Haswell-E reveal: 8 Cores, DDR4, X99

Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
33
Just saw this posted at VR-Zone:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-core-i7-ivy-bridge-e-core-i3-haswell-lineup-detailed/37832.html

Looks pretty good. Finally getting an enthusiast 8 core system. DDR4 as well.

Haswell-E5.jpg


Haswell-E4.jpg
 
Last edited:
140W. Will be interesting to see what if they can get away with using the same TIM as Haswell.
 
140W. Will be interesting to see what if they can get away with using the same TIM as Haswell.

I'd like to think they'll put a bit more effort in the $1000+ enthusiast cpus compared to the consumer ones. I know we haven't seen Ivy Bridge-E yet, but if it gets soldered IHS' we can expect Haswell-E to get the same.

That or we're back using a block of wood.
 
I'd like to think they'll put a bit more effort in the $1000+ enthusiast cpus compared to the consumer ones. I know we haven't seen Ivy Bridge-E yet, but if it gets soldered IHS' we can expect Haswell-E to get the same.

That or we're back using a block of wood.

Well, I think if Intel wanted to use the solder vs TIM as a distinguishing feature of their high-end CPUs, they would speak more openly about it and actually advertise that advantage IMO. So far they haven't even said exactly why they went with TIM when switching to 22nm. It may have been for technical reasons (die too small, thermal density or similar).

For a lot of people, especially gamers, that will be the most important "feature". The extra memory channels and 6 - 8 cores aren't really useful for games, and high-end LGA 1150 motherboards already provide enough PCI-E lanes for SLI. So the one benefit that everyone is hoping for is higher overclocks / lower temps.
 
Last edited:
For a lot of people, especially gamers, that will be the most important "feature". The extra memory channels and 6 - 8 cores aren't really useful for games

More and more games are coming out with more threads than just 4, and will continue to do so in the next generation. Both the new consoles run on 8 core, low frequency cpus. Almost all of the development in the future will run on the basis of 4 minimum, 8 recommended. The 6 core 980x has a distinct advantage against highly threaded games such as ARMA2-3 and GW2 even compared to the new haswell chips, despite a 30% IPC gap clock for clock.

Additionally, Socket 1150 motherboards only have 1x 16x PCIE lane to work with for graphics cards which comes in the flavours of 1x16, 2x8 or 1x8 + 2x4. SLI with current cards is FINE for 2x, but a bit pushing it for 3 and 4 times in terms of bandwidth.

PLX chips dont magically increase the number of lanes on a motherboard, and reduce total performance compared with a native solution. Having 2x16, in 4x8 for 2011-3 will provide significantly better performance, especially when we start to hit the bandwidth boundaries in the next generation.
 
my bet is that DDR4 2133 will be slower than DDR3 2133 just as DDR3 1066 was slower than DDR2 1066.

Also, Haswell E will probably have silicon with up to 12 cores. Intel is still giving us the shitty end of the stick with 8-core parts.
 
More and more games are coming out with more threads than just 4, and will continue to do so in the next generation. Both the new consoles run on 8 core, low frequency cpus. Almost all of the development in the future will run on the basis of 4 minimum, 8 recommended. The 6 core 980x has a distinct advantage against highly threaded games such as ARMA2-3 and GW2 even compared to the new haswell chips, despite a 30% IPC gap clock for clock.

Additionally, Socket 1150 motherboards only have 1x 16x PCIE lane to work with for graphics cards which comes in the flavours of 1x16, 2x8 or 1x8 + 2x4. SLI with current cards is FINE for 2x, but a bit pushing it for 3 and 4 times in terms of bandwidth.

PLX chips dont magically increase the number of lanes on a motherboard, and reduce total performance compared with a native solution. Having 2x16, in 4x8 for 2011-3 will provide significantly better performance, especially when we start to hit the bandwidth boundaries in the next generation.

Not saying there won't be an advantage.. but would it be worth $999 for most people, without additional OC headroom?

