• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

What is wrong with Intel?

T

Trackr

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,786
So, let me get this straight..

I've had my 2600k for 2.5 years now. It's clocked at 5.0Ghz.

Two-and-a-half years later, Intel release a CPU, the 4770k, that is 10% faster (just by itself, that is disappointing to the point of nausea), and.. can only be clock at 4.6Ghz max, as in.. 10% lower?

So, in 2.5 years, we've gained absolutely nothing?? :mad:
 
No competition really. That's basically how the cookie crumbles unfortunately, we need AMD to get their act together... hopefully with Steamroller.

On the other hand, we are tackling this generation from the point of view of a desktop user where Intel are blatantly focusing on the mobile market and who can blame them with the buzz around tablets and Ultrabooks.

Almost all the design choices - some of which have made the CPU run hotter while overclocking still benefit the unit at stock and for mobile usage.

Still, it would be nice to have seen a bigger jump by now. I'm coming up to Haswell from an i5 750 at stock only so I can expect great things personally since my new PC has an SSD for the first time as well but I was very tempted to wait for the next Die Shrink.

See what happens when they extend their roadmap I guess. Haswell will keep me going for about 4-6 years as my i5 750 kept me going for nearly 4 years I hope! Upgrading my GPU will be the killer for inbetween then.
 
Haswell is focused on powersaving for the mobile front. While the performance gains on the desktop side aren't terribly exciting I think the power benefits for laptops will be noticeable. There's also the fact that AMD isn't exactly pressuring Intel all too much these days. :(
 
Intel doesn't care about overclocking, and they designed Haswell with the intent to push the power envelope as small as possible for mobile platforms.

Besides Haswell is 10% faster than IVB, which is 10% faster than SNB.. so you're getting 10% if what you said about clocks are true.
 
Trackr said:
So, let me get this straight..

I've had my 2600k for 2.5 years now. It's clocked at 5.0Ghz.

Two-and-a-half years later, Intel release a CPU, the 4770k, that is 10% faster (just by itself, that is disappointing to the point of nausea), and.. can only be clock at 4.6Ghz max, as in.. 10% lower?

So, in 2.5 years, we've gained absolutely nothing?? :mad:
Click to expand...

More to a CPU than raw Ghz/Mhz or speed. Power consumption is a big issue as well and Haswell uses a good bit less power than SB and IB. Basically Hawell is for the mobile market. It's getting a more "true" Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge performance into a small package.
 
Any overclocks are free boosts in performance anyway, we just get greedy :D
 
Jonesyy said:
Any overclocks are free boosts in performance anyway, we just get greedy :D
Click to expand...

Further, SB simply kicked ass in what the desktop tier of parts could do... Converting lots of enthusiasts off the enthusiasts tier of parts.
 
B we Iesides, haswell is just the regular platform. For us enthusiasts sb-e or hopefully ib-e is where it is supposed to be.

Guess what I'm saying is that Intel is so awesome we forget that we are talking about the mainstream line.
 
Skillz said:
More to a CPU than raw Ghz/Mhz or speed. Power consumption is a big issue as well and Haswell uses a good bit less power than SB and IB. Basically Hawell is for the mobile market. It's getting a more "true" Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge performance into a small package.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, it uses more power when loaded, but since it's faster clock for clock, it's pretty well offset.
 
No money to be made in desktop computers nowadays compare to other platforms.
 
The heady days of the AthlonXP vs the P4 Northwood are long gone OP...
 
Jonesyy said:
No competition really. That's basically how the cookie crumbles unfortunately, we need AMD to get their act together... hopefully with Steamroller.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but..

When Ivy Bridge came along, everyone was like "Oh, it's just a tick."

Now, Haswell is here, a "tock" and.. it's the exact same thing!

There's almost no improvement in power consumption and almost no improvement IPC.
 
Jonesyy said:
Any overclocks are free boosts in performance anyway, we just get greedy :D
Click to expand...

