bit-tech.net

Another Intel Broadwell delay rumoured

Another Intel Broadwell delay rumoured

Excess stock of Haswell parts is being blamed by sources speaking to rumour-mill DigiTimes for another delay to mass availability of Broadwell parts.

Intel has addressed claims that its next-generation Broadwell processor family is to slip still further behind schedule, allegedly due to higher than expected stocks of current-generation Haswell processors, but has yet to clarify exactly how the launch is being scheduled.

The semiconductor giant was forced to delay the launch of the 14nm Broadwell family due to poor yield during test production, admitting in October last year that Haswell's successor would be pushed back due to difficulties in building processors at such a small feature size. With the production difficulties resolved, Intel was rumoured to have set a launch window in the third quarter of this year - but industry rumour-monger DigiTimes has claimed this will be pushed to limited production in the fourth quarter and mass production in 2015 due to higher than expected stock of Haswell parts.

Responding to the rumour, Intel told PCMag that there has been 'no change' in the company's plans since its January earnings call. A look at the phraseology of said call, however, fails to offer much in the way of clarification: 'We're now planning to begin production this quarter [Q1] with shipments to customers later this year,' the company told investors and press - with both the originally-expected Q3 and DigiTimes' claimed-delayed Q4 being 'later this year,' you'll note.

According to DigiTimes' source, initial shipments will be restricted to U- and Y-series models, while the bulk of Broadwell parts won't begin to reach customers until the first quarter of 2015 - giving Intel and its customers a chance to empty their excess Haswell inventory before bringing on its successor. Although framed as a denial, Intel's response to PCMag's query contains nothing that actually refutes DigiTimes' claims - meaning that buyers eager to skip Haswell for Broadwell could be waiting a little while longer than they had perhaps hoped.

58 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Hustler 14th February 2014, 11:15 Quote
Quote:
allegedly due to higher than expected stocks of current-generation Haswell processors

..guess they shouldn't have been such an over priced product then.

A quad core CPU should not still cost nearly £180-£200 in 2014.
ChaosDefinesOrder 14th February 2014, 11:22 Quote
Also still no sign of "Haswell-E" either?
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 11:26 Quote
Intel need to smoke a big Bob Marley joint and calm the fudge down. These days just feel so much like the 80s when we got a new computer pretty much weekly that wasn't much better than the one before. People will eventually stop wanting to spend out £300 for a board and CPU/ that offer them about 10% more than the last £300 worth.

I really don't know why Intel keep smashing out these desktop parts. There's just no need for it.
bowman 14th February 2014, 13:28 Quote
In shocker, Intel produces uninteresting products that provide marginal performance gain and try to sell them for exorbitant prices when faced with no effective competition.

It's like everyone forgot what these guys were like before the Athlon 64 hit..
damien c 14th February 2014, 13:50 Quote
I am not surprised they have "Excess" stock when the price they are charging is ridiculous for them.

There are 2 reasons why I have not upgraded my dads pc to a Haswell or Ivy based system, and that is because of the heat in the cpu's and the maximum of about 15% performance improvement over his 2700K that he has now, which is running at stock speed.

When he does need a performance boost I will get him a decent cooler and just overclock it since I know that chip will run at 4.8ghz.

Either way Intel only have themselves to blame for having to much stock, maybe if they dropped the price and didn't come out with new chips every 12 months that offer such a pathetically small, performance improvement then they would probably sell more.

Myself I am waiting for Haswell E, and if that isn't at least a 25% improvement on Sandybridge E then I will wait for the next one.
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
In shocker, Intel produces uninteresting products that provide marginal performance gain and try to sell them for exorbitant prices when faced with no effective competition.

It's like everyone forgot what these guys were like before the Athlon 64 hit..

haha they were like it after, too ! Even though the P4 absolutely blew chunks they still charged a king's ransom for it !

More money for less performance?!?! some how Intel always came out of a bucket of poo smelling like roses though.

Things have changed though. People no longer have the money to just dump their existing stuff and keep continually upgrading for hardly any change in performance.
MrJay 14th February 2014, 14:14 Quote
Ivy Bridge silicon seems to be holding its value well, I don't think Haswell offers enough of a jump to tempt buyers. I think they need to leave more time between releases tbh. Most of the e-trailers are selling IB stock at the same prices as Haswell.

