DigiTimes: Intel to launch Haswell on March 2013

saw it on TPU:
http://www.techpowerup.com/162429/In...13-Report.html
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120314PD216.html?mod=2

After the appearance of Ivy Bridge, Intel plans to launch its initial batch of Haswell-based processors in March 2013 and Lynx Point chipset. Paired with Windows 8, which should already be stable in terms of operating performance after being released for about two quarters. The platform's enhanced performance and dropping costs are expected to help maintain desktop product shipments.

in before "WHAT? ANOTHER SOCKET!?! THIS IS MADNESS" posts.

Death to Ivy Bridge; all hail our new overlord Haswell

Ivybridge is still king for another year.

I may skip IVY and wait for socket 1150

I don't think Haswell will launch in Q1 2013 as OEMs cannot clear inventory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiacid

in before "what? Another socket!?! This is madness" posts.

---

NO!!! This...IS...INTELLLL!!!!!!!!

I don't think March 2013 is likely. Tick-tock has been closer to a 14-month cycle than yearly:

07/2006 - Conroe
10/2007 - Penryn (15 months later)
11/2008 - Nehalem (13 months)
01/2010 - Clarkdale (14 months)
01/2011 - Sandy Bridge (12 months)
03/2012 ? Ivy Bridge (14 months)

While the ticks had taken 14~15 months to come out, the tocks had taken 12~13 months. With Haskell being a tock one might expect April 2013 to be a likely launch date, but I think May 2013 is a better guess. Both previous tocks had market pressure to push up their launch dates. Nehalem added an IMC to capture the Server/HPC market where the Opteron was still competitive. Sandy Bridge's IGP was a vast improvement over the inadequate GMA that Apple found unacceptable. But what's Haskell's killer feature? Sure, it may further improve the IGP, but I think with Ivy Bridge the IGP is already good enough. Lacking market pressure, I believe Haskell will launch closer to May 2013 than April.

In any case March 2013 is very unlikely.

Yargh!

So I shouldn't get IB-E towards the end of the year then!?!

-PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

NO!!! This...IS...INTELLLL!!!!!!!!

---

lol :D

So the best new feature is a built in hardware task scheduler that detects the load and assigns it to the right core ?

With the fast release schedule of Intel I see no point updating more often than the very most every tick->tick or me rather the tock->tock like I plan doing (unless AMD would release something impressive ofc). I prefer picking up the die shrink of the same architecture rather than being the guinea pig with the new architecture, of course both has its advantages/disadvantages though. ^^

when is IVY launching ?? My 920 needs replacing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iboomalot

when is IVY launching ?? My 920 needs replacing

---

Quad: april
dual: may / june

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbagz

Yargh!

So I shouldn't get IB-E towards the end of the year then!?!

-PB

---

It's questionable that you could, even if you wanted to: Intel to Omit Release of Enthusiast-Class "Ivy Bridge" Processors This Year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

With the fast release schedule of Intel I see no point updating more often than the very most every tick->tick or me rather the tock->tock like I plan doing (unless AMD would release something impressive ofc). I prefer picking up the die shrink of the same architecture rather than being the guinea pig with the new architecture, of course both has its advantages/disadvantages though. ^^

---

New architecture brings a bigger performance increase than a new process and drops less in value by the time you're ready to get rid of it when the next new uarch (tock) comes around. The only thing I'd wait for is a stepping revision beyond launch, one that works out any possible kinks and improves electrical performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sholvaco

It's questionable that you could, even if you wanted to: Intel to Omit Release of Enthusiast-Class "Ivy Bridge" Processors This Year.



New architecture brings a bigger performance increase than a new process and drops less in value by the time you're ready to get rid of it when the next new uarch (tock) comes around. The only thing I'd wait for is a stepping revision beyond launch, one that works out any possible kinks and improves electrical performance.

---

Ahh thank you!

Damn, so they would delay it till post Haswell (or not even bother with it at all).

Makes sense as the advances from one to the next may not be as bigger gap as once thought.

Z77 here I come I spose.

-PB

It's been said before, but if this is the case, why bother with Ivy Bridge-E at all, which I read was going to be launched in 2H 2013?? It'll be nearly obsolete the instant it's launched.

