[Fud] Haswell performance predictions - Page 12 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #111 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 09:01 AM
 
paulerxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Joisey
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Hmm I wonder if in the near future you'll be able to use iGPUs + a dedicated GPU to maximize gaming potential biggrin.gif (AMD already does this?)

swah

paulerxx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 09:25 AM
1.3ghz
 
hak8or's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

Higher stock clocks?
I don't think you've heard of the term "leakage."

Can you say what you meant by leakage? From what I understand leakage increases linearly with increasing transistor counts and decreased transistor sizes. Increasing frequency causes increases in power usage and power dissipation due to more transition states and having to charge and in turn discharge gates of the transistors.

I am kind of new to EXTREME overclocking so help me out every now and then? thinking.gif

hak8or is offline  
post #113 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 09:27 AM
4.4Ghz for Netflix
 
Brutuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 17,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by elreyhorus View Post

For the sake of all consumers, AMD needs to be more competitive on the CPU front. While the high-end GPU market continues to advance and innovate, the high-end CPU market is starting to slowly stagnate in terms of single-threaded x86 performance.

Intel has clearly shifted its focus towards mobile processors. While better efficiency and integrated graphics are good, these advancements come at the cost of additional desktop x86 performance. Take Haswell for example. 8-core processors? Only for Xeons. Higher stock clock speeds? Maybe +100 MHz or so at best. More cache? Nope. Better IPC? Sure, but we're talking about a new architecture here. AVX2 instructions? That's nice, but it will take awhile for programs to utilize this new feature.

Intel can do better, but it won't because AMD can't compete with Intel when it comes to x86 performance.

Sorry for the rant, but I had to get it off my chest.

How is it for the benefit of all consumers? Most won't notice any performance difference, but they will battery life difference.


Foldathon Folder - 2011 Participant  Chimp Challenge 2 x Participant  2 Million+ Folding at Home points 

Brutuz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #114 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 12:31 PM
Commodore 64
 
elreyhorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Indiana...land of corn, basketball, and pork tenderloin sandwiches
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

I don't think you've been paying much attention to the industry as of late. Intel's not competing with AMD anymore. The pressure is still definitely on Intel, just from another source — ARM.
Let's take a look at your list of complaints:
8 core processors?
That's a valid one. A competitive AMD would put pressure on Intel to release chips with higher core counts for consumers.
Higher stock clocks?
I don't think you've heard of the term "leakage."
More cache?
Why does it need more cache? More cache would be very expensive. They doubled L1 and L2 bandwidth, what more do you want?
AVX2?
AVX2 is going to replace SSE, which is the most widely used instruction set AFAIK. AVX2 is pretty huge.
x86 performance is stagnating as a result of simple physics, not because of a lack of competition.

I know ARM is now Intel's greatest threat. But seriously, most consumers won't be doing any serious gaming or content creation on a tablet or smartphone anytime soon.
I also realize that current leakage is a big problem. That's why Intel went to FinFET/tri-gate transistors. Higher clock speeds are attainable if Intel tried. IBM recently released a server-grade 5.5 GHz processor so it can be done.
Okay, there are definitely diminishing returns with cache.
Programs will need to be at least recompiled if not re-written entirely to fully utilize AVX2 instructions. Also, AVX2 will not be of any benefit to legacy applications. In time, AVX2 will make a tremendous impact but not right off the bat.
x86 is stagnating in part because Intel can afford to hold back on innovation, not just because of simple physics. Silicon transistors have not reached the fundamental limits of physics yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

How is it for the benefit of all consumers? Most won't notice any performance difference, but they will battery life difference.
Yes, Intel is catering to the needs of mainstream consumers who only care about shiny ultrabooks. But here at OCN, we are power users and enthusiasts. We demand the very best out of our hardware.
Desktop performance is potentially being held back by Intel's relentless focus on mobile performance. Take Ivy Bridge. Do true gamers care about the HD 4000? No. They get a real graphics card. How about the crappy thermal paste that Intel used? Mobile users won't notice, but overclockers certainly will. For all the tri-gate hype, Ivy Bridge only offers at best +10% IPC improvement over Sandy Bridge (which is largely negated because Sandy Bridge has greater overclocking headroom).

