Haswell is here: we detail Intel’s first 4th-generation Core CPUs

Quad-core chips for laptops and desktops are first, with dual-cores to follow.

Read the whole story

 

[OrangeCream]

We'll need to wait for actual systems to bear that supposition out, though—it's entirely possible that OEMs will choose to keep battery life level while reducing the size of the battery (and thus, their devices' weight and thickness) or adding other power-hungry features like high-resolution displays.

Possible? Look at the 0.88in Razer Blade, and imagine what Apple will do with Haswell since they don't have a powerful GPU on board.

 

[thomsirveaux]

pasttense[/url]":32x39vju]A couple charts say Under Embargo Until June 3, 11 pm. Why didn't Ars honor this?

All of the information here has been cleared for release as of 10:01am ET this morning (Intel's Haswell embargo has been weird). Shifting dates and mislabeled slides for this sort of thing are pretty common, but you can find all the same slides up on AnandTech and Engadget and etc. right now if you'd like proof. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BioTurboNick]

I'm looking forward to the Haswell-based Surface. If they can balance making it thinner/lighter and increasing the battery life, I'll definitely be ditching my current Surface Pro for it.

 

[Stone]

I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5. Not that I want to swap out a year-old system, I'd just like to see computing power grow by leaps and bounds. Besides, I think most people buying the enthusiast parts will be blowing out their power consumption anyway with a huge GPU. Who cares if the CPU uses a few less watts when you're running an 850w power supply anyway?

And while intel integrated graphics continue to improve, they're still far from a gaming solution, except for very low resolutions. I bought into the HD4000 hype last year, having not owned an intel system for several years, and found it to be woefully inadequate for gaming, but perfectly acceptable for normal desktop/video usage. Still, putting out 3dmark scores is a strange thing for intel to do. Even if the new graphics cores are a jump over HD4000, 1080p gamers will definitely find it unusable.

I like the mobile possibilities, and intend to buy a Haswell mac next month.

 

[Entegy]

It's been a long time since power grows in leaps and bounds. It's just not there anymore. It's all about optimization, but also about the new mobile industry to stay relevant. Less power consumption is nice in desktops too though. I do care about my electricity bill.

 

[Hattori HANZo]

I'm eager to see what the power consumption of the first complete systems will be. While most people probably look for battery life improvements in laptops or higher processing power in desktops, I look for reduced power consumption in desktops.

If a system idling below 10W will be the norm now, Intel will sell two Haswell chips to me because they'll be paid for by their lower power consumption alone. And with their new integrated GPU and DP 1.2 this should be good enough for the switch to higher resolution displays for standard productive work.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Stone[/url]":nz7d0p99]I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5. Not that I want to swap out a year-old system, I'd just like to see computing power grow by leaps and bounds. Besides, I think most people buying the enthusiast parts will be blowing out their power consumption anyway with a huge GPU. Who cares if the CPU uses a few less watts when you're running an 850w power supply anyway?

And while intel integrated graphics continue to improve, they're still far from a gaming solution, except for very low resolutions. I bought into the HD4000 hype last year, having not owned an intel system for several years, and found it to be woefully inadequate for gaming, but perfectly acceptable for normal desktop/video usage. Still, putting out 3dmark scores is a strange thing for intel to do. Even if the new graphics cores are a jump over HD4000, 1080p gamers will definitely find it unusable.

I like the mobile possibilities, and intend to buy a Haswell mac next month.

They have focused on performance for far to long. They were starting to lose the battle with AMD by trying to just been on sheer performance, by trying to concentrate on power consumption, we can start getting into very low voltage usage but great performance.

If they could get their desktop line down to say 10w but have a quad HT 4.0 ghz core, they could put the darn thing in a mobile phone, and make trillions of dollars over night.

 

[dagamer34]

Stone[/url]":1rgowomv]I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5. Not that I want to swap out a year-old system, I'd just like to see computing power grow by leaps and bounds. Besides, I think most people buying the enthusiast parts will be blowing out their power consumption anyway with a huge GPU. Who cares if the CPU uses a few less watts when you're running an 850w power supply anyway?

And while intel integrated graphics continue to improve, they're still far from a gaming solution, except for very low resolutions. I bought into the HD4000 hype last year, having not owned an intel system for several years, and found it to be woefully inadequate for gaming, but perfectly acceptable for normal desktop/video usage. Still, putting out 3dmark scores is a strange thing for intel to do. Even if the new graphics cores are a jump over HD4000, 1080p gamers will definitely find it unusable.

I like the mobile possibilities, and intend to buy a Haswell mac next month.

Intel dominates the desktop and is extremely vulnerable in mobile, and you want them to spend more time on the desktop?