Way to go Intel...way to screw the folks who pay for your top chips by demanding a high premium for obsolete hardware.:rolleyes:

Fortunately, technology is improving to the point where the consumer-grade processors are making Intel's high end stuff more and more irrelevant for more and more people. PCI-E 3.0 makes the fewer lanes available on Ivy less of an issue and having new features like chipset supported USB 3.0 will sweeten the deal. Intel is slowly but surely poisoning their own prized cash cow, IMHO. This, combined with Intel's lagging position in the mobile market (in relation to other companies like ARM), is setting the stage for a significant comeuppance.

And Intel needs said comeuppance...badly.;)

For those who missed this one :

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/396...bd4807c757.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/7d9...9280c29a77.jpg

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/e4b...14d1f7a02a.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/a86...8ef81f3e3a.jpg

http://translate.google.fr/translate...51483-1-1.html

I think Intel wants to get Haswell out asap. I think Haswells igpu is gonna be as fast or faster then Amd's best, though it will be good competition and drive prices down a bit.

hmm i cant find Thanks button sorry Olivon :/
:p

6 SATAIII ports is god send, finally there will be a good reason to abandon LGA775 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

I think Intel wants to get Haswell out asap. I think Haswells igpu is gonna be as fast or faster then Amd's best, though it will be good competition and drive prices down a bit.

---

If it's as fast or faster than AMD's Trinity iGPU then I would be impressed. But by that time, Kaveri will be out which will have 512SP (GCN),new memory controller and a slew of other improvements(3rd gen x86 SR core).

IvyBridge was supposed to match Llano in IGP performance, and we know the results.

I'm just not going to change sockets with Intel again for a long time.

Fooled me once with X48 > X58, and now no more! Nothing barely even utilizes my current CPU at stock speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

IvyBridge was supposed to match Llano in IGP performance, and we know the results.

---

Well it did actually match it or come close in at least a few games. In other situations it just failed(even tho it still was a massive improvement over hd3000).
The point is Kaveri will raise the GPU perf. bar again,more than Trinity did over Llano(28nm vs 32nm + new GPU architecture while Trinity had no luxury of a die shrink).
On the CPU side it's AMD that has some big catching up to do and let's hope Kaveri brings some decent IPC and clock speed improvements (they need 20-25% above trinity level to be regarded as at least competitive in x86 4 thread segment).

It would be awesome to see Amd catch up and compete again, i do like there focus on affordable enthusiast products. I just wish Intel would give us more then 4 cores in the mainstream segment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lutjens

It's been said before, but if this is the case, why bother with Ivy Bridge-E at all, which I read was going to be launched in 2H 2013?? It'll be nearly obsolete the instant it's launched.

Way to go Intel...way to screw the folks who pay for your top chips by demanding a high premium for obsolete hardware.:rolleyes:

Fortunately, technology is improving to the point where the consumer-grade processors are making Intel's high end stuff more and more irrelevant for more and more people. PCI-E 3.0 makes the fewer lanes available on Ivy less of an issue and having new features like chipset supported USB 3.0 will sweeten the deal. Intel is slowly but surely poisoning their own prized cash cow, IMHO. This, combined with Intel's lagging position in the mobile market (in relation to other companies like ARM), is setting the stage for a significant comeuppance.

And Intel needs said comeuppance...badly.;)

---

Intel probably won't bother making a big deal about Ivy Bridge E, if they release it it'll just be to make cheaper eight core CPU's. If you think it's obsolete just don't buy it, people spending that kind of money should make educated choices. As for making the mainstream systems attractive I don't see an issue with this, you don't need to gimp mainstream to provoke high end sales, Intel chips are selling well on both fronts. On the subject of socket changes, Intel have been bring a lot more subsystem changes per generation so when you upgrade it's not just a faster chip.

As for the mobile market, when it comes to a fight against ARM, for a company that makes desktop chips Intel aren't doing too badly. ARM has a lot of advantages as far as manufacturers are concerned as they can just buy the design and build whatever they want around it. Intel aren't really going to follow this lead so it will always be an uphill struggle, to insure a sale, Intel has to make a chip and subsystem that can't be beaten on performance by almost everyone that has made an ARM based SOC. So I think it's brave for them to step into the market, but unless they can create a huge advantage it won't be theirs soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

It would be awesome to see Amd catch up and compete again, i do like there focus on affordable enthusiast products. I just wish Intel would give us more then 4 cores in the mainstream segment.

