A recent trip got us access to an early sample of Intel’s upcoming Core i7-4770K. We compare its performance to Ivy Bridge- and Sandy Bridge-based processors, so you have some idea what to expect when Intel officially introduces its Haswell architecture.
We recently got our hands on a Core i7-4770K, based on Intel's Haswell micro-architecture. It’s not final silicon, but compared to earlier steppings (and earlier drivers), we’re comfortable enough about the way this chip performs to preview it against the Ivy and Sandy Bridge designs.
Presentations at last year's Developer Forum in San Francisco taught us as much as there is to know about the Haswell architecture itself. But as we get closer to the official launch, more details become known about how Haswell will materialize into actual products. Fortunately for us, some of the first CPUs based on Intel's newest design will be aimed at enthusiasts.
| Fourth-Generation Intel Core Desktop Line-Up | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | TDP (W) | Clock Rate | 1 Core | 2 Cores | 3 Cores | 4 Cores | L3 | GPU | Max. GPU Clock | TSX | |
| i7-4770K | 4 / 8 | 84 | 3.5 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 8 MB | GT2 | 1.25 GHz | No |
| i7-4770 | 4 / 8 | 84 | 3.4 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 8 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4670K | 4 / 4 | 84 | 3.4 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | No |
| i5-4670 | 4 /4 | 84 | 3.4 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4570 | 4 / 4 | 84 | 3.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.15GHz | Yes |
| i5-4430 | 4 / 4 | 84 | 3 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz | 3 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.1 GHz | No |
| i7-4770S | 4 / 4 | 65 | 3.1 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 8 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4570S | 4 / 4 | 65 | 2.9 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 3.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.15GHz | Yes |
| i5-4670S | 4 / 4 | 65 | 3.1 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4430S | 4 / 4 | 65 | 2.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz | 2.9 GHz | 2.8 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.1 GHz | No |
| i7-4770T | 4 / 4 | 45 | 2.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz | 8 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4670T | 4 / 4 | 45 | 2.3 GHz | 3.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3 GHz | 2.9 GHz | 6 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i7-4765T | 4 / 4 | 35 | 2 GHz | 3 GHz | 2.9 GHz | 2.7 GHz | 2.6 GHz | 8 MB | GT2 | 1.2 GHz | Yes |
| i5-4570T | 2 / 4 | 35 | 2.9 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.3 GHz | - | - | 4 MB | GT2 | 1.15 GHz | Yes |
According to Intel’s current plans, you’ll find dual- and quad-core LGA 1150 models with the GT2 graphics configuration sporting 20 execution units. There will also be dual- and quad-core socketed rPGA-based models for the mobile space, featuring the same graphics setup. Everything in the table above is LGA 1150, though. All of those models share support for two channels of DDR3-1600 at 1.5 V and 800 MHz minimum core frequencies. They also share a 16-lane PCI Express 3.0 controller, AVX2 support, and AES-NI support. Interestingly, four of the listed models do not support Intel's new Transactional Synchronization Extensions (TSX). We're not sure why Intel would want to differentiate its products with a feature intended to handle locking more efficiently, but that appears to be what it's doing.
The much-anticipated GT3 graphics engine, with 40 EUs, is limited to BGA-based applications, meaning it won’t be upgradeable. Intel will have quad-core with GT3, quad-core with GT2, and dual-core with GT2 versions in ball grid array packaging. GT3 will also make an appearance in a BGA-based multi-chip package that includes a Lynx Point chipset. That’ll be a dual-core part, though.
In addition to the processors Intel plans to launch here in a few months, we’ll also be introduced to the 8-series Platform Controller Hubs, currently code-named Lynx Point. The most feature-complete version of Lynx Point will incorporate six SATA 6Gb/s ports, 14 total USB ports (six of which are USB 3.0), eight lanes of second-gen PCIe, and VGA output.
Eight-series chipsets are going to be physically smaller than their predecessors (23x22 millimeters on the desktop, rather than 27x27) with lower pin-counts. This is largely attributable to more capabilities integrated on the CPU itself. Previously, eight Flexible Display Interface lanes connected the processor and PCH. Although the processor die hosted an embedded DisplayPort controller, the VGA, LVDS, digital display interfaces, and audio were all down on the chipset. Now, the three digital ports are up in the processor, along with the audio and embedded DisplayPort. LVDS is gone altogether, as are six of the FDI lanes.
- Core i7-4770K Gets Previewed
- Results: Sandra 2013
- Results: OpenCL Performance
- Results: Performance Teaser, Per-Clock Perf And Threaded Apps
- Results: More Common Desktop Apps
- Results: HD Graphics 4600 In Hitman And DiRT
- Results: HD Graphics 4600 In Skyrim And WoW
- A Taste Of Things To Come…On The Desktop
It's an engineering sample with double the integer performance. That's like a new model of your car coming out that is twice as fast as yours even on flat tyres.
So in conclusion; you like to spend £150 combined on Graphics + CPU, so the AMD APUs don't suit you?
That's fine. AMD's top APU is circa £100, so is unlikely to compete with a £150 setup. That said, the x86 performance of a AMD 5800k will outstrip any Intel £50 CPU. And you get graphics equivalent to a £50 GPU thrown in.
So my conclusion is; if you're spending £100 on CPU + graphics, AMD's APU setup is bang on.
I see your point but my focus is more on graphics than CPU power as a whole. The AMD FX 8350 is just shy of £160 and gives the GPU performance of a GPU valued of around £50-£60... But the CPU part of this processor is massively weighed to multi-threaded applications of which I hard use, I hardly ever use all four cores on my quad core processor let alone 8 cores. Benchmarks and gamings tests have shown (including a recent article from Toms) that a £50 Intel CPU not only kept pace with the aforementioned AMD APU (when it was used alongside a dedicated GPU) but often beat it. So, I get more CPU performance from a £50 Intel CPU (as long as I don't require 8 cores) and I would get better GPU performance from a £100 dedicated GPU. This dual path is also more effective if I wish to upgrade my systems to more powerful options later on as replacing either the CPU or the GPU aspects does not require me to swap out the whole processor set up each time.
When I click on 'Read The Comments In The Forums' I get a blank page and a message saying
'You do not have the required permissions'.
I am signed in and am using the latest FF release (19.0.2).
It'll have to compete on cost, too.. can you see Intel doing that? I can't.
Fix the bloody link to the forums already, it's the same on every article.
If you want emphasis on the IGP, wait until the GT3/eDRAM variants get benchmarked... they will likely run circles around GT2 and Trinity.
Of course, GT3 being BGA-only means it will be off most enthusiasts' menu but for x86-based tablets and mainstream laptops, it should be quite nice.
And GTA IV
Its still making some nice gains, but I guess we will have to wait for the next cycle for really interesting stuff.
Though I thought I also read some time ago that This gen Intel are going to start ramping out Extreme consumer oriented chips with up to 10 Physical cores...?
Already running a 4GHz 6core/12thread Xeon so I will probably wait out this generation
Who cares?
The chances of replacing a 150 watt gpu needing its own memory and circuit board , cooler etc
are years away.I hope intel release pokey chips with cheap or zero on board graphics,& save the
heavy graphics for dual core/low power laptop market, like the pent G chips.
I dont want to pay for what i wont use. And yes I know about quick sink etc.
I just dont care.
Nobody in gaming uses it, but in the prebuilt sector it's a great way to make sure you can take away market share from AMD and Nvidia completely by making sure there is no need to buy their GPUs. When your competitor has substantial income from other markets and you can attack him there as well, you do so.