• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Haswell Rumor and Speculation Thread

T

Tisca

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
244
Only ~one year till release so about time to start this thread :)

intelhaswelllaunchdate_dh_fx57.jpg


HASWELL
  • 22 nm with new architecture
  • LGA-1150
  • Chipsets: "Lynx Point"

desktop: Z87, H87 and Z85
corporate: Q87, Q85 and B85
C228 chipset for Intel's LGA-1150 based Xeon​
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
All rumor and speculation, indeed. Remember to not take any of this info to heart. At least not for quite a while. :)
 
not putting much stock into any info before it more than just typical rumormill.
 
Yeah, it's really too early to speculate on the performance of Haswell at this point in time.

I expect it to be faster than Ivy Bridge and it is the CPU I am waiting for before I upgrade my Q9450 CPU. How much faster will it be? Don't know. I would guess somewhere between 1% and 50% faster than Ivy Bridge.
 
I just want to know when Intel plans on releasing 6-core cpu's at a reasonable price ($200 to $300). As a gamer let's face it, once next gen consoles come out which might be next year we are going to most likely need 6-cores. I don't plan on buying another quad core only to have it obsolete for gaming in two years since I only build a new system every five years or so.
 
JaguarSKX said:
How much faster will it be? Don't know. I would guess somewhere between 1% and 50% faster than Ivy Bridge.
Click to expand...
Serious question: Has any 'modern' generation of Intel processor been more than 10% faster than the previous at the same clock speed and core count? The only time that might have happened was between Pentium D and Conroe but that was because of the D series' horrible performance per watt if memory serves me right.
 
I just want to know when Intel plans on releasing 6-core cpu's at a reasonable price ($200 to $300).
Click to expand...

Without any competition in this area Intel will not have to change their plans.

As a gamer let's face it, once next gen consoles come out which might be next year we are going to most likely need 6-cores.
Click to expand...

It is highly doubtful that game makers will limit their software to only lga2011 systems. I know someone will mention bulldozer however with its low per core IPC (30 to 60% per core IPC deficit versus Intel) it mostly does not help that it has more "real" cores.
 
leh18621 said:
I just want to know when Intel plans on releasing 6-core cpu's at a reasonable price ($200 to $300). As a gamer let's face it, once next gen consoles come out which might be next year we are going to most likely need 6-cores. I don't plan on buying another quad core only to have it obsolete for gaming in two years since I only build a new system every five years or so.
Click to expand...
No worries. All next gen consoles using AMD APUs, and as we all know by now, in general these 6-8 cores APU perform NO BETTER compared to Intel SB's i5 (4 core) cpus. Unless something is changed drasmatically in next 5 yesrs, you will be fine.
 
I don't believe Intel is releasing any 6-8core parts outside of the 2011 workstation platform and that trend will continue into Haswell.

If that 64MB onboard memory is true that's going to be a big and incredibly expensive CPU. It looks as if Haswell is going to be another graphical upgrade if these rumors pan out, which might suck for us enthusiasts with discrete GPUs but it would make sense from Intel's standpoint. Why keep pushing the CPU performance barrier when you've got a hefty lead on your competitor (would probably take AMD a couple years to catch up if Intel were to stall) when you've got just as much ground to make up for in the graphics department.

The next-gen consoles are rumored to have ~4 cores (apparently the XBOX 720 has 6 with 2 cores dedicated to running background apps but not gaming) so you needn't be too worried about not having enough cores :p The next-gen consoles won't be packing any serious hardware that'll make your PC obsolete. In fact they look to be conservative
 
I want six or more cores (with these more efficient CPU's) or I will stay with my i7-930@4ghz. So enthusiasts better get some options this time around too. Gulftown and Sandy Bridge-E came in six core varieties. Ivy and Haswell better come in at least six cores too, but hopefully eight.

If people are willing to pay (I don't mean $1,000 CPU's either) than there should at least be a few options on the table.

