I'm curious why Devil's Cannon would be on anyone's upgrade roadmap when Broadwell should be out in 6 months? Is Intel doing this to milk every dollar out of the upgrade path from users? What's the benefit of getting a Haswell refresh when Broadwell will be offering 30% power savings and a better GPU?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Devil's Cannon vs. Broadwell -- Why get the former?
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
Not sure broadwell for the enthusiast is hitting right away? High clocks are going to be even harder at a smaller, fresher lithography. Also cooling a smaller chip at high clocks is going to get more difficult in the future...Might clock well, but I doubt the first rev's will
Broadwell should start making its appearance right about now, the fact it's pushed back another 6 months isn't a good sign. To make matters worse it has been known for quite some time that Broadwell is not a desktop oriented major release. The iGPU we know is going to be completely revamped and supposedly even more powerful (duh) than Haswell by a large margin. There is not expected to be anything different besides 5% improvement on the CPU side of things.
Devils Canyon isn't exciting, but at this point it's the best deal out there. No point in waiting 6 months only to be disappointed.
Devils Canyon isn't exciting, but at this point it's the best deal out there. No point in waiting 6 months only to be disappointed.
This.
I'm getting a 4970k system soon and that is because I need/want to upgrade to do what I want to do and I don't want to wait another 6+ months plus for something that may not live up to the hype. Granted if I already had a decently overclocked core i7 I wouldn't upgrade unless I had some money that I wanted to waste to keep me entertained. Simply put, the 4790K should be for those who want a major upgrade (compared to their current system).
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,933
This is my expectation. And then I assume Skylake will also be at least a year late.
No, both M (Mobile, which will be fanless!) and H (High Performance, the quadcores we're used to) Broadwell will be out in October. It's the 18-core DDR4 Broadwell, and maybe the 8- and 10-core, that won't be out for more than 12 months.
source? i was only expecting mobile parts to be out by christmas.
"How about the Intel Broadwell processors for the desktop PC, or for the Z97 and ZH97 motherboards that were recently released in the market? Unfortunately for PC enthusiasts and System builders, we will have to wait for one more year (starting today), since the BDW-H 4+3e LGA platform will be released by week 21 to week 26 of 2015, or somewhere in June of 2015."
http://thepcenthusiast.com/5th-gen-intel-broadwell-processors-release-date/
Last edited:
^^^
Basically my choices are live without one of my failing systems(motherboard failing and difficult to find a replacement I would trust socket 755) combined with the potential saving on power usage etc. If my system was in great condition I would wait.
The other problem is many of us grew up in the era of huge performance gains every 18-24 months so it is odd to have the same exact cpu for three cycles. The only gain... multiple video cards.(maybe ram a bit) Hardcore users are simply bored. They are looking for ways to increase performance and finding it difficult to do so...
Mobile is where the money is at...sadly people are willing to spend more on a phone than a desktop pc... Vendors like mobile devices because they are limited in longevity.(batteries die, ram limited etc) (having said that I actually still use a notebook over a decade old as a extra desktop when I have tons of company, but tablets make it less and less of a need).
Also tablets are more of a closed ecosystem...
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,933
I never saw solder. Just improved TIM and that they did.
I've got an old C2D machine that is randomly crashing pretty regularly with a fresh Win install that I can't pin to any particular piece of hardware, which tells me it's time to retire it and build now. Can't wait, but it won't get DC either. That unlocked Pentium is going to be a nice upgrade for that machine. 
The i7-4790K was released with a slightly improved package/power delivery system and improved TIM simply for the purpose of encouraging enthusiasts to help Intel get rid of their stockpile of Haswell cores that they have lying around. The cores themselves are identical to the pre-refresh cores released last year.
Proof? Look at the date code on most of the review samples...0336. The dies were made in August of last year and were probably only packaged in the spring. What I'm curious is to whether Intel has that many defective dies lying around that they released the G3258 with an unlocked multiplier just to get rid of them, or if they are taking dies that are more functional and are neutering them down. That's a question that few (and nobody outside of Intel) knows the answer to.
The second question is what Intel is producing now, as it's highly unlikely that they're producing any more Haswell cores. My guess is that they're churning out Haswel-E/EP chips by the gross for projects such as this one for CSC on the mature 22nm nodes, with the 14nm nodes making early Broadwell silicon.
http://www.csc.fi/csc/kurssit/arkisto/aineisto/GUT14/CSC_presentation_tre_06_2014.pdf.
Projects like these (and the many others that aren't public knowledge or are for secret clients) are a pretty likely reason why we didn't end up seeing Haswell-E/EP released at Computex instead of the likely relelase venue of IDF in San Francisco on September 9-11.
If issues end up arising, it's possible that Haswell-E/EP may be further delayed until the big consumers have has their fill. Hopefully not though...
