Haswell-E reveal: 8 Cores, DDR4, X99

DejaWiz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's an opportunity too good to pass up.

With Steamroller FX coming out in 2014, it's a good opportunity for AMD to take advantage of the fact that Intel's Haswell-E 6- and 8-core processors will definitely cost two to four times more than an 6- and 8-core AMD FX processor.

Performance may not match it, but like any marketing or commercial, it's a way to sway consumers to one product over another. It's been done for years and years no matter the product or service, and it is deceptive. But, it works. AMD's marketing needs to get its head straightened out and look at it as a way to get more consumers to their side.

I would not be surprised the Haswell-E 6-core 5930K (or something along those lines) costs $100 to $200 more than the SB-E 3930K or IVB-E 4930K when it's launched. I also would not be surprised that 16GB of DDR4 RAM (4x 4GB or 2x 8GB modules) will cost two to three times the amount of equivalent speed and capacity of DDR3 RAM when they're first released.
 
KazeoHin said:
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.
Click to expand...



You're right. Intel has no reason or motivation to drop prices EVER on the Extreme/Enthusiast chips, and they usually don't even right before they get retired forever. Time will tell whether they go your route or not, but I think it wouldn't matter what pricing they come as.

People will finally be happy that they'll at least get more bang for their overly priced buck with at the very least added cores to separate the Extreme market. Clocks are nice, but at that class it isn't the most important, neither are overclocks to be honest. The thing is Intel's profit margins are incredibly high with the Enthusiast/Extreme chips, despite of course sales being far lower, they rake in huge dollars for each one sold given they are really just Xeon's with the balls slightly nipped.

They will lose no money either which way they go pricing wise. They are more than willing to waste a lot of money giving people an iGPU they don't want for a decent price, cutting that off the die and slapping on an easy 2-4 cores isn't costing them a dime when said chips are already in massive production for the server market. Right now the Extreme/Enthusiast market is incredibly stale and most people who are in that market are looking for an upgrade. Very few newbies come into the market just for the added cores. Right now those folks have very little incentive to upgrade as IVB-E is already looking like a long awaited and delayed disappointment.
 
KazeoHin said:
6-core extremes have been $1000 consistently for the past 5 years,
Click to expand...

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 2 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 1 core???

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 4 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 2 core???

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 6 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 4 core???

KazeoHin said:
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???
Click to expand...

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 10 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 8 core???

Really,
- Really
 
Seems like people have short memory.
6 cores are in the same place Q6600 was years ago - minimal amount of aplications to benefit from it's power and >$500 price .

Same Q6600 later exploded in sales when it got dropped to 266$.

When intel drops prices to 300-350$ for entry level 6 core entusiast will love flock to it like flies to candle ;)
 
Sorry to say it, but price doesn't scale with cores across time.

If that was the case, we'll be in a lot of trouble when Intel makes it to 80 cores!

We'll have to pay $10,000 for the chip!
 
Really said:
Sorry to say it, but price doesn't scale with cores across time.

If that was the case, we'll be in a lot of trouble when Intel makes it to 80 cores!

We'll have to pay $10,000 for the chip!
Click to expand...

No, but competition (or lack thereof) does impact price. When Intel releases their 8 core HWL-E, they will be at liberty to price it however they please since nothing from any other CPU manufacturer will touch it. What is the going rate for their 6 core models? Yep, about the same now as they were at introduction (MSRP, not specialty store bait pricing).
 
Really said:
you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 2 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 1 core???

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 4 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 2 core???

you think intel is just going to wake up one day and suddenly become generous enough to offer the market an 6 core for the same price as they've historically offered a 4 core???
Click to expand...

