New details emerge on Intel's upcoming Haswell CPU

By on August 22, 2012, 12:30 PM

Intel released Ivy Bridge earlier this year and although we aren’t expecting its successor until next year, it’s never too early to discuss when more details emerge. CPU World claims to have the latest on the package options we can expect to see from Haswell which includes CPU core count, graphics tier level and the number of memory channels (in that order) that will be available.

The publication notes that Intel will use 4+2+2 and 2+2+2 package options for desktop chips – none (at least initially) will feature the highest graphics, tier 3. All chips will use an LGA package and support DDR3 memory up to DDR3-1600 with a maximum capacity of up to 32GB.

Market Cores Graphics Memory
controllers
Package Max RAM
Desktop 4 GT2 2 LGA 32 GB
Desktop 2 GT2 2 LGA 32 GB
Mobile (performance) 4 GT3 2 BGA 32 GB
Mobile (mainstream) 4 GT2 2 BGA / rPGA 32 GB
Mobile (mainstream) 2 GT2 2 BGA / rPGA 16 GB
Mobile (ULT) 2 GT3 2 BGA 16 GB
Mobile (ULT) 2 GT2 1 BGA 8 GB

On the mobile side, processors will be available in 4+3+2, 4+2+2 and 2+2+2 packages. We are hearing that processors with the highest level of graphics will only be available in BGA packages. This means it won’t be possible to upgrade notebooks using tier 1 or tier 2 graphics to a tier 3 chip. Furthermore, tier 3 chips won’t be upgradable to faster tier 3 processors. All mobile chips will have two memory controllers and support either 16GB or 32GB of total RAM.

The Ultra Light and Thin (ULT) processor category (which probably means Ultrabooks) will consist of dual-core only CPUs. One package will use the highest tier graphics while the other will use the mid-grade tier. Both will be built using the BGA package with maximum RAM set at 8GB for the mid-range package and 16GB for the higher-end package.




User Comments: 14

Got something to say? Post a comment
likedamaster said:

*Yawn* Call me when they finally get the 8-cores in.

Guest said:

@ likedamaster

Lol! You are acting pretty smug aren't you? There already are CPUs with even up to 10 cores by Intel which are the Xeon series. However, HOW many software nowadays for CONSUMERS actually does a good job of taking advantage of even 6 cores and not to mention 8, or even 10 cores? Not very many so there's really no benefit right now until more software developers at least take advantage of 4 cores. There are quite a bit of software that does but it's not "typical" yet.

Guest said:

Call you when they get 8 cores. Yan. Call me when they get 48 cores.

Guest said:

*Yawn* Call me when that 1,000-core is being manufactured for consumers.

Guest said:

Show me a 6+ core CPU out of intel for ~$200. I think I'll be waiting a long time with AMD effectively out of the high performance CPU game.

[Given, I'm sure haswell will improve ipc across the board, but the only reason we haven't seen 6+ core cpus for $200 is because AMD doesn't have its act together.]

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

[Intel] Show me a stock 4.0GHz clock speed and an architecture that has support and optimizations for RAM frequencies over DDR3 1600MHz. It's good to know I don't need more than 1600MHz as far as saving money goes, but give me a reason to upgrade and I'll jump on it.

Zeromus said:

@ likedamaster

Lol! You are acting pretty smug aren't you? There already are CPUs with even up to 10 cores by Intel which are the Xeon series. However, HOW many software nowadays for CONSUMERS actually does a good job of taking advantage of even 6 cores and not to mention 8, or even 10 cores? Not very many so there's really no benefit right now until more software developers at least take advantage of 4 cores. There are quite a bit of software that does but it's not "typical" yet.

Yeah, what an uninformed individual. Unless this guy likes gaming while he runs a web server.

JC713 JC713 said:

I dont get why intel keeps focusing on the graphics... just let nvidia do that and just make cpus. crap graphics are taking over the industry... intel is trying to sell crappy graphics in ultrabooks for >800

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I dont get why intel keeps focusing on the graphics... just let nvidia do that and just make cpus. crap graphics are taking over the industry... intel is trying to sell crappy graphics in ultrabooks for >800
Seriously just because nVidia and AMD makes better dedicated graphics doesn't mean Intel should stop making better integrated graphics with their CPU's. Intel's integrated graphics is more than enough graphical power for some people. As long as Intel can keep up with production environment, I see no reason why they should try competing with nVidia and AMD dedicated graphics. At least Intel is raising the minimum performance bar with each integrated graphical performance boost.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

...but give me a reason to upgrade and I'll jump on it.

There are none...

However for the enthusiast, a 10% CPU performance (clock-for-clock) increase, the addition of AVX2 and FMA3, instruction sets, and transactional memory support promise a reasonable speed up over Ivy Bridge.

JC713 JC713 said:

Seriously just because nVidia and AMD makes better dedicated graphics doesn't mean Intel should stop making better integrated graphics with their CPU's. Intel's integrated graphics is more than enough graphical power for some people. As long as Intel can keep up with production environment, I see no reason why they should try competing with nVidia and AMD dedicated graphics. At least Intel is raising the minimum performance bar with each integrated graphical performance boost.

true true. but still, I feel that all these graphical additions will just reduce battery life. they should focus more on making more efficient cpus and then move to gpu. but yeah this is a good step

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

true true. but still, I feel that all these graphical additions will just reduce battery life. they should focus more on making more efficient cpus and then move to gpu. but yeah this is a good step

Ivy Bridge fixed TDP's are 45, 55 and 65w. Haswell's fixed TDP parts are 37, 47 or 57w (I.e. an 8 watt lowering across the board) Programmable TDP parts should be at or lower than IB ( 14W cTDP down, 17W nominal, 25W cTDP up) for the ULV parts.

Guest said:

Yes yes yes. And all while this happens people will try to sell you expensive service's through a cloud medium, so unnecessary as you wait a year and your personal computer can out perform a data centre, it doesn't make much sense, especially in the video game sector.

my two cents anyways

3DCGMODELER 3DCGMODELER said:

*Yawn* Call me when they finally get the 8-cores in.

ditto

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.