Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old June 23, 2014, 05:20 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 110

My System Specs

Default Haswell-E, is it overhyped?

Do you think that Haswell-E will really be THE CPU that enthusiasts are hoping for?

There's been a lot of hype around that chip over the past few months on plenty of forums.

From what we can tell, we are getting:
1. A 8 core chip for $1,000 USD (so perhaps $1,150 CAD)
2. A 6 core chip for $600 USD (so $700 CAD)
3. A 4 core chip for $400 USD (so perhaps $450 CAD) that has downgraded PCI-E lanes

The question is, will these live up to their hopes? Judging by Ivy Bridge E, they will come with a solder not the paste, but will they overclock well? Perhaps only ~4.5 GHz on the 6 cores? Maybe 4-4.5 GHz on the 8 cores? Perhaps less seeing that it is 8 core?

I just don't see how that translates into much right now. Raw single threaded performance might favor the slightly larger cache for some applications, but that is it.

The new motherboards will likely be costly as will be the new DDR4 DIMMs.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old June 23, 2014, 07:20 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,835
Default

Truthfully, there are NO products that will live up to everyone's expectations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 09:32 AM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 110

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Truthfully, there are NO products that will live up to everyone's expectations.
Fair enough. The issue I see is that this is being hyped up as THE processor of the year, which I don't think it will be.

Personally, I may be doing some video encoding work, so I need something like this, but for gaming or anything else on the desktop, I just don't see it being of use. In fact, the single core maximum clock may be somewhat lower than the 4 core version, if Sandy and Ivy are of any indication. 4.5-4.7 GHz for Sandy and Ivy seldom exceeded 4.5, save with >1.35V.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 09:42 AM
AkG's Avatar
AkG AkG is offline
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,392
Default

If it wont be H-E that is the processor of the year....what will be? AMD got nothing that even compares to Intels last gen.

Will it be the paradigm leap some peeps want it to be...probably not. Will it give a 10% or better boost over its previous gen...probably (wildcard is DDR4). IMHO People get too caught up in the processing speed that they lose sight of the processing performance. For example people still love their 2600's as they can overclock the hell out of them...but even OC'ed they usually get beaten by stock 4770Ks. To be honest I am more interested in X99 than the Haswell-E, but the H-e should be one number crunching machine and the CPU to get for workstations.
__________________
"If you ever start taking things too seriously, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through the universe." -JR

“if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” - Dr. MLK jr
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 02:01 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 444

My System Specs

Default

IPC counts, ask AMD compared to raw clock speed, Intel did do something smart in the last couple of generations, maximize IPC but make sure this is retained at higher clocks. Low latency on the cache etc. What they forgot to do beyond power efficiency, temperatures. They get stupid hot and are hard to keep cool.

I think they will be quite awesome, but they are going to be $$$. Heat generation will be interesting as will seeing the real world performance gain by have dedicated channels per DIMM. I think the overall amount of channels for memory and even PCI-e gen whatever is way blown out of proportion simply by folks try to justify their mega $ purchases.

Car analogy, many of these are like say Ferrari or Lamborghini its about the name of the product more then in many cases the actual given level of performance(compared to relative competing products that are in many cases just as good for what they are being used like) however, for the few folks that get them that actually do need it, would be akin to a professional driver then it matters.

Likely AMD will catch up soon enough, but Intel sure as hell is not standing still, granted they seem to be wanting to do fancy tricks more then raising the bar and well problem with sophisticated anything, when it does not work properly, all of it falls to pieces pretty fast and can be bloody frustrating.

Intel and Nvidia are smart business folks, they have lots of $$ so they can justify selling igloos to eskimoes and more often then not are doing very little to justify the $ they ask for their products(higher average failure rates, stupid oversights like not using proper thermal designs, overshooting power on specs etc) where AMD may not have as nice performance, they are also generally asking for much less for a very decent product.

Anyways, will be interesting, but to answer the original post, Intel has always been overhyped cause they tend to do things no one really feels is needed and they justify their choices by cryptic BS, however, it is very seldom they have ever done flops, are not pushing to hard to really ramp things (which is good in a way) even if their choices behind some of the design is whack (if X voltage is not Y then shutdown)

So yeh, is overhyped in my mind, simply cause so very few folks need this, and Intel as per usual decides to segregate their lines to increase revenue instead of say having X99 chipset is for every chip in their current lineup, nope, only for the very $ ones, I thought this was why they have fancy controllers in their chips to limits say pci-e and such by the chip being used. All about the $, not the customer making the purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 03:17 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 497
Default

At an enthusiast level, processors have been overhyped for years. It will probably be another vanity upgrade for most.

