Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

UPDATE: Haswell i7 Engineering Sample Up Against i7 3770K

By - Source: WCCF Tech | B 105 comments

The guys at OCLab.ru have managed to get a hold on an engineering sample of a Haswell CPU and ran some benchmarks on it.

The engineering sample of the Haswell chip that the guys over at OCLab.ru had has a base clock speed of just 2.8 GHz, so the i7-3770K was down-clocked to the same level to make for a fair comparison. It is unknown which version the Haswell ES was supposed to represent, but one could assume it was representative of what we would presume to be the i7-4770(K). It could also be a yet unlabelled version though, possibly with or without HyperThreading. Obviously any tests performed may not be representative of the final product, especially considering the CPU was an engineering sample.

The tests from the Haswell engineering sample were run on an unnamed Z87 motherboard.

Further hardware for the test bench included Corsair Dominator 2666 MHz memory running at 1333 MHz, a Corsair AX1200 PSU, and a Corsair Neutron 240 GB SSD. Windows 7 x64 was used as operating system.

CPU / Test
Super PI 32M (m:s)
Super PI 1M (s)
PiFast (s)
Wprime 32M (s)
Wprime 1024M (m:s)
Ivy Bridge i7-3770K
11:49.094
13.1
25.5
13.97
7:11.8xx
Haswell Engineering Sample
11:27.505
14.1
24.01
12.8x
7:11.181


Anyone looking at these results is likely to be disappointed, especially if you look at the SuperPi 1M test, where the Ivy Bridge chip ran it a full second faster than the Haswell ES. Of course, these numbers mean nothing until we know more about which version of the engineering sample was used.

Don't lose hope just yet though, raw computing power isn't the only update that we'll see coming with Haswell. The new Haswell chips will carry a new iGPU that is supposed to perform 40 percent better than the current Intel Graphics HD4000 and more. 2.8 GHz might not even be close to the base clock speed that we'll be seeing upon release. Leaks indicate that the Haswell i7-4770K will have a base clock speed of 3.5 GHz and a boost clock of 3.9 GHz. The TDP will also be going up from 77 W to 84 W.

The Haswell chips are expected to launch in Q2 2013.

Update: Francois Piednoel (Principal Engineer / Performance Architect at Intel) has tweeted the following:
“if you see some #intel #Haswell numbers online, I doubt their veracity,since they are nowhere close to what I have in my lab, please ignore”here and “#intel #haswell is very healthy in our labs, we don't see any case where it is slower than IvyB. .ru numbers are funky!”here.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    whyso , February 1, 2013 1:27 AM
    Its an engineering sample, I'll wait for legit reviews.

    But doesn't look good.
  • 22 Hide
    danwat1234 , February 1, 2013 1:35 AM
    "The new Haswell chips will be built on a smaller manufacturing process". --? Still 22nm as before. Broadwell will be the 14nm shrink.

    I don't think we'll see any significant single core performance increases until the Skylake/Skymont era. Right now Intel is concentrating on GPU performance and integrating voltage regulators (Haswell) and the South Bridge (Broadwell) into the CPU package.
  • 17 Hide
    fearless1333 , February 1, 2013 1:16 AM
    Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power :( .
Other Comments
    Display all 105 comments.
  • 17 Hide
    fearless1333 , February 1, 2013 1:16 AM
    Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power :( .
  • 26 Hide
    whyso , February 1, 2013 1:27 AM
    Its an engineering sample, I'll wait for legit reviews.

    But doesn't look good.
  • -3 Hide
    payturr , February 1, 2013 1:27 AM
    It's not a big deal - they don't have to increase performance cause AMD is so behind, if AMD however caught up, I'm sure Intel would have something up their sleeve, but I wouldn't worry. This performance is still decent, especially since its not gonna be a MASSIVE architectural change like Penryn to Nehalem.
  • 13 Hide
    gilgamex , February 1, 2013 1:30 AM
    fearless1333Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .


    AMD isn't laughably behind, Yes the single threaded IPC is lower and gaming sure especially with CPU dependent games like skyrim staring it down. Also power consumption can vary wildly when overclocking and is generally more inefficient than Intel CPU's. Thing is though It is very competitive on multi-tasking chores and can be a great cheap alternative for those running those kinds of work loads. That's where that architecture shines, it was born for that and for such a small company against the goliath that is Intel the fact AMD is in the ring is pretty sweet. Everyone just clammers for the crown holder like a bunch of pre-schoolers when you have to evolve your mindstate on the entire picture rather than isolated reasons. It's a give and take.
  • 7 Hide
    Soda-88 , February 1, 2013 1:31 AM
    Quote:
    Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power :( .

    This is software dev's fault, not AMD's.
    The only incentive you'd want 30% better CPU than the current generation is if you're doing video/3D rendering and that has been the trend for ~5 years now. I own i5 760, which is 3 years old now and there's not a single game on the market that comes even close to being bottlenecked by it. And lastly, the software used by majority of mainstream users (media players, internet browsers, office suites) can be run on today's dual core CPUs used in phones.
  • 22 Hide
    danwat1234 , February 1, 2013 1:35 AM
    "The new Haswell chips will be built on a smaller manufacturing process". --? Still 22nm as before. Broadwell will be the 14nm shrink.

