Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 18 Jan 2013.
Earnings hit by slowing PC sales.
"Zion" being Xeon for the uninformed ?
Hah! I'd blame my spellchecker, but that one's entirely my fault. Fixed, ta!
I'm pinning my next big upgrade on Haswell to replace my i7 920 and X58 so I really hope the desktop chips are A: worth the wait despite a lack of competition for Intel in the high-end and B: On-time and concurrent with mobile parts, rather than being delayed in favour of pushing new parts for the tablet/ultrabook fad.
I was sorely tempted by Ivy Bridge because of the power-hungry nature of my i7 920 and the lack of SATA3/USB3 on my early X58; but I just couldn't justify it with Haswell around the corner.
Intel better deliver on more than just battery life!
Intels shares have took a battering since these results were posted down 6% and still going at last check.
They have made less money this quater than they did last year in the same quater. And with a slowing pc market i dout results will improve for next quater so i guess the shareholders are correct for once.
Also intrested in Haswell to replace an i7950 gaming build but will want to see some actual performance benifits in the games i play to really make me intrested in an upgrade.
From everything i keep reading regarding Haswel, power consumption appears to be the headline. With very little mention of performance increases. I remember thinking the low tdp of the ivybridge quads would make for some awesome overclocks, but heat density and heatspreader issues put paid to that.
Still be interesting to see how haswel turns out.
From what I've read so far, I doubt you'll see much difference in performance. You'll see it in power consumption, mostly. Will it be worth a $500 platform (motherboard and processor alone, naturally) upgrade? Depends on how much you care about power consumption, I suppose. The 950 is a 130W processor at just over 3GHz. It's not terribly unrealistic to think a comparable Haswell will be slightly faster, with a TDP around half that of the Nehalems. SB quads were 95W at 32nm, IB is 77W at 22nm, so I could see Haswell quads around 65W, easily.
In practical applications, I don't recall any SB or IB processors being much more than incremental upgrades over the previous generations of the Core i series. Native USB3 will there (as it should have been in IB, imo) and IB already has PCIe 3.0, iirc. Unless you have or want a quad-SLI system, though, even PCI 2.0 isn't nearly maxed out.
Assuming Steamroller is AM3+, I'm sticking with AMD for a while longer. Next full build I do, though, I'll take a long, hard look at Intel for the first time ever.
I'm hanging on to a Q8300 waiting for Haswell, I realize the performance might not be that much greater but I would like to build a passive build if possible so TDP is important. If there is not a significant difference in TDP or performance I'll simply get IB for cheap while stock's cleared out
Very profitable plus stock buyback and still the stockprice is so low...
I'm also in the same boat, although I got into the 920 a bit late (was waiting on SB then gave up after the millionth delay) so I have SATA3.
I'm still not sure if its needed. The only thing that I feel really pushes my processor and makes me feel its too slow are emulators but the lower power consumption is very tempting.
Separate names with a comma.