Haswell Debuts: Intel Core i7-4770K Review

By on June 1, 2013, 9:00 AM

Regular TechSpot readers will have no doubt spotted several mentions of Haswell on our front page this year. In the past few months we have covered everything from model names to performance and battery life claims. A key focus has been Haswell's graphics, with rumors suggesting its performance is set to be 2 to 3 times that of current HD 4000 integrated graphics.

So what is Haswell exactly? It is Intel’s 4th generation Core architecture which will see a major refresh of the entire Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 product lineup in 2013. Whereas last year’s Ivy Bridge was a "tick" release, Haswell is a tock and traditionally that's meant a more significant advance forward.

The Haswell lineup is comprised of several desktop and mobile Core i7 and Core i5 processors that will effectively replace most of the current offerings under those series. Core i3 variants will make it to market later in the year. The new Core i7 desktop processors include the Core i7-4770K, i7-4770R, i7-4770T, i7-4770S, i7-4770 and i7-4765T -- all selling for $303 except for the i7-4770K (reviewed today) that sells for a slight premium at $339.

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 115

Got something to say? Post a comment
JC713 JC713 said:

I thought Haswell wasnt until June 4? Wow. Great.

What I dont get though, is why Intel changed the socket if they arent focusing on the desktop anymore... I may go ahead and buy a 3570K instead since the performance increase seems very, very minimal. Intel over-hyped Haswell for nothing. Haswell has to redeem itself in the mobile sector to be considered a improvement.

I see this as a opportunity for AMD to give Intel a run for their money. I think AMD will be the new performance king since they are focusing on the desktop more.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

It feels like the last generation of processors before the market takes on a new shape, under the pressure from ARM and tablets. Customer feedback from the new Galaxy Tab 3 with Atom will be an important sign for the changes to come.

Maybe the benchmark should use the latest leaked version of Windows 8.1, which claims to have optimizations for Haswell, to measure the power consumption and battery life...

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Intel over-hyped Haswell for nothing. Haswell has to redeem itself in the mobile sector to be considered a improvement.

Haswell's main focus is in power saving, something this article didn't even touch. It is not over-hyped for nothing, not till we see all the right tests for it.

Lionvibez said:

Overall I was impressed by the improvement in encoding apps everything else not so much.

I would like to see overclocking numbers in a follow up article.

I also wasn't expecting to see this on a Sat morning so thank you for your hard work.

2 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

Intel over-hyped Haswell for nothing. Haswell has to redeem itself in the mobile sector to be considered a improvement.

Haswell's main focus is in power saving, something this article didn't even touch. It is not over-hyped for nothing, not till we see all the right tests for it.

What are the right tests? We did test power consumption but maybe you can suggest some other tests for us to try.

Maybe the benchmark should use the latest leaked version of Windows 8.1, which claims to have optimizations for Haswell, to measure the power consumption and battery life...

Hmm :S Did you read the review? We didn't exactly have the luxury of time.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

Haswell's main focus is in power saving, something this article didn't even touch. It is not over-hyped for nothing, not till we see all the right tests for it.

I think you should add temperatures Steve, IB had a increased temperature over SB, so Haswell can change that. But seriously, give @Steve and the TS team credit though, they worked their butts off to get this out in time.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

What are the right tests? We did test power consumption but maybe you can suggest some other tests for us to try.

Power consumption and power saving aren't the same thing. The second one reflects how quickly and efficiently the CPU can adjust power consumption under the current load. It is this testing that will ultimately indicate how much of improvement Haswell will be for laptops.

EDITED: Such test would also include power consumption in each sleep mode that Haswell supports.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Hmm :S Did you read the review? We didn't exactly have the luxury of time.

I did read it, good job, so sleep it off, have a beer, because on Monday this article will be chewed up - you'll spend the day reading through...

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Good article, I'm surprised at the performance of this chip because it seems to only really shine in the memory bandwidth and power consumption at idle.

Under load it drains more power and does not show much of a gain in that respect. Although still a nice chip.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Under load it drains more power...
Note - that's only under peak load. On average it is way better than Ivy Bridge

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Good article. I"m going to read it again...

1 person liked this | Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Nice, this was a bit of a shock to see on a Saturday! Good work getting this out so quickly!

Anyway, Haswell's performance isn't anything special, Still going to get one since I'm building a rig from scratch, but still a little underwhelming all the same, I wonder if it will overclock relatively well? And how come Asus didn't send you any motherboards

I wonder if in the future, when games start to really use more threads and get more complex, if this processor will be considerably better than Ivy/Sandy for games? I know you didn't have much time to really get into it but it would be good to see how this processor fairs against the others in more CPU intensive games don't take that as a criticism against the review though! to get this up so quick must have been some work! I'm sure I'll find out how it scales in the next couple of months!

