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

[Guest]

It appears that Intel's Haswell processor will launch in early June. According to slides that were leaked to the Chinese website VR-Zone, the product introduction time frame will be between May 27 and June 7, 2013.

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

 

[acadia11]

Ah... Back to the good old days when intel could take its sweet time and charge whatever it wanted withnAMD so far behind!

 

[Reynod]

I heard these things were so good they had to break them a little bit to ensure the next iteration was slightly faster ... hence you may notice a slight dent in the upper corner of the die where the QA Engineer adjusted them accordingly.

 

[Lord Captivus]

"14 different desktop SKUs"!! I dont think there are so many kinds of users...

 

[killerclick]

And probably only 15% faster than Ivy or something like that. It's all about low power laptops now, we desktop gamers are an afterthought for Intel and AMD.

 

[Sakkura]

[citation][nom]Lord Captivus[/nom]"14 different desktop SKUs"!! I dont think there are so many kinds of users...[/citation]
Well there are currently 26 Ivy Bridge desktop SKUs, so...
(keep in mind many of the chips come in -S and -T varieties too, plus you have chips that only vary on the IGP side)

 

[Guest]

So much for all of the fanboys insisting that Intel is going to deliver 14nm CPUs in 2013 ahead of the 14nm ARM CPUs, LOL. If you believe that they are going to deliver a 14nm die shrink of Haswell less than 6 months after Haswell, I have a bridge to sell you.

But let's be very clear on one thing, it couldn't be that Intel is having problems with Haswell, they're delaying it on purpose because AMD sucks. ROFL, yeah right.

 

[Sumukh_Bhagat]

I want those Processors...
But sadly I have this Gen CPU

 

[tului]

[citation][nom]lostmyclan[/nom]will have Vt-x and Vt-d ? í'll stick with a 3770k for a long time[/citation]
The 3770K only has VT-x not VT-d though.

 

[azxcvbnm321]

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.

 

[icemunk]

[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]

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.

 

[ojas]

Haswell therefore arrives substantially later than originally anticipated and it appears that Intel's product cadence has become much more elastic recently.

I'm not sure what you were anticipating, but since Sandy launched in Jan and ivy launched in April, i was expecting a July launch. Otellini's surprise announcement then led me to speculate a May-June launch.

[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]
Ahaha. No, they're not competing with themselves, their competing with ARM. ARM's behind them on performance, but they're already rivaling ARM in efficiency, and till they dominate ARM here, they're not going to look at raw performance. More evidence for that lies here:
[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]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.[/citation]
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-z2760-power-consumption-arm,3387.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busting-the-x86-power-myth-indepth-clover-trail-power-analysis

Then i think they're going to look more into graphics, where i suppose they'd compete with AMD in the low-end PC space and Nvidia/PowerVR in the ultra-mobile space.

Who knows, if Steamroller impresses, maybe then they'll switch back to performance.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]icemunk[/nom]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.[/citation]
If that. Ivy was only ~5% increase on CPU over Sandy for most workloads, plus they didn't OC quite as well. Intel's main focus right now is on their iGPU and getting that up to snuff to compete with AMD, and lowering their power usage to compete with ARM. Their next focus is going to be moving to more of an SoC model where pretty much everything except for the feature chips will be moved directly onto the CPU. After that then there may be a chance for us to see them focus on overall performance again with the Sky series of chips.... but that is still some 3-4 years out and by then pretty much all of the focus will be on mobile platforms which can be docked in order to have desktop-like performance, and true custom desktop users (like myself and most of us here) will be an even smaller minority than we already are today.

 

[warezme]

Are these laptop CPU's? Also, are there any performance numbers. SKU#'s are irrelevant to me, just how fast is it compared to X,Y and Z.

 

[rantoc]

it appears that Intel's product cadence has become much more elastic recently.

No reason to rush out the new architecture when there is no real competition for the old one... Intel will become more and more like Intel in the old days, milking the same architecture for years and increase its speed in 100 mhz intervals each half year or soo until there is competition again...

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Ah... Back to the good old days when intel could take its sweet time[/citation]
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.

 

[notsleep]

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.

 

[g00fysmiley]

[citation][nom]bridge salesman[/nom]So much for all of the fanboys insisting that Intel is going to deliver 14nm CPUs in 2013 ahead of the 14nm ARM CPUs, LOL. If you believe that they are going to deliver a 14nm die shrink of Haswell less than 6 months after Haswell, I have a bridge to sell you.But let's be very clear on one thing, it couldn't be that Intel is having problems with Haswell, they're delaying it on purpose because AMD sucks. ROFL, yeah right.[/citation]

intel does tic-toc they used sandy bridge archetecture on the die shrink till they mature the process for good yeilds that was ivybridge. now we have the toc, the new architecture on the 22 mature process, next will be the haswell archetecture on a shrunk node,

 

[Sakkura]

Are these laptop CPU's? Also, are there any performance numbers. SKU#'s are irrelevant to me, just how fast is it compared to X,Y and Z.

The answer is right there in the article:

The slides indicate that Intel is preparing 14 different desktop SKUs as well as seven mobile SKUs for launch.

No indications of performance beyond what we already know though. We won't really know until launch review benchmarks, unless someone breaks NDA.

 

[newbie_mcnoob]

Still waiting for Ivy Bridge-E.

 

[mt2e]

Sandy-e is pretty much useless, they botched that bigtime with removing all the features they promised.

 

[jonjonjon]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]And probably only 15% faster than Ivy or something like that. It's all about low power laptops now, we desktop gamers are an afterthought for Intel and AMD.[/citation]
yup worthless tablets and ARM ruined the desktop cpu. anyone remember the intel video 5 years ago showing an 80 core cpu that would arrive 2012. i want a 80 core cpu!

Intel tests chip design with 80-core processor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97uSsjjoSNM

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]jonjonjon[/nom]yup worthless tablets and ARM ruined the desktop cpu. anyone remember the intel video 5 years ago showing an 80 core cpu that would arrive 2012.[/citation]
Tablets didn't "ruin" the desktop CPU. Running into the 3.5-4GHz brick wall, glacially slow adoption of multi-threaded programming by developers and just plain running out of new mainstream software that requires any more processing power did.

As for Intel's 80+ cores ambitions, those were stripped-down x86 cores that would have nowhere near the single-threaded ILP that today's Ivy Bridge CPUs have. If you want to buy one of those, they actually do exist and they are called Xeon Phi... up to 61 cores per CPU, four threads each for a combined total of 244 threads per processor.

 

[LonelyMan]

Good. Then it seems that my plan of building a computer that would last me until I finish university in 4 years is a resounding success. Intel CPUs 10-15% more speed per year at most, depending on applications( don't care for their IGPU or thermals and power, but I guess it's better for laptops and whatnot), if I'll ever need more ram I can just add, and when my GPU won't cut it, I can take it out, sell it and buy the new top of the end card, and I have PCI-E 3.0 so I won't get bottlenecked. Now I can focus on my bachelors and Heart of the Swarm.

 

[thecolorblue]

[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom]All the low-hanging performance improvement fruits have been picked. [/citation]
FAIL attempt at apologetics.

Intel has a monopoly and is milking it for all it is worth. End of story.