---

I agree, it really is a shame that Bulldozer did so bad overall, if AMD really were able to compete here then maybe we would see cheaper six cores and even eight cores for consumers.

I wonder is Haswell going to be multi unlocked chips only? or will we be able to mess with the bclock to? Honestly overclocking with Intel now is kinda boring and straight forward, at least the Amd stuff is still fun even though performance is not that good.

I hope this will not be another generation of CPU's focused mostly on the more mobile devices. Having a GPU on CPU is fine for a laptop/ultrabook etc. But I don't seen the use for them in high end desktops. I want more pure CPU power damned!!

I don't mind the igpu's, i just wish that someone would find a use for them in systems with discrete gpu's. Like using them to do AA AF to take the load off discrete gpu or something like virtu but actually using the igpu + dgpu to render frames and not just trickery.

That's good. I just hope Intel could add DDR4 support for the desktop version and not only for the EX one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

IvyBridge was supposed to match Llano in IGP performance, and we know the results.

---

comparatively Ivy IGP performance is not shabby at all for low - medium quality gaming at 720p
looking forward to improvements though, would be nice to have a better "spare" vga for when I happen to be in between cards.

was using the hd4000 in place of a olde 8800gt and the performance difference is not as tremendous as I thought it would be, I literally thought it would be no contest but HD4000 is fairly comparable.

still I've always wondered why IGP was so neglected and allowed to fall so very far behind discrete VGA, I'm glad things are turning around a little.

...allowed to fall behind VGA?

have you seen the differences in die area between an integrated graphics core and a discrete card of the same generation? I only advantage I can think of for the IGP is the fact that its much closer to the CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Levish

comparatively Ivy IGP performance is not shabby at all for low - medium quality gaming at 720p
looking forward to improvements though, would be nice to have a better "spare" vga for when I happen to be in between cards.

was using the hd4000 in place of a olde 8800gt and the performance difference is not as tremendous as I thought it would be, I literally thought it would be no contest but HD4000 is fairly comparable.

still I've always wondered why IGP was so neglected and allowed to fall so very far behind discrete VGA, I'm glad things are turning around a little.

---

Wow that's impressive. Oem Haswell Pc's are going to introduce gaming to many people at a pretty decent level. In the past people would get bored and try to play a game on their dell or similar type pc but either it wouldn't run or run very poorly and of course they would give up. The future of Pc gaming looks like it's changing for the better.

I hope new revision (stepping) for IVY to reduce some heat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

Wow that's impressive. Oem Haswell Pc's are going to introduce gaming to many people at a pretty decent level. In the past people would get bored and try to play a game on their dell or similar type pc but either it wouldn't run or run very poorly and of course they would give up. The future of Pc gaming looks like it's changing for the better.

---

when the next gen consoles are released (and chances are it will be about the same time) the bar will be raised considerably for what will be needed to run games on PC. because most games are shoddy ports an 8800gt can still run essentially everything well (granted new games need to be on low and such be even still its impressive). so im guessing we will be back to square one in the IGP performance struggle. AMD's APU's are trying to change that are a doing a half decent job but overall i think once the next gen hits they will be as useful as the Intel parts.

they should ditch ib-e/ep and just bring all haswell forth

I read that somewhere here already, which needs updating more? It would be nice to have a six core with mem clocking ability like Ivy has, along with better IPC and maybe some extra oc headroom ...

:D

Package options of desktop and mobile Haswell processors - CPUWorld

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/fdd72a1...d568e00e0a.jpg

With Haswell being out so soon, it'll mean that the "high-end" will officially be two generations behind the mainstream...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nossy23

I hope this will not be another generation of CPU's focused mostly on the more mobile devices. Having a GPU on CPU is fine for a laptop/ultrabook etc. But I don't seen the use for them in high end desktops. I want more pure CPU power damned!!

---

it'll be more and more useful in the future

also i find it funny how AMD tries to match intel's CPU power and intel tries to match AMD's GPU perf

New video and graphics features of Haswell CPUs - CPUWorld

Quote:

---

Haswell chips may have one of the three graphics controllers: GT1, GT2 or GT3, aimed at entry-level, mainstream, and performance graphics respectively (...) The GT3 controller can have up to 40 execution units, however we don't know exact number. (...) The GPU now supports DirectX 11.1, OpenGL 3.2 and OpenCL 1.2 APIs. According to Intel, average performance of the Haswell GT1 unit is 15% - 25% better than performance of Ivy Bridge GT1, and Haswell GT2 is also 15% - 25% faster than IVB GT2. GT3 graphics has 50% - 100% better performance than performance of Ivy Bridge GT2 GPUs.