Proof? Look at the date code on most of the review samples...0336. The dies were made in August of last year and were probably only packaged in the spring. What I'm curious is to whether Intel has that many defective dies lying around that they released the G3258 with an unlocked multiplier just to get rid of them, or if they are taking dies that are more functional and are neutering them down. That's a question that few (and nobody outside of Intel) knows the answer to.
The second question is what Intel is producing now, as it's highly unlikely that they're producing any more Haswell cores. My guess is that they're churning out Haswel-E/EP chips by the gross for projects such as this one for CSC on the mature 22nm nodes, with the 14nm nodes making early Broadwell silicon.
http://www.csc.fi/csc/kurssit/arkisto/aineisto/GUT14/CSC_presentation_tre_06_2014.pdf.
Projects like these (and the many others that aren't public knowledge or are for secret clients) are a pretty likely reason why we didn't end up seeing Haswell-E/EP released at Computex instead of the likely relelase venue of IDF in San Francisco on September 9-11.
If issues end up arising, it's possible that Haswell-E/EP may be further delayed until the big consumers have has their fill. Hopefully not though...
Last edited:
Great point.
I've been browsing [H] and other forums for a decade plus, and one thing is always consistent... No matter what point in time it is, people are always recommending to wait 6 months (seems to be the magic time-frame) for the better XYZ product to come out.
There's always going to be something better in 6 months. It's just the way the tech world works.
6 months was the old window...now with less competition in the marketplace, it's a year...;(
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,578
Okay....edit here on this. Broadwell with be K and R skus, but it is up in the air if we will see desktop socketed for higher end at this time.
Last edited:
Actually its the exact opposite. Theres more compeition on more fronts than ever before so desktop stuff isn't the prime focus. Roadmap keeps getting bigger, more SKUs, more markets being worked on etc etc. Its not the black and white world of AMD v Intel anymore.
While this is true, its' out of context. It's pretty obvious he was talking about desktop parts.
I know, but the same still holds true. The desktop market would still be soft even if AMD was competitive again...and what would be the sense in fighting over who gets to stay on a sinking ship (alternatively, supply isn't going to generate demand)?
It's a bit of irony though when I see folks lambast the slowed desktop advancements and then their sig shows they're running a 3-6 year old processor. Because who wouldn't develop a product to appease someone who won't buy it anyways
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,933
June 25th I believe.
I know, but the same still holds true. The desktop market would still be soft even if AMD was competitive again...and what would be the sense in fighting over who gets to stay on a sinking ship (alternatively, supply isn't going to generate demand)?
It's a bit of irony though when I see folks lambast the slowed desktop advancements and then their sig shows they're running a 3-6 year old processor. Because who wouldn't develop a product to appease someone who won't buy it anyways
It's not ironic at all. It makes perfect sense actually. Slow desktop advancement is precisely the reason why people are hanging on to their CPU's for longer. Why upgrade for a 5-8% gain? (i'm talking about the enthusiast market, not your average user)
octoberasian
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,081
At this point, the way it looks like, since Skylake with DDR4 and PCI-E 4.0 is not out for another 1-2 years, I may go straight to Haswell-E.
That will last me for good half-decade or more given the slow catchup on the software side on new CPU technology, and the dearth of console and future console ports from the XONE/PS4. The only thing worth upgrading nowadays are graphics cards. We have Nvidia Pascal in 2 years and whatever AMD is cooking up in the next two years or so.
Like Ramon said above, why upgrade for a 5-8% gain? My friends thought the same with their old Intel 920s, 950s in their computer. Their games are still playing at high framerates on mid-range and high end video cards from Nvidia and AMD. What is the point then in upgrading to a newer CPU and spending hundreds of dollars for upgraded hardware for 5-10 extra FPS?
Whatever happened to having a compelling reason to upgrade to the next greatest and latest hardware?
Majority of the games on the PC side show little to no difference from the console counterpart, and may not even be all that different from XONE and PS4 versions. On the software side, all these new instruction sets being crammed into the newer processors aren't even being used except in specific applications, and your day-to-day software from web browsers to productivity software barely need anything above 2 cores and 2.0 to 2.5 GHz.
It used to be back in the old days of the nascent PC gaming era that the reason we got newer hardware was to run the latest games with better graphics. We went from monochrome to CGA to EGA to VGA to SVGA resolutions and games went from point-and-click 2D games and text games to primitive 3D games. We had reasons to buy newer hardware when the newest software and games needed newer hardware to run them.
It's not happening the same way today.
More and more consumers are holding onto older hardware because the software still runs on them just fine, and the same with operating systems. The only one that ever seems to push for newer hardware for their operating system is Apple, even though it may seem forced or necessary. The mobile market and how it's run gives consumers a reason to get the newer tablets or smartphones because of better features, battery life, display resolution, and the operating systems running them will only run on very specific hardware that's recent or new.
There hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade to newer PC hardware for over a decade, perhaps. It's likely going to be this way until software and games catch up to PC hardware advancement, which will be a very long time.
