Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
It's "Back to the Future!" for AMD. I guess this is what Rory Read meant when he said AMD wouldn't compete with Intel. They're running in a solo race that no one else is interested in. Desperation mode is kicking in.
http://bit.ly/18tHlDy "... and just like it's the year 2000 all over again, AMD is again touting a speed victory by unveiling the world's first 5GHz processor for consumers.
The processor in question is AMD's newly minted FX-9590, an 8-core Piledriver part, though there are a couple of points worth mentioning. First is the fact that we've since moved on from the time when clockspeed was king. It still matters, but of more importance these days is the architecture that's driving the silicon. And secondly, the 5GHz claim is the processor's maximum Turbo speed, not the default clockspeed.
AMD isn't letting these tidbits get in the way of its bragging rights."
http://bit.ly/11aNM5D "It’s frankly pretty difficult to make sense of the raw, logged data, even with our normal chart expanded out to make the hour-plus run more readable. Certain segments make it quite clear, however, that the Core i7-3770K is the lowest-power contender tested, followed by the Core i7-2700K, the Core i7-3930K, the Phenom II X6 1100T, and finally AMD’s FX-8150. What about the -3960X? We have the data for that one as well, but the additional line makes this chart even more of a mess, so I left it off. I also have data for the -2550K, but I’m working on a surprise with that information."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
"As for FMA3, does that only apply to Intel? (No)"
Justin, This is an example of how you attempt this misdirection game you play when cornered. There's no claim there that FMA3 applies only to Intel, and it has nothing to do with your bogus claim that Haswell has heat problems. The point that's made by ExtremeTech there that I'm citing is that performance increases are coming by means other than just frequency bumps. Frequency bumps haven't been meaningful in the last 10 years.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin, You've made it clear above you have no problem with insults. What you don't want to deal in are facts. Haswell is not having heat problems. It's operating as designed. It's faster than IvyBridge, even when both are overclocked. In fact with the vague data we have we don't even know what percentage of IvyBridge overclock to 4.9GHz, but probably very few, and Haswell will beat those in performance, and that's even before the instruction set extensions are utilized.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin, I'm reposting this as you had SA delete it. You did so because you can't deal with facts that counter your claims and reveal them as bogus.
If you have it deleted again I'll repost it again.
You can continue to promote the heat problems spin, but the facts speak otherwise. What matters is performance and Haswell has it. Those that are knowledgeable in this industry understand what Haswell brings to the table, and while they always wish for more, they understand Haswell brings them the best that's ever been, and why it is as it is. They understand how performance increases have been attained in the last decade, and it's not through frequency increases. Only simpletons still hang on to that fallacy.
http://bit.ly/13yCvQ9 "It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.
In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
"@Cinc - It's just extremely annoying you decide to jump in and attack in the middle of a thread when clearly you're being irrational, your responses have no technical merit, and most importantly you are"
Justin, Now that's a personal attack. Good job. At least you've abandoned any attempt at arguing technical merit.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
'The "average user" spending the extra premium for an unlocked multiplier is probably interested in overclocking. '
Justin, The average user doesn't overclock. The number of folks that overclock is in the noise. However for those that overclock they understand why they're doing it, and it's for performance. As ExtremeTech pointed out Haswell at 4.5GHz should still be faster than IvyBridge at 4.9GHz. Those without a clue believe highest frequency means highest performance, but that isn't the case. It's no surprise to me that you'd try to spin this as GHz is all that matters - you're a poser without a clue.
"Overclocking aside, though, it’s important to remember that Haswell is still the fastest processor that Intel has ever produced. For the same price as an Ivy Bridge chip, you get around 10% more performance. The overclocking proposition might not be quite as enticing, but in reality Haswell’s 10% clock-for-clock advantage over Ivy Bridge means that a Haswell-based system at 4.5GHz should still beat out IVB at 4.9GHz."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin, There are opinions, and there are facts. Your attempt to claim Haswell has heat problems is deception, and has nothing to do with opinion. The link you point to was talking about overclocking, something which you didn't disclose. Obviously if you overclock well beyond the designed frequency and voltage you're going to have heat problems. Oddly they can't even get Trinity to overclock to 4.5GHz with liquid cooling, but you don't claim Trinity has heat problems.