The mobile GPU performance in Iris Pro aren't just your average ho-hum upgrade, they are the biggest jump in GPU performance from Intel ever: http://anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-ir ... 0hq-tested (now competitive with Nvidia GeForce 650M).

 

[kaskade]

Can't wait to see how this affects the new Macbook Air (which I am eagerly awaiting). Been itching to upgrade my Mid 09 13" MBP for a while now.

 

[charleski]

Stone[/url]":216g8n3n]I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces

I think it's clear they're bumping against limits that aren't related to power draw: a rise of 29% in the TDP (4770S->K) only nets a base gain of 400MHz and none in 'turbo'.

The days when it made sense to upgrade every year for those still using an enthusiast-level desktop are past. But that's been true for a while now. Anyone with an IvyBridge desktop should be planning to keep it for another 2 years at least before they'd see improvements worth the cost of a new MB+CPU.

 

[ewelch]

Money in bank - check.

Haswell in wings - check.

Come on WWDC! Daddy needs a new MacBook Pro!

 

[abhi_beckert]

Stone[/url]":35huw9i8]I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5. Not that I want to swap out a year-old system, I'd just like to see computing power grow by leaps and bounds. Besides, I think most people buying the enthusiast parts will be blowing out their power consumption anyway with a huge GPU. Who cares if the CPU uses a few less watts when you're running an 850w power supply anyway?

And while intel integrated graphics continue to improve, they're still far from a gaming solution, except for very low resolutions. I bought into the HD4000 hype last year, having not owned an intel system for several years, and found it to be woefully inadequate for gaming, but perfectly acceptable for normal desktop/video usage. Still, putting out 3dmark scores is a strange thing for intel to do. Even if the new graphics cores are a jump over HD4000, 1080p gamers will definitely find it unusable.

I like the mobile possibilities, and intend to buy a Haswell mac next month.

All of the things you just said make perfect sense in a gaming tower. But an all-in-one or small form factor PC desktop needs low power, not only because of watts but also because it will be bundled with lower cooling demands.

Not to mention intel's chips are already much faster than any normal user needs. If you have lots of RAM and a good SSD, then almost any intel CPU shipped in the last 3 years or so is perfectly fine. Having all of that in a leaner/cooler chip is a nice thing.

 

[malor]

I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5

As others are saying, Intel has no reason to put much energy into desktops, because it is so dominant there. Nobody can touch it. Peter Bright has insisted, repeatedly, that Intel wouldn't slow down development as a consequence, and .... well, you can see how well that prediction has gone. This is why we needed an AMD firing on all cylinders, instead of the tottering wreck it's been mismanaged into. I suspect Haswell would be far more interesting to desktop buyers if AMD had something credible to offer.

I have a really solid Sandy Bridge 2600K, which is comfortably doing 4.4GHz, and which feels like it could go much higher. Unless Haswell turns out to be an overclocking demon, which appears unlikely, it looks like I'll be completely uninterested.

If they'd turned on TXT and VT-D in the 4770K, that would have gotten me to upgrade, but the markets, they must be segmented.

 

[OrangeCream]

AMD isn't the enemy, ARM is.

 

[tuel2006]

Perfect timing. My 5 year old Core 2 Duo laptop is getting really long in the tooth, and when I'm ready to replace it, these chips will be in the models I'm considering.

 

[malor]

OrangeCream[/url]":1ehhlcsd]AMD isn't the enemy, ARM is.

True, but that's because AMD has been mismanaged into irrelevance.

Intel should be fighting a two-front war, but instead, they just kind of chuckle at AMD, and maybe give them a lollipop once in awhile.

 

[MatthiasF]

At a high level, the 8-series chipsets simply build on the 7-series ones that came before.

So, you guys show a slide detailing how the 8 series has tons of differences than the 7 series, and then downplay them with the caption above. Are we looking at the same slide? There are drastic differences between the two model lines.

Rest of the article is great, with exception of the normalized benchmarks but I assume that's an Intel cop-out.

 

[leedo]

Sounds like it's time to upgrade my aging desktop CPU + motherboard. Wonder when these will actually be available on Newegg?

 

[stige]

Interesting (and fun!) times in the PC world. I'm still riding a very serviceable i5-750 with a GeForce 560 and a recently added Corsair Neutron SSD. It's all lashed together in a mid-size case.

The next thing I want to "upgrade" is my PC's footprint in my office. I don't feel a need for a large enclosure, anymore. Intel's ideas on NUC have gotten me thinking, and dreaming, about a "desktop PC" that can be tucked in to a nearby bookshelf or even just behind the monitor.

