Certainly the measure of performance isn't based upon clockspeed alone. The cores themselves could have been improved which leads to improved performance. I think Intel is on the right track with having the GT2 on high end CPUs rather than GT3, gives more headroom for CPU performance. For desktops, I'd go with more performance with slightly higher power consumption. Added link to my news compilation, under rumors. :whiste:Well, if this slide is correct, I dont see it as a good thing. I would be happy to see the TDP go up if the chip was suddenly clocked to 4 ghz or something (or if it had more cores). But if the TDP goes up only to give better GPU performance, on the desktop I consider that a step back. I cant imagine buying a chip this powerful and not adding a discrete card. If the increased TDP is because of IPC increases or integrating more of the MB functions, it could be ok as well.
But overall, the more I see about Haswell, the less impressed I am for it as a desktop processor. Just depends on the IPC increase I guess, but I was hoping for an increase in base clocks and maybe turbo to 4+ ghz, or if keeping the same performance, even lower power consumption.
Certainly the measure of performance isn't based upon clockspeed alone. The cores themselves could have been improved which leads to improved performance. I think Intel is on the right track with having the GT2 on high end CPUs rather than GT3, gives more headroom for CPU performance. For desktops, I'd go with more performance with slightly higher power consumption. Added link to my news compilation, under rumors. :whiste:
That's what I was hoping IVY would be, an increase in both IPC and clock-speed, overclocking headroom to be specific. Instead Intel cheapened out on solder and we got an increase in IPC alright but a regression in clock-speed headroom under non-extreme cooling. Even after bare die cooling it still does not reach the same frequencies as sandy.What I was trying to say was that I was hoping for increased IPC and an increase in clockspeed, or even more cores for the mainstream (I actually gave up on that long ago).
Enthusiasts will pay because that will be the only way to play.
As long as it Avg % over Ivy clock for clock is 10% and it overclocks like a monster " it should: 4770k will be mine.
Oh please, no one is talking about these extremes.
10% higher IPC is okay, but CPU-wise one would expect a total of at least 20% higher performance as a product of IPC and clocks. We have seen that with Nehalem/Lynnfield and with Sandy Bridge. Compared to that, Ivy and Haswell are just disappointing.
You didn't expect single threaded performance to keep improving at a steady rate forever, did you? There's a very real frequency wall Intel is staying behind; power consumption goes up a lot on the other side of it..
This would be better than expected, so waiting for the benchmarks.
That sounds pretty deep and epic. Could you elaborate on what this wall is about?
I don't think a "wall" is an appropriate term. It's closer to the idea that you can find better perf/power tradeoffs. If you can look at incremental gains. What does it take if you do nothing except bump 1% frequency. If I had to fling out a random number it could be something like 1% perf bump for 3% power bump if you do nothing besides just re-converge your product. So all features have to at LEAST beat that because that's the "do nothing" perf bump. And if you do find stuff, basically you start eating into your thermal envelope but getting more IPC than a simple frequency bump. So as long as you keep finding better stuff to fill in the thermal envelope, you lose simple frequency increases.
So its a delicate balancing act that requires and increasingly incredible amount of creativity to slightly increase performance each generation. What i'd like to know is, what could they do if they had a much wider power envelope to work with? What i'm saying is like, what could they give us if they had a 500watt CPU socket envelope to work with for the enthusiast class CPU? I'd buy that, whatever it is.
500W would give you something like 6-8Ghz I guess. Not exactly great to put it mildly.
Not great? That sounds great to me. I'll take one.
500W would give you something like 6-8Ghz I guess. Not exactly great to put it mildly.
Overclocked 2700K to what clock exactly ? If it is 4.5Ghz then stock 4770T has no chance outperforming it. OCed mildly to 3.7Ghz there is a great chance it will match/outperform it.Is it really rational to complain about a 45 watt chip that will probably outperform a moderately overclocked 2700k? I'm talking about the 4770T of course. When playing most games, this thing is going to spend most of its time with turboing up over 3GHz. I'll reserve my disappointment for when a 4770T cant beat a stock cooled overclocked 2700k in games. If it cant do that then the uA is a fail.
Is it really rational to complain about a 45 watt chip that will probably outperform a moderately overclocked 2700k? I'm talking about the 4770T of course. When playing most games, this thing is going to spend most of its time with turboing up over 3GHz. I'll reserve my disappointment for when a 4770T cant beat a stock cooled overclocked 2700k in games. If it cant do that then the uA is a fail.
Pretty sure moderately overclocked excludes 4.5GHz overclocks...