[quote name="h4rdcor3" url="/t/1410601/cnbc-intel-cfo-pc-market-is-reinventing-itself#post_20427178"
As far as performance on the desktop platform goes haswell doesn't bring much to the table. All in one and mobile products, where the market actually is, Haswell is a decent upgrade. Lower power, better integrated graphics. This is what they needed to do to move into the mobile market.[/quote]
Which is exactly why no one is buying desktop chips. Which is why I'm constantly thinking that Intel wants to get rid of the upgradable, enthusiast desktop market and replace it with throw-away laptops, tablets, and phones. They'd move a heck of a lot more chips that way.
Originally Posted by Pheonix777z
Originally Posted by KaRLiToS
Haswell is really a fail. Why would people get it when it's no real improvement over Ivy-Bridge or Sandy Bridge.
Haswell is awesome imho, that kind of performance, 3960X beating performance in most things, at such a low power consumption. If anything it shows just how far Intel are ahead of AMD, releasing that kind of CPU @ £250 in UK, while AMD release an inferior CPU with 220W TDP, priced at over £600. Intel are miles ahead of the competition.
With Broadwell, we will likely see even more performance, Haswell tackled power consumption, and dealt with it extremely well. those chips are amazingly efficient. Imagine that at 14nm, Intel are kicking ass imho.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Your downfall is that you assume that they both have the same turbo states and that turbo works the same between the two CPUs. It is clear that most of those benchmarks are not heavily threaded. 3960x would be seeing close to 50% scaling if it was properly threaded to 12 threads, yet it's not.
Originally Posted by BigMack70
All I see is that when Sandy Bridge was released as pure awesomesauce, Intel's finances were doing well. Then when they dropped a major turd with IVB and Haswell, their finances suffered.
And I see a giant scapegoat in the room under the guise of "mobility"
Pretty much. How many of you folks on Sandy Bridge (non Es) would have upgraded if Haswell was like the jump from Nehalem to SB? Heck I probably would be thinking about Intel at that point personally.
The problems with the PC market can be summed up well in my own experience: talking to someone with a stock Q6600 about a year ago thinking that their system was still really fast.
The long life of consoles has left gamers not needing CPU upgrades as we see games targeted towards a tri-core Xbox 360 CPU or a single core + SPE PS3 CPU.
Originally Posted by adridu59
Originally Posted by Pheonix777z
Haswell is the result of a company that is so far ahead of the competition that they need only refine their current high products per gen.
Haswell is the result of innovation like it has ever been with Intel, packs onboard FIVR, far faster IGP and much better power consumption. They're improving where they need to.
Originally Posted by KaRLiToS
Haswell is a fail because its no real improvement over the other Gens. People won't spend money for minimal upgarde. I never said it was equal to the past generations.
Also, why are you even talking about AMD fail FX 9590? Its really off topic.
So they're far ahead of AMD and they have CPUs that crushes every tasks they're made for, how's that a fail?
Calling AMD off-topic, not sure if serious.
Also just a side note: people have no reason to upgrade from Sandy/Ivy but if there was a slight boost in performance would that justify the upgrade? You can do pretty much any mainstream tasks on these anyway. So people who want to upgrade every 6 months don't necessarily need a performance bump to do it right.
Once again, people defending Intel on the desktop when Intel releases a product that offers nothing good for desktop users.
Intel has gone ever further than usual and this time, if you want to overclock, you actually lose performance boosting instructions (like TSX). From Nehalem to Haswell we've been seeing more and more features removed from CPUs that are supposed to be overclocked. I'm quite sure that there's a lot of people out there who remember overclocking with buses, managing everything, tweaking ram, etc. Now with SB+ on the "mainstream" platform you only get to change the CPU multiplier and RAM multipliers.
Looking back at it, when I had my Nehalem system, a large part of not upgrading (for me at least) was that I'd be going from tweaking ram and all these other buses into just upping the CPU multiplier. It didn't seem fun to me and it felt like I was losing a lot of features that I enjoyed playing with, all for no reason other than "Intel wants to tie more buses together."
Originally Posted by Brutuz
Originally Posted by s-x
Depends on what you mean by filled. There are roughly 7 billion people in the world, as of 2008 there were 2 billions computers sold, but only 1 billion in use. So there is still a huge potential client base that could use a computer. If you dont have a computer I doubt youll be picky enough to want a laptop or tablet over a cheaper desktop, and while you can argue android and ios dig into the PC marketshare, they arent equals, you cant replace a full OS with a gimped one.
Blaming bad sales numbers on the influx of mobile devices is just a cop out for letting the PC industry run stagnant for all these years.
Yes, you can do all of your daily tasks on an iPad or iPhone (Insert Android or WinMo equivalents if you want) but what about those other tasks that PCs can do? What about typing up your CV? Doing projects? Work from home? etc
The fact is, people will always have a PC alongside their tablets and stuff for serious work, that's what the trend is going towards currently...Plus most PC sales have always been in business.
Software stopped pushing hardware, and now it's even worse because we're seeing software be optimized for lower power CPUs instead of becoming more complex and requiring more CPU power.
Game consoles show a little hope with PS4 and XDone but everything else is in a race where if you make something use a bunch of RAM and CPU power, that it's now "bloated" as opposed to "requiring more resources to give you more features."
I see this a lot with Firefox. Lots of people would hate on it for RAM usage and being slow, but the add-ons and such are fantastic. Meanwhile instead of going "hey, I should upgrade my computer, maybe up my ram from 1GB to 2GB" you have people going "firefox suxxxxxz0rs!"