So now I'm debating a Surface Pro with Haswell and a docking station solution, or a SFF case with a Haswell solution. And when considering Haswell, even as an enthusiast who puts my own hardware together, I can see a very compelling use for the BGA CPU - if the price is a good value proposition.

Decisions decisions. To say I'm eagerly awaiting more, related hardware announcements would be an understatement.

 

[F22Rapture]

Is there actually a valid reason to change the socket every ****ing generation, other than to force upgraders to spend $200 on a new motherboard every 2 years?

 

[kebabbert]

"...Haswell is the sort of CPU upgrade we've come to expect from Intel: a whole bunch of incremental improvements over last year's model, all delivered basically on-time and as promised...."

And why do Ars say that Haswell has been delivered on time? It has in fact been delayed several times. It would have been out in january, but Intel postponed delivery. The reason? AMD does not compete anymore, and the agressive schedule that Intel once had, is not needed anymore. Intel can slow the pace. Lack of competition punishes us customers.

Haswell delayed from januar to march, then delayed again to june:
http://tech2.in.com/news/cpus/intel-has ... 013/665242
"Intel already announced it would break from the annual refresh cycle it had established since the first-generation Core architecture was announced, by shipping Haswell in March-April instead of January 2013. Previous generations have been launched at CES, the world’s most important consumer electronics show, held in Las Vegas each year."

And the Xeon E5 and E7 are massively delayed. The lag behind two generations today. E7 is Sandybridge today. E5 will later this year be released in IvyBridge version. E7 will transform into Haswell, maybe in two-three years time or so. Intel is in no hurry anymore because AMD is no threat anymore. The Xeon customers does not like this, but what can they do? Intel does not need to listen to their customers, they are alone at the top.

 

[Beardy]

Can we expect to see price drops with the Ivy Bridge and 7 series boards soon? I'm still running an
AMD 2500 from eons ago for music recording and while it still gets the job done (good ole XP) I would like to play the occasional PC game from this decade.

 

[Deleted member 14629]

BioTurboNick[/url]":310w9vu2]I'm looking forward to the Haswell-based Surface. If they can balance making it thinner/lighter and increasing the battery life, I'll definitely be ditching my current Surface Pro for it.

It's exactly what I've been waiting on. Looking forward to seeing the Surface Pro 2, and maybe even an Atom-based Surface 2.

 

[raxx7]

malor[/url]":2hig3be3]

I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption. From seeing benches on other sites, I feel absolutely no desire to upgrade my ivy bridge i5

As others are saying, Intel has no reason to put much energy into desktops, because it is so dominant there. Nobody can touch it. Peter Bright has insisted, repeatedly, that Intel wouldn't slow down development as a consequence, and .... well, you can see how well that prediction has gone. This is why we needed an AMD firing on all cylinders, instead of the tottering wreck it's been mismanaged into. I suspect Haswell would be far more interesting to desktop buyers if AMD had something credible to offer.

I have a really solid Sandy Bridge 2600K, which is comfortably doing 4.4GHz, and which feels like it could go much higher. Unless Haswell turns out to be an overclocking demon, which appears unlikely, it looks like I'll be completely uninterested.

The biggest issue is that your desires are detached from the reality of most CPU buyers.
Most buyers don't want a speed demon at the unlimited power budget.
Most desktop users do not feel bound by CPU performance anyway. And many value low power CPUs, which are compatible with compact, silent and cheap cooling.
Worse even, most new personal computers are laptop.
Server operators, HPC operators, etc want good power/performance ratios because UPS and A/C systems are expensive to build and operate.

So, what you're really aking is for Intel to make a micro-architecture tailored to maybe 1% of the clients, at the expense at 99% of the others.

And all in all, you get a 5-10% improvement compared to a year old design and more for applications which exploit AVX2.

 

[NulloModo]

The lack of major improvements for desktop chips is a bit disappointing, but then I realize that my Nehalem based Core i7-920 is still going strong and more than fast enough for what I need. Upgrading from Vista to Windows 8 gave me enough of a speed boost that I can probably put off an upgrade for another three or four years.


The gains I power efficiency for laptops are cool, but I hope that they aren't squandered by manufacturers just reducing the size of the battery to make even thinner and lighter devices. I want a 17" laptop with a retina class screen (at least 2560x1600), solid graphics, a fast quad core processor with hyperthreading, a built in optical drive with plenty of ports, and a big enough battery that I can run it at full throttle for at least four or five hours without recharging. I don't care how much it will weigh or how thick it is, but no one builds such a machine.

 

[nitespark]

Meanwhile, AMD sits in the corner, quietly weeping.

 

[HammerIntoAnvil]

I've been holding out for Haswell for a new build gaming PC. I'm hoping that the low power requirements will help with building a system that has a low idea temperature and is very cool and quiet for things like streaming. It will need to be paired with the right graphics card though.