EEatGDL said:

VitalyT, how can you be so biased? Do you have a platform with it and can stand for what you're saying about power consumption and temperature? I don't know where you get "on average", but I'm not to start a fight, just asking.

I think graphics was very hyped, or at least I had that impression, and actually it didn't deliver on that side as usual. Only time will tell when compilers include TSX (for the multi-threading synchronization part) and AVX2 (for the fused multiply-add on integer vectors -taking for the operation 5 cycles from the previous gen's 8 cycles) instructions and see them implemented in new software to see what this can truly achieve.

On the other hand, it is truly appreciated your hard work [I was greatly surprised to see the review on saturday] and it just gets explained in the final thoughts. Overall it is well done, I think the temperatures would be useful, but is a good job anyway.

Guest said:

Any chance you can test quicksync in tmpgec video masterwork 5.x? I wonder if the extra graphic units improve performance. Thanks.

SexyMan SexyMan said:

This is good for Laptop and other portable devices because of the power saving features...

but for Desktop or gaming solution it is.. YAWN... ZZZzzZZZ

Looks like I will still keep my 2600K Sandy Bridge at 5Ghz for another Generation.

On the other note: The AMD A10-5800k performed actually good on the benchmark considering its price is cheap dirt.

Still.. YAWN>... people.. there's nothing to see here..

JC713 JC713 said:

AMD has the opportunity to kick Intels ass, let us see if they screw it up.

Hammayon Hammayon said:

Desktop Users - With discrete graphic cards so damn cheap, any decent desktop will have a discrete graphics card 3-4x the performance of HD4600 IGP solution. The question is, is this processor faster than the newest 3770K with discrete graphics? Not by much at all. The performance gains with discrete graphics for games was insignificant. Still, being at the same price point as the previous IVY bridge it would be the choice for new users, only if it overclocks well. For old users who just want to upgrade their computer, they would have to buy a new motherboard socket, a big con. I agree with the staff that this is the biggest drawback, with virtually very little gain.

As for onboard graphics for laptops, they did improve it, but even laptops have mobile discrete graphics now, liek the new HD8970M and the Nvidia 780M solutions. Great performance at large decrease in price! I'm looking forward to the mobile H8970M performance review against the 780M. I think I may just buy a new laptop now since it should be able to play the latest games on the highest settings with playable framerates at an affordable price (less than $2000)

I agree with Techspot staff reviews and comments. Very well done. Thanks for a great read on a Saturday morning!

Hammayon Hammayon said:

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. I'm using the Asrock Extreme4. I have to Nvidia 480's in SLI and get 60 fps in all my games with V sync on. The 480's are so cheap now on ebay, Though if I was building a new system I would buy two 660 ti or two 7950's in SLI/crossfire for a total price tag of $500 off ebay.

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Great work on the review, nothing too surprising in the results then.

Under load it drains more power...
Note - that's only under peak load. On average it is way better than Ivy Bridge

"On average" the few watts saved in idle/sleep states won't matter much in the grand scheme of things on desktops, the savings in the electricity bill will be minimal. What's more interesting is how the Haswell power saving features perform on mobile platforms.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

I wonder if it will overclock relatively well?

4.5 -4.9G staying within Intel's VID guideline seems to be the consensus so far - on air/AIO watercooling that is. OC'ing seems between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. HardOCP have an initial overclocking section in their review along with some easy setup BIOS settings.

And how come Asus didn't send you any motherboards

From a benchmarking point of view, Asus aren't the best indicators of a representative performance since their UEFI implements an "all core turbo" by default. The Intel specification is to enable max turbo on one core, and drop one multiplier for every successive core coming into turbo state. This is the primary reason that Asus motherboards generally top the performance charts (stock clocks) against their competitors - SATA third party controllers excepted.

I wonder if in the future, when games start to really use more threads and get more complex, if this processor will be considerably better than Ivy/Sandy for games?

Don't bank on it. Game developers are pretty lazy as a rule. For any fundamental change in game coding you need hardware vendor funding/support. Games are inherently loaded toward GPU+vRAM operation, with the CPU and PCI-E bus really only being extensively used for physics and other post-process facets (AI routines being one of the most noticeable)

I see this as a opportunity for AMD to give Intel a run for their money. I think AMD will be the new performance king since they are focusing on the desktop more.

