The Haswell Review: Intel Core i7-4770K & i5-4670K Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 1, 2013 10:00 AM ESTCPU Performance: Going Even Further Back
If you want specific comparisons to other CPUs, all of the Haswell data is in Bench. I took the liberty of putting together a few charts comparing the 4770K to some key older parts to put its performance in perspective.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
210 Comments
View All Comments
smoohta - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Blah, seems like a rather shallow review:1. What about benchmarks to take advantage of the new AVX2 instructions? (FMA specifically would be interesting)
2. Same for TSX?
Klimax - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
I know only about x264 having it in the last versions. Not sure who else has it.Gigaplex - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
"Here I’m showing an 11.8% increase in power consumption, and in this particular test the Core i7-4770K is 13% faster than the i7-3770K. Power consumption goes up, but so does performance per watt."So... performance per watt increased by ~1%. For a completely new architecture that's supposedly all about power optimisation, that's extremely underwhelming to say the least.
Homeles - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Haswell is not focusing on the desktop I'm not sure how you managed to believe that it is.krumme - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Because Anand is a fan of it, even at desktop?MatthiasP - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
So we get +10% performance increase for +10% increase in energy consumption? That's rather disappointing for a new generation.jeffkibuule - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Haswell is movinig voltage regulators that were already on the motherboard on die, so power consumption hasn't changed, it's just that the CPU cooling system has to deal with that extra heat now. Remember that those power ratings are NOT about how much power the chip uses, but how much cooling is needed.Homeles - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
System power consumption with Haswell is, in fact, higher. Take a look at page 2.Still, when you're running at these kind of frequencies, 10% more performance for 10% more power is a big deal. If you were to hold back the performance gains to 0%, power savings would be greater than 25%.
The only reason Piledriver was able to avoid this was because it was improving on something that was already so broken. AMD's not immune to the laws of physics -- when they catch up to Intel, they will hit the same wall.
Klimax - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Most likely sooner, because they can't fine tune process.dgz - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
I agree but Intel has been doing that for many years. I just don't get what they're gaining by artificially restricting IOMMU support.