Sure, after you've spent time configuring, spent money cooling, spent more time tweaking, troubleshooting, and so on. ;)
 
rflcptr said:
Sure, after you've spent time configuring, spent money cooling, spent more time tweaking, troubleshooting, and so on. ;)
Click to expand...

Spending time on a hobby is free time though, at least most consider it to be as close to "free" as possible.

As with most hobbies overclocking can be super infuriating while also having the possibility to be intrinsically rewarding.
 
The way I look at it is, everyone that bought silicon with built in GPU that went unused is inadvertently helping Intel fund their GPU development. I'm really looking forward to the IVB-E release.
 
So long as Intel and the world seems to think tablets are the future, technology will continue to stagnate. I'm starting to think it's something more with where things are at. Right now there is a colossal amount of research into what will push computing into the future. Despite all the promises there's been no indication on where to go, and how to get there.

Perhaps Intel is at a point where they have a few options. Throw more cores at the problem (AMD), which didn't work out so well for them in the long run, continue tweaking an already tweaked out IPC for the architecture and get 1-10% gains which over time become less and less visible. Or lower power consumption (something they were notorious for in the past) and build up a failed graphics business. Yeah they were #1 on integrated graphics, blah blah, but they've always sucked, they still suck now.

Seems they are taking the last two very seriously and are willing to sacrifice any real further advancement to do so. Probably buying some time since they've pretty much shunned the other semiconductor industry and work solo on most projects. I doubt we'll see a full 2x performance from Sandy Bridge by the end of the decade at this rate, at least in the CPU side of things.
 
Because Intel purposely builds their processors around the ability to overclock to 5+ghz...lol
 
Sounds like my 2600K Proc is way strong enough to not bother with Haswell.
 
The new CPU is faster at the same frequency.

So what you have is a faster CPU, at a lower frequency, with higher performance per watt than its predecessors.

CPU speeds are nearly topped out... fab is focused on decreasing size and power requirements. Haswell delivers.
 
King Icewind said:
Because Intel purposely builds their processors around the ability to overclock to 5+ghz...lol
Click to expand...


Truthfully, I don't think that was his point. Sure the lack of OC'ing is a bummer, but when OC'ing is the only real way to get improvements these days it matters more and more until Intel cuts the crap and drops the iGPU and throws in 2 extra cores for the high-end models and pushes 8 core parts to the Extreme variants. Whether you need them or not it'll be an instant improvement that'll shut people up.

Intel's original roadmap from a long long time ago when AMD was still a threat, had 6-8 core parts in mainstream models planned. Suddenly those disappeared after Intel's Quads were kicking the crap out of AMD's half-baked 8-cores. That is the only reason Intel isn't throwing 6-8 core chips out there. Just saving there ammo until someone can actually compete with them.

Every time this comes up though I hate the easy argument of, "Well we don't need more cores.", or "Pay $500 more for an overpriced part with the 2 extra cores." as if people didn't already overpay for an overpriced iGPU they don't want.
 
Your desire for a 5.0+ghz overclock is so far off Intel's radar that you're not even on the same planet any more. Why would you even get upset over this? Market wants mobile, power saving chips and thats what it gets. Just think that you got lucky with Sandy Bridge, because that is really what happened.
 
Zangmonkey said:
The new CPU is faster at the same frequency.

So what you have is a faster CPU, at a lower frequency, with higher performance per watt than its predecessors.

CPU speeds are nearly topped out... fab is focused on decreasing size and power requirements. Haswell delivers.
Click to expand...

+1 - It's not the end of the world, people. Seriously... If Devs would focus on better game engine efficiency, these CPUs are MORE then powerful enough.
 
Why would Intel aggressively push for increased CPU clock speeds?

Enterprise customers just add more CPUs. They are more concerned with feature set and efficiency. They don't need an OC monster. Average Joe wants his laptop to have a long battery life and just browses Facebook. They don't need an OC monster. Average Gamer is playing primarily GPU-bound games on a 1920x1080 screen with a single mid-range GPU like a 660 or 670, for which a CPU in the 3.5-4.0ghz range is plenty. They don't need an OC monster.