That combined with a socket change had dented sales, I'll be sticking with my **** tier i5 3330 for another few years.

Also AMD aren't exactly grabbing sales either.
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJay
Ivy Bridge silicon seems to be holding its value well, I don't think Haswell offers enough of a jump to tempt buyers. I think they need to leave more time between releases tbh. Most of the e-trailers are selling IB stock at the same prices as Haswell.

That combined with a socket change had dented sales, I'll be sticking with my **** tier i5 3330 for another few years.

Also AMD aren't exactly grabbing sales either.

AMD are chugging along just fine. I looked at their sales for 2013 and for a company their size the results were good.

Intel are spending big on R&D. Each time they come up with a new CPU and socket etc it is costing them money. I just don't see why they're bothering though if the gains are as weak as they have been. Haswell over Sandy? well the extra heat means that you end up pretty much dead level. The extra IPC of the Haswell is lost in the translation of overclocking. The Sandy can be clocked much higher (at least 400mhz from what I've seen) and thus pretty much makes up for the extra IPC Haswell has that it can't put into an overclock.

Not just that but I have seen numerous cases of Haswell CPUs being absolute stinkers and not even being able to go further than 4ghz.
Harlequin 14th February 2014, 14:21 Quote
anyone who bought an i5 2500k is laughing all the way to the bank they really are.
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 14:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
anyone who bought an i5 2500k is laughing all the way to the bank they really are.

Or a I7 950 etc. I mean yeah Sandybridge was a lot faster but get any 1366 to 4ghz and there's still absolutely no reason to bother.

The funny thing is as time passes the older I7s begin to come more and more into their own due to the better software coming out. I'm absolutely intrigued by this 32nm Westmere I've ordered. I really can't wait to get Windows 8 on it and see what it can do with the more modern titles.

AMD? when people realise what has happened with Piledriver they will start buying. Mind you, who knows? the PDs could actually be selling very well right now. I do know that AMD have priced them amazingly aggressively lately so that could be because they were selling, or, to tempt more people into buying.

The only cost AMD have left now is manufacturing. They don't keep continually spunking money into new technology that we don't need. All they needed to do was sit back with their fingers locked and their hands behind their head and wait until the software came along.
Corky42 14th February 2014, 15:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienwareAndy
Intel are spending big on R&D. Each time they come up with a new CPU and socket etc it is costing them money. I just don't see why they're bothering though if the gains are as weak as they have been.

The gains have been weak because sheer computation power wasn't the goal for Haswell, it was reducing the power draw and making it more mobile friendly. My guess is people didn't buy as many mobile based devices with Intel hardware in them as they expected, or were led to believe.
Shirty 14th February 2014, 15:21 Quote
I agree with all of the above. I only run my 2500k at 4.2 because it appeals to the geek in me, in reality I'd be happy enough running it at stock almost all the time.

As time marches forward and it starts to show its age I'll bump it on up to the 5GHz which I know it'll do on air, and then eventually when I actually need to replace it I'll pick the next big thing in terms of price to performance and that'll probably last half a decade or more itself.

I genuinely can't see that there'll be any need for me to upgrade this core platform until it's at least 5 years old, maybe a little more. By that time AMD's 'patient' approach to architecture will either have paid off or they'll be bankrupt. Assuming the former, I sense a move back to red in the future.
Spreadie 14th February 2014, 15:36 Quote
Enjoy that 2500K chaps, because I seriously doubt Intel will make that mistake again. Bunch of price-gouging swines.
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The gains have been weak because sheer computation power wasn't the goal for Haswell, it was reducing the power draw and making it more mobile friendly. My guess is people didn't buy as many mobile based devices with Intel hardware in them as they expected, or were led to believe.

I'm aware of why they developed Haswell and it had anything but the desktop market in mind. However, the desktop market is still a huge part of their bread and butter and so they need to sell it to people.

The problem is that people are either figuring out that Haswell is a waste of time (after doing so) or were smart enough in the first place to avoid it completely. That could be because they were pissed off at needing a new board or saw through the glowing reviews and saw it for what it was.