    I don't think we'll see any significant single core performance increases until the Skylake/Skymont era. Right now Intel is concentrating on GPU performance and integrating voltage regulators (Haswell) and the South Bridge (Broadwell) into the CPU package.
  • 7 Hide
    A Bad Day , February 1, 2013 1:38 AM
    fearless1333Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .


    Intel's HD 2000-4000 GPUs are no match against AMD's APUs, assuming you don't stick in a single channel 1066 MHz RAM.
  • 6 Hide
    A Bad Day , February 1, 2013 1:40 AM
    payturrIt's not a big deal - they don't have to increase performance cause AMD is so behind, if AMD however caught up, I'm sure Intel would have something up their sleeve, but I wouldn't worry. This performance is still decent, especially since its not gonna be a MASSIVE architectural change like Penryn to Nehalem.


    Intel's main competitor is ARM, and they want to capture the tablet/phone market that ARM dominates in.

    And meanwhile, ARM is trying to push into the server market, which is Intel's major money maker.
  • 10 Hide
    neon neophyte , February 1, 2013 1:46 AM
    2 generations later and it is no more powerful than sandybridge? it's not conclusive but these benchmarks suggest it

    come on amd, get intel back on its toes
  • 4 Hide
    Kamab , February 1, 2013 1:50 AM
    will there be a selection of high end i5/i7 Haswell chips without an IGP? From an enthusiast standpoint it seems like that part of the chip would be a waste.
  • -7 Hide
    gti88 , February 1, 2013 1:56 AM
    Quote:
    "The new Haswell chips will be built on a smaller manufacturing process"

    You don't say!
  • 9 Hide
    wdmfiber , February 1, 2013 2:32 AM
    gti88You don't say!


    They actually won't be. 22nm process, same as Ivy Bridge.
  • 1 Hide
    lradunovic77 , February 1, 2013 2:44 AM
    This new CPU is all about faster integrated graphic chip from my gather so far. CPU performance wise should be same as Ivy Bridge but Video Chip will be much better.
  • 3 Hide
    kinggremlin , February 1, 2013 2:46 AM
    Quote:
    I agree... we're just seeing the fruit of AMD not being able to compete with Intel in games or on the high end... Intel is getting to be fat and lazy.


    You couldn't be more wrong. As someone has already stated, the problem isn't AMD. The problem is lack of market demand which is the result of mainstream software not needing anything more than a 5 year old CPU to run well. Storage/internet speeds have long since passed the CPU as the bottleneck in mainstream PC performance. Even in highend gaming PC's, the graphics subsystem has been the bottleneck for a few years now. The high powered PC is going to go the way of the mainframe. Where as the mainframe was replaced largely by cheaper commodity PC's, the home PC is going to be replaced with mobile devices. The shift is already well on its way.
  • 1 Hide
    SteelCity1981 , February 1, 2013 2:51 AM
    As good as intel is on the cpu side over amd, amd holds the crown on the gpu side.Haswell's gpu should rank it slight above Llano gpu performance. With that said it will still be two generations behind amd apu gpu when richland comes out around the same time and 3 generations behind kaveri's apu gpu when it debutes later this year.
  • 0 Hide
    wdmfiber , February 1, 2013 2:58 AM
    lradunovic77This new CPU is all about faster integrated graphic chip from my gather so far. CPU performance wise should be same as Ivy Bridge but Video Chip will be much better.


    Agreed, but it sucks for "us enthusiasts" running discrete graphics cards. We're not gaining anything because the increased transistor count on new CPU's is just going to waste on integrated graphics. Plus the low TDP allows Intel to use crappy thermal paste under the IHS. The 2600K/2700K CPU's are going to be very long-lived tech.
  • 4 Hide
    dudewitbow , February 1, 2013 3:00 AM
    fearless1333Call me selfish but damn Intel, I don't care if AMD is laughably behind you, and if perhaps a large percentage of computer users use integrated graphics, place more emphasis on improving processing power .

    the market isnt in desktop computing power. the market is in the mobile market/laptop area. current gen cpus are primarily designed for maximizing laptop performance to power consumption ratio, intels main concern is to decrease the gap between its igpu and amds igpu in their APU's to have a standing on the ultrabook/low end laptop builds, as lower end laptops and ultrabooks/sleekbooks are the major %age of purchases in the market, outside of tablets and smartphones. Desktop priority comes after.
  • 0 Hide
    downhill911 , February 1, 2013 3:28 AM
    As mentioned above, unless AMD pushes forward, Intel has no reason to do so.
    Would not surprise me if last year Intel i7-3770k would outperform future-this year AMD CPUs.
  • 0 Hide
    abbadon_34 , February 1, 2013 3:36 AM
    First the Russians stole our military intel, now our tech intel, these benchmarks represent a campaign the harm our precious INTEL !!! j/k (:
  • -1 Hide
    wdmfiber , February 1, 2013 3:37 AM
    downhill911As mentioned above, unless AMD pushes forward, Intel has no reason to do so.Would not surprise me if last year Intel i7-3770k would outperform future-this year AMD CPUs.

    AMD won't have anything to compete with any i7. They already announced they can't compete with Intel on the high end. The company is in real trouble and they are downsizing hard.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html
Display more comments