Report: Intel Haswell to be Released on June 2, 2013

[thecolorblue]

Intel used its dominant market position to stifle competition for more than a decade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NpCTSq2Mw

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]FAIL attempt at apologetics.[/citation]
If there was a commercially viable miracle breakthrough that Intel did not take advantage of, someone else would do so.

If increasing computational efficiency was so easy, AMD would have done so already. If cranking clock rates beyond 5GHz was so easy, AMD would have done so already. Fact is, getting more work done per clock and increasing clocks are nowhere near as easy as they used to be and this is true for all manufacturers who are pushing their respective process' limits.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Looks like I'll be building a PC in June 2013! 😀

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]azxcvbnm321[/nom]I think the slowdown is deliberate because they're really only competing against themselves now and releasing an even faster CPU won't drive sales any further. It's pointless for Intel to keep on releasing better CPUs as the top CPUs are already good enough for 95% of the people out there, only in special circumstances do some people require faster CPUs. Not since the early-mid 1990's has Intel enjoyed this type of dominance. Back then, they deliberately did not release their fastest architecture, the 486 was released years after it was ready, same with Pentium (x586). We might see a repeat of those days now that AMD is not competitive and has no chance of catching up within the next 4 years or so. It could take that long for AMD just to catch up with Ivy Bridge, and I'm talking about matching performance on all levels, not on just select heavily threaded applications.[/citation]

once amd gets how to handle threads sorted out and software starts useing multi cores and threads as a standard, intel will probably have a bit of trouble, because amd is faster on paper with their thread solution.

but we still have programs that use 1 core, and they just got their golden egg back...

 

[j0um]

By the way guys, in 4 years we'll be driving flying cars wearing google glasses (or google implants) so we can have a reallife HUD. We'll laugh at this thing everybody relied on which was called petrol or fossil energy (and we'll laugh really hard!). By then, Intel will have become a country and will be the only 1st world nation on earth and Mars. Everybody else being significantly behind technology/economy-wise and such... Welcome to teh future. Teh future is now!

 

[catchercradle]

"In other words, the desktop PC is stuck on a brick wall until desktop applications start making meaningful use of multi-threading."

And what does my typing speed have to reach to gain from a multi-threaded word processor?

 

[jewie27]

They keep changing the sockets... I wish Haswell was on LGA 1155 because I would upgrade for sure.

 

[Guest]

You're right. I spoke with a Intel engineer and they said they were no longer focusing on speed, and more focused on energy efficiency/reduction. They are only growing CPU speeds at 10% per year right now.

...and it was about freaking time. Processors MUST hit the sub-50W TDP limit for desktop and sub-20W for laptops, it's a shame that after all these years it's still difficult and expensive to build a desktop pc with a sub-35 dB noise footprint.

 

[Guest]

i got told that the new AMDs were getting better so Intel put the new cpu's back to make sure people thinking of getting AMD cpu's changed their minds, ive seen a bog standard Haswell run as good if not better than a i7 3770k with a hi spec gpu. These will be faster, cooler and better than ever before, i was getting an i7 3770k but now ive seen these im waiting, as i do video rendering, the Haswell will kick everything else in touch.. BTW they arent just leaving us DT users out, laptops are only a small part of their plan, DTs are still the main thing

 

[TommyB0y]

[citation][nom]catchercradle[/nom]"In other words, the desktop PC is stuck on a brick wall until desktop applications start making meaningful use of multi-threading."And what does my typing speed have to reach to gain from a multi-threaded word processor?[/citation]

What does your word processor have to gain from 4GHz cpu? Have you ever tried creating a 200 page 60MB Word or Powerpoint file? Or the entire Work Breakdown Structure of a large organization, or a 5 year schedule for the organization in Access. It will take about 5 minutes to open or save on an Intel CPU. So you might not want to be such a smarty pants.

 

[TommyB0y]

[citation][nom]notsleep[/nom]amd still around?! they should just stop making cpus and concentrate on graphic cards. they can't compete with intel with their piledriver line. they lag behind intel on die shrink. i honestly can't see them doing any better with their steamroller line either.[/citation]
You will probably be singing a different tune when AMD releases Steamroller alongside Broadwell. Dont think that Intel has always been the leader, and if you do you must be very young.