Either way Intel will probably stay stuck with them as sense and reason are beginning to play a part. The recession has kicked in, people have way less money, the govt has cut spending and that ricochets all the way down to the consumer.

Sure a price drop would help, but if it's not even worth £1 to piss around changing all of your hardware then it's not going to be worth any price they put on it.
AlienwareAndy 14th February 2014, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Enjoy that 2500K chaps, because I seriously doubt Intel will make that mistake again. Bunch of price-gouging swines.

Sandy needed to be what it was to completely win the stupid performance war with AMD once and for all. It's not even like AMD were talking fighting words they had already conceded and admitted they weren't going to compete.

But yeah, Intel's silly muscle flexing has definitely cost them.
schmidtbag 14th February 2014, 15:45 Quote
What I don't get is intel is raking in more money than they know what to do with. It seems in the past 2 or 3 years they've been making around $10 billion on average in just profits. They have nothing to spend that kind of money on, their prices remain consistently high, they're getting more sales due to AMD not being of interest, and they're laying people off. What is Intel trying to do, create a space station? Buy a developed country?

But seriously, they need to ditch their -E series and release no more than 1 architecture per year. Give us a reason to upgrade. Even the firs generation i7 is overkill for the average person.
Corky42 14th February 2014, 16:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienwareAndy
I'm aware of why they developed Haswell and it had anything but the desktop market in mind. However, the desktop market is still a huge part of their bread and butter and so they need to sell it to people.
Not really, Gareth reported that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
its PC Client Group revenue dropped four per cent in 2013 compared to the year prior, with the company's figures buoyed by a boost in sales to data centres and the supercomputing industry that saw the Data Centre Group increase its revenue by seven per cent.
Not sure what class of device falls into the PC Client Group though :?
blacko 14th February 2014, 19:40 Quote
still run my q6600....i must be poor.
Gareth Halfacree 14th February 2014, 21:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Not sure what class of device falls into the PC Client Group though :?
Desktops and laptops.
Neogumbercules 14th February 2014, 21:37 Quote
Very happy with my Haswell. I had an Ivy i5 but I had to get rid of it. When it came time to rebuild I went with a 4670k. Don't know if I'm lucky, but I hit 4.5 ghz easily and I don't go more than 62c-65c during the most CPU intensive task I do: 3DS Max renderings.

Not too worried about Broadwell.
AiA 15th February 2014, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
still run my q6600....i must be poor.

nah, we dont need anything faster to browse bit tech news (:
play_boy_2000 15th February 2014, 01:14 Quote
As everyone has stated there is no competition, so unlike RAM, the prices of CPU's remain steady. Drop the price of the 4670K to $160USD and I'd start fidgeting with my wallet.
SchizoFrog 15th February 2014, 02:28 Quote
I see a lot of complaints here about the performance increase of the last couple of generations from Intel but they are nearly always from the perspective of those who bought in to those previous generations and would like to upgrade again, seemingly for no apparent reason. So here is my question, with Haswell taking such a critical beating, especially with regards to desktop parts, if someone was building a new machine or upgrading from say a Q6600, what would be your genuine recommendations? To still go with a Haswell part as they are still the best you can get right now? To go with a Sandy part because they offer a little extra overclocking potential? Or just hold off if possible and wait for Broadwell? Forget AMD right now as this is specifically an Intel question.
Redbeaver 15th February 2014, 03:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
still run my q6600....i must be poor.

same here. PlanetSide2 is the only game the past couple years that made me want to upgrade.

And I play a LOT of games...
play_boy_2000 15th February 2014, 04:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
I see a lot of complaints here about the performance increase of the last couple of generations from Intel but they are nearly always from the perspective of those who bought in to those previous generations and would like to upgrade again, seemingly for no apparent reason. So here is my question, with Haswell taking such a critical beating, especially with regards to desktop parts, if someone was building a new machine or upgrading from say a Q6600, what would be your genuine recommendations? To still go with a Haswell part as they are still the best you can get right now? To go with a Sandy part because they offer a little extra overclocking potential? Or just hold off if possible and wait for Broadwell? Forget AMD right now as this is specifically an Intel question.

