and they is around $20 differences in them. I guess if haswell is my final choose after getting details on its electric bill
otherwise i will have to find a second hand ivy bridge.
As you see i am making a new pc with limited budget but will add gpu in later stage when i start playing high end gaming. And my pc need to last me atleast 5 years.

As my current have lasted this much since i bought a second hand from the market.