 

[A314InTheSky]

Imagine what would have happened if Intel had been a battery company instead of a processor company. We would have micro power stations keeping 8080-like processors alive for months. And we would be still programming in Cobol for mainframes and in assembler for the processors No games, Lotus123 and DOS all the way.

/back to real world/

What I'm trying to say is that battery science is in desperate need of a revolution.

 

[OrangeCream]

malor[/url]":1ij7vvdg]

OrangeCream[/url]":1ij7vvdg]AMD isn't the enemy, ARM is.

True, but that's because AMD has been mismanaged into irrelevance.

Intel should be fighting a two-front war, but instead, they just kind of chuckle at AMD, and maybe give them a lollipop once in awhile.

Even then mobile, laptops or otherwise, is still power constrained and the majority market.

 

[willdude]

Stone[/url]":1wcaqaup]I wish Intel had prioritized a performance jump for the desktop pieces, rather than the seemingly single focus on power consumption.

That's my takeaway too, that I have no regrets at all about not waiting to upgrade my gaming PC 4 months ago. Haswell's 4770 offers pretty much no advantage over the 3770 I'm running now, and with a PC that I leave on for maybe 6 hours a day (in a house with an air conditioner and a water heater), the power consumption is a drop in the pond. If I were on the market for a laptop, that'd be a different story, of course. But for those of us in the dying breed of desktop enthusiasts, this isn't all that interesting.

 

[Essense]

Put me in the Core i7 920 crowd too... this is the first machine i've built in a long time were im more concerned with something breaking because it's lasting so damn long. 3 years now and counting, no reason to upgrade. My 920 runs faster all the time (4 ghz) then the fastest chip runs in turbo boost.. really? please. Yeah I really IPC improvements make those 3.9 ghz machines probably 10-15% faster then my 920, and they have more overclocking headroom too, it's STILL not worth upgrading when looking at cost/performance, and what i'd gain.

And I definitely "Get" the power improvements, and don't discount them, they are important, and meet a wide demand. However, would it kill intel to release ONE fricken enthusiast part? just one? Give me a 6 Core i7 that runs at 4.5 ghz and turbo boost to 5.2.. I know you can do it intel, and hell, i'd even pay 450$ for it.

 

[willdude]

HammerIntoAnvil[/url]":2gxoocz7]I've been holding out for Haswell for a new build gaming PC. I'm hoping that the low power requirements will help with building a system that has a low idea temperature and is very cool and quiet for things like streaming. It will need to be paired with the right graphics card though.

Pair that bad boy up with one of the new GTX 770's, and you're golden.

 

[Essense]

Bah, my 920's in a Haf-X with giant, slow moving, very quiet fans, paried with a Direct CU GTX 570, and a Seasonic 650-X. a dual 120mm "Sandwhich" CPU cooler.. my machine is very very quiet, it's not silent, and yeah, you could improve on it with these lower power parts, but not that significantly, my ceiling fan makes more ambient noise on low speed then my computer.

 

[mdporter]

What are the max memory limits for the i7 parts? I need more than the 16GB my old i5 desktop can support. Will 64GB work with these new processors? I have yet to see ram limits mentioned in any review.

 

[jackstrop]

Hattori HANZo[/url]"brt2z9p]I'm eager to see what the power consumption of the first complete systems will be. While most people probably look for battery life improvements in laptops or higher processing power in desktops, I look for reduced power consumption in desktops.

If a system idling below 10W will be the norm now, Intel will sell two Haswell chips to me because they'll be paid for by their lower power consumption alone. And with their new integrated GPU and DP 1.2 this should be good enough for the switch to higher resolution displays for standard productive work.

Anand had that in his benchmarks, and total system draw on the Haswell at idle was down to ~35 watts while the Ivybridge was 10 watts higher and the sandybridge was 17 watts higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the- ... k-tested/2

 

[Galatian]

Too bad there is still no word on wether the K models will support transactional synchronization extensions. Rumor was it will not be supported but I was hoping it will.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

I'm sure these are awesome and all, but 30% better battery life (or 50% better, which I've seen in other Haswell stories) just from CPU improvements sounds pretty iffy. Probably half the battery is used just by the display in normal use, and if other non-CPU components take 10-20% or so, you would have to reduce the CPU power consumption by nearly 100% (i.e. to 0) to get near a total system power reduction of 30-50%.

edit: Now, maybe they are measuring battery life improvement at 100% CPU load, when the CPU is a much larger part of the total power draw, but during normal use the CPU is mostly idling, so I really doubt the 30-50% could apply to normal use.