They already did:

i7-3960X – 3.3 GHz/3.9 GHz Turbo Boost, 6 cores, 15 MB L3 cache
990X Extreme Edition – 3.46 GHz/3.73 GHz Turbo Boost - 6 cores
975 (extreme edition) – 3.33 GHz/3.60 GHz Turbo Boost - 4 cores
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 – 3.00 GHz (2×6 MB L2, 1333 MHz FSB) - 4 cores
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 – 2.66 GHz (2×4 MB L2 Cache, 1066 MHz FSB) - 2 cores
Pentium 955 EE – 3.46 GHz, 1066 MHz front side bus - 2 cores
Pentium 4 EE 3.46 - 1 core

and so on ;)
 
Serious question.

Why DDR 4 and not DDR5? I see GPUs either have DDR3/DDR5. Why not just skip DDR4 for system memory, especially if chip process/production are expensive to setup, it would make sense to go with DDR5 as it's already being made.
 
canna said:
Serious question.

Why DDR 4 and not DDR5? I see GPUs either have DDR3/DDR5. Why not just skip DDR4 for system memory, especially if chip process/production are expensive to setup, it would make sense to go with DDR5 as it's already being made.
Click to expand...


Because there is no such thing as DDR5 and as of now the industry is unsure if there will be anything past DDR4 with newer technologies in the works it could nullify the future DRAM market as we know it.

DDR != GDDR

GDDR = based off DDR
GDDR2 = based off DDR2 (could be DDR1, not entirely sure)
GDDR3 = based off DDR2
GDDR4 = hardly used, based off DDR3
GDDR5 = based off DDR3

Future:

GDDR6 = probably based off DDR4's specifications
 
Thank you for the article. I can finally retire my X58 now :) only 1.5 years to go. I hope the price of DDR4 isn't crazy.
 
WorldExclusive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Think I paid 550$ for 3770k/Mobo/Ram, a year ago.

Now while the 8-core does have double the cores, it will probably not have double the performance of a 3770k/4770k. Yet price will be ( according to some price predictions here ), probably around 1.5$k - 1.8$k for CPU/MOBO/RAM.

I pull 15$k a month, but will not drop 1.5$k on those components.

Maybe those new 6-cores will be more accessible in price, by that time.
 
The IB-E Patsburg is further proof of no new chipset to replace X79.
 
Just managed to scrounge up what I paid for my original beast.

mJ9E8kA.jpg


Australian pricing is brutal, paying on average 40% more for IT hardware.

Overall my system has held up pretty well. The Raptors were a good choice and are still amazing drives. The GPU's were a horrible choice. Paying $1500 for two furnaces that ended up frying my sound card. Ended up selling one due to power draw concerns (paying 37-44c per kWh in Australia, when the system idles at 240 watts and draws a straight 700 on load).

The best choice had to be the CPU though, worth the money. Sure when I first bought it, nothing used 6 cores (except encoding and some other rendering work). Nowadays however everything is on a minimum of 4, and I have a distinct advantage on any application that uses more than that. 8 core will be the what to aim for for the next generation of gaming, since the developers are being forced to make things as threaded as possible. Both new consoles only have 1.6ghz processors, and the IPC on those jaguar cores cant be that great to match anything we have now at much higher frequencies.

The way I see the massive price tag is that, for over 3 years, i've had within ~10% of the best performance on the market. Mods and overclocking helps keep it up there too. Haswell is the next actual step where IPC and new features makes it worth it for someone like me to upgrade.
 
$5,829.90 -> ouch!!!

Wow a blu-ray writer for $250!
My eyes are bleeding. :eek:
 
phrozenfayte said:
Paying $1500 for two furnaces that ended up frying my sound card.
Click to expand...

Hi phrozenfayte,

I just have a minor question to ask you. I currently have a Titanium HD sandwiched between two HD 7970s and it the sound card gets pretty warm. I never had a soundcard die on me yet. But I am just curious what happened to the soundcard before it died? Did it make funny noises or just failed.
 
gigatexal said:
So are we saying 4 dimms total per socket?
Click to expand...
ND40oz said:
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.
Click to expand...
DDR4 = 1 DIMM per channel. So yea 4 DIMM's total for Haswell-E. The alternative is to add special buffer and controller chips and such to each DIMM so you can scale more than 1 DIMM per channel...but that is going to be fuck off expensive. We're talking like over $1K per DIMM for the lowest speed/capacity at launch. You'll see it on server versions but for desktop, even high end desktop like Haswell-E, "no one" is going to pay $4k for 8-16GB of RAM.

