Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Intel to Offer Nine Types of Haswell Processors in Four Types of Packages.

Started by: medo | Date 12/28/12 01:36:37 PM
Comments: 5 | Last Comment:  01/03/13 09:11:40 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-3]

1. 
the way i see it :

i5`s with there quad core will have TDP of 65~55W.

Its good, but not that impressive, like previously rumored.

Intel went from 95W (Sandy) --> 77W (Ivy) --> 65~55W (Haswell)

So not that much and seriously its one of those things like if AMD hd 7770 uses 70watts and needs 4pin connecter and another card used 100watt and needs 4pin connecter, i wouldn't give shit either, however the AMD 7750 is different story.

Besides Intel cheap skating on the Internal thermal compound, and cheap fan and ultra light heat sink will surely make those low TDP`s unnoticed, just like they did with Ivy, surely its 10% performance increase, however its temps are 20% and up, like sandy were so cool and done right, they can never go beyond 50C-55C, but Ivy for some reason can reach up to 70C.

1 2 [Posted by: medo  | Date: 12/28/12 01:36:37 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Scaling down TDP while increasing power, functions and doubling transistor count is more than switching from 1 process to the next with stable Transistorcount, so i find it very impressive especially because same 22nm process is used like in Ivy Bridge and still performance grows.
1 0 [Posted by: Rollora  | Date: 12/29/12 06:23:00 PM]
Reply

2. 
Disclaimer : For the purposes of the following, I'm only doubting the interpretation of sources where xbitlabs and other rumormills treat this as a "legit rumor" (which is, of course, an oxymoron).

My analysis:

< 1 > Going to Expreview, we find the tables that Xbitlabs paraphrased to make theirs, but they are titled in Spanish while Expreview is a Chinese website. So without a source cited, Expreview is playing it off as their own work while making their own tables in another language? I suspect plagerism.

< 2 > Using Google's image search, I find the orginal author of the blue tables in Spanish from Expreview, a website called chw.net.
http://www.chw.net/2012/1...los-cpus-intel-2013-2014/

They claim at the bottom of the article in Note 1 to have made up the Broadwell table based on the Haswell tables from the same PCWatch article cited in Expreview and in Xbitlabs, and getting the impression from PCWatch that Intel will indeed use LGA for Broadwell.

< 3 > Finally going to PCWatch, the title of the article using Google Chrome translation says "Why not provide a version Broadwell is Intel LGA". Even if the translation was pitiful, factoring in the title of both tables (the author throws in an "I Expect" in Table 1 and "Forecast Author" in Table 2), it really puts into question how the information being presented should be taken. Is it leaked truth or just an opinion?

In my opinion, the PCWatch article reads off as a blog or an author's theory, as if he is making a case for an LGA option to remain (given the PCWatch article that started the BGA flame last month)-- NOT as interpreted by just about every rumormill that gets substantial certainty out of it to claim these are Intel's future unofficial intentions leaked by unofficial sources-- unless you guys have access to other sources that haven't been published or mentioned?

I don't doubt that just about any rumorhunting author has access to information and people in industry that many of us don't have as readers, which certainly affects an author's ideas, i.e. bias. I agree with the author's original premise from a theoretical standpoint given Intel's history and trends facing today's market.

But it is one thing to agree with someone else's idea and another to spreading it around as more than that. Someone could take my own words and make it out to be more: Soldering mainstream down isn't killing the DIY market as Intel wants to move us to X79's successors.
1 0 [Posted by: lehpron  | Date: 01/01/13 04:10:03 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
+1

Those are good points interms of noting the discrepancies on those sites in question.

You may well be right.

But for any reason if this proves to be true by fluke or by good insider contacts, there are business reasons that make it a logic move.

Not wanting to repost everything I shall point you to the link where this was discussed a bit.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/n...ors_for_Intel_Report.html
0 0 [Posted by: vanakkuty  | Date: 01/02/13 09:35:07 PM]
Reply

3. 
Intel Haswell ULX with GT3 At 10 watts now that's an awesome SoC. I can't wait for it to be released. AMD needs more chips like this but they will never come out with them.
0 1 [Posted by: ten  | Date: 01/03/13 09:11:40 AM]
Reply

[1-3]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment