Intel's Core i7-4770K 'Haswell' CPU gets benchmarked

By on March 19, 2013, 7:30 AM

If you’re considering upgrading to a Haswell CPU or building an entirely new system built around the chip but have been holding out to see what performance is like compared to existing processors, today is your lucky day. That’s because the first round of benchmarks from Haswell have hit the web courtesy of Tom’s Hardware.

The publication was able to get their hands on a Core i7-4770K which will replace the i7-3770K at the top of the chip maker’s food chain (excluding Sandy Bridge-E). The chip retains the same base / Turbo clock speeds, core count (4/8) and 8MB of L3 cache as the Ivy Bridge counterpart. The only exception is the GPU clock which has been bumped up by 100MHz.

Despite the fact that the publication’s test platform was running with 17 percent less memory bandwidth, Haswell was generally able to outpace similar Ivy Bridge chips by seven to 13 percent. These are pretty respectable gains considering clock speeds haven’t increase. In other tests, like Sandra’s Multimedia benchmark, integer performance was nearly double what Ivy Bridge was capable of.

Onboard graphics also gained an improvement over Intel’s previous best. The site recorded frame rates that were on average 12-52 percent higher depending on the resolution and the game. Unfortunately the site falls short of testing overclocking capabilities or recording power consumption.

Intel’s next generation processor is still a few months out but it’s nice to get an idea of what sort of performance Haswell will carry with it when it does arrive. We fully expect final production silicon to perform even better than what Tom’s Hardware recorded with this pre-production sample.




User Comments: 29

Got something to say? Post a comment
2 people like this | misor misor said:

In the meantime, amd will release new APUs which will "devastate" intel's built-in graphics.

(as if gamers and enthusiasts use intel GPUs)

come on amd, make a come back.

2 people like this | Guest said:

As if gamers and enthusiasts use integrated graphics at all for anything other than flash games.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I don't think onboard graphics are targeted for gamers on the desktops at least. Since, the desktop PCs (whether we like it or not) is a dying breed, and they don't need to compete there anyway. However, on the mobile front, it is a whole lot different game. For most users (with basic needs / casual gaming), Haswell's IGP will be enough. However, I'd like to see how it will perform on higher resolution mobile displays (I.e. 1080p), along with the power consumption details.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Hmmm...not just a bump in the clock speed this time around, the 4770k shows a noticeable improvement. And does Toms know you ripped three of thier charts for your article? :P

Blkfx1 Blkfx1 said:

@amstech Well, he did credit them for the information.

Anyways, I am glad to see the increase in performance with this generation. I wonder what these numbers will be like with a retail version when it's released. Maybe Haswell will be the generation I upgrade to from SB.

1 person liked this | Geforcepat Geforcepat said:

Whoa 30 fps at 1080p! Look out now.

mrcavooter mrcavooter said:

Lucky for me, I will be interning near a Micro Center this summer.

My precious.... 0__*

Guest said:

I will be keeping my 3770 for now.

Guest said:

Would love to see what this proc would do for a CPU dependent game like ARMA 2.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Despite the fact that the publication's test platform was running with 17 percent less memory bandwidth, Haswell was generally able to outpace similar Ivy Bridge chips by seven to 13 percent.

It will be interesting to see what the final numbers look like with a production board and BIOS, since the Haswell system in the TH article was obviously running at an anaemic DDR3-1333 despite what the reviewer noted as identical DDR3-1600 settings ( 1333/1600 = 83% = 17% less)

JC713 JC713 said:

Shouldnt these major releases improve performance more than 7-13%... I guess they cant really improve CPUs drastically until they find cheaper ways to use graphene.

cmbjive said:

As if gamers and enthusiasts use integrated graphics at all for anything other than flash games.

Umm, since I'm broke and can't afford a graphics card I use the integrated graphics on the i7-3770k. It gets the job done until I can afford to buy a dedicated GPU.

JC713 JC713 said:

I wish they could have at least made it 4GHz stock.

JC713 JC713 said:

Umm, since I'm broke and can't afford a graphics card I use the integrated graphics on the i7-3770k. It gets the job done until I can afford to buy a dedicated GPU.

At lowest settings at 720P though. It does get the job done, but does not make the experience enjoyable.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Shouldnt these major releases improve performance more than 7-13%

That would be 7-13% performance plus at least a 11.6% reduction in power requirement (using TDP as a guide).

Intel has rightly targeted IGP improvement over CPU improvement in general terms. Overall CPU performance will have to take in applications which aren't coded for AVX2 and FMA3. Once you see these extensions used in the compiler and app code, the performance difference will be more marked. An example from the TH preview:

Haswell, in its own way mirrors AMD's Bulldozer microarchitecture in that it needs optimized code to show its qualities. Where the two vendors differ is that Intel will aggressively encourage and support uptake of the extensions, whereas AMD have largely adopted a passive role in software development - they have a tendency to regard the job as complete once the hardware is out the door.

I wish they could have at least made it 4GHz stock.

Why ?

1. The workload that the average person uses doesn't require 4GHz. The number is a marketing bulletpoint

2. The CPU turbo's to 3.9GHz anyway. It should also be noted that Asus (amongst others) have instituted a "turbo all cores" BIOS (rather that drop one speed bin per core being turbo'ed) which effectively gives an across the board instant -all cores-overclock with CPU loading.

3. Overclocking. Haswell looks to reinstate baseclock overclocking (I.e. all the system bus clocks are unlinked)

danhodge danhodge said:

I don't think onboard graphics are targeted for gamers on the desktops at least. Since, the desktop PCs (whether we like it or not) is a dying breed, and they don't need to compete there anyway. However, on the mobile front, it is a whole lot different game. For most users (with basic needs / casual gaming), Haswell's IGP will be enough. However, I'd like to see how it will perform on higher resolution mobile displays (I.e. 1080p), along with the power consumption details.

Don't forget how many people play games like Minecraft and LoL on their PC's now. It may not be a gaming PC, but the more powerful the onboard graphics, the better for them.

Although I am skeptical as to whether AMD will pull another 8350 out of the bag, so the Haswell range will have to be able to take render distance to far ...

JC713 JC713 said:

That would be 7-13% performance plus at least a 11.6% reduction in power requirement (using TDP as a guide).

Intel has rightly targeted IGP improvement over CPU improvement in general terms. Overall CPU performance will have to take in applications which aren't coded for AVX2 and FMA3. Once you see these extensions used in the compiler and app code, the performance difference will be more marked. An example from the TH preview:

Haswell, in its own way mirrors AMD's Bulldozer microarchitecture in that it needs optimized code to show its qualities. Where the two vendors differ is that Intel will aggressively encourage and support uptake of the extensions, whereas AMD have largely adopted a passive role in software development - they have a tendency to regard the job as complete once the hardware is out the door.

Why ?

1. The workload that the average person uses doesn't require 4GHz. The number is a marketing bulletpoint

2. The CPU turbo's to 3.9GHz anyway. It should also be noted that Asus (amongst others) have instituted a "turbo all cores" BIOS (rather that drop one speed bin per core being turbo'ed) which effectively gives an across the board instant -all cores-overclock with CPU loading.

3. Overclocking. Haswell looks to reinstate baseclock overclocking (I.e. all the system bus clocks are unlinked)

True, I hope Intel adds a way to over-clock through the OS without having to go to the BIOS. This could reduce user error and allow the average consumer to get the full potential out of their CPU.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Gamers and Enthusiasts....what are they....1% of the overall market, probably less? Get real people. The integrated graphics will blow AMD out of the water in terms of revenue.

cmbjive said:

At lowest settings at 720P though. It does get the job done, but does not make the experience enjoyable.

True, but the games I do play now, such as Torchlight II and Portal 2 & 3, are outputting at 1080p.

JC713 JC713 said:

True, but the games I do play now, such as Torchlight II and Portal 2 & 3, are outputting at 1080p.

Yeah, those arent demanding games. But heck, those are some great games lol.

Guest said:

Just a note to the user above that thinks modern integrated graphics are only good for flash games - I use my integrated graphics chip to run Far Cry 3, Crysis and Dishonored on my laptop. It has the i3 processor with intel hd3000 and all of the above games run well on medium detail level with a decent resolution. integrated graphics can never beat deduacted graphics but it has moved on from technology of old!

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Intel HD4600 is the low-end Haswell graphics, and it is nice to see how much better it is than HD4000 from the Ivy Bridge.

It will be, however, a lot more interesting to see how the high-end Haswell graphics HD5200 will do in similar tests to realize if Intel really made a break-through with the new graphics as they claim (see the Dirt and other race demos published online).

xneocea xneocea said:

@amstech Well, he did credit them for the information.

Anyways, I am glad to see the increase in performance with this generation. I wonder what these numbers will be like with a retail version when it's released. Maybe Haswell will be the generation I upgrade to from SB.

A fair speed bump, but IMHO still no where big enough to justify for a platform upgrade from a sandy bridge processor epsecially when over clocked. In my case, my 2700k @ 4.8ghz

would be enough to tide me over for at least another generation or two.

Guest said:

Hmm, still can't justify going from a 2500k @ 5Ghz to one of these but then again I don't use the integrated graphics. For those who do and don't want a GPU these look pretty good and should have AMD looking over their shoulders.

xneocea xneocea said:

Would love to see what this proc would do for a CPU dependent game like ARMA 2.

All you have to do is look at the performance of an overclock ivy or sandy processor performance in ARMA 2 and you'll have a fair baseline of its performance.

Guest said:

I have heard the statement that PCs are dying breed so many times. People who say it are ignorant and possibly stupid. Do people honestly think that mobile IT boom is fueled by scientists and engineers working out their projects on tablets and phones? Tablets are media consumption devices and can't be production devices, but PCs are for production and and are also media consumption devices.

Guest said:

"I have heard the statement that PCs are dying breed so many times. People who say it are ignorant and possibly stupid"

Agreed.

Guest said:

"Umm, since I'm broke and can't afford a graphics card I use the integrated graphics on the i7-3770k. It gets the job done until I can afford to buy a dedicated GPU."

Sounds like you'd have been better off buying a cheaper i5 3570k chip and spending the rest on a graphics card... Even a mid-range second-hand 2010-era discrete graphics card will beat both AMD & Intel's 2013 "integrated" offerings with very little extra cost. In fact, even a dual-core i3 with a discrete card will run way faster than a quad-core with integrated graphics in most games...

Arcfire said:

I have heard the statement that PCs are dying breed so many times. People who say it are ignorant and possibly stupid. Do people honestly think that mobile IT boom is fueled by scientists and engineers working out their projects on tablets and phones? Tablets are media consumption devices and can't be production devices, but PCs are for production and and are also media consumption devices.

You know.. mainframe people said the same thing 30 years ago... But now with cloud computing and fact that everything is getting smaller yet more powerful I wouldn't doubt that in the next 30 years we all have something as small as an tablet or smart cell with an Bluetooth equivalent headgear/implant that reads brainwaves! Not to say that we would get totally rid of PCs but I think that eventually there wont be a big need for them in everyday life.

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.