Haswell is clearly designed with ultrabooks in mind, not desktop computers. Desktop processor optimization shouldn't become an afterthought just because server processors and mobile processors are so profitable.

My fundamental argument is that Intel is settling for 'good enough' x86 performance, when in fact they can do better. If you were purchasing a 3930k or 3960x wouldn't you want all 8 cores fully functional, rather than a crippled hexacore chip? Yes, the TDP would go up, but if you're willing to pay for "extreme" performance you would also be willing to invest in a high-performance cooling solution.

Overclocking is proof that free lunches do exist...despite Intel's best attempts to slowly take away your free lunch.

AMD is the only one keeping Intel and NVIDIA honest. Competitive parity works in YOUR favor regardless of brand loyalty.

Fanboyism is an anathema to value, bang for buck and your wallet.

Only YOU (as an informed consumer) have your best interests in mind, not some corporation that exists solely to make a profit off you. The same goes for AMD as well.

The Windows 8 Protest Group
elreyhorus is offline  
post #115 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 12:58 PM
Who Watches the Watchmen?
 
nleksan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 661
Honestly, it is getting more and more difficult to "get excited" over upcoming platform launches :/

Looking back, I was quite excited/impressed (and I would imagine most were):
- First, the jump to the first Intel "Core" processors i.e. Core2Duo (Conroe/Allendale) and Core2Quad (Kentsfield)
- Then the die shrink of the first-gen Core series i.e. Wolfdale/Yorkfield
- Transition to the first line of Core "i" processors, specifically Bloomfield/Lynnfield
- The following die shrink that gave us Clarkdale and Gulftown over 2 years ago (many of which are STILL extremely potent processors!)
- Sandy Bridge and its gifts of the 2500K, 2600K, and 2700K that are not only some of the fastest chips around, but still have a "usable life" of another 2-3 years at least
- Sandy Bridge E, while not really separate from SNB in terms of "tick-tock", was handed the crown from Gulftown and, just like the X58 platform that preceded it, X79 will be around for a VERY long time

Now, Ivy Bridge had me quite excited before launch, and I held off on making a purchase decision for months so that I wouldn't get a bad case of buyer's remorse should IVB have been truly awesome, but it really failed to impress me. I realize that a simple die shrink with some IGP improvements and minor IPC gains shouldn't be that exciting, but Intel screwed the pooch with the whole TIM debacle, IMHO. Because I waited for what turned out to be an extremely underwhelming launch, I was behind the curve, although I was at least able to justify the expense of a high-end Sandy Bridge E build.

Haswell, to me, just feels like Ivy Bridge all over again... Tons of excitement and lots of promises, but with manufacturing difficulties and such, I can't see it living up to the hype. Add to that Intel's "Socket-ADHD" and a whole bunch of people will be spending $350 for a 4770K and another $175-350 for a Z87 board just to gain a total of 0-10% improvements per clock. Now, if the chips are able to clock much better than IVB without extreme cooling (as in, 4.6-4.8Ghz easy on air and 5.0-5.2Ghz on water), then I will take back what I said about it being "underwhelming", and if they can do this while reducing transistor gate leakage, it will be the first big step forward in 2-3 years.


AMD really needs a Hail Mary, as in a Phenom III line or something similar that can sit alongside the FX lineup but offer PERFORMANCE and not just THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE.