It's a tough call really. Those of us with Sandy bridge CPU's are looking at IB and seeing only power consumption improvements at best. Haswell seems even more pointless now that rumors suggest that s1150 won't be compatible between Haswell and Broadwell.

If you plan on going with external graphics, I'd go Ivy Bridge from a budget standpoint. Good balance between power efficiency and performance and no more of a dead upgrade path than Haswell.
SexyHyde 15th February 2014, 05:04 Quote
Waited till Haswell came out then I went from a i7 920 to an IVY i5 3350P in an itx setup. I'm pretty impressed with it's performance paired with my 670GTX.
Corky42 15th February 2014, 07:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Desktops and laptops.

Do they not bother counting tablets, phones, netbooks, because they are such a small part of it's market ? note: IDK what market share they have in the ultra mobile sector, if any.

@SchizoFrog, If you can hold out long enough, personally i would wait for Skylake.
SchizoFrog 15th February 2014, 09:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

@SchizoFrog, If you can hold out long enough, personally i would wait for Skylake.

Skylake? LMAO... That is most likely another 3 years away. Also I have a feeling that due to the all round step up in technology (DDR4 for example) it may actually be more prudent to skip that first gen and go for Skylake's successor. I have a feeling that Broadwell won't bring that much more to the table and the next big leaps will start to come with Skylake, but so will all the teething issues.
Gareth Halfacree 15th February 2014, 10:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Do they not bother counting tablets, phones, netbooks, because they are such a small part of it's market ? note: IDK what market share they have in the ultra mobile sector, if any.
They count 'em, but not as part of the PC Client Group. The PC Client Group is desktops and laptops, plus selected hybrids and convertibles and I *think* (but don't quote me on this) the Microsoft Surface Pro family, for some reason; the Data Centre Group is servers and HPC, plus selected network appliances that use the Intel Architecture; smartphones, pure tablets, embedded platforms like set-top boxes, and all that sort of stuff is reported under the umbrella of "other Intel architecture operating segments" which includes but is not limited to the Intelligent Systems Group, Intel Mobile Communications, the Netbook Group, the Tablet Group, the Phone Group, and the Service Provider Group. Intel's last area of grouped income is recorded under Software and Services Operating Segments, which includes things like McAfee-as-was and Wind River.

As for how big a chunk of Intel's overall business it forms: last financial year Intel reported revenue of $33.0 billion (down four per cent annually) from the PC Client Group, $11.2 billion (up seven per cent annually) from the Data Centre Group, but just $4.1 billion (down seven per cent annually) from "other Intel architecture operating segments."
rollo 15th February 2014, 12:02 Quote
$33bil from a sector most say is struggling nearly 3 times its data centre revenue.

Intels no competition in the pc Client sector as it calls it has basically put us in this place to begin with.

I said a few years back AMDs none compete would be bad for the pc sector now some time later the facts are finally starting to bite home. At least for enthusiasts.

Choices in the high end is basically x79 based system or a 4770 k haswell chip. Nothing else is even close if you have that sort of budget. He'll a 980 is still faster than 90% of chips made since.

Intel seems happy but they have no reason not to be.

Even if they lost another 4% this year they would still break $30bil revenue.
G0UDG 15th February 2014, 21:28 Quote
Well I get plenty of performance from my 980x my only complaint with 1366 is the Marvell controller for Sata 3 being crap other than that its fine
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 05:55 Quote
I just read that Intel is due to release Z97 and H97 chipset boards along with a Haswell CPU refresh. Does anyone know what these new chipsets are supposed to bring to the table? Is it likely to be worth waiting until the supposed April release before planning a new build?
Corky42 16th February 2014, 08:09 Quote
Rumors say Intel's 9 series chips will come with PCIe M2
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 10:10 Quote
Sorry but PCIe M2 is? :/
AlienwareAndy 16th February 2014, 10:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Sorry but PCIe M2 is? :/

