Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Combatus, 1 Jun 2013.
As soon as we possibly can!
Figured that would be the case but no harm in asking Looking forward to reviews of that and the M6G to go in my new build
Looks like nice power usage difference for a bit more power than my 2500k, if I had the money I'd go for it.
The cost would be £350+ for CPU and board. I'm guessing I wouldn't see any performance difference in Battlefield 4 or HL3 (if it ever surfaces) from my 2500K, and I don't get the fascination with energy/power saving when we're spending such large amounts building rigs. The significant cost of the new parts surely outweighs noticeable savings from drawing fractions less power?
Know what you mean, I guess I meant it would make a good difference for anyone who wants good performance with less energy usage like if they are running on cleaner more natural energy or are due an upgrade & they'd prefer to use less.
Plus once manufacturers get the required energy use down they could work on getting more performance I imagine.
I am plenty happy with the 2500k though, very nice CPU.
You'd be surprised, it's about 50% faster across the board.
Then again it's been like 6 generations and 7 years since the Q6600.
Its this whole fascination everyone has with tablets and such.
People keep saying desktops are dead so all the big names are pushing low power CPU's with integrated GPU's and all that other junk we are told people want.
That has well.
Actually power savings theoretically should increase overclockability. If you have higher thermal headroom you can theoretically push more.
Of course in practice this is much less obvious, but it is still something to consider. (Note the later steppings of OC'ed Intel chips tended to have lower TDPs and much lower operating temperatures).
That is why I want to see the results side by side as I find that it is only 50% faster hard to believe. I mean on average each gen has been what? 10-15% faster? Which means that over 6 generations it would be at least 60% faster but as each gen is fast, the percentage gap of the next gen is incrementally larger too (10% of 10 = 1,, next gen is 11, 10% of 11 = 1.1, next gen is 12.1, 10% of 12.1 = 1.21... etc). So I would expect with the architectural changes, substantial increases in clock speed and increased memory bandwidth that the increase in performance should be at least twice as good (100% increase).
I get the relationship of low power components in tablets. We wouldn't want to turn one on and have to charge it 10 minutes later.
Does AMD have something coming out, to get our teeth in to?
I can't seem to hide my disappointment in this new gen of intel chip.
Because it is what people want. The sales figures kind of prove that. But laptops are also getting thinner and lighter because that is what people want, and batteries have to last all day because that is what people want.
What people want not so much is SLI desktop gaming rigs costing £1000,-- or more. Only us niche geeks want those.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that Intel have been creeping up the costs of their i5 CPUs.
The 2500k was $216, this new 4670k is $250.
As well as locking off OCing in the low end parts, they've been pushing up the cost of owning a mid range chip too.
Standard procedure, really.
We reached the point where a mid range CPU is more than enough for almost everyone a few years ago. It makes sense that Intel will be trying to monetise the mid-range as much as possible, now that high-end CPUs are rare even among enthusiasts.
How many SB/IB owners on BT have an i7 over an i5? I bet it's a much smaller number than the previous generations of Intel CPUs. They need to make that money back from somewhere, especially as the more expensive CPUs are probably where the largest profit margins lie.
Also worth pointing out that the price rise is smaller if you consider inflation; the 2500k launch price is just inder $225 in terms of today's money.
As for Haswell itself, all this review has done (aside from make me want my very own BanHammer TM) is remind me how big the efficiency jump was when we went from SB to IB. Seriously, 300 W at 5 GHz to ~170 W?
Any way to make use of the improved integrated graphics? the point of Haswell is power efficiency, then when can my desktop do 20w idle by powering down the graphics card when not gaming?
(doable with single SSD and everything powered by the monitor through TB, which can be easily turned off when AFK)
finally, what's the maximum resolution of integrated graphics? Sandy and Ivy are only 1920x1200 IIRC.
I don't know what to say except, ahahahahahahahah, nice difference between Intel and AMD CPU's, i mean how much did you get to write this review!
It can do 4k.
why most motherboards don't offer displayport or higher spec'd HDMI?
I didn't buy into Virtu because most Sandy motherboards I looked at are limited to single link DVI.
Sounds good enough to me.
I have a Core i7 920 and thanks to my old PSU misfiring, my motherboard is now rather erratic when it comes to recognising hard disks and any networking devices.
A decent performance upgrade, at a mid range price, with my old memory and a new ac wireless mobo, and probably a new SSD to boot, and maybe Windows 8 (gasp) and I should be set for at least another 2 or 3 years.
HDMI 1.4 supports 4k resolutions as does DisplayPort 1.2.
Separate names with a comma.