Especially since those buffer/control chips will actually slow things down by adding more latency to memory operations. The benefit for servers is that you'll be able to have 2+ DIMMs per channel so they can stuff 64GB of RAM in them which is actually required and that market is used to, willing to pay, and can actually afford to pay the insane memory costs that go along with that platform.
 
mesyn191 said:
DDR4 = 1 DIMM per channel. So yea 4 DIMM's total for Haswell-E. The alternative is to add special buffer and controller chips and such to each DIMM so you can scale more than 1 DIMM per channel...but that is going to be fuck off expensive. We're talking like over $1K per DIMM for the lowest speed/capacity at launch. You'll see it on server versions but for desktop, even high end desktop like Haswell-E, "no one" is going to pay $4k for 8-16GB of RAM.

Especially since those buffer/control chips will actually slow things down by adding more latency to memory operations. The benefit for servers is that you'll be able to have 2+ DIMMs per channel so they can stuff 64GB of RAM in them which is actually required and that market is used to, willing to pay, and can actually afford to pay the insane memory costs that go along with that platform.
Click to expand...

They're going to have to be able to scale it and scale it at a decent cost. I'm currently ordering servers with 256GB or 512GB of ram now, they're not going to come up with a platform that doesn't at least match the current capabilities of SB-E and the forthcoming IB-E.
 
What I want to know is how hot it runs. Hotter than 1366 and it'll be "meh".
 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
If they stick with the same IHS mounting method as their 3xxx and 4xxx chips Haswell-E will run lots hotter.

ND40oz said:
They're going to have to be able to scale it and scale it at a decent cost. I'm currently ordering servers with 256GB or 512GB of ram now, they're not going to come up with a platform that doesn't at least match the current capabilities of SB-E and the forthcoming IB-E.
Click to expand...
DDR4 is supposed to double the per chip memory capacity over DDR3 so you'll eventually be able to get double the amount of memory in the same system but I wouldn't expect those sorts of DIMMs to be available for quite a while after launch. I'd expect initial DDR4 based servers to be targeted at buyers with very high performance applications who need that memory bandwidth bottleneck widened a bit.
 
mesyn191 said:
DDR4 is supposed to double the per chip memory capacity over DDR3 so you'll eventually be able to get double the amount of memory in the same system but I wouldn't expect those sorts of DIMMs to be available for quite a while after launch. I'd expect initial DDR4 based servers to be targeted at buyers with very high performance applications who need that memory bandwidth bottleneck widened a bit.
Click to expand...

Yep, and this is good news for space-limited form factors like MiniITX and laptop/netbook/ultrabook/tablets.

Would be awesome to have an 8 core MiniITX system with 32-64GB of memory off of 2 DIMMs. :cool:
 
Don't go expecting that to happen for at least a couple of years, probably more like 3 or 4 though for desktop.

A 16-32GB DDR4 DIMM is also going to be pricey vs. what people are used to paying for system RAM today. IIRC they need TSV methods to get that sort of density. I'd expect to pay over $150 per DIMM at a minimum even for a "slow" 16GB DDR4 module. $200+ is probably more realistic.
 
mesyn191 said:
DDR4 is supposed to double the per chip memory capacity over DDR3 so you'll eventually be able to get double the amount of memory in the same system but I wouldn't expect those sorts of DIMMs to be available for quite a while after launch. I'd expect initial DDR4 based servers to be targeted at buyers with very high performance applications who need that memory bandwidth bottleneck widened a bit.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine they're only going to have 8 dimm slots on the haswell-ep server boards, 4 per processor, that limits you to 256GB of ram using 32GB dimms at launch. It just not enough memory support, especially when we're getting 512GB or 768GB using 16 or 24 slots now with DDR3 on sandy bridge-ep.
 
For the server boards no, I'd be surprised if they did that. Even the initial server boards I'd expect at least 8 slots per socket. 16 per socket should eventually come along too. 24 DIMM per socket boards though...I don't know if you'll ever see that for DDR4.
 
mesyn191 said:
For the server boards no, I'd be surprised if they did that. Even the initial server boards I'd expect at least 8 slots per socket. 16 per socket should eventually come along too. 24 DIMM per socket boards though...I don't know if you'll ever see that for DDR4.
Click to expand...

So if they're able to do switched dimm slots on Haswell-EP, why wouldn't they do the same on Haswell-E...
 
You posters sure have a hard on for Console ports...just buy the console. :) Save a grand or two. Steam/Zynga games suck anyway :p
 
ND40oz said:
So if they're able to do switched dimm slots on Haswell-EP, why wouldn't they do the same on Haswell-E...
Click to expand...
Cost + performance. The server DIMMs have to have that additional buffer chip + additional latency makes it stupid for workstations/desktops + additional testing expenses + the "its for servers therefore we'll charge bank for it just cuz we can" overhead.

IOW much the same reasons why you don't see even high end socket 2011 X79 mobos with 16+ DIMM slots, and its waaaaaaaaaay easier and cheaper to do it with DDR3 vs DDR4 too.
 
mesyn191 said:
Cost + performance. The server DIMMs have to have that additional buffer chip + additional latency makes it stupid for workstations/desktops + additional testing expenses + the "its for servers therefore we'll charge bank for it just cuz we can" overhead.

IOW much the same reasons why you don't see even high end socket 2011 X79 mobos with 16+ DIMM slots, and its waaaaaaaaaay easier and cheaper to do it with DDR3 vs DDR4 too.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen fully buffered dimms since DDR2 with the 5000 and 5400 series chipset memory controllers using them. Since then, Intel has just used registered dimms which doesn't add near that cost that fully buffered dimms did.

You don't see any more then 8 dimm slots on X79 for the same reason you don't see more then 8 dimm slots on single socket C600 series chipsets, you need 2 processors to support 16 dimms, 8 on each processor.
 
To do more than 1 DDR4 DIMM per channel you still need the buffer chip though which is the whole point. Which you seem to agree isn't going to happen either so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?
 
How DDR4 can do more than one DIMM per channel, if going by the PC Watch article linked a few pages ago, is to use a bridge or switching chip.

You could technically do 4 DIMMs per channel at 4 channels max, so that'll be 16 DIMMs total. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll come to consumer boards or even enthusiast boards. It will likely remain on server boards only.

But, the thought of having 16x 16GB DDR4 DIMMs (256GB total) or 16x 32GB DDR4 DIMMs (512GB total) is sweet overkill for an enthusiast board. Hahaha
 
mesyn191 said:
To do more than 1 DDR4 DIMM per channel you still need the buffer chip though which is the whole point. Which you seem to agree isn't going to happen either so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?
Click to expand...

The stuff I've seen thus far has a switch on the board for each channel, but I guess that's what you mean by the buffer chip. I was thinking you meant on the memory itself.

There doesn't appear to be a reason why the board manufacturers couldn't implement it themselves, since it's independent of the memory controller, but you're right, that doesn't mean they will as it'll add cost.
 
mesyn191 said:
It is on the actual chip itself and the CPU and mobo have to support it as well.

Old info. but still fairly informative about LRDIMMs and FBDIMMs:
http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/showpubnews.asp?num=167
Click to expand...

We'll have to see if it requires lrdimms, what we do know is it will require a switch for each channel.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2010/08/26/ddr4-what-we-can-expect/2

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/387/444/html/kaigai-01.jpg.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top