 

[TommyB0y]

[citation][nom]notsleep[/nom]amd still around?! they should just stop making cpus and concentrate on graphic cards. they can't compete with intel with their piledriver line. they lag behind intel on die shrink. i honestly can't see them doing any better with their steamroller line either.[/citation]
[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom]All the low-hanging performance improvement fruits have been picked. Clock rates using low-cost mass-production process and were responsible for the lions' share of the ~60%/year improvement we used to have 10-20 years ago have hit a brick wall at 3.5-4GHz for most of the past 10 years, out-of-order execution, branch prediction / speculative execution, prefetching, etc. have reached a point where making them any more accurate/efficient is becoming extremely expensive so there really isn't much left to improve on in a cost-effective manner.This is the burden of interactive desktop applications being largely single-threaded and thus heavily reliant on single-threaded throughput.In the server space, many CPU vendors sacrifice single-threaded ILP in favor of TLP. This allows them to use much simpler/shorter out-of-order queues per thread, forgo speculative execution (branch prediction) and all the extra complexity that comes with those so they can put more resources into increasing SMT throughput by multiplexing 4-8 instruction streams per core, basically hyperthreading on steroids.In other words, the desktop PC is stuck on a brick wall until desktop applications start making meaningful use of multi-threading. This is where Intel's recent interest and patent in artificial vision as an alternate input method comes in - something to make even the most trivial tasks gobble up a few cores if people want to use it.[/citation]

This is a great post, thank you. Except for new instructions that Intel releases secretly with new cpus, AMD has a very good chance of matching Intel's performance with its upcoming Steamroller core design. Which is not even AMDs final step towards Fusion. AMD's plans are clear, but how Intel plans to improve going forward is unclear. Likely they will follow AMD's path.

 

[Oliver55]

A few incorrect posts here:

The haswell will NOT only be 10-15% increase, it's been reported 200% over Ivy.

Intel are NOT focusing on low power consumption- all the new faster processors are high TDP. Having said that, a faster performance CPU means less power to achieve the best of the previous slower CPU generation, but the max TDPs are all set to rise- the focus is on PERFORMANCE.

 

[Oliver55]

A few incorrect posts here:

The haswell will NOT only be 10-15% increase, it's been reported 200% over Ivy.

Intel are NOT focusing on low power consumption- all the new faster processors are high TDP. Having said that, a faster performance CPU means less power to achieve the best of the previous slower CPU generation, but the max TDPs are all set to rise- the focus is on PERFORMANCE.

 

[Sakkura]

A few incorrect posts here:

The haswell will NOT only be 10-15% increase, it's been reported 200% over Ivy.

Intel are NOT focusing on low power consumption- all the new faster processors are high TDP. Having said that, a faster performance CPU means less power to achieve the best of the previous slower CPU generation, but the max TDPs are all set to rise- the focus is on PERFORMANCE.

Their focus is on two things - power efficiency and GPU performance. The TDP is probably just going up because the iGPU is getting so much bigger. More than twice as big for the top-end iGPUs.

 

[photonboy]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]once amd gets how to handle threads sorted out and software starts useing multi cores and threads as a standard, intel will probably have a bit of trouble, because amd is faster on paper with their thread solution. but we still have programs that use 1 core, and they just got their golden egg back...[/citation]

No.
Intel is ahead of AMD in every respect. AMD isn't going to magically produce a part that gives Intel serious trouble. Yes, AMD can sell a CPU that "on paper" is good value, but people buy for real-world usage.

Software development is often fairly slow so it's fairly easy to factor that in when saying deciding on an 8-core AMD CPU that's faster IN THEORY and an Intel 4C/8T CPU that's faster in current real-world scenarios.

 

[Guest]

why are so many people concerned about performance increase, 10 percent increase in performance from previous generation cpu's would still be really good, not to mention slightly less power consumption, i would be happy with 5 percent better performance increase and slightly lower power consumption. the other person above said ONLY 15 percent faster, thats a big difference lol.