It seems it's an edge connector for things like SSDs.
Harlequin 16th February 2014, 10:21 Quote
its the replacement for mSATA , which was never used on desktop (maybe on 1 oddball board somewhere) anyway.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a110-m.2-ssd,3594.html
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 10:30 Quote
Ah... OK.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I am assuming that ATX motherboards won't really need these as space isn't often a problem in cases for those. So these could be interesting for high storage, micro builds (mATX and especially Mini-ITX)? As well as ultra light, ultra thin mobile devices with vast increases in available storage space although I am sure it will also come with vast increases in cost too. But what does the future hold? Are these to eventually replace SATA as the main storage connectors? Is this connection going to offer speed increases? I guess we'll have to wait and see when it is made official and released...
AlienwareAndy 16th February 2014, 10:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Ah... OK.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I am assuming that ATX motherboards won't really need these as space isn't often a problem in cases for those. So these could be interesting for high storage, micro builds (mATX and especially Mini-ITX)? As well as ultra light, ultra thin mobile devices with vast increases in available storage space although I am sure it will also come with vast increases in cost too. But what does the future hold? Are these to eventually replace SATA as the main storage connectors? Is this connection going to offer speed increases? I guess we'll have to wait and see when it is made official and released...

Without sounding like a grump it seems it's something else that Intel are making because they are moving to the smaller/mobile market and something that's just pointless for desktops.

Kinda like Haswell.

Now usually us desktop PC users get server hand me downs. I used to think this was a bad thing, now I wish things were different. At least server parts are fun.
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 11:27 Quote
Feel free to sound off your grumpiness... Sometimes I think it is the only way to get an honest opinion.

I don't want to go down the road of pointless changes though. I try not to think of the fact that I have to buy a CPU from either AMD or Intel with a GPU built in that I have no need for nor intention of ever using. I am scared of the potential future where the processor will one day include a small level of RAM and storage all in one that no one will ever want to use but will still have to pay for as it is included in the package. Anyway, I digress... :)
jrs77 16th February 2014, 11:31 Quote
With the improvements getting smaller and smaller these days, it's best not to think tooo much about it really.

When the time comes for a new PC, simply look what's best bang for your buck from the currently available hardware and don't look what get's released in the future.

Since the i-Series started, we've basically seen an improvement of ~5-10% for the CPUs for every generation, and the iGPU is getting way more attention actually than the CPU these days. The differences between each generation simply isn't big enough to wait for anything new, especially with prices staying the same.
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 12:15 Quote
On the whole I agree jrs77, it's just that it can get a little confusing as if you read articles, reviews and especially comment sections things can be a little misleading. If you judged things by what others had to say the general feeling of Haswell is one of negativity but only from those with IB, SB or a select few processors from a gen or two before that. Upgrading from a Q6600 or less would see a massive improvement.
Although it is also good to keep one eye on the future as I mentioned earlier regarding Broadwell and Skylake. The move to DDR4 memory could be significant while requiring a platform change rather than just a CPU upgrade, investing in a new build within 12 months of that release would be seen as folly by many.
rollo 16th February 2014, 13:59 Quote
Personally don't think CPU performance and price has gone anywhere because they have not had to.

There top end high margin stuff is unchallenged in the desktop area. There mobile stuff performs well but consumes a lot of power doing so. Servers they are unchallenged.

Only really mobile where they are been pushed.

Dou't we would of even seen a better Gpu if it was not for apple complaining about it and threatening to go elsewhere.

If they were other brands of CPUs offering better performance for less then we would of saw a more faster and cheaper top end. At the high end your choices are super limited. Hence the prices are crazy. I expect the top end broad well desktop the 4770k equive today to be £300+ When it does launch and it will still sell.

The 980 everyone said was crazy money 4 years back today it's still faster than anything the competition has and is likely to stay that way for the considerable future.( £150 ownership per year if you brought it then)

Still hope someone buys out AMD and actually goes back to pushing the high end of the market.
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 15:14 Quote
Competition is an argument that held true for a very, very long time but I don't think it does any more, at least not the way it used to. Just look at the GPU market to see that. My first proper GPU was a GeForce4 4600Ti for around £240 I think, retail. For many years £250-£300 was the mark for high-end GPUs but look at their prices now. AMD and nVidia are on par with each other each gen give or take slight ups and downs and they are both charging big for their high-end cards these days. Whether you need it or not but £1000 for a single consumer sold GPU is a massive change from how things used to be.
jrs77 16th February 2014, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
If you judged things by what others had to say the general feeling of Haswell is one of negativity but only from those with IB, SB or a select few processors from a gen or two before that. Upgrading from a Q6600 or less would see a massive improvement.