I've heard this after every Intel launch since the X6800 and E6700. Substitute desktop for APU and you're closer to the mark I think. AMD have a long, long way to go before they become the "performance king", considering Intel could pretty much rebrand fully enabled eight-core Xeons E5's into the consumer market at the drop of a hat.

Guest said:

PCper already did one of the MOST important tests of all price versus performance --

The winners were AMD FX-8350 and the AMD A10-5800 over the $350 Intel Haswell.

Intel spend billions on improving Haswell over the last generation and still came up short in price for performance that everyone cares about from cars to computers.

JC713 JC713 said:

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. I'm using the Asrock Extreme4. I have to Nvidia 480's in SLI and get 60 fps in all my games with V sync on. The 480's are so cheap now on ebay, Though if I was building a new system I would buy two 660 ti or two 7950's in SLI/crossfire for a total price tag of $500 off ebay.

Unfortunately, Intel is moving away from the desktop, and that has become apparent. I Think the old overclocking days are gone. Overclocking with Haswell is worse than IB according to Toms Hardware.

JC713 JC713 said:

I've heard this after every Intel launch since the X6800 and E6700. Substitute desktop for APU and you're closer to the mark I think. AMD have a long, long way to go before they become the "performance king", considering Intel could pretty much rebrand fully enabled eight-core Xeons E5's into the consumer market at the drop of a hat.

Unfortunately man. AMD is now rumored to be releasing a 5GHz CPU. They have to focus on architecture, not clock speeds. That is their issue. They need to snatch more Intel guys. That wont be hard with the money they just got from Xbox and Sony console deals.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Unfortunately man. AMD is now rumored to be releasing a 5GHz CPU.

A couple of points:

1. AMD is always rumoured to releasing something.

2. A 5GHz Piledriver based chip made in limited quantities for the LN2 crowd wouldn't impact the market at all. AMD already has 8+ GHz chips in the record books, and it hasn't exactly improved AMD's outlook.

3. The mythological FX-9000 (there's a hint in that name) is supposedly a 220 Watt part. Just for the sake of putting the oddball rumour to rest, there are plenty on analysis on the net to why this isn't feasible on the 32nm process using in-place hardware.

They have to focus on architecture, not clock speeds. That is their issue.

Well, that seems at odds with launching 5GHz / 220W monster golden sample doesn't it ?

They need to snatch more Intel guys. That wont be hard with the money they just got from Xbox and Sony console deals.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.................................sorry.

Intel will spend over sixty percent more on R&D in this quarter than AMD's total financial cap is valued at

($4.7 billion in R&D versus AMD's market cap of $2.86 billion)

Unfortunately, Intel is moving away from the desktop, and that has become apparent.

Well, no they aren't, and no it isn't.

Intel clarified that HEDT remains a socketed solution for the foreseeable future - hardly surprising since the CPUs share commonality with workstation and server chipsets. As for mainstream, Skylake (2015-16) is still LGA (Flip Chip-Land Grid Array) which means a socketed CPU

You're probably thinking of the hoo-hah regarding Intel's supposed shift to embedded (BGA) processors. Intel pretty much cleared up the issue saying that certain SKU's would be embedded only. A prime example would be the 4570R and 4670R because of the embedded DRAM on package.

FWIW, you'll find that there is a distinct lack of socketed processors made that feature eDRAM- mostly because the complexity of pin-outs and criticality of contact required between pins and mainboard.

yRaz yRaz said:

Must say I'm slightly relieved that the performance difference between the 3770k and the 4770k is almost none. Was worried that my 3770k would be obsolete a few months after I bought it lol.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Unfortunately man. AMD is now rumored to be releasing a 5GHz CPU. They have to focus on architecture, not clock speeds. That is their issue. They need to snatch more Intel guys. That wont be hard with the money they just got from Xbox and Sony console deals.

I heard about that, I want to see it compared to this chip and see a new gen comparison when they come out. I like the idea of power saving honestly, but I was hoping for more of the under load variant, not idle. I leave my machine off when I'm not gaming, and when I am gaming it's ring pushed, that's where I think the focus should lie. But yea, on the mobile platform, I have a feeling this will shine there.

JC713 JC713 said:

A couple of points:

1. AMD is always rumoured to releasing something.

2. A 5GHz Piledriver based chip made in limited quantities for the LN2 crowd wouldn't impact the market at all. AMD already has 8+ GHz chips in the record books, and it hasn't exactly improved AMD's outlook.

3. The mythological FX-9000 (there's a hint in that name) is supposedly a 220 Watt part. Just for the sake of putting the oddball rumour to rest, there are plenty on analysis on the net to why this isn't feasible on the 32nm process using in-place hardware.

Well, that seems at odds with launching 5GHz / 220W monster golden sample doesn't it ?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.................................sorry.

Intel will spend over sixty percent more on R&D in this quarter than AMD's total financial cap is valued at

($4.7 billion in R&D versus AMD's market cap of $2.86 billion)

Well, no they aren't, and no it isn't.

Intel clarified that HEDT remains a socketed solution for the foreseeable future - hardly surprising since the CPUs share commonality with workstation and server chipsets. As for mainstream, Skylake (2015-16) is still LGA (Flip Chip-Land Grid Array) which means a socketed CPU

You're probably thinking of the hoo-hah regarding Intel's supposed shift to embedded (BGA) processors. Intel pretty much cleared up the issue saying that certain SKU's would be embedded only. A prime example would be the 4570R and 4670R because of the embedded DRAM on package.

FWIW, you'll find that there is a distinct lack of socketed processors made that feature eDRAM- mostly because the complexity of pin-outs and criticality of contact required between pins and mainboard.

Lol that R&D fact is pretty hilarious. Intel may be released socketed chips for another few years, but that doesnt mean that performance will be increased dramatically. I was just saying that they are not increasing performance to the point in which they used to.

@Steve Can you guys test the performance of 1600MHz RAM on Haswell vs IB. Intel said they "redesigned" the 1600MHz memory controller.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

@Steve Can you guys test the performance of 1600MHz RAM on Haswell vs IB. Intel said they "redesigned" the 1600MHz memory controller.

All configurations were tested with the memory clocked at 1866MHz if they supported it which Ivy Bridge and Haswell did.

JC713 JC713 said:

All configurations were tested with the memory clocked at 1866MHz if they supported it which Ivy Bridge and Haswell did.

But they redesigned the 1600MHz controller, not the 1866MHz lol.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

But they redesigned the 1600MHz controller, not the 1866MHz lol.

There is a 1600MHz memory controller? That's news to me, can you link me to this info.

Note - that's only under peak load. On average it is way better than Ivy Bridge

Do you have any proof of that claim because from everything I have seen that is a load of rubbish.

ddg4005 ddg4005 said:

Since I upgraded to Core i7 3770s last year along with Asus's very nice P8Z77-V Premium motherboards for my boxes I'll be skipping Haswell. It looks like a good upgrade for anyone on a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad system (or similar AMD hardware) though.

JC713 JC713 said:

There is a 1600MHz memory controller? That's news to me, can you link me to this info.

Do you have any proof of that claim because from everything I have seen that is a load of rubbish.

What is funny is that it is in a TechSpot article: [link] . Lol.

3 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

What is funny is that it is in a TechSpot article: [link] . Lol.

Okay its not a 1600MHz memory controller, its just a memory controller that supports DDR3-1600 memory officially. That doesn't mean 1600MHz memory is faster than 1866MHz memory and it doesn't mean it cannot use 1866MHz memory.

It certainly doesn't mean you need to set both platforms at 1600MHz to look for a difference.

The whole point as I understood it was the main advantage to the new memory controller is that it could be overclocked to operate at high frequencies such as DDR3-2400. There are no performance advantages at 1600MHz and evidently at 1866MHz either.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

Okay its not a 1600MHz memory controller, its just a memory controller that supports DDR3-1600 memory officially. That doesn't mean 1600MHz memory is faster than 1866MHz memory and it doesn't mean it cannot use 1866MHz memory.

It certainly doesn't mean you need to set both platforms at 1600MHz to look for a difference.

The whole point as I understood it was the main advantage to the new memory controller is that it could be overclocked to operate at high frequencies such as DDR3-2400. There are no performance advantages at 1600MHz and evidently at 1866MHz either.

(y)

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Interesting, so they say that it supports even higher frequencies on ram, nice.

I'm with you Steve, from what I've seen, the chip uses more power under load, but it's idle is nice. Though to me, it sounds similar to that zero core technology on AMD video cards (which I'm not find of as well except in laptops).

Guest said:

And Intel needed to increase performance *why*? That is the real issue - Intel's only competition is itself (specifically, the LGA2100 and LGA1155 parts). And it depends on the game (as it always has) - some games are plain and simply optimized for discrete graphics.

Guest said:

Strokes his 2600k lovingly, no replacement for me.

Hammayon Hammayon said:

This is what happens when there is no competition. When a company holds a monopoly on an industry. They are not motivated to improve their products much because there is nothing that comes close to beat their technology. This is how technology can be held back for years. This is also why oil is still popular. Renewable fuels such as biodiesel, bioethanol/butanol are not being utilized nor being developed because the monopoly in charge wants to stick with fossil fuels and refuses to develop the infrastructure needed for widespread change. IN other words, gas will keep getting more and more expensive when we could be using renewable fuel right now at half the cost.