I've been waiting for a good stepping stone and a six or more core Ivy-E or Haswell should just about do it. Here's to hoping! :(
 
drescherjm said:
Without any competition in this area Intel will not have to change their plans.



It is highly doubtful that game makers will limit their software to only lga2011 systems. I know someone will mention bulldozer however with its low per core IPC (30 to 60% per core IPC deficit versus Intel) it mostly does not help that it has more "real" cores.
Click to expand...

First of all, they'd be making those games primarily for consoles, so they honestly couldn't care less about 10% of the pie. Secondly, just because you don't have a hex-core doesn't mean you can run the game. Are people with dual cores able to run most, if not all, games fairly well today?
 
Consoles will in either case use lower end processors than a PC anyways so it does not matter that consoles will use 6 cores because the cores 1/4 to 1/2 the IPC of an Intel core.


Edit: I should have said performance per core here instead of just IPC. Where performance per core = frequency * IPC.
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
Consoles will in either case use lower end processors than a PC anyways so it does not matter that consoles will use 6 cores because the cores 1/4 to 1/2 the IPC of an Intel core.
Click to expand...

But DX11 compatible, so they'll allow for multiple threads as opposed to the 2 threads in DX9 ports we have now.

It's going to make a difference but it likely won't be that huge. Your right in that the new consoles won't carry big powerful CPUs as that's not needed anymore with such cheap and yet still powerful GPUs
 
I have heard about the on-package graphics memory from a few different sources now, seems like it could actually be true. Of course time will tell, but the theory is at least plausible on it's own. Should be some really cool stuff coming out in the next few years for sure.
 
Safety said:
Serious question: Has any 'modern' generation of Intel processor been more than 10% faster than the previous at the same clock speed and core count? The only time that might have happened was between Pentium D and Conroe but that was because of the D series' horrible performance per watt if memory serves me right.
Click to expand...

I think at was around 15% - 20% increase in performance. Might be a little less. Too lazy to go digging for data...

The only other time when Intel released a CPU that was at least 10% beat than the previous CPU core was Sandy Bridge which in general was about a 12% on average performance improvement over Nehalem / Lynnfield.
 
Safety said:
Serious question: Has any 'modern' generation of Intel processor been more than 10% faster than the previous at the same clock speed and core count? The only time that might have happened was between Pentium D and Conroe but that was because of the D series' horrible performance per watt if memory serves me right.
Click to expand...

The 1366 processors were a huge leap above C2D/Q's.
 
The 1366 processors were a huge leap above C2D/Q's.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure (having a machine from both generations on each side of the desk I am typing from) that there was a > 10% IPC improvement between core2quad and even the i7 920 lga1366 as well so the last 3 generations have all had 10 to 15% IPC improvement.

edit: Although this was over 6 years since core2 came out so I seem to be missing some ticks and tocks.
 
Last edited:
Make no mistake, Intel is designing the Haswell with laptops in mind and have been doing that since SB (at least). Lower power with better integrated graphics is the trend and will always be. Mobile is taking over and all the manufacturers know it. The PC gamer and workstation market will survive for now and I don't see mobile/laptop computing catching up with PC games anytime soon so discrete graphics and "premium performance" desktop CPUs will still be needed.


Haswell promises 24 hours of use on “Ultrabooks,” with 10 days of connected standby time (Sep. 13th, 2011)
 
christpunchers said:
The 1366 processors were a huge leap above C2D/Q's.
Click to expand...

Also, not even counting raw cpu performance, but the architecture changes for the first i7's vs C2D/Q's - I don't think I've even heard a serious user that made that change not notice a noticeably better "feel" in responsiveness.
 
pelo said:
The next-gen consoles are rumored to have ~4 cores (apparently the XBOX 720 has 6 with 2 cores dedicated to running background apps but not gaming) so you needn't be too worried about not having enough cores :p The next-gen consoles won't be packing any serious hardware that'll make your PC obsolete. In fact they look to be conservative
Click to expand...