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
Jeach, The comment was wrong because the shift started a bit over 10 years ago, not five years ago. Up to that time the push was for increased frequency as a measure of processor performance. Both Intel and AMD pushed frequency as the means to higher performance. That ended about 2002/2003.
The rest of your nonsense has been addressed before.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
joezane, If it were IvyBridge with the bolted on parts it would run hotter. There are no such beasts as transistors that use zero current. Your complaint is that they should have just done IvyBridge a second time and renamed it Haswell. It would obviously be silly to do that. For one as Tech Report pointed out Haswell "has only a little less overclocking headroom than Ivy Bridge does" so for all the benefits of Haswell you give up little, and that's only in a negligible demographic.
As I've pointed out numerous times now that's not what Justin pointed out. He attempted to portray this as a general issue that would affect normal operation for the average user, not the few geeks that would attempt to overclock to nearly 5GHz. In fact he even presented it in the context of Iris Pro, and this has nothing to do with Iris Pro.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
So that's your support for
"you know as well as I do if you overclock an Intel chip to that level it'll chew through power like a beast as well. :)"
You've got to be kidding. Are we on Candid Camera?
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
http://bit.ly/18tHlDy
"... and just like it's the year 2000 all over again, AMD is again touting a speed victory by unveiling the world's first 5GHz processor for consumers.
The processor in question is AMD's newly minted FX-9590, an 8-core Piledriver part, though there are a couple of points worth mentioning. First is the fact that we've since moved on from the time when clockspeed was king. It still matters, but of more importance these days is the architecture that's driving the silicon. And secondly, the 5GHz claim is the processor's maximum Turbo speed, not the default clockspeed.
AMD isn't letting these tidbits get in the way of its bragging rights."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
The 220W figure is for TDP (thermal design power) of the cpu itself. Power consumption is another matter. You're confusing one with the other.
http://bit.ly/169SHs5
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Here are a couple you can find, and it's clear whose processors chew through power.
http://bit.ly/1bsWaSN
http://bit.ly/11aNM5D
"It’s frankly pretty difficult to make sense of the raw, logged data, even with our normal chart expanded out to make the hour-plus run more readable. Certain segments make it quite clear, however, that the Core i7-3770K is the lowest-power contender tested, followed by the Core i7-2700K, the Core i7-3930K, the Phenom II X6 1100T, and finally AMD’s FX-8150. What about the -3960X? We have the data for that one as well, but the additional line makes this chart even more of a mess, so I left it off. I also have data for the -2550K, but I’m working on a surprise with that information."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin,
This is an example of how you attempt this misdirection game you play when cornered. There's no claim there that FMA3 applies only to Intel, and it has nothing to do with your bogus claim that Haswell has heat problems. The point that's made by ExtremeTech there that I'm citing is that performance increases are coming by means other than just frequency bumps. Frequency bumps haven't been meaningful in the last 10 years.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
You've made it clear above you have no problem with insults. What you don't want to deal in are facts. Haswell is not having heat problems. It's operating as designed. It's faster than IvyBridge, even when both are overclocked. In fact with the vague data we have we don't even know what percentage of IvyBridge overclock to 4.9GHz, but probably very few, and Haswell will beat those in performance, and that's even before the instruction set extensions are utilized.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
I'm reposting this as you had SA delete it. You did so because you can't deal with facts that counter your claims and reveal them as bogus.
If you have it deleted again I'll repost it again.