Writing multi-threaded code is very expensive and complicated. It's too early to tell whether developers will spend the additional time and money to optimize code properly for 8 "cores" (4 FPU's). There are also real limitations on how much work you can do in parallel - certain workloads just don't benefit from having more than 2-4 cores no matter how you "optimize". With HT, an i7 can probably run 8 threads at least as fast as the Jaguar cores in the PS4/XBO, and even the i5 has a huge clock speed and IPC/TLP advantage. If the need for 8 cores arises in the regular desktop segment, Intel will surely have an 8 core CPU at a more appropriate price point, but that is still a long way off. The new consoles won't make Quad core obsolete overnight or even in the next several years.
 
Well, some little Issues :

DDR4 in a 1 year for consumers when it don't even is available just now ?
It should be available for Xeon E7 in 14Q1, We're talking about the Top High-End Xeon ($2-5,000 CPU) and Registered Buffered type. Where the Hardware cost is a fractions of overall cost of platform.
Look way too early, it'll cost a fortune at launch... untested, immature, Unbuffered type, maybe with even slower performance that the cheaper and mature DDR3.

1 DDR Slot for channel, a misprint maybe not, reduce to 4 slot it's a step back, ok the DDR4 will be the new kids on the block , but it'll be raw tech too so look reasonable that it'll need more time to support unbuffered multiple dimm.
No more 64GB for a while ? 16 GB stick DDR4, if even exist at launch,will cost you an arm for sure.

8C will be the X edition, I can't see a 8c slotted nothing else that at the top, otherwise it'll be the dead of 4770K or whatever exist with haswell refresh, 4c Vs 8c for $200 more ? ... No way.

More interesting is the 6c at the entry level, unlocked, under $300.
really ?
But what about the refreshed 4770k ? 4C at the same price ? DOA.
Something must happens at the consumer level..
Maybe the i7 Haswell-E will increase on price,

i7-5820k 12MB L3 at $500 ?
i7-5930k 15Mb L3 at $749 ?
i7-5960X 20MB at $1,099 ?

with nothing from AMD why not ?
so the cheaper K-CPU can still be competitive.

But the big question is the Integrated VR.....
How much headroom to push the cpu to the limit ?
The heat density will be unbelievable pretty soon with 8c and higher voltage. pushing to high clock

Looking at this pace, you can keep your pc for 10 years and barely feel the difference...
a Q6600 clocked at 3.0Ghz+ with 8GB and a Midrange GPU is still pretty decent overall for all... and it's 6 years old techs with no integrated MC, 2 dual.core on different dies fuse on the same package)
think about a SB clocked at 4.2.4.3 GHz in 6 years...with 16GB, a fast SSD on SATA3, a decent GPU... you can keep it until it'll broke down without miss a beat really.
Billions loss by Intel due a miss sales.

A CPU that rule them all is not going to works just like a OS (win 8)
1 CPU designed for mobile/phone with lowest TDP as possible. (like Haswell)
1 CPU designed for maxium efficiency for high-end desktop/server part. (like SB)

As big as intel is should be pretty easy and in best interest for the stakeholder.
 
Last edited:
Will keep Ivy until then. Hasweel -E and Nv Maxwell sounds like a great combo in 2014.

Will keep Ivy as well, but switching will be expensive.

Motherboards in the 300-450$ range
RAM expensive for sure.
CPU well, I guess it will come down how they price the 8 core. My guess in the 1k$ zone.
 
Well, some little Issues :

DDR4 in a 1 year for consumers when it don't even is available just now ?
It should be available for Xeon E7 in 14Q1, We're talking about the Top High-End Xeon ($2-5,000 CPU) and Registered Buffered type. Where the Hardware cost is a fractions of overall cost of platform.
Look way too early, it'll cost a fortune at launch... untested, immature, Unbuffered type, maybe with even slower performance that the cheaper and mature DDR3.

1 DDR Slot for channel, a misprint maybe not, reduce to 4 slot it's a step back, ok the DDR4 will be the new kids on the block , but it'll be raw tech too so look reasonable that it'll need more time to support unbuffered multiple dimm.
No more 64GB for a while ? 16 GB stick DDR4, if even exist at launch,will cost you an arm for sure.

8C will be the X edition, I can't see a 8c slotted nothing else that at the top, otherwise it'll be the dead of 4770K or whatever exist with haswell refresh, 4c Vs 8c for $200 more ? ... No way.