I recently read something similar. It was saying the rumored 6core that the xbox 720 is supposed to use will dedicate two of those cores for Kinect, and the other four for games. If so, as other people have said, there will be no problem if you have a newer Intel quad cpu since the AMD cpu's have performed lower lately.

I don't have an unlimited pc fund so I am keeping my eye on all of this. I am starting to think it will be safe to upgrade when Haswell comes out. By safe I mean it should last me 4-5 years of next gen gaming without absolutely having to upgrade again.
 
Interesting. My biggest hope is that Intel pulls their heads from their asses and provides more than 2 native SATA III ports. You know, something they could have, and should have, done with Maho and Sugar Bays.
 
The aging consoles and the lack of news for their 8th generation are really bad news. Why would the update from 6th to 7th generation took so fast but the 8 took like forever? Is Microsoft seriously intending to keep Xbox 360 for the full 10 years? I am not sure I enjoy gaming and seeing such a low utilization on the CPU front. But the fact that consoles are slowing down on how games could be make nicer etc is shocking.
 
Last edited:
silz said:
The aging consoles and the lack of news for their 8th generation are really bad news. Why would the update from 6th to 7th generation took so fast but the 8 took like forever? Is Microsoft seriously intending to keep Xbox 360 for the full 10 years? I am not sure I enjoy gaming and seeing such a low utilization on the CPU front. But the fact that consoles are slowing down on how games could be make nicer etc is shocking.
Click to expand...

The next Xbox and Playstation are going to be December 2013 releases, they are already specing/testing the platforms with studios/developers. There have been rumours about the CPU/GPU architecture if you want to Google it.
 
Yay, more than 2 SATA3 ports provided by the PCH finally, that's about all the improvement I see other than DDR3L, but I think Panther Point can support that already. Power gating on RAM is good too. Improvements in cache sharing will definitely boost iGPU on the CPU side.

What's Hotham 1.0?
 
No idea what Hotham is.

Shared LLC between CPU and integrated graphics should be interesting if the L4 cache rumors are true. DDR power gating :D The OC improvements are welcome considering IB issues.
 
That rumor of DDR 4 coming out in 2013/2014 makes me less reluctant to upgrade now. I know my 980X is still good for gaming and I still have good overclocking potential still remaining. But I really want a native USB 3.0/Serial ATA 3 on my motherboard. PCI Express 3.0 doesn't hurt either, now that the controller is on the CPU.

I really want haswell, but I am in such a bind :(
 
Mr Mean said:
That rumor of DDR 4 coming out in 2013/2014 makes me less reluctant to upgrade now. I know my 980X is still good for gaming and I still have good overclocking potential still remaining. But I really want a native USB 3.0/Serial ATA 3 on my motherboard. PCI Express 3.0 doesn't hurt either, now that the controller is on the CPU.

I really want haswell, but I am in such a bind :(
Click to expand...

Haswell is going to be DDR3 still, so there is zero chance of DDR4 being relevant on Intel desktop platforms until at least 2014.

Native USB3 is a non-issue (unless you have a board with crappy Eltron USB3 that doesn't work), native SATA3 does make a difference with SSDs though.
 
There's probably not going to be much solid performance information available until early summer or at fall IDF. Intel did an early silicon Haswell system demo at last fall's IDF (Sept 2011), so it's been running for months.
 
pxc said:
There's probably not going to be much solid performance information available until early summer or at fall IDF. Intel did an early silicon Haswell system demo at last fall's IDF (Sept 2011), so it's been running for months.
Click to expand...

I'd probably bet a few bucks and say that intel likely already has working (but very alpha-stage) 14nm Skylake and maybe even 10nm Skymont silicon for in-house only testing. :eek:
 
DejaWiz said:
I'd probably bet a few bucks and say that intel likely already has working (but very alpha-stage) 14nm Skylake and maybe even 10nm Skymont silicon for in-house only testing. :eek:
Click to expand...

I doubt that. They may have some attempts at the 14nm process but I doubt it works even a little at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top