At a professional level, Haswell-E will undoubtedly be worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 04:58 PM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,628

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desiato View Post
At a professional level, Haswell-E will undoubtedly be worthwhile.
Last generations of Intel designs have showed 5-10% more IPC per clock from one generation to another. If H-E will be the same, I don't see the "worthwhile" appeal. Just vanity. Who really needs processing power and is using software that can harness high parallelism, already has a 2P system.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old June 24, 2014, 06:52 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 110

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkG View Post
Will it give a 10% or better boost over its previous gen...probably (wildcard is DDR4). IMHO People get too caught up in the processing speed that they lose sight of the processing performance. For example people still love their 2600's as they can overclock the hell out of them...but even OC'ed they usually get beaten by stock 4770Ks. To be honest I am more interested in X99 than the Haswell-E, but the H-e should be one number crunching machine and the CPU to get for workstations.

Not too sure about the 10%. I always thought the difference was going to be something like, Haswell-E compared to Ivy Bridge-E will be comparable to 4 core Haswell vs 4 core Ivy.

I don't see DDR4 quad channel offering anything new. Quad channel did not appear to make a difference for Sandy/Ivy in gaming. Neither do I think will DDR4, since well, faster RAM has historically not yielded that much in real world performance gains.

Professional applications are different and again, could see benefits, depending on what you use it for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonstongue View Post
IPC counts, ask AMD compared to raw clock speed, Intel did do something smart in the last couple of generations, maximize IPC but make sure this is retained at higher clocks. Low latency on the cache etc. What they forgot to do beyond power efficiency, temperatures. They get stupid hot and are hard to keep cool.
Yeah that has been Intel's winning formula since Core. And AMD has never really caught up, first with the K10 mess-up and more recently with Bulldozer. Good per clock performance but low power consumption too was what drove up Core and it's a formula Intel has used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonstongue View Post
I think they will be quite awesome, but they are going to be $$$. Heat generation will be interesting as will seeing the real world performance gain by have dedicated channels per DIMM. I think the overall amount of channels for memory and even PCI-e gen whatever is way blown out of proportion simply by folks try to justify their mega $ purchases.

Car analogy, many of these are like say Ferrari or Lamborghini its about the name of the product more then in many cases the actual given level of performance(compared to relative competing products that are in many cases just as good for what they are being used like) however, for the few folks that get them that actually do need it, would be akin to a professional driver then it matters.
Personally I'm going to be using my for mixed gaming, video encoding, and I am thinking about getting into 3D modelling, so I feel I can justify it (especially from a 4 core), but yeah for a pure gaming system, it's not going to be much of an upgrade. I don't see any games using more than 4 core/8 thread anytime soon.

I guess it's a once a 3 year upgrade nowadays. I mean, SB-E was in late 2011, now Haswell-E is in late 2014.

Well, based on this schedule, Intel should release Skylake in late 2015 at the earliest, but most likely 2016, so Skylake E ought to follow in 2017?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonstongue View Post

Likely AMD will catch up soon enough, but Intel sure as hell is not standing still, granted they seem to be wanting to do fancy tricks more then raising the bar and well problem with sophisticated anything, when it does not work properly, all of it falls to pieces pretty fast and can be bloody frustrating.

Intel and Nvidia are smart business folks, they have lots of $$ so they can justify selling igloos to eskimoes and more often then not are doing very little to justify the $ they ask for their products(higher average failure rates, stupid oversights like not using proper thermal designs, overshooting power on specs etc) where AMD may not have as nice performance, they are also generally asking for much less for a very decent product.
Like with GPUs, I hope that no side gains a permanent advantage. Strong AMD is good, both on the GPU and CPU front to keep Nvidia (which usually has a worse price:performance ratio) and Intel (also usually worse from a price:performance standpoint) from hiking prices too much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonstongue View Post
Anyways, will be interesting, but to answer the original post, Intel has always been overhyped cause they tend to do things no one really feels is needed and they justify their choices by cryptic BS, however, it is very seldom they have ever done flops, are not pushing to hard to really ramp things (which is good in a way) even if their choices behind some of the design is whack (if X voltage is not Y then shutdown)

So yeh, is overhyped in my mind, simply cause so very few folks need this, and Intel as per usual decides to segregate their lines to increase revenue instead of say having X99 chipset is for every chip in their current lineup, nope, only for the very $ ones, I thought this was why they have fancy controllers in their chips to limits say pci-e and such by the chip being used. All about the $, not the customer making the purchase.
The problems I see it for enthusiasts (ex: people not using their CPUs for professional stuff) are:

1. There hasn't really been a game that really tried to push the envelope in terms of system requirements since the original Crysis 1, and since them, there hasn't been much. Crytek for its part released consolized shallow successors and well, they seem to lack focus now.

2. We just aren't seeing the raw performance gains of the past. I mean, Sandy Bridge was arguably a huge leap. A 2600K, which could often clock to 5 GHz+ compared to say, a 920 D0 at say, 4.5 GHz, assuming you got lucky on the silicon lottery was 20%+ of a gain, because of the clockspeed and because Sandy itself was 10% faster.

A case could be made that Haswell is about 10% faster in raw performance (depends on the benchmark though, some are faster like AES, but sometimes it's only maybe 5% faster than Sandy), but the clockspeed if anything may have gone down a bit. A lucky Sandy was 5 GHz+. A lucky Haswell (or Devils Canyon) is perhaps 4.7 GHz+, unless you want to run at 1.35V+.

3. I do agree that this is more about ego than anything else. A lot of people want to justify their upgrades.

4. Even outside of gaming, we haven't really seen an explosion in desktop apps that can take advantage of all these cores we are getting.

Professional is the only real case, and even then, only some apps scale very well. I mean for servers it's a no-brainer (data centres are all about performance per watt), but for us ... not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old June 26, 2014, 02:10 PM
marc_0053's Avatar
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 26

My System Specs

Default

Hopefully no cold bug at sub-zero temps :D
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old July 1, 2014, 01:10 PM
CrazyCanukk's Avatar
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7
Talking

Hello Guys and ladies :) , long time lurker 1st time poster. Mind the name but i have been CrazyCanukk since the first MOH online and bf2 and CodUO days. Don't know why i haven't signed up before this since i am lurking your site daily for my geek needs .. some may know me as Crazycanuck from EA UK forums as a lead moderator or DarkIntention in Battlelog as a mod there until last year when work took over my life


I'm taking a serious look at Haswell E for an upgrade this fall. I know the processor is way overkill for gaming but i also like Streaming to twitch and encoding 900p @ 60 fps while gaming takes a beefy proc. 720p @60fps not so much but still can tax a processor and as time goes i want enough overhead for the processor to stay relevant for 5-6 years.

i think the 8 core Haswell e , although expensive and over kill for my CURRENT uses would fit the bill for a 5-7 year build. i used to build just what i needed and upgraded regularly. TBH kind of done with that and i'm following in a close friends footsteps. I thought he was crazy buying an I7 990x at the time..but he's still using it , still more then he needs and as far as he's concerned he will be skipping haswell and broadwell for upgrades as he sees no need for it. Others like me are on our 2nd to 3rd builds..lol..and spent more then he did already.

I have some other plans for such a beefy processor, but i am seriously looking at the 6 or even 8 core Haswell e as an upgrade path this fall. I figure that 1400-1500 bucks i spend (have psu, hdds, ssd's, case, o/s and Blueray drive already) will be more then worth it spread over the next 5-7 years.

Maybe I'm nuts...who knows..lol

P.s what the heck is a Trial user?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
8 core , haswell , haswell e , intel , overclocking

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WIP Haswell Nas Shadowarez Case Mods, Worklog & Gallery 9 April 22, 2014 11:35 PM
Haswell E Slik CPU's and Motherboards 10 January 27, 2014 12:08 PM
[WTB] Haswell CPU mckchun Buy/Sell & Trade 0 October 3, 2013 09:41 PM
[WTB] Haswell i3 deathsupport Buy/Sell & Trade 3 October 1, 2013 11:21 PM
To Haswell or not to Haswell? Dzzope New Builds 6 August 19, 2013 09:25 AM