Haswell E and X99 to launch in 3rd Quarter...

[zalbard]

This I feel like x79 lineup and its cpu's have such a short life as the top dog.

X79 came out in 2011... And it will be considered high-end for almost another year. That's very long by computer standards.

[tajoh111]

X79 came out in 2011... And it will be considered high-end for almost another year. That's very long by computer standards.

Haswell came out of the middle of this year and beats it in a lot of things. Particularly games. Heck, I think even Ivybridge beat it in games(that didn't use 6 cores anyways).

A year and a half isn't that long.

When your paying significantly more and your getting the newer architecture later than the mainstream part, it really hurts the premium or enthusiast moniker of the platform. When I think enthusiast, I think cutting edge. To me, cutting edge doesn't mean more cores as much as newer technology.

[ZX2Slow]

Heck, I think even Ivybridge beat it in games(that didn't use 6 cores anyways).

There are x79 boards with Ivy Bridge-E chips in them now.

[tajoh111]

There are x79 boards with Ivy Bridge-E chips in them now.

I think although a bit cruel to current x79 owners. They should have skipped ivy bridge E which was released a month ago and if Intel had them ready, went straight to Haswell E. It seems like a more appropriate time to release haswell E. By the time Haswell E comes out, Broadwell will have been out for a while and skylake may be ready for release 6 to 8 months later(Perhaps later with Intel slowing things to a crawl).

[vitchilo]

AMD should just do a 12 cores Phenom 2 on 22nm with more cache and higher clock... that could kick ass. Don't change anything in the architecture (maybe DDR4 support) but that's it... see how it does performance wise...

[zalbard]

Haswell came out of the middle of this year and beats it in a lot of things. Particularly games. Heck, I think even Ivybridge beat it in games(that didn't use 6 cores anyways).

Why buy a workstation platform for games to begin with? Especially since 95% are GPU-limited, and most only make use of 2-4 threads...

[Barr3l Rid3r]

AMD should just do a 12 cores Phenom 2 on 22nm with more cache and higher clock... that could kick ass. Don't change anything in the architecture (maybe DDR4 support) but that's it... see how it does performance wise...

an 8 cores steamroller would deal a lot of damage and would be much more efficiente and cool, phenom 2 hasn't got newer instructions and are going to be much slower than piledriver very soon.

[lutjens]

Why buy a workstation platform for games to begin with? Especially since 95% are GPU-limited, and most only make use of 2-4 threads...

A theoretical (if it existed) workstation platform with dual unlocked CPUs, each having a high core count, would game just as well as the run-of-the-mill 2-4 core mainstream systems, and also run single-threaded apps as fast. It would also would have the ability to be an extremely prolific (and indeed unrivalled) performer in applications that can use multiple cores. The best of both worlds, as it were. As it exists now, though, Intel has arrogantly deigned that this type of system shall not be permitted, even if you're willing to pay the high price of entry. You have to choose one or the other and if you want both top notch single-threaded and multi-threaded performance, you need to build two separate systems.

Thanks again Intel, for your benevolent wisdom...

[xVeinx]

AMD should just do a 12 cores Phenom 2 on 22nm with more cache and higher clock... that could kick ass. Don't change anything in the architecture (maybe DDR4 support) but that's it... see how it does performance wise...

That horse has been beaten, shot, and its carcass dragged from one end of the earth to another. AMD can't and won't. The current architecture is here to stay, with focus on HSA and other tech. There might be some larger changes after excavator, but the bulldozer-based arch is only 2 years old. I'd also be very surprised if AMD were to introduce a new architecture (so to speak, since nothing is truly "new" completely) in even the next several years. They can't go back, but they can make improvements to the current architecture going forward. Expecting anything else is kind of unrealistic...

[lutjens]

That horse has been beaten, shot, and its carcass dragged from one end of the earth to another. AMD can't and won't. The current architecture is here to stay, with focus on HSA and other tech. There might be some larger changes after excavator, but the bulldozer-based arch is only 2 years old. I'd also be very surprised if AMD were to introduce a new architecture (so to speak, since nothing is truly "new" completely) in even the next several years. They can't go back, but they can make improvements to the current architecture going forward. Expecting anything else is kind of unrealistic...

I wonder what Jim Keller is working on right now...it wouldn't surprise me if he was crafting something very interesting...

[Tenknics]

The first post says $400 for 6 core, $600 for 8 core and $1000 for extreme edition, that doesn't seem very far fetched right now, especially when you consider IvyBridge-E is being built as a 6 core. It seems realistic for Intel to go with this pricing model, and Intel seems very aware of how profitable putting the right chip right at the edge of acceptable cost can be.