If you Upgrade to Haswell coming from a Q6600 then you have 4 generations, i.e. ~40% improvement, and sure that feels huge. But the difference between Haswell and SandyBridge is only some ~15-20, and that's not that big anymore, especially since you don't have the benefit of coming from a 45nm part reducing TDP/SDP.
Quote:
Although it is also good to keep one eye on the future as I mentioned earlier regarding Broadwell and Skylake. The move to DDR4 memory could be significant while requiring a platform change rather than just a CPU upgrade, investing in a new build within 12 months of that release would be seen as folly by many.

DDR4 won't be any better than DDR3 for the first one or two years. Was the same when we switched from DDR2 to DDR3. So it's not a really good reason to wait for the next generation if you're in the market for a new PC today.

Stop looking what might be, or what could've been a better choice. The moment you decide that it's time for a new PC is just the right moment to buy.
If you start looking ahead and try to anticipate how much better it would be to wait for the next gen you'll end up with not buying a new PC at all until you really have top because your PC died.

Nowadays hardware simply doesn't improve that much anymore between single generations to hold back.
AlienwareAndy 16th February 2014, 16:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Feel free to sound off your grumpiness... Sometimes I think it is the only way to get an honest opinion.

I don't want to go down the road of pointless changes though. I try not to think of the fact that I have to buy a CPU from either AMD or Intel with a GPU built in that I have no need for nor intention of ever using. I am scared of the potential future where the processor will one day include a small level of RAM and storage all in one that no one will ever want to use but will still have to pay for as it is included in the package. Anyway, I digress... :)

I don't think you have too much to worry about on the AMD side of the fence. Their main aim now is to make a CPU/GPU combo that's actually good for gaming, so I can see the APU ending up a great tool for PC gaming. They also have Mantle on the go, as well as the slightly lesser TressFX.

I think their main mission now is to continue making their APUs more and more powerful so that they can actually game with the best GPUs. So I can't see them letting off the gas because of a tablet, for example. They have too much resting with things like the consoles and Mantle ETC to go all lame on us. I must say that although it would be rather boring it would be pretty epic if an APU came out that could actually pee with say a R280x.

Intel though? I'm far more suspicious of them tbh. They have pretty much made it clear now that they have no interest in the performance PC sector and are doing absolutely everything to get away from it. I can't say I blame them, many have predicted the death of the desktop PC. The thing is there still needs to be powerful PCs for designers/workstations and so on so they're either happy to sit back on their 2011 range for a while or are just not bothered. I have to say, if you were wanting raw power the CPUs they've already made are more than good enough really. It's kind of like things have caught up with themselves and it would be a tail chasing exercise.

Not much fun though. I guess we're going to have to just get used to the fact that the CPU market is about to freeze for the foreseeable future.

It sucks, but tbh the way things are for Intel right now seems way more dangerous than it does for AMD. AMD can stick to what they have now and can sit on it for a bit but Intel do not have the console/being enthusiastic about new API thing going on. They need to get into something quick or it could all go a bit pear shaped pretty fast.
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 16:26 Quote
@ jrs77

'DDR4 won't be any better than DDR3 for the first one or two years. Was the same when we switched from DDR2 to DDR3. So it's not a really good reason to wait for the next generation if you're in the market for a new PC today.'

I think you are judging the move to DDR4 the same as DDR3 but with APUs now using system memory and showing significant performance increases from faster and faster RAM there is much more of a reason for the speed increases than there used to be. DDR4 is going to be massive for IGPs.

'Stop looking what might be, or what could've been a better choice. The moment you decide that it's time for a new PC is just the right moment to buy.'

Sorry but I disagree, I think your attitude is completely callus. I take my time, think about what I want and what is available right now and in the near future and then I make my choices. For this reason I am waiting for the release of Windows Phone 8.1 rather than getting a 'soon to be out of date' WP8 device.
Corky42 16th February 2014, 17:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Sorry but PCIe M2 is? :/
The choice Intel seems to have made over SATA Express, both are ways to open 2 PCIe lanes to be used by SSD's and both should mean around 16GB/s transfer speeds. I'm guessing Intel have decided to push M2 over SATA Express due to it being better suited for smaller devices.

