Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103
So much fail in these last few pages.....
First of all haswell yes is considered by some to be a fail. Why? Because most will be lucky to hit 4.6GHz while most ivys hit that to start with and go upwards of 4.8 to 5ghz. I love how the only CPU BENCHMARK hasswell owners through out is cinebench, which is one of the only benchmarks to show such a huge improvement. Lets do some comparisons with other benchmarks shall wee? The lead will be far less. Hasswell even loses to ivy clock for clock in some tests. See page one of this thread.
It's a fail because it's Intel either completely ignoring us desktop enthusiasts (which I find hard to believe, they simply wouldn't have released desktop Haswell if they didn't make an effort) or they simply can't make it any faster. Intel's R&D budget is literally like 10 times as large as AMD's, and AMD's rate of change of performance is massive compared to Intel's.
Even the stupid FX 9000 or whatever is a 20% clock increase. Regardless of TDP, when is the last time Intel released a CPU with a 20% performance increase? Nehalem->Sandy was the last big stock clock increase, and even then D0 920s would clock into mid 4ghz range.
Not to mention that this is a tick, which is the "big architectural changes" to the chips. Usually, big changes = big performance. The tock is just a die shrink and some tiny changes. The fail comes from the fact that Broadwell is a tick, so it's another situation where we'd only see 3% to 5% (probably most of it from better working turbos). Add to that that Haswell refresh replaces Broadwell and Intel's road map got pushed back further, and we have 3 years of Haswell-like performance out of Intel unless they either abandon tick-tock or replace Haswell.
Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103
Secondly, because of this people are announcing AMD STEAMROLLER to topple intel? Lol hasswell was only a failure to us intel owners already on the platform, in no way is it a failure to anyone else. It will still stomp AMDs beat chip out right now. AMD has yet to match Sandys performance, yet you expect steamroller to jump 3+ generations in performance?! That is beyond laughable. I wish it where true as I'm a huge AMD fan, but lets keep things realistic in here.
As I said before, AMD's rate of change is significantly better than Intel's in raw performance. From the looks of it, Intel performance is basically going to be stagnant for the next 3 years, at least, provided they don't make major changes. FX 8350 can already beat 4770k in some multi-thread benchmarks, and with Haswell's horrible overclocking and all these people finding they can't even break 4.0ghz without the voltage and temp wall, a 5ghz FX 8350 can have a 25% clockspeed advantage over 4770k. And that's when 4770k is already close to FX 8350 in multi-thread.
However I think your large issue is that you assume that all that matters is gaming. If you need multi-thread FX 8350 is an amazing value, specially if you can custom compile what you need.
I was hoping for something that would really push software developers to turn around and go "wow, we have all this power, what features can we add to our software?" Instead we have "barely any increases, no reason for developers to add more features to software, time to whine the hardware has caught up"
Plus, you are right about Intel having a big lead, but it's akin to Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods basically coming in last place. If AMD is constantly in second and they fall a little further behind from first, it's expected. But if AMD is out improving itself constantly while Intel just loafs around in performance, it becomes a classic example of the tortoise and hare.