More interesting is the 6c at the entry level, unlocked, under $300.
really ?
But what about the refreshed 4770k ? 4C at the same price ? DOA.
Something must happens at the consumer level..
Maybe the i7 Haswell-E will increase on price,

i7-5820k 12MB L3 at $500 ?
i7-5930k 15Mb L3 at $749 ?
i7-5960X 20MB at $1,099 ?

with nothing from AMD why not ?
so the cheaper K-CPU can still be competitive.

But the big question is the Integrated VR.....
How much headroom to push the cpu to the limit ?
The heat density will be unbelievable pretty soon with 8c and higher voltage. pushing to high clock

Looking at this pace, you can keep your pc for 10 years and barely feel the difference...
a Q6600 clocked at 3.0Ghz+ with 8GB and a Midrange GPU is still pretty decent overall for all... and it's 6 years old techs with no integrated MC, 2 dual.core on different dies fuse on the same package)
think about a SB clocked at 4.2.4.3 GHz in 6 years...with 16GB, a fast SSD on SATA3, a decent GPU... you can keep it until it'll broke down without miss a beat really.
Billions loss by Intel due a miss sales.

A CPU that rule them all is not going to works just like a OS (win 8)
1 CPU designed for mobile/phone with lowest TDP as possible. (like Haswell)
1 CPU designed for maxium efficiency for high-end desktop/server part. (like SB)

As big as intel is should be pretty easy and in best interest for the stakeholder.

English is not your native language I assume? Otherwise, what the fuck.
 
What is with the rash of a-hole posts lately? Adriantrances next time you have a knee jerk need to make a post like this, keep that shit to yourself. Not only is it offensive but it adds absolutely no value to the conversation.
 
Those look great. No definite price points yet.. probably expensive. I feel like Intel has skewed "enthusiast" with "blood made of gold."
 
Will keep Ivy as well, but switching will be expensive.

Motherboards in the 300-450$ range
RAM expensive for sure.
CPU well, I guess it will come down how they price the 8 core. My guess in the 1k$ zone.

Yes it will be expensive, but this news saved me from buying a 4770K, 3930K in the forums or a 4930K later this year.
Now I can keep my current build for 12-16 months, which saves me a lot of money right now.
 
Wonder how they're going to implement DDR4 on it, theoretically it should be only single dimm per channel since it's point to point, but I thought they were talking about switched memory banks. Otherwise we'll be stuck at 64GB in a 4x16GB setup.
 
yeah 4x16GB is too restrictive. It'd be better if it was 8 slots like it is now. would this new chip have a DDR4 controller? I'd assume so right?
 
Just saw this posted at VR-Zone:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-core-i7-ivy-bridge-e-core-i3-haswell-lineup-detailed/37832.html

Looks pretty good. Finally getting an enthusiast 8 core system. DDR4 as well.

Haswell-E5.jpg

Comparing it to my older post below, looks like Fudzilla is correct on the DDR4 memory controller.

Whether Fudzilla is to be believed or not, it DOES INDEED look like Haswell-E will carry over the DDR4 memory controller from its server variants Haswell-EP/EN (14 cores max) and Haswell-EX (16 to 20 core chip):

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/31064-haswell-e-supports-ddr4

So far, we're now looking at:
- Quad-channel DDR4 - Remember 1 DIMM slot = 1 channel. If there isn't enough pins for octa-channel (8 DIMM slots), then we're probably going to have 16GB DDR4 memory modules by then since current X79 boards can have a maximum of 64GB of RAM.

- Maximum DDR4 2133MHz RAM speeds supported - Still well below the supported 3200MHz of DDR4.

- Maximum 2.5MB L3 cache per core

- Socket 2011 - NOT pin-compatible with existing X79 Socket 2011 boards

- 130W TDP minimum for Haswell-E to 145W to 160W TDP for server versions EP/EN and EX.

- 12 to 20 core max - Most likely servers will get the 14 to 20 core versions, and high-end enthusiasts will only see up to 12 cores.

- Integrated PCI-e 3.0 controller.