You can continue to promote the heat problems spin, but the facts speak otherwise. What matters is performance and Haswell has it. Those that are knowledgeable in this industry understand what Haswell brings to the table, and while they always wish for more, they understand Haswell brings them the best that's ever been, and why it is as it is. They understand how performance increases have been attained in the last decade, and it's not through frequency increases. Only simpletons still hang on to that fallacy.
http://bit.ly/13yCvQ9
"It’s also very important to remember that Haswell is a much more advanced chip than Ivy Bridge. In terms of transistor counts, disregarding any changes to the GPU, a quad-core Haswell CPU has roughly 200 million more transistors than a quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU (1.4 billion vs. 1.2 billion). A lot of these transistors were spent on increasing the chip’s IPC (instructions-per-clock) by adding more execution resources and beefing up out-of-order execution (OoOE) capabilities, but most of them are dedicated to brand new features such as AVX2, FMA3, and TSX. These are very powerful features, but for the most part they only boost performance when software has been specifically written/compiled to take advantage of them. Today, we are merely seeing the ~10% speed-up provided by Haswell’s reworked execution core; tomorrow, when software uses AVX2, FMA3, and TSX, the speed-up could be 25% or more.
In this light, Haswell is a monster of a chip. Intel has produced a chip that decimates power usage on the low end — which, let’s be honest, is the market that Intel is really interested in — and yet will also provide a huge speed-up for power users once software and compilers are updated. It’s easy to be disappointed by Haswell’s performance on paper, but remember: There really is no other chip out there, especially from AMD, that comes anywhere close. Still, between the death of overclocking, Intel’s focus on mobile, and the shift to soldered-on chips, it’s clear that the writing is on the wall for desktop PC power users."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin,
Now that's a personal attack. Good job. At least you've abandoned any attempt at arguing technical merit.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
Justin,
The average user doesn't overclock. The number of folks that overclock is in the noise. However for those that overclock they understand why they're doing it, and it's for performance. As ExtremeTech pointed out Haswell at 4.5GHz should still be faster than IvyBridge at 4.9GHz. Those without a clue believe highest frequency means highest performance, but that isn't the case. It's no surprise to me that you'd try to spin this as GHz is all that matters - you're a poser without a clue.
"Overclocking aside, though, it’s important to remember that Haswell is still the fastest processor that Intel has ever produced. For the same price as an Ivy Bridge chip, you get around 10% more performance. The overclocking proposition might not be quite as enticing, but in reality Haswell’s 10% clock-for-clock advantage over Ivy Bridge means that a Haswell-based system at 4.5GHz should still beat out IVB at 4.9GHz."
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
There are opinions, and there are facts. Your attempt to claim Haswell has heat problems is deception, and has nothing to do with opinion. The link you point to was talking about overclocking, something which you didn't disclose. Obviously if you overclock well beyond the designed frequency and voltage you're going to have heat problems. Oddly they can't even get Trinity to overclock to 4.5GHz with liquid cooling, but you don't claim Trinity has heat problems.
The World Turns Against Monsanto [View article]
http://seekingalpha.co...
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
The comment was wrong because the shift started a bit over 10 years ago, not five years ago. Up to that time the push was for increased frequency as a measure of processor performance. Both Intel and AMD pushed frequency as the means to higher performance. That ended about 2002/2003.
The rest of your nonsense has been addressed before.
Intel's Haswell - All Promise, Some Delivery [View article]
If it were IvyBridge with the bolted on parts it would run hotter. There are no such beasts as transistors that use zero current. Your complaint is that they should have just done IvyBridge a second time and renamed it Haswell. It would obviously be silly to do that. For one as Tech Report pointed out Haswell "has only a little less overclocking headroom than Ivy Bridge does" so for all the benefits of Haswell you give up little, and that's only in a negligible demographic.
As I've pointed out numerous times now that's not what Justin pointed out. He attempted to portray this as a general issue that would affect normal operation for the average user, not the few geeks that would attempt to overclock to nearly 5GHz. In fact he even presented it in the context of Iris Pro, and this has nothing to do with Iris Pro.