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

Shawn Knight

TechSpot Staff
Staff member
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...

[newwindow="https://www.techspot.com/news/51986-intels-core-i7-4770k-haswell-cpu-gets-benchmarked.html"]Read more[/newwindow]
 

Archean

TechSpot Paladin
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

IT Overlord
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
 

MrBlkfx1

TS Evangelist
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.
 
G

Guest

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

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
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)
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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

TS Booster
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.
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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

trainee n00b
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

TS Member
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 ;)...
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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.
 
G

Guest

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danhodge
G

Guest

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!
 
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

TS Member
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.
 
G

Guest

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.