- All features from Socket 1150 Haswell will be carried over-- transactional memory, TSX instructions, integrated voltage regulator, etc.

- And, obviously, all will have Hyperthreading.​

However, it looks like core count is reduced to 6 and 8 cores, instead of the predicted max of 12 cores.
 
The Xeons have to support switched memory banks otherwise we're going to have some serious issues being stuck at 4x64GB for each processor. I imagine we'll see some sort of multiple dimm per channel support, just not sure how they're going to do it. There have been reports that total bandwidth is an issue and if you exceed a certain amount things get flaky with DDR4.
 
DDR4's design spec states that it will only ever support 1 dimm per channel. It will make it slightly faster, but nonetheless I think it's a but of a limit. The desktop consumer-level stuff will only support 2 dimms.
 
Well there goes all hope IVB-E was going to feature cut down Xeon parts from 10-12 Cores. Wonder if the Xeon's are still getting the raised cores as speculated since the IVB-E rumors were absolutely false it seems.

Another two years before extremist get a chance to have more than 6 cores.


*yawn*
 
Not sure why people keep quoting 16gb as the max size per slot on DDR4, samsung have already announced 32gb modules. So there's 128gb of ram to satisfy you at least in the interim.

Also the way i've understood it, for terms of bandwidth compared to single/dual/tri/quad channel ram, is that each stick of DDR4 ram fills each bank independently and directly, allowing it to be "16 channel" per dimm. That should offer equivalent speed even to people who have single slots (and up to 32gb in 1 slot). Correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Not sure why people keep quoting 16gb as the max size per slot on DDR4, samsung have already announced 32gb modules. So there's 128gb of ram to satisfy you at least in the interim.

Also the way i've understood it, for terms of bandwidth compared to single/dual/tri/quad channel ram, is that each stick of DDR4 ram fills each bank independently and directly, allowing it to be "16 channel" per dimm. That should offer equivalent speed even to people who have single slots (and up to 32gb in 1 slot). Correct me if i'm wrong.

You can read more about DDR4 in my quote below and the links in it:
I believe this is a good read to get some idea about DDR4:
Bit-Tech article
Original article from PC Watch

The biggest benefits coming to DDR4, in my opinion, are the following:

  1. One DIMM slot per channel. (i.e.- Four slots is quad-channel; 8 slots is octa-channel)
  2. Point-to-point protocol
  3. Switched memory banks
  4. Lower voltage than DDR3-- 1.05v to 1.2v
  5. Higher memory bandwidth and transfer rates-- up to 4266 MT/s.
As mentioned above, for integrated graphics, DDR4 will help a lot in that area. If AMD, for example, switched to DDR4 in the next APU, Kaveri, it'd work out a lot better than using DDR3 memory. Intel as pelo mentioned already has gone the opposite approach with integrating eDRAM on certain models of ULV Haswell processors. But, it will be costly regardless. When Broadwell is released to the masses and DDR4 has made its way from server to consumer in two years (2015-ish), the eDRAM may possibly be removed in favor of DDR4. That depends entirely on Intel though.

Now, the other features such point-to-point protocol and switched memory banks are interesting. From what I understand when I first read about DDR4 on the PC Watch website is that the memory controller has ONE channel connected to a single DIMM slot. In other words, from Point A to Point B, keeping connections simple while maintaining higher transfer rates and memory bandwidth.

As for switched memory banks, we probably won't see this on consumer boards and Broadwell (and possibly Haswell-E if it does implement DDR4). We'll mostly see these in servers and possibly first in the Haswell-EP/EN server processors. When I read about it, my thinking is that it works like this:

  • A server has 32 memory DIMMs with eight banks of 4 DIMMs each.
  • Memory controller sees eight channels of RAM connected in eight DIMM slots.
  • Memory controller can switch between each DIMM in each bank while maintaining a point-to-point connection with each of them.
In other words, a server could squeeze more RAM into less slots while still keeping up a high memory transfer rate and bandwidth. That's how I understood it unless pelo or pxc has a better explanation.

So, is DDR4 going to be beneficial?

Well, as always, depends on what you do on your computer and what application you are using. Anything that needs the higher memory transfer rate will benefit greatly from DDR4. The lower voltage of DDR4 combined with a lower powered processor should make for a cheaper electric bill.