See where I'm going? There is no incentive for Intel to focus on the enthusiast market. Some of their products will be awesome for us, some will just be tiny incremental upgrades or sidegrades at best. But that's mostly luck of the draw, not because they decide to throw us a bone.

And it's becoming harder and harder to yank more performance out of a CPU in general. Sometimes new technologies and designs just aren't ready for mass production on the timetable we'd like.
 
And future console games will have to run on 1.6 GHz mobile CPU cores. It is unlikely that their ports will profit from those ultra fast highly overclocked CPU cores. And being able to run a mobile PC the whole workday without recharging is worth more to me than a few more frames per second. I'm still on an SU2300 powered Thinkpad today because its battery life is highly predictable.
 
Liger88 said:
So long as Intel and the world seems to think tablets are the future, technology will continue to stagnate. I'm starting to think it's something more with where things are at. Right now there is a colossal amount of research into what will push computing into the future. Despite all the promises there's been no indication on where to go, and how to get there.

Perhaps Intel is at a point where they have a few options. Throw more cores at the problem (AMD), which didn't work out so well for them in the long run, continue tweaking an already tweaked out IPC for the architecture and get 1-10% gains which over time become less and less visible. Or lower power consumption (something they were notorious for in the past) and build up a failed graphics business. Yeah they were #1 on integrated graphics, blah blah, but they've always sucked, they still suck now.

Seems they are taking the last two very seriously and are willing to sacrifice any real further advancement to do so. Probably buying some time since they've pretty much shunned the other semiconductor industry and work solo on most projects. I doubt we'll see a full 2x performance from Sandy Bridge by the end of the decade at this rate, at least in the CPU side of things.
Click to expand...

Do you want to know why the world (not necessarily Intel) thinks that tablets and even portable PCs (not necessarily desktops) are the future? Mobility and price (mostly mobility) - everyone wants computing power on the go. That means both power and increased battery life. Throw in a poor economy (just about everywhere) and the pressure is higher than ever.

Second, neither Intel or AMD are charities or not-for-profits - and R&D (Intel's single largest expense) is far from cheap. And the heat problem for mobile computing is far more critical than it is for desktops (though it's far from a non-critical issue even for desktops - remember the Prescott Hating and Heating Company?).

Lastly, what is pushing CPUs these days? In terms of everyday applications (or even gaming) very little. Usually, when we are talking about software being aware of more cores, it's often just ONE more core (for a grand total of a mere two), while the other two cores (this is i5 or even an LGA775-based Intel quad I'm talking about) are practically loafing - how many of us run background applications (even small applications) while gaming? We have been technically able to definitely since Q6600, and the possibility has been there since Northwood (the original one) - however, how many of us do with even Ivy Bridge? Unless you're developing an outlier game or application, if you even TRY to use what's current, you'll get pushback - and often quite massive pushback - even Yerlat Cerli and Crytek have gotten that.

I don't do outlier games or applications outside of desktop virtualization - and support for that is ubiquitous. I can consider Haswell because it's priced (realistically) no higher than Ivy Bridge, and I can actually futureproof.
 
I guess I'm getting old, but the desire to overclock my CPU to ridiculous levels is just not that exciting to me anymore, especially when a SB or IB at stock is way more than enough CPU to run today's games and apps.
I get far more noticeable speed improvements from installing an SSD drive than from trying to squeeze another 100Mhz out of an already fast CPU.
 
PGHammer said:
Do you want to know why the world (not necessarily Intel) thinks that tablets and even portable PCs (not necessarily desktops) are the future? Mobility and price (mostly mobility) - everyone wants computing power on the go. That means both power and increased battery life. Throw in a poor economy (just about everywhere) and the pressure is higher than ever.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. A poor economy and a market where Intel is lacking in (mobile) only makes practical sense for Intel to push into. I don't like their Microsoft approach of doing things by carelessly throwing their weight into the fray without thinking of any repercussions to their other business models. But I understand when you're a giant people are looking at you in the now to make something happen.