SATA Express has backward compatibility.
M.2 is better for smaller devices.

Note: Not sure if i have my speeds correct :? but AFAIK both formats come out the same in terms of faster transfer speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
If you Upgrade to Haswell coming from a Q6600 then you have 4 generations, i.e. ~40% improvement, and sure that feels huge. But the difference between Haswell and SandyBridge is only some ~15-20, and that's not that big anymore, especially since you don't have the benefit of coming from a 45nm part reducing TDP/SDP.



DDR4 won't be any better than DDR3 for the first one or two years. Was the same when we switched from DDR2 to DDR3. So it's not a really good reason to wait for the next generation if you're in the market for a new PC today.

Stop looking what might be, or what could've been a better choice. The moment you decide that it's time for a new PC is just the right moment to buy.
If you start looking ahead and try to anticipate how much better it would be to wait for the next gen you'll end up with not buying a new PC at all until you really have top because your PC died.

Nowadays hardware simply doesn't improve that much anymore between single generations to hold back.
I respectfully disagree that you would only see around %40 improvement, my guess is it would be closer to %100, either way it would be a big improvement going from a Q6600 to Haswell so i wont split hairs :p

I am also going to disagree that you won't see a big improvement going from DDR3 to DDR4, sorry.
Even right of the bat DDR4 is 2133–4266 MT/s (million transfers per second), versus DDR3's 800 to 2133 MT/s. Crucial demonstrated some DDR4 at this years CES that was running at 2133MHz the lowest speed that DDR4 will be introduced at, eventually its expected to reach 4.2GHz

Bit-Tech wrote a nice article back in 2010 that goes into more details.

Where i do agree with you wholeheartedly is when you say to stop looking at what might be, as there is always something just around the corner that leaves you undecided if you should upgrade or not. It's not worth thinking about what maybe, otherwise you just end up wishing you life away, or maybe that should be hardware :D
IvanIvanovich 16th February 2014, 17:14 Quote
I'm also waiting for next gen with DDR4 and m.2 to upgrade my main PC... for other things like storage server I am looking at Avoton based instead. They are simply a much better value at around $300-350 for an 8 core CPU and motherboard at once. Likewise for HTPC and small workstations the new Bay Trail quads are going to be excellent in the $60-1?0 tier.
Intel would be a lot smarter not to have such a rapid release schedule when there is no need for it. They are competing with themselves and it's simply foolish.
SchizoFrog 16th February 2014, 17:40 Quote
I just want to clarify my stance on 'waiting'. I believe there is a vast difference in waiting 3-6 months before building for an imminent release and waiting 12-18 months for a generation that hasn't even been finalised yet. So as examples, I would consider waiting for the Haswell refresh but I would not wait for Broadwell, just as a month or two ago I would have waited for the new AMD GPUs rather than jump in with the 7xxx series cards or wait for nVidia's full fat Maxwell GPUs.
Corky42 16th February 2014, 18:04 Quote
Recently Asus demonstrated a SATA Express Mobo at CES and kitguru managed to get a hand on preview of it so that maybe worth waiting for. And rumor says Haswell may see a refresh in April.
rollo 16th February 2014, 20:31 Quote
Rapid release schedule does not really hurt your company if people are willing to buy your products, the $33bil revenue Intel made from the Pc Client group suggests people are willing to buy.

They could release a product once every few years but there revenues would tank. Some people just like in other technology groups have to have the latest products be it CPU, GPU, Smartphone or Tablets.

Use Samsung as a example they release a new product for 2 quaters that product brings increased revenue for example the SG4. The 2 quaters after people are waiting for the next release to launch building hype and expectation of what it will do.

Enthusaists would prefer a longer release schedule simply for money reasons 90% of the time but we are not the ones giving Intel $33 bil a year. That money comes from the likes of Dell, Lenova, HP, Apple been the big 4 who will contribute to that revenue figure.