---

wow! it could be dangerous for Trinity igpu....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

wow! it could be dangerous for Trinity igpu....

---

Agreed, the days of laughing at Intel graphics have definitely come to a middle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

Agreed, the days of laughing at Intel graphics have definitely come to a middle...

---

Good, I really think that Intel's IGP has done more harm to pc gaming than consoles ever could.

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/4f3f7aa...370c4182f5.jpg

Quote:

---

Although the Ultra level processors won’t feature any display outputs rather a digital output, Haswell’s IGP is also rumored to be around three times faster than HD4000. The CPU side bring in a new instruction set AVX2 and around 15% IPC improvement over Ivy Bridge.

---

http://wccftech.com/intel-haswell-de...ails-revealed/

intel seems to be moving so fast these day you cant keep up..

Wow, that's all quite impressive.... I skipped Ivy but looks like I will go for Haswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

wow! it could be dangerous for Trinity igpu....

---

by the time haswell comes out, it will be facing steamroller based apu's. im pretty sure amd will still have the graphics crown, because those would be based on gcn.

From the slides Olivon is posting I cant see GT3 graphics on ANY desktop processor.

It seems intel thinks only laptops need good 3d performance, desktop space has been ceded to discreet cards for anything more than office work/productivity. A bit disappointing, but it kind of makes sense.

The laptop parts command the better price, so the better parts will be used in laptops instead of desktop. There may be K parts that have the GT3 (or they may be released sometimes after during a speed bump).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

by the time haswell comes out, it will be facing steamroller based apu's. im pretty sure amd will still have the graphics crown, because those would be based on gcn.

---

Haswell quads+GT3 will be out by early Q2, maybe March 2013. According to Charlie there will be a Trinity 2.0 by the time Haswell launches and Kaveri is not coming till H2/2013.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brice MJ

Haswell quads+GT3 will be out by early Q2, maybe March 2013. According to Charlie there will be a Trinity 2.0 by the time Haswell launches and Kaveri is not coming till H2/2013.

---

i thought haswell was pushed back to late q2? well charlie may be right, i guess we will know more once the next analyst day comes round.

I wonder if Hasswell uses that crappy TIM Intel used in Ivy Bridge...

The crappy TIM was used to keep performance in check using thermals, the effect that the TIM will have on the CPU was known to most if not all in Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

The crappy TIM was used to keep performance in check using thermals, the effect that the TIM will have on the CPU was known to most if not all in Intel.

---

....i dont understand this? what do you mean to keep performance in check? was performance running away (lol)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

The crappy TIM was used to keep performance in check using thermals, the effect that the TIM will have on the CPU was known to most if not all in Intel.

---

When the cover and TIM were removed the results didn't improve too much, if anything it was to stop people trying to push chips into their inevitable RMA zone. They just overheat 200mhz sooner than they would have normally, a lot of overclockers would have just used voltage and better cooling to go past that point and those chips would have died in weeks.

Yup. There are fields and fields of burned Intel CPUs near Santa Clara.

New socket again? Intel suxxx! Where is the upgrade factor? ZIF Sockets? Why? They should just solder a CPU on it....

I've just bough a Z77 MB and it's already obsolete while my 1 year 990FXUD3 it's a piece of technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

....i dont understand this? what do you mean to keep performance in check? was performance running away (lol)?

---

Yeah, too close to SB-E.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaD

Yup. There are fields and fields of burned Intel CPUs near Santa Clara.

---

You think I'm joking? http://community.futuremark.com/foru...600K&p=1681415

This idiot went through FOUR 2600k's, he just put them up to 1.5v and let his water cooling handle the heat, Intel replaced everyone of them without question. He didn't ask for any advice he just decided he needed that voltage to hit 4.9ghz. If he tried that on an Ivy Bridge, it would never let him do it, his water cooling would never overcome the TIM.