Second, neither Intel or AMD are charities or not-for-profits - and R&D (Intel's single largest expense) is far from cheap. And the heat problem for mobile computing is far more critical than it is for desktops (though it's far from a non-critical issue even for desktops - remember the Prescott Hating and Heating Company?).
Click to expand...

Hard to forget lol. I do believe they are making great strides in lowering heat/power consumption and this is nothing to squawk at, especially those of us who've lived through those energy inefficient days and space heaters that literally heated your house to noticeable extents. Seeing GPU/CPU manufacturers finally getting there acts together is a welcome site even if it slows down progress.

Lastly, what is pushing CPUs these days? In terms of everyday applications (or even gaming) very little. Usually, when we are talking about software being aware of more cores, it's often just ONE more core (for a grand total of a mere two), while the other two cores (this is i5 or even an LGA775-based Intel quad I'm talking about) are practically loafing - how many of us run background applications (even small applications) while gaming? We have been technically able to definitely since Q6600, and the possibility has been there since Northwood (the original one) - however, how many of us do with even Ivy Bridge? Unless you're developing an outlier game or application, if you even TRY to use what's current, you'll get pushback - and often quite massive pushback - even Yerlat Cerli and Crytek have gotten that.

I don't do outlier games or applications outside of desktop virtualization - and support for that is ubiquitous. I can consider Haswell because it's priced (realistically) no higher than Ivy Bridge, and I can actually futureproof.
Click to expand...


Of course you can make the argument about software lacking the ability to take advantage of multiple CPU's and that is partially right, but even then I have to say Windows does an excellent job of tasking cores even if they are single threaded. It's one of the reasons my Q9550 has lasted me nearly 5 years.

I am one of those people who runs many background applications and I think many of us do while gaming. Nothing CPU intensive per se if that's what you're referring to, but memory is cheap and allows it to go almost unnoticed these days. The thing is we will always have more power than we need until we need it. That's why people Overclock, it's why people buy processors with more cores, and why we buy newer generation processors. You could tell someone with a 5Ghz single core processor they'll never need that since the thing will sit idle 90% of the time. In reality when power is needed it'll shoot for the max and come down, hence the margins of performance. Same goes with more cores. You may not need it all the time, but along with making multi-tasking less of a burden, it'll be there when you need it and most of the time people wont even know it because the OSes are fairly good about assigning them.

There are a ton of things down the pipe that will push CPU's that I can think of. In reality though we all have different views on what we consider demanding. For many they think of Gaming, others Video Editing, even more for Graphics Design, and then you have Encoding/Decoding H.264/H.265 (HDEV 4K/8K future). That's not to mention a huge amount of people that do CAM/CAD work. There are a ton of things now that are really seeing no gains. Gaming is really the bottom of the barrel where things are "all good" with bottlenecks.

The future looks promising and we have a long way to go, but there are a ton of things right now that could use a performance boost where lower power/less heat and a iGPU just aren't helping much. I'm mostly referring to the high-end/enthusiast chips, not mainstream/lower end parts when I speak of all this. There should be a clear distinction instead of this one-size fits all model of Intel's approach. People will pay more for something better that suits them, and the high-end/enthusiast market is that small crowd.
 
trick0502 said:
lower power usage HARDLY, AT OC SPEEDS.
native usb 3.0 support SANDY ALREADY HAD THIS
6 sata3 ports HARDLY MATTERS
pcie 3.0 MIGHT MATTER FOR NEXT OR NEXTNEXT GEN
10% improvement IPC WITH LOWER CLOCKS
double iGPU performance TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
Click to expand...

SEE ABOVE.
 
Zangmonkey said:
The new CPU is faster at the same frequency.
Click to expand...

Yes, 10% faster. If I may quote Zoolander..

"That's NOTHING, NOTHING... NOOOOTHING!!"

Zangmonkey said:
So what you have is a faster CPU, at a lower frequency, with higher performance per watt than its predecessors.
Click to expand...