"The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places"Ernest Hemingway
sniper.gifS.T.A.L.K.E.R FAN CLUB aaskull.gif

~*~ THE TAO OF BACKUP ~*~

PLEASE DOUBLE-CHECK ANY ANSWERS I MAY PROVIDE, AS I AM HUMAN AND QUITE FALLIBLE
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Samsung Galaxy Nexus - Rooted & Running JBSourcery FINAL & LeanKernel Experimental
nleksan is offline  
post #116 of 210 Old 09-29-2012, 11:59 PM
4.4Ghz for Netflix
 
Brutuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 17,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by elreyhorus View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

How is it for the benefit of all consumers? Most won't notice any performance difference, but they will battery life difference.
Yes, Intel is catering to the needs of mainstream consumers who only care about shiny ultrabooks. But here at OCN, we are power users and enthusiasts. We demand the very best out of our hardware.
Desktop performance is potentially being held back by Intel's relentless focus on mobile performance. Take Ivy Bridge. Do true gamers care about the HD 4000? No. They get a real graphics card. How about the crappy thermal paste that Intel used? Mobile users won't notice, but overclockers certainly will. For all the tri-gate hype, Ivy Bridge only offers at best +10% IPC improvement over Sandy Bridge (which is largely negated because Sandy Bridge has greater overclocking headroom).

Haswell is clearly designed with ultrabooks in mind, not desktop computers. Desktop processor optimization shouldn't become an afterthought just because server processors and mobile processors are so profitable.

My fundamental argument is that Intel is settling for 'good enough' x86 performance, when in fact they can do better. If you were purchasing a 3930k or 3960x wouldn't you want all 8 cores fully functional, rather than a crippled hexacore chip? Yes, the TDP would go up, but if you're willing to pay for "extreme" performance you would also be willing to invest in a high-performance cooling solution.

I get that, I'm saying that apart from servers, gamers and workstations, it won't benefit consumers at all to have ultra fast CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nleksan View Post

AMD really needs a Hail Mary, as in a Phenom III line or something similar that can sit alongside the FX lineup but offer PERFORMANCE and not just THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE.

There's no point in having a "Phenom III" line as it's a dead end and tying up R&D resources that would go better into improving the newer line, plus BD is equal to PhII when overclocked.


Foldathon Folder - 2011 Participant  Chimp Challenge 2 x Participant  2 Million+ Folding at Home points 

Brutuz is offline  
post #117 of 210 Old 09-30-2012, 11:08 AM
Commodore 64
 
elreyhorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Indiana...land of corn, basketball, and pork tenderloin sandwiches
Posts: 576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

I get that, I'm saying that apart from servers, gamers and workstations, it won't benefit consumers at all to have ultra fast CPUs.
There's no point in having a "Phenom III" line as it's a dead end and tying up R&D resources that would go better into improving the newer line, plus BD is equal to PhII when overclocked.

There will always be a need for faster high-performance x86 processors. Just because most mainstream consumers are probably fine with Core2Duo-level performance doesn't mean that Intel should drop x86 single-threaded optimization to the bottom of their priorities list.

Overclocking is proof that free lunches do exist...despite Intel's best attempts to slowly take away your free lunch.

AMD is the only one keeping Intel and NVIDIA honest. Competitive parity works in YOUR favor regardless of brand loyalty.

Fanboyism is an anathema to value, bang for buck and your wallet.

Only YOU (as an informed consumer) have your best interests in mind, not some corporation that exists solely to make a profit off you. The same goes for AMD as well.

The Windows 8 Protest Group
elreyhorus is offline  
post #118 of 210 Old 09-30-2012, 11:36 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Acefire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Personally, I love this whole mess going on. I finally get to use my computer for a couple years without my epeen going flacid.

No real big improvement means no real reason to upgrade, meaning that I made one hell of choice upgrading to the 2500k. Possibly the most longevity I will get out of any of my computers, ever. For a dam good price of $165 for my 2500k back in november and $75 for my motherboard = $240 supreme ruler.

Acefire is offline  
post #119 of 210 Old 09-30-2012, 11:38 AM
PC Gamer
 
Homeles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Am I the only one around here that thinks that Haswell is the greatest thing since Conroe?
Homeles is offline  
post #120 of 210 Old 09-30-2012, 12:07 PM
Graphics Card Aficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

Am I the only one around here that thinks that Haswell is the greatest thing since Conroe?
Yes.
Cause Bloomfield Happened.
supergamer is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off