It seems crazy, but if I can find one idiot, I'm sure Intel found enough to make them go through with this change and incur our anger. So if Intel do the same thing again with Haswell, you know who to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

When the cover and TIM were removed the results didn't improve too much, if anything it was to stop people trying to push chips into their inevitable RMA zone. They just overheat 200mhz sooner than they would have normally, a lot of overclockers would have just used voltage and better cooling to go past that point and those chips would have died in weeks.

---

That was because of the thermal distribution limitation. The heat needs to be spread out with the IHS in order to deal with it better so replacing the stock TIM with a better one will no doubt improve temp's of the CPU. Better performance "Via OC" in IVB is a complicated affair, there is internal heat and core heat and sensors dont monitor the whole chip they monitor certain sections or certain surroundings. The chip can die if other parts are exposed to excess heat things Intel does not document openly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

....i dont understand this? what do you mean to keep performance in check? was performance running away (lol)?

---

Well kinda yes the gap between the SB-E and the IVB had to be maintained. Already there is a core difference but it may not be enough with IVB quads at 77W TDP its important to have a way to check the IVB performance. It was not about saving a buck using a stupid TIM, it was all about something more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Yeah, too close to SB-E.

---

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

That was because of the thermal distribution limitation. The heat needs to be spread out with the IHS in order to deal with it better so replacing the stock TIM with a better one will no doubt improve temp's of the CPU. Better performance "Via OC" in IVB is a complicated affair, there is internal heat and core heat and sensors dont monitor the whole chip they monitor certain sections or certain surroundings. The chip can die if other parts are exposed to excess heat things Intel does not document openly.



Well kinda yes the gap between the SB-E and the IVB had to be maintained. Already there is a core difference but it may not be enough with IVB quads at 77W TDP its important to have a way to check the IVB performance. It was not about saving a buck using a stupid TIM, it was all about something more.

---

ahh i understand now. the man who was once blind; is blind NO MORE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMgBMkCenoA

2X graphical performance vs IB

The only thing I don't understand in the above video is that the speaker mentions SB core for comparison and the slide/video says 3rd gen Core. But in any case, Haswell looks to be a massive upgrade over IB,bot in terms of CPU and GPU performance. All this at lower/same power. I'm impressed.

Intel Developer Forum 2012 - Dadi Perlmutter Keynote Live Blog - AnandTech

Additional info about Haswell CPU cores from Anadtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6263/i...sure-live-blog

- 2xFMA per core, per cycle (2x FP throughput over IB) vs. 1xFMA per module in Bulldozer.
- 8 execution ports vs. 6 in IvyB (additional integer/branch port + store address port)
- Improved branch prediction
- Increasing size of buffers internally, giving us larger OoO window

I want Hasswell-DT to use DDR4 omg !

I think they disabled tessellation in that presentation :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jogshy

I want Hasswell-DT to use DDR4 omg !

I think they disabled tessellation in that presentation :confused:

---

yeah i am not buying it until benches come out. the current 4k chokes pretty hard in "GPU" bound games, so if all they did was up the eu's....idk we will see.

I'm really starting to love it... :)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/cms/include/...pect=0&format= http://www.xbitlabs.com/cms/include/...pect=0&format=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jogshy

I want Hasswell-DT to use DDR4 omg !

I think they disabled tessellation in that presentation :confused:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

yeah i am not buying it until benches come out. the current 4k chokes pretty hard in "GPU" bound games, so if all they did was up the eu's....idk we will see.

---

Sorry for being a :banana::banana::banana::banana: here, but do you really expect Intel to change something that central in the architecture, across same range of products?? I cant even imagine the cost of doing that, but it sure would not make sense...
Haswell is not DDR4, nor will the product after be DDR4, as its just a DIE shrink.... So forget DDR4 for both 2013 and 2014 on Intel, early Q2 2015 is more realistic.... But really, except the higher density, why would you want DDR4 for the time being??? DDR3 has much juice left, and the cost are at a pricepoint I only remember having seen once before in my life.... When SDRAM were becoming 'old' and RD were the new thing, soon followed by DDR...

Gatman John (Gautam), perhaps you can give your input to this thread? Not as an Intel rep, not any NDA info, just an engineers words on how complex and expensive an affair it would be to make one part of a range with a different IMC.

I wish they would omit the igp on the K series CPU,s, one less thing to fail and hold heat.....room for more cores
Yea this is XS more is never enough.