If you are using your computer primarily for normal productivity suites like Office, surfing the internet, or listening to music, I don't think DDR4 will help you there at all. If you are playing a very demanding game, maybe it'll help more more than DDR3.

However, if there is an integrated GPU on your processor, using DDR4 should alleviate the bandwidth and memory transfer rate issues from DDR3 especially when you look at AMD's APU lineup.

But, it will be the servers that will always benefit from the faster memory, and its extra features will help a lot there.
 
Not sure why people keep quoting 16gb as the max size per slot on DDR4, samsung have already announced 32gb modules. So there's 128gb of ram to satisfy you at least in the interim.

Also the way i've understood it, for terms of bandwidth compared to single/dual/tri/quad channel ram, is that each stick of DDR4 ram fills each bank independently and directly, allowing it to be "16 channel" per dimm. That should offer equivalent speed even to people who have single slots (and up to 32gb in 1 slot). Correct me if i'm wrong.

32GB are all registered, hopefully they have 64GB registered dimms as well, since we already have 32GB registered DDR3 dimms. Either way, you're going to need a Xeon to use them.
 
this is what I been waiting for. time for me to really upgrade. how much time until this is all out in the real world?
 
$1200 8 core
$1000 DDR4
$500 MoBo
$200 CPU Cooling

Umm, no.


Umm, no.
 
$1200 8 core
$1000 DDR4
$500 MoBo
$200 CPU Cooling

Umm, no.

Actual prices will be:

> $1000 for the 'Xtreme' chip
or: $700 for the 'Good' chip
$400 for ample DDR4 --> $300 soon-after
$400 for Mobo
$80 for CPU Cooling

Really,
- Really
 
Yes it will be expensive, but this news saved me from buying a 4770K, 3930K in the forums or a 4930K later this year.
Now I can keep my current build for 12-16 months, which saves me a lot of money right now.

Same here. Ivy should last me till at least haswell-e, though I might wait to see what skylake offers.
 
Actual prices will be:

> $1000 for the 'Xtreme' chip
or: $700 for the 'Good' chip
$400 for ample DDR4 --> $300 soon-after
$400 for Mobo
$80 for CPU Cooling

Really,
- Really

We'll see...
 
I highly doubt an 8-core extreme edition chip will be anything less than $1200. 6-core extremes have been $1000 consistently for the past 5 years, you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 8 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 6-core???

Not a chance. 6-core extreme edition chips are selling wildly enough at their current price, intel won't skrew with that pricing structure. IF they even offer an 8-core at all, it will be $1200 or more.
 
We'll see...

Exactly. People love to predict prices. Have we learned anything from the video card threads?
Haswell-E and DDR4 hasn't been finalized for DT or officially announced yet. The market can swing up or down over the next year.

If a person really needs/wants this platform, the price is just a small obstacle to leap over. Fore other's that don't have a need, they see a wall they can't leap over and poo poo the price.
 
Exactly. People love to predict prices. Have we learned anything from the video card threads?
Haswell-E and DDR4 hasn't been finalized for DT or officially announced yet. The market can swing up or down over the next year.

If a person really needs/wants this platform, the price is just a small obstacle to leap over. Fore other's that don't have a need, they see a wall they can't leap over and poo poo the price.

And that's why I posted high predictive prices for everything... we don't know what the real MSRP's of everything will be yet, so better to speculate high and prepare yourself that way than to expect lower prices and then get sticker shock and feel all pissed off. We don't know what the market will be like for segments like an 8-core consumer part, DDR4 memory, or motherboards. In my experience, they always come out at pretty stiff prices, especially new iterations of CPU and memory if the only initial platforms that can use it are the most expensive platforms. Gouge, gouge, gouge the customer on two fronts: from the manufacturers and from the retailers. Happens every time.

This could end up helping AMD, since the typical Joe Schmoe PC buyer will see the Intel 8 core systems priced at $3000+ and the AMD "8 core" system right next to it at $1500+. If I were in AMD's marketing department, I'd be making huge strides to prepare for this free opportunity.
 
Back
Top