MrBungle said:

Ugh, I find myself missing the days when CPU arcitechtures would launch at a frequency double that frequency over the course of the next 12-18 months, then a new aritechture could come out and do it again... It used to be that there would be no way in hell a chip "3 generations" back could ever hope to come close to whatever was current. It seems that sadly the days of leap frogging hardware are over... :/

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Strokes his 2600k lovingly, no replacement for me.

Same here!

DAOWAce DAOWAce said:

Haswell confirmed as a big letdown.

Guess I'm going to have to look forward to the ever delayed Ivy Bridge-E.

Come on AMD, step up. Intel needs to stop getting away with this shit.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Let me fix that for you. I know you are not looking down at Intel, as long as they are at the top.

AMD confirmed as a big letdown.

Come on AMD, step up. Intel needs to stop getting away with this ****.

Personally speaking we don't have the right to look down at anyone with capabilities we ourselves don't understand.

1 person liked this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Ugh, I find myself missing the days when CPU arcitechtures would launch at a frequency double that frequency over the course of the next 12-18 months, then a new aritechture could come out and do it again... It used to be that there would be no way in hell a chip "3 generations" back could ever hope to come close to whatever was current. It seems that sadly the days of leap frogging hardware are over... :/

Well, technically the architecture of both AMD and Intel have been on 2+ year cycles for a while. AMD's arch introduction is on a four year timetable of late ( K7 in 1999, K8 in 2003, K10 in 2007, Bulldozer in 2011), and Intel's if anything have been accelerating of late (Netburst in 2000, Core in 2006, Nehalem in 2008, Sandy Bridge in January 2011). Of course, CPUs like any technology become a case of diminishing returns- more so if you count process shrinks as architectures in their own right. Back in the early days of CPU evolution-as with any tech- the initial gains are impressive. Using the tried and true automobile analogy, cars were capable of 200+ mph in the mid-late 1980's. What has the next 25 years added in terms of absolute speed for production cars?

Of course, absolute speed isn't the only measure of advancement. For the CPU you'd need to consider power consumption, work throughput, and of course IGP increases. The latter being non-existent three generations ago.

A look at Passmark's CPU benchmark tells a tale of incremental advancement as a general rule. The number of truly revolutionary architectures with quantum leaps in performance are fairly small.

Personally speaking we don't have the right to look down at anyone with capabilities we ourselves don't understand.

Hasn't stopped a large percentage of forum posters is the past.

Guest said:

Intel are cleary humoring the enthusiast market with Haswell. With it's nigh on farcical high power consumption, mediocre OCing and half assed IPC improvement, it's almost completely redundant and just a blatant cash grab from Intel it seems. Think I'd rather invest my money in a custom loop for my 3770k and wait for Skylake and DDR4.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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?

I have a 2600K and will likely be happy for another 2 or 3 generations. Complaining about a single generation progress when you have a comparable machine to my own is nothing more than a search for bragging rights.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

From a benchmarking point of view, Asus aren't the best indicators of a representative performance since their UEFI implements an "all core turbo" by default. The Intel specification is to enable max turbo on one core, and drop one multiplier for every successive core coming into turbo state. This is the primary reason that Asus motherboards generally top the performance charts (stock clocks) against their competitors - SATA third party controllers excepted.

Interesting, is Asus the only company that has those capability's? I see why they weren't relevant though, I just like Asus Motherboards xD

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

AMD has the opportunity to kick Intels ass, let us see if they screw it up.

The opportunity has always been there. But the ability... That's another story.

1 person liked this | soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

So this over my 2600k Sandy wouldn't be worth it either, maybe see a 20% boost in certain tasks. Little if any boost in gaming maybe 1 or 2 frames better. Good review thanks. Not sure its worth $500 for this and a board for me over my 2600k overclocked @ 4.5 though. Will focus on a GTX 780 for my next upgrade and wait to see what next year brings to the table. I would like to see a 40-50% boost over my current CPU for it to be worth it. Also where are the native 6 -8 core Haswell cpus?

JC713 JC713 said:

The opportunity has always been there. But the ability... That's another story.

I think they need to restructure. Their driver team for graphics is a mess, along with their hardware team. They have to fix their act. They may have struck a deal with MS and Sony now, but in a few years, Sony and MS may hover toward offerings from other companies if they are disappointed with AMD.

2 people like this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

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

[link]

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.

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.