The total of Retail sales of there cpus will be alot lower than most assume or think. Even Assuming theres 6million enthusaists ( this is a overestimate, with recent estimates putting the figure between 3-4million) buying new cpus on every release thats only around $2.4bil revenue ( If everyone brought a 4770k which did not happen).

Which is around 7% of Intels total revenue stream for the PC Client group. Apple alone last quater give Intel $1.7billion for chips it brought ( This is shown in Apples latest Figures)

Apple, HP, Dell, Lenova all have yearly release schedules to co inside with this new launch of technology from the developers of it.
jrs77 16th February 2014, 22:06 Quote
Yes, DDR4 is told too go up as high as some 4+ GHz, but the first year or so we'll probably see only DDR4 2133-2400, and we allready have these speeds with DDR3 these days. It was the same with DDR2 and DDR3a few years back.

And yes, the IGP heavily profits from the high-speed DIMMs, but the CPU doesn't as much. Those who don't use the IGP will be totally fine with DDR3-1600 even when DDR4-2400 is allready available, and the difference won't be very noticable for most tasks.

And for the difference between CPU-generations. You basically don't see much difference between a SandyBridge and a Haswell-refresh chip when playing games. It's all about the GPU here.

I basically look what's the currently best available CPU for €200 and be done with it. No second thoughts on what might come in a few month. Pair it up with a €200 GPU and a €100 motherboard and that's it. A new gaming-rig for €500 every two years aslong as the DIMMs and the HDD/SSD are still working fine.
Harlequin 16th February 2014, 23:06 Quote
maybe Samsung can buy intel as they earn 3x times as much profit and have over 100% more revenue....


on a serious note , DDR4 will be a major benefit to AMD APU`s , as its sadly obvious they are quite bandwidth starved.


although

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7922575

`performance` pre set for 3dmark 11 - using PC2133 CL10 ram on an A10-5800K
Corky42 17th February 2014, 07:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Yes, DDR4 is told too go up as high as some 4+ GHz, but the first year or so we'll probably see only DDR4 2133-2400, and we allready have these speeds with DDR3 these days. It was the same with DDR2 and DDR3a few years back.

We are told Crucial will be offering 3Ghz DDR4 sometime in the third quarter, around the same time it is rumored Haswell-E will hit.

Looking into my crystal ball i would say we will see a Haswell refresh along with M.2 / SATA Express around April, and then not much until the end of this year when i suspect we will see Haswell-E and DDR4. I can't see Broadwell arriving this side of Christmas.
Bindibadgi 17th February 2014, 07:31 Quote
We're soldly into the DDR3 2133-2400 territory now and we can hit 4GHz DDR3 in special conditions, so 3GHz DDR4 isn't that unfeasible this year. Depends on what the IMCs and memory ICs are capable of tbh; people won't hold back if they have to.
BLC 17th February 2014, 09:36 Quote
I’m in the market for pretty much a complete overhaul; basically every component except my hard drives badly needs replacing.  I’m coming from an E8400 paired with a Radeon HD6770, so from my point of view pretty much *anything* I buy is going to be a quantum leap in performance, be it SB, IB, Haswell or even an AMD APU.  With such massive performance gains on the cards I really can’t be bothered to wait for the Haswell refresh or whatever else is around the corner; the cost will probably be more than I’m going to pay now, and the gains over a Haswell i7 4770k are likely to be marginal.  If the Haswell refresh really is all about the iGPU then it’s not worth it for me: I’m going to be pairing this new build with at least a GTX770 so the iGPU will never see the light of day. 
woods 18th February 2014, 00:16 Quote
Still running Lynfield i750 with no problems does everthing I want it to but Broadwell could be time to upgrade to a new system
Bindibadgi 18th February 2014, 02:35 Quote
Z97 and Haswell will still be a good buy this year as multi-year investment (unless you specifically want X99). Everyone kept waiting for the 'next gen' back when Sandy/Ivy/Haswell launched, so Broadwell should mirror the Sandy-Ivy difference as it's the same mArch. In April Intel may detail its 14nm process at IDF, or maybe you'll have to wait until Sept - from that you'll learn its advantages and estimations for Broadwell.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums