Haswell Debuts: Intel Core i7-4770K Review

Ok I have to mention something about this now because all the previous posts seem to say the same.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3930K+@+3.20GHz

AMD is behind by a small margin in terms of pure performance, but not by as much as people are making it out to be. AMD put its focus on Multi-Threaded tasks and adding more "Physical" cores to handle that. Where as Intel went for more pure performance on one core. In terms of the best "gaming" processor, the i7 3770k or 4770k is probably (if you don't mind the price) the best, but by a very small margin (as seen in the above tests on this forum.

Now, either of the chips are going to be able to max even the most CPU intensive games and can hold their own in the tests, but it's really up to you if you want to spend the money to get that slight difference. Honestly, it's more at this point what you want to do with your processor and how much your willing to spend that ultimately decides.
 
Ok I have to mention something about this now because all the previous posts seem to say the same.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz

AMD is behind by a small margin in terms of pure performance, but not by as much as people are making it out to be. AMD put its focus on Multi-Threaded tasks and adding more "Physical" cores to handle that. Where as Intel went for more pure performance on one core. In terms of the best "gaming" processor, the i7 3770k or 4770k is probably (if you don't mind the price) the best, but by a very small margin (as seen in the above tests on this forum.

Now, either of the chips are going to be able to max even the most CPU intensive games and can hold their own in the tests, but it's really up to you if you want to spend the money to get that slight difference. Honestly, it's more at this point what you want to do with your processor and how much your willing to spend that ultimately decides.

I cant agree more (y). AMD can really take the crown in the future when multithreaded applications become the norm. Nowadays, most applications are single threaded so that they can run on legacy devices (one of many reasons).
 
If recent history is anything to go by Intel will use the opportunity to increase the price of the equivalent Haswell CPUs and not reduce the cost of the Ivy CPUs. I doubt if the new I5s will be less than £160.
 
AMD can really take the crown in the future when multithreaded applications become the norm.
When this time comes, Intel will be shining even greater then they are now. After all for multi-threaded applications to become a norm, AMD and Intel will both be there waiting.

Intel has refined their CPU's to be more efficient per core. There is less performance loss with the introduction of each additional core.

AMD should work on their per core efficiency, if they really want to compete. Getting better efficiency per core, will allow operation on less cores with less power needed. And by doing so have less efficiency loss due to multi-core operations.
 
I'll wait for the revision/stepping after the one at launch for the 4770K (ie: G0, D2), then I'll jump all over it.
 
Intel's superior architecture has allowed them to release dual and quad core CPU's that match and beat AMD quad and 6 core's. AMD uses more physical cores because their architecture is inferior and countless benchmarks from all types show this.
Yes, AMD's chips are not being used to the fullest but neither are Intels.

If you want an Intel chip that has both the cores and ability, they have been making 6 core options for years. Expensive yes, but available. The i7 970, 980 and 990X @ 4.0Ghz will still perform very well to this day. The 3960X still rules the gamin charts.
Haswell isn't about brute performance but power saving performance.

AMD is the low budget option that works damn good for the price; but if you want the best, Intel are the CPU kings and Nvidia are the GPU kings. You get what you pay for.
 
Props to TechSpot for the early review.

Doesn't look like this is a home run for Intel, but I'm running the Bloomfield i7-960 that has a 3dMark score of 6600, so it's definitely time for an upgrade for me. I'll wait for a few more mobo options to show up first, though.
 
OMG, Anyone with the last two i7 generations should just chill. You guys still have nice machines. Is everyone making so much money, they wish to simply throw it away for the hell of it?

well... I'm not really running an OC'd i7 and 2x GTX 680s because it's economical. I do it because its a hobby and I like to tinker with computers. When I have a system that is 2 years old and there is very little I can do to beat it at any price with hardware that is supposedly 2 generations ahead it's kind of disappointing.
 
I cant agree more (y). AMD can really take the crown in the future when multithreaded applications become the norm.
Just because client software isn't primarily multithreaded, doesn't mean that all software suffers the same fate. Also note that Core i3/i5/i7 are only the entry level hardware to the architecture. If you want to see where the architecture truly is you really need to look at the enterprise sectors where throughput, power consumption, and in some cases, licence per processor make software optimization paramount. For example:
Virtualized server workloads ( 36 virtualized CPUs in this case)
44351.png


...and everyone's favourite...Cinebench 11.5 (Multithreaded) (Hall of fame leaderboard >>here<<. Note physical/logical core count relationship to the overall score)
44349.png


(From Anandtechs Sandy Bridge-E Xeon E5 review. For a price/perf head-to-head excluding the top Intel part here's the Opteron 63xx (Piledriver) review)
 
Just because client software isn't primarily multithreaded, doesn't mean that all software suffers the same fate. Also note that Core i3/i5/i7 are only the entry level hardware to the architecture. If you want to see where the architecture truly is you really need to look at the enterprise sectors where throughput, power consumption, and in some cases, licence per processor make software optimization paramount. For example:
Virtualized server workloads ( 36 virtualized CPUs in this case)
44351.png


...and everyone's favourite...Cinebench 11.5 (Multithreaded) (Hall of fame leaderboard >>here<<. Note physical/logical core count relationship to the overall score)
44349.png


(From Anandtechs Sandy Bridge-E Xeon E5 review. For a price/perf head-to-head excluding the top Intel part here's the Opteron 63xx (Piledriver) review)

Interesting indeed.
 
When this time comes, Intel will be shining even greater then they are now. After all for multi-threaded applications to become a norm, AMD and Intel will both be there waiting.

Intel has refined their CPU's to be more efficient per core. There is less performance loss with the introduction of each additional core.

AMD should work on their per core efficiency, if they really want to compete. Getting better efficiency per core, will allow operation on less cores with less power needed. And by doing so have less efficiency loss due to multi-core operations.

Yeah, increasing the TDP is the exact opposite of what people want. Plus, it will lead to higher operating temperatures.
 
Yeah, increasing the TDP is the exact opposite of what people want. Plus, it will lead to higher operating temperatures.

That is not what he is saying at all. AMD's problem is not their ACP's (TDP's). Far from it.
 
Looks like Intel is on the ball here. Windows 8 being a total flop, current-gen consoles hanging on throughout 2013-14 and the new ones offering no big boosts.. there is absolutely no incentive for people to overhaul their 1-2yr old rigs. Intel will probably wait one or two gens to release a monster, in which time AMD may catch up - which would not be a bad thing at all.
 
Intel's superior architecture has allowed them to release dual and quad core CPU's that match and beat AMD quad and 6 core's. AMD uses more physical cores because their architecture is inferior and countless benchmarks from all types show this.
Yes, AMD's chips are not being used to the fullest but neither are Intels.

If you want an Intel chip that has both the cores and ability, they have been making 6 core options for years. Expensive yes, but available. The i7 970, 980 and 990X @ 4.0Ghz will still perform very well to this day. The 3960X still rules the gamin charts.
Haswell isn't about brute performance but power saving performance.

AMD is the low budget option that works damn good for the price; but if you want the best, Intel are the CPU kings and Nvidia are the GPU kings. You get what you pay for.

No, that is not true, AMD did not one day come out and say "Let cram more cores onto the processor chip to match intel".

AMD's idea was to find Their own version of hyperthreading and how to make performance for the future. Zambezi and Vishera were a different approach to hyperthreading by including a module on a chip and inside each module putting 2 physical cores inside each module that share certain parts and run in sync. The idea was focused at multi-tasking and multithreaded performance with a new way of multithreading. Being able to clock all 8 cores on the FX-8350 to 4ghz stock and higher is different than the intel I7 3770k or 4770k because when you clock the cores, your clocking 4 core up to lets say 4ghz, those cores are then split in half for multithreading to 2.0ghz each by Intels software creating the feeling of having 8 cores clocked at the 2ghz frequency.

Its a different answer to the same question, they were being clever in an attempt to give users a better multi-tasking environment and to try a whole new architecture. The FX-8350 may not be the most powerful chip on the market, but it also does not cost 1000 dollars or 500 dollars.

Here is passmark results (Which is probably in MY OPINION one of the best CPU benchmarks out there)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4770K+@+3.50GHz&id=1919

The chips are not as far apart as you are hinting at and for some odd reason the 4770k is below the 3770k...
 
Here is passmark results (Which is probably in MY OPINION one of the best CPU benchmarks out there)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz&id=1919

The chips are not as far apart as you are hinting at and for some odd reason the 4770k is below the 3770k...

Not trying to start a flame-war, but is the above showing me effectively an 8-core (by your above definition) 1.75 (3.5 / 2) Intel CPU beating an 8-core 4GHz AMD CPU?

Also that bench is pretty low. As there's only 1 test sample for the 4770K, it's not really valid.
 
That is not what he is saying at all. AMD's problem is not their ACP's (TDP's). Far from it.

Well yeah, but TDP is also becoming a problem for AMD in terms of competing with Intel. The rumored 5GHz CPU is said to use 225W or something like that.
 
Well yeah, but TDP is also becoming a problem for AMD in terms of competing with Intel. The rumored 5GHz CPU is said to use 225W or something like that.


A 225w CPU would be instant death to the silicon after a short while, followed by AMD filing for bankruptcy.

AMD CPU's (higher end) have always run hotter than Intel's since the Core series. The FX 8350 has a TDP/ACP of 125w. Phenom started with flagships with 130w TDP's, and since then, Intel has gone from 95w (SB), to 77w (IB), to 84w (Haswell). AMD's problem are their engineers, and/or lack of money for R&D. I can only guess, because we all know AMD is not happy with second place, so something is up.

AMD needs to get an efficient architecture on a low process technology. Not one or the other. Adding more cores/modules, higher frequency memory, higher core clocks to make up for a poor architecture is a band-aid. If AMD wants to be taken seriously, they need to step their game up. Rory seems to be on the right track, but I don't see anything really great coming from AMD (CPU's) for another couple years at least.
 
I am running an i7-2600K sandy bridge overclocked from 3.4 Ghz to 4.8 Ghz. I figure it's as fast the latest 6 core IVY/HASWELL base clocked processor. I used Corsair's Hydro Series H90 and my motherboard had a built in preconfigured overclocking feature so it was the easiest overclock ever.
Why would you even need this? You just go into BIOS and change the multiplier.

Everybody reads these IGP reviews, and then goes all "I can buy GT-480s for $xxx.xx"! Who cares man? Even if Intel is lying through their teeth about the performance stats on the new IGP, it's basically free. When your damn GT480 blows up from you overclocking it, you'll still be able to use the computer to search Ebay for another one, which somebody will swear up and down has never been beat, and was only used to play "Scrabble" at 1600 x 1050.

For somebody with any sense with respect to expectations regarding IGP performance, if it will push 2 1080p monitors so you can throw Blu-Ray over to the TV without out getting any stupid, "you need to use a lower resolution or you're going to break your new toy", warnings, I'd call the graphics a rip roaring success.

I mean if you think any IGP should play "Metro" @ 2500 x 1650, who is more delusional, Intel for telling you it will, or you for believing it should?
 
Steve Well done on getting the review out at such short notice, it made for interesting viewing. It's a shame you couldn't of had more time to explore aspects like overclocking in more detail but a great review given the time constraints.

I must admit I've not really been following Haswell's progress much lately but it does seem that it's rather underwhelming on the desktop chips. Having held out for Haswell to arrive I wish I'd just spent my money months ago and gone for Ivy Bridge instead.

I realise there is a lot more to come from Haswell yet but it almost feels like the performance results are more "tick" than "tock" at the moment. That said, notebooks look to benefit quite nicely, especially with the Iris 5200 over the HD 4600.

All that said, thanks TechSpot (and everyone involved) for getting this out to us so quickly -- on a weekend as well! :)
 
St1ckM4n
If you want to look at it that way, then yes. But like I said, its a different answer to the same question. The Recent Architecture (IE Bulldozer/Piledriver) changed the way they wanted to do things because the focus they wanted was more on the future and planning for when applications start really being able to handle high levels of threads. The Bulldozer/Piledriver chips are not exactly "Full 8 Cores" performance because of the shared components each core has to split with a second core. This causes of course a bit of a scaling problem if you will for each core, individually, each core is not horrible on its own, but because they have to share some components, the cores lose a bit of the performance along the way. The argument whether its a true "8 Core Processor" or a "4 core 8 thread" chip is because of the way the architecture is because this is a new concept to them and a new look at the problems presented. Its an idea and its not perfect but we will have to see where steamroller goes to make our judgements and see where AMD works on improving things.

Last, for the record, yeah AMD does need to increase its Power consumption, but also think about this. The 3930k is a 130w and the FX-8350 is a 125 watt. Yes the 3930k is a better chip, but it uses more power than the FX processor and I keep wondering why people forget that when comparing chips.

@4770k Im also confused st1ckm4n why the 4770k is lower on passmark, that's odd to me, its probably do to an early release or something like that, they will probably update it soon and fix that, but passmark shows what the CPU's really can do with what they have and is where I normally at least look to compare CPU's for real performance.
 
Yes the 3930k is a better chip, but it uses more power than the FX processor and I keep wondering why people forget that when comparing chips.
I'm wondering why you think chips should be compared by the power they consume regardless of performance.

Passmark: (I like comparing Passmark benchmarks as well)
That is a larger gap in performance ratio (24:18) compared to the power ratio (26:25) you provided. I think the idea is to compare CPU power consumption ratios with CPU's that perform similar not miles apart.
 
Note that the graphics is the "mid-tier," not the high end. If you read the article, you would see that it only includes 4 more EUs than Ivy Bridge. The big graphics performance increase comes in the mobile parts, where they include 40 EUs and the highest includes embedded DRAM.
 
I would not compare them, however my only point with that statement was a lot of people were saying it was a horrible power consumption chip. I was just pointing out that it's an "8 core" (I still keep that in quotes) and it used less power than the intel 6 core.

Yes the intel 6 core is a better chip theres no doubt in that. I was just pointing out one fact that people tend to overlook.

If we are looking at the closest chip which would be the 3770/4770, then yes those are much better tdp chips.
 
Yes the intel 6 core is a better chip theres no doubt in that. I was just pointing out one fact that people tend to overlook.
And what exactly would that be, power consumption per core?

Are you smiling at the inefficiencies of AMD CPU's, because they use less power per core? Come on, you are trying to picture grass growing in a desert, because you choose not to live in a pasture.
 
Back