Also mainstream desktop 4C GT2 @ 65W TDP
AVX2 can't be compared to anything that has come before. It will be the first SIMD instruction set extension that is truly suitable for the SPMD programming model. This is the same programming model used by GPUs. It allows scalar code, which is easy to program, to be vectorized in a straightforward manner. AVX2 will run data-parallel code up to eight times faster.While all these new instructions are very nice, it's probably going to be years before they are applied to mainstream software. Look what happened when SSE came out, took about 5 years.
Anyone know how much software utilizes AVX which has been out since the release of SNB? Hell, even Windows didn't support it until W7 SP1 and there will still be a lot of older OS's and CPU's that will not support AVX for quite a while. So IMHO there seems little incentive for software houses to produce software that incorporates the newer instructions until it is mainstream, except maybe in the case of a few niche programs.
IOW while the technology is exciting, early adoption just doesn't seem that appealing.
Haswell detailed & release dates:
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswell-d...-launching-q2-2013-core-gpu-details-revealed/
And some pricing info:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/28523-haswell-starts-from-$184
Interesting that they will produce a mobile 2C GT3 chip @ 15W TDP. I thought the die area and hence TDP for such a chip would be quite large, considering the GT3?
Also mainstream desktop 4C GT2 @ 65W TDP (I assume they correspond to IB 3570/3770K?). Somehow they have been able to lower the TDP from 77W->65W compare to IB without a node shrink?
Isn't the difference more like 4% max?SO my question is this... I have a 2600k now, would moving to a Haswell 4700k or whatever they call it the $330 replacement CPU be worth it over mine now? I see the 3770k is only ~ 10-15% faster than my 2600K at best. And in games not much difference.
It was well known that the TDP would go up with IB and then down again with Hasswell.
It was well known that the TDP would go up with IB and then down again with Hasswell.
I hope intel places an ssd controller on the die. I was calling for this 5 years ago. Who listened? Not amd, not intel. The ARM SOC designers listened. lol. When I see this sort of thing happen over and over it is easy to predict the trends.
I am a developer myself and I can't tell you flat out that what you say is only half true. It is indeed hard to juggle many threads but it is not because of lack of hardware support. It's just hard to juggle many threads period. What really needs to happen is better language support.that's because with today's CPUs it's quite hard for developers to juggle many threads (because these CPUs only have very primitive and slow means for synchronizing between threads).
I am a developer myself and I can't tell you flat out that what you say is only half true. It is indeed hard to juggle many threads but it is not because of lack of hardware support. It's just hard to juggle many threads period. What really needs to happen is better language support.
If the heat issue with IB is that it uses TIM under the IHS instead of solder, it won't affect laptops. All laptop CPUs are lidless, meaning that they do not come with an IHS like desktop CPUs do. So for most assembly of laptop CPUs, it will be a bare die and TIM of choice of the manufacturer. It has always been this way.I had actually planned to buy an IVB laptop, but after seeing all the thermal problems, I decided to skip it.
So for me the main thing Haswell needs to improve is the temperature. I don't want a laptop that overheats in seconds, or makes the keyboard too hot to use.
If Haswell can provide similar CPU performance, better IGP and lower temperature, then I'm buying one.
I haven't heard of any problems with AVX and Hyper-Threading. Do you have a source for this or can you explain what you believe to be the issue?AVX also does not play well with HTT if 2 threads running on 2 logical cores map to the same physical core so seems to me it's not as simple as it might sound.
That's not remotely comparable. 64-bit support offers the ability to address more than 4 GB of memory, for which there was no strong need for consumer applications back in 2003. Heck, there's still even very little need for it today. So even a decade later the adoption of 64-bit is slow and gradual, without much if any desire for a faster adoption.I really see little incentive for the majority of software houses to provide specialized code to run AVX2 code until there is an appreciable users market. How long have 64-bit processors been out and how long has it taken software houses to provide 64-bit software...
Please connect the dots. For better language support you need fast transactional memory and lock elision. It's really no coincidence that these are exactly the features offered by Haswell's TSX. Intel has no doubt cooperated with the leading language designers and multi-core programming researchers to determine what's needed to get developers to use more cores.I am a developer myself and I can't tell you flat out that what you say is only half true. It is indeed hard to juggle many threads but it is not because of lack of hardware support. It's just hard to juggle many threads period. What really needs to happen is better language support.
The job of a component named FIVR (Fully integrated voltage regulator) is to integrate legacy power delivery onto the processor package and die. Current processors in the market are working via PLL voltage regulators and even thou we don’t understand this part enough to brag about it, we know that Fully integrated voltage regulator will enable designs with less components and save manufacturers a few cents / bucks.
Intel clams that getting the FIVR on die / package will greatly simplify a platform power design and that it can consolidate 5 platform voltage regulators to just one. The Haswell will now come with input voltage regulator that takes to FIVR and this should offer a better arch flexibility and finer grain on die processor delivery control.
Old, old old news about the VRM.
A quote from Intel when using Linpack, a very scalable benchmark with AVX.I haven't heard of any problems with AVX and Hyper-Threading. Do you have a source for this or can you explain what you believe to be the issue?
While running 2 threads of Linpack on separate physical cores may yield a ~1.9x increase in processing throughput over just one thread running, running 2 threads with HTT (2 logical cores) that belong to the same physical core will result in running slower than the throughput of one thread. Performance degradation takes place. Linpack can be freely downloaded if you want to try it yourself.Intel said:Intel Optimized LINPACK Benchmark is threaded to effectively use multiple processors. So, in multi-processor systems, best performance will be obtained with Hyper-Threading technology turned off, which ensures that the operating system assigns threads to physical processors only.
A quote from Intel when using Linpack, a very scalable benchmark with AVX. While running 2 threads of Linpack on separate physical cores may yield a ~1.9x increase in processing throughput over just one thread running, running 2 threads with HTT (2 logical cores) that belong to the same physical core will result in running slower than the throughput of one thread. Performance degradation takes place. Linpack can be freely downloaded if you want to try it yourself.