No, what we have is a CPU that is equally fast, at a lower frequency, that can't overclock to a frequency where it would be more faster.

trick0502 said:
lower power usage
Click to expand...

Not if you're overclocking. Apparently 22nm means nothing to Intel.

And if you care about power consumption THAT much, you'd get an ULV.

trick0502 said:
native usb 3.0 support
Click to expand...

I have this on Sandy Bridge.

trick0502 said:
6 sata3 ports
Click to expand...

Who would want this besides someone who has 6 SSD's?

trick0502 said:
pcie 3.0
Click to expand...

Won't make a difference until 2015.

trick0502 said:
10% improvement IPC
Click to expand...

Yes, but overclocks 10% lower at max, so it's actually a 0% improvement overall.

Not to mention.. 10%? 10 PERCENT?!

trick0502 said:
double iGPU performance
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
Liger88 said:
Absolutely correct. A poor economy and a market where Intel is lacking in (mobile) only makes practical sense for Intel to push into. I don't like their Microsoft approach of doing things by carelessly throwing their weight into the fray without thinking of any repercussions to their other business models. But I understand when you're a giant people are looking at you in the now to make something happen.



Hard to forget lol. I do believe they are making great strides in lowering heat/power consumption and this is nothing to squawk at, especially those of us who've lived through those energy inefficient days and space heaters that literally heated your house to noticeable extents. Seeing GPU/CPU manufacturers finally getting there acts together is a welcome site even if it slows down progress.




Of course you can make the argument about software lacking the ability to take advantage of multiple CPU's and that is partially right, but even then I have to say Windows does an excellent job of tasking cores even if they are single threaded. It's one of the reasons my Q9550 has lasted me nearly 5 years.

I am one of those people who runs many background applications and I think many of us do while gaming. Nothing CPU intensive per se if that's what you're referring to, but memory is cheap and allows it to go almost unnoticed these days. The thing is we will always have more power than we need until we need it. That's why people Overclock, it's why people buy processors with more cores, and why we buy newer generation processors. You could tell someone with a 5Ghz single core processor they'll never need that since the thing will sit idle 90% of the time. In reality when power is needed it'll shoot for the max and come down, hence the margins of performance. Same goes with more cores. You may not need it all the time, but along with making multi-tasking less of a burden, it'll be there when you need it and most of the time people wont even know it because the OSes are fairly good about assigning them.

There are a ton of things down the pipe that will push CPU's that I can think of. In reality though we all have different views on what we consider demanding. For many they think of Gaming, others Video Editing, even more for Graphics Design, and then you have Encoding/Decoding H.264/H.265 (HDEV 4K/8K future). That's not to mention a huge amount of people that do CAM/CAD work. There are a ton of things now that are really seeing no gains. Gaming is really the bottom of the barrel where things are "all good" with bottlenecks.

The future looks promising and we have a long way to go, but there are a ton of things right now that could use a performance boost where lower power/less heat and a iGPU just aren't helping much. I'm mostly referring to the high-end/enthusiast chips, not mainstream/lower end parts when I speak of all this. There should be a clear distinction instead of this one-size fits all model of Intel's approach. People will pay more for something better that suits them, and the high-end/enthusiast market is that small crowd.
Click to expand...

I'm currently even further back (Q6600), and I multitask/run multiple applications - however, I run mainstream applications mostly - not high-end/niche/outlier applications, games, etc. I was referring specifically to mainstream applications - not Windows itself. The issue with Windows 8 (and Microsoft) is far different - Microsoft wants to push into mobility without nicheing (because nicheing has not worked for Microsoft as a company, and especially not in terms of Windows OR phones - if Microsoft niches, they get whacked for lack of cross-compatibility, while on the other hand, if they maintain backward compatibility, they get whacked for not pushing far enough). Windows 8 is a challenge that had to be taken up - not merely because nobody had ever really tried (the closest anyone had previously gone was GNOME 3.x - and we know how that turned out), but to keep Windows itself from being dealt the death of a thousand niche devices cutting up its market share. (I am referring mostly to Android - despite protestation to the contrary from Google, most Android app developers are STILL writing device-specfic code; I have two Android VMs and can't even maintain a common application pool between them; in other words, so much for cross-compatibility on Android.) With Google not caring, and iOS/Apple not really caring either, what's left? I have nothing against ModernUI, as it is quite usable without touch support (my desktop doesn't have any touch support, therefore touch is, of course, a great big non-issue) - I think the issue with users is more subjective than objective - as usual, the Internet tends to blow up subjective criticism all out of proportion.