That will last me for good half-decade or more given the slow catchup on the software side on new CPU technology, and the dearth of console and future console ports from the XONE/PS4. The only thing worth upgrading nowadays are graphics cards. We have Nvidia Pascal in 2 years and whatever AMD is cooking up in the next two years or so.
Like Ramon said above, why upgrade for a 5-8% gain? My friends thought the same with their old Intel 920s, 950s in their computer. Their games are still playing at high framerates on mid-range and high end video cards from Nvidia and AMD. What is the point then in upgrading to a newer CPU and spending hundreds of dollars for upgraded hardware for 5-10 extra FPS?
Whatever happened to having a compelling reason to upgrade to the next greatest and latest hardware?
Majority of the games on the PC side show little to no difference from the console counterpart, and may not even be all that different from XONE and PS4 versions. On the software side, all these new instruction sets being crammed into the newer processors aren't even being used except in specific applications, and your day-to-day software from web browsers to productivity software barely need anything above 2 cores and 2.0 to 2.5 GHz.
It used to be back in the old days of the nascent PC gaming era that the reason we got newer hardware was to run the latest games with better graphics. We went from monochrome to CGA to EGA to VGA to SVGA resolutions and games went from point-and-click 2D games and text games to primitive 3D games. We had reasons to buy newer hardware when the newest software and games needed newer hardware to run them.
It's not happening the same way today.
More and more consumers are holding onto older hardware because the software still runs on them just fine, and the same with operating systems. The only one that ever seems to push for newer hardware for their operating system is Apple, even though it may seem forced or necessary. The mobile market and how it's run gives consumers a reason to get the newer tablets or smartphones because of better features, battery life, display resolution, and the operating systems running them will only run on very specific hardware that's recent or new.
There hasn't been a compelling reason to upgrade to newer PC hardware for over a decade, perhaps. It's likely going to be this way until software and games catch up to PC hardware advancement, which will be a very long time.
Last edited:
I know, but the same still holds true. The desktop market would still be soft even if AMD was competitive again...and what would be the sense in fighting over who gets to stay on a sinking ship (alternatively, supply isn't going to generate demand)?
It's a bit of irony though when I see folks lambast the slowed desktop advancements and then their sig shows they're running a 3-6 year old processor. Because who wouldn't develop a product to appease someone who won't buy it anyways
There are some people that are fine with the performance of older processors, but there are many who are not being served by the lack of advancements in the processing technology. Some folks need all the power they can get and to have advancement slow results in their needs not being met. These people end up sitting on their wallets, since there is nothing out there that can provide the performance they need.
Also, developers develop their software to run on 2-4 cores, since that's what most people are running and don't want to spend extra time and money to optimize for more cores. People don't upgrade because the software they run doesn't benefit from more than 4 cores and systems with >4 cores are priced at a premium level. A handy little catch 22. If systems with more cores were offered at a more reasonable price point, more people would pick them up, which would result in more software being optimized to run on >4 cores. But, people don't spend the extra money on them due to the fact that the premium is significant and the software they're running at this moment doesn't benefit much.
It's sort of like how there was a lack of decent roads for early automobiles to use, which combined with their high initial price, resulted in slow adoption at first. Once the cost of vehicles became affordable and more people purchased them, better roads were built and vehicle adoption became much more widespread.
The same applies here with CPUs, with Intel stalling on the advancement of CPUs, largely because they can (due to no credible competition from AMD). They're choosing to advance onboard graphics on the mainstream platform at the expense of providing extra cores. This strategy is very understandable on the mainstream front, but by not providing high core count CPUs on the HEDT platform, it's simply (and solely) profit-margin enhancement. I can understand the rationale for this strategy as well. Intel is a corporation, whose purpose is to maximize profits for its shareholders.
What makes no sense to me is why Intel hard locked the top SKU dual-capable HCC Xeons, denying the folks who would have purchased one due to that ability to have a highly clocked, high core count CPU. This practice is intentional and deliberate constraint of technology advancement for no good reason. It forces the folks who want Intel's best CPU (that's not a complete dog in single threaded applications) to buy a 6-core CPU. This CPU is as weak as a kitten in multithreaded applications (compared with dual HCC Xeons) and really hasn't advanced a great deal ahead of its predecessors from four years ago. If enthusiasts had something to buy that offered significant and substantial gains, you can rest assured that many of those people who are running older systems will upgrade. But, in recent years the improvement in performance has been negligible at best on the HEDT platform.
I pray that Intel does end up unlocking the top SKUs of Haswell-EP as has been rumored. If this doesn't happen, we'll be stuck with 8-core chips (that are only slightly better than those released 2.5 years ago) and stuck with them for the long haul. Given that it'll have taken Intel 4.5 years after the release of an unlocked 6-core CPU to release an unlocked 8-core, if Haswell-EP's top SKUs aren't unlocked it'll likely be a long time before we see an unlocked 10-core CPU.