I thought fore sure I replied to this already but I guess not...

Anyway, that's pure speculation. No where in that article's references or sources have that information. All information up to this point is indicated the 8-core will be EE only..With the mid and low range being different clocked hex's.

[aussie-revhead]

Since release is supposed to be only 6 months away, has anyone seen any DDR4 modules in the wild? Real ones? Any testing/overclocking/screenshots seen?

[BababooeyHTJ]

Why buy a workstation platform for games to begin with? Especially since 95% are GPU-limited, and most only make use of 2-4 threads...

I agree with you. I can't justify it either. You could have bought a quad core Haswell cpu, motherboard, and ram six months ago for a fraction of the cost of the workstation platform. It just doesn't make sense for a gaming rig to me.

Although, I would like to see an affordable 6 core cpu from Intel at some point. I've been using a quad core cpu for a very long time.

[Iconyu]

I agree with you. I can't justify it either. You could have bought a quad core Haswell cpu, motherboard, and ram six months ago for a fraction of the cost of the workstation platform. It just doesn't make sense for a gaming rig to me.

Although, I would like to see an affordable 6 core cpu from Intel at some point. I've been using a quad core cpu for a very long time.

You'll want it for the PCIe lanes, and six cores is pretty nice to have.

[BababooeyHTJ]

You'll want it for the PCIe lanes, and six cores is pretty nice to have.

Not for two way sli or crossfire. I also have my doubts that it would make all that much of a difference for 3-way.

[DefStar]

Intel arrogance has made it so, although AMD doesn't play a threat at all in this segment, their own processors do.

With the small increases in performance lately for Intels enthusiast line, they have given people little incentive to upgrade over their previous platform.

Intel is its own worst enemy at decreasing sales of newly release products. Ivy bridge E reviews, although they obliterated AMD in performance, the reviews came out negative in the end. The reason being, they present almost no performance increase over sandy-bridge E. Add in they clocked worse and they were not even that interesting to the enthusiast who will just take about any reason to upgrade.

When Haswell E comes out and if it has the same number of cores as Ivybridge E and sandy E, people will be better off sticking with their old platform unless they are still on westmere or older. Haswell brought very little performance increase over ivy-bridge. Particularly with Haswell-e, because it may require a new set of expensive DDR4 memory, Intel has to do something new to entice potential owners. Because IPC is set at this point for the haswell architecture, this means adding more cores at the very least.

It still pisses me off that Intel has staggered its release so their flagship platform comes out later than their mainstream platform when it comes to a new architecture.

Ivy Bridge came with the PCIe 3.0 which is really 'really' nice for crossfire and sli users.

[TimPrice]

http://www.techpowerup.com/201243/in...-detailed.html
Rumors say no octa part for 600$
5820K 6 cores, no HT, disabled pcie lanes 400$?
5930K 6 cores, HT 600$?

Devil's Canyon for me then...

[STEvil]

so.. another years or two with 2600k it looks like.

[bearcatrp]

Finally. Some kind of info on the 8 core. About friggin time. Lets hope the boards a descent.

[zalbard]

$1000 for a CPU is too rich for my blood... Disappointing. I guess I will not be upgrading to HW-E.

Much rather pay $500 for a new GPU which is 50% faster [than the old one] than $1000 for a CPU which is 33% ahead at best... Not to mention the new platform adoption cost. I guess Intel simply doesn't get it.

[Iconyu]

Why buy a workstation platform for games to begin with? Especially since 95% are GPU-limited, and most only make use of 2-4 threads...

More PCIe lanes = more GPU's, and more cores to handle the CPU overhead those GPU's create.

[FlanK3r]

http://www.coolaler.com/showthread.php/315765

CPU-Z 5960X...clock 3 GHz, turbo up to 3.3 GHz.

[Kai Robinson]

I'm going to hold out for the 5930K, methinks. I can cope with my current setup (Q9650) for now and wait for that...i think?

[Tenknics]

I've been saying this for about 8 months now. And even more so in this forum recently, but no one would believe it. Intel would never release an 8core at $600 the first generation, NEVER. The 8 core was always and will always be the top binned $1,000 part (this generation).

[lutjens]

I've been saying this for about 8 months now. And even more so in this forum recently, but no one would believe it. Intel would never release an 8core at $600 the first generation, NEVER. The 8 core was always and will always be the top binned $1,000 part (this generation).

I also knew there would be no cheap 8-core, but I figured they'd be charging more than $1000 for it, which they still might end up doing (the article references a "four figure price point." It remains to be seen whether or not Intel will charge $1000 or push it up to the $1200ish territory (which is still very possible).