Transcoding is one of the few multicore applications that is starting to move into the mainstream in a major way - however, the main reason THAT happened is due to the current ubiquity of multicore CPUs (starting, as much as AMD hates the idea of admitting it, with Kentsfield and Company - LGA775 Qxxxx). However, that hasn't happened anywhere else (primarily due to mobile users - laptops and notebooks, not to mention netbooks). Traditional laptops, notebooks, and netbooks (even Ultrabooks and their progeny) are still mostly dual-core (look at Ultrabook-targeted i5s and i7s - how many are still dual-core, albeit with HyperThreading?) - that's where the sea-anchor really is in terms of productivity software. When four-core is mobile, that will "weigh anchor" in terms of productivity (and possibly gaming) software; however, that won't happen until battery life makes it credible. (In portable computing, battery life trumps more cores.)

CAD/CAM (or even straight CAD)? That is still an outlier use case (more so than even gaming, despite the affordability of CAD software, and its encroachment into stuff such as home improvement/traditional DIY), unlike transcoding or gaming.
 
Trackr said:
So, let me get this straight..

I've had my 2600k for 2.5 years now. It's clocked at 5.0Ghz.

Two-and-a-half years later, Intel release a CPU, the 4770k, that is 10% faster (just by itself, that is disappointing to the point of nausea), and.. can only be clock at 4.6Ghz max, as in.. 10% lower?

So, in 2.5 years, we've gained absolutely nothing?? :mad:
Click to expand...

As many have stated in the thread, AMD need to get its shit together...as long as intel keep dominating with 2, 3, or even 4 year old tech there is no point for them to push harder. All they are doing is reduce the power consumption and improving the integrated gpu, that's great and all but we haven't seen a jawdropping increase since Nehalem/Lynnfield IMHO
 
when did sandy bridge get native usb 3 support? that came with ivy bridge.
 
Trackr said:
I've had my 2600k for 2.5 years now. It's clocked at 5.0Ghz. Two-and-a-half years later, Intel release a CPU, the 4770k, that is 10% faster (just by itself, that is disappointing to the point of nausea), and.. can only be clock at 4.6Ghz max, as in.. 10% lower?
Click to expand...
Compare power consumption at equivalent levels of computational performance and you'll understand.

Also, Haswell dedicates a significant portion of die space to AVX2. These instructions are not yet being leveraged in current applications. Nevermind the fact that the iGPU's received a considerable boost in performance.

ADRENALIN_2099 said:
My Z68 board I bough for my HTPC in 2011 has usb3.....does that count?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Your board uses a third-party USB 3.0 controller.
 
wonderfield said:
Compare power consumption at equivalent levels of computational performance and you'll understand.

Also, Haswell dedicates a significant portion of die space to AVX2. These instructions are not yet being leveraged in current applications. Nevermind the fact that the iGPU's received a considerable boost in performance.

No, it doesn't. Your board uses a third-party USB 3.0 controller.
Click to expand...

However, Z77 (used in Ivy Bridge) includes *native* USB 3.0 support - chipset issue, not CPU issue. The change with Z87 is more USB ports (in the case of some Motherboard makers, such as Gigabyte, it's *all* the USB ports) are USB 3.0 compatible.
 
BatJoe said:
So what? Third Party works fine.
Click to expand...

It doesn't count as being native USB 3.0, which was the point of wonderfield's comment. Yes, we all know that 3rd Party USB 3.0 works fine in Windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top