Per-Clock Performance
First, let's take a look at how Haswell fares against Ivy and Sandy Bridge at a constant 3.5 GHz, with power-saving features and Turbo Boost disabled.

At least in our single-threaded LAME conversion test, Haswell is just over 3% faster than Ivy Bridge and over 5% faster than Sandy Bridge.
Threaded Performance
How about when we turn on all of the chip’s features, and let the Core i7-4770K stand up against Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, and Sandy Bridge-E?

In Blender 2.64, the quad-core Haswell-based part is more than 7% quicker than Core i7-3770K and 14% faster than Core i7-2700K. At the same time, a stock Core i7-3970X is still more than 23% faster than Core i7-4770K. If you were hoping that Haswell would offer an inexpensive quad-core substitute for what will be the two-generation-old Sandy Bridge-E architecture, it’d appear that the six-core design will continue to make sense for anyone with a true workstation.

Our Visual Studio-based Chrome compile benchmark would seem to concur. Think the -3770K and -2700K seem too close together? That’s what I thought at first, until I looked back to this image from our Core i7-3770K launch and saw the same thing. In comparison, Haswell has a huge impact in performance, pretty much cutting the gap between Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E in half. The six-core chip still reigns supreme in workstation-oriented tasks, but the Core i7-4770K’s >13% advantage over -3770K is stellar.
- Core i7-4770K Gets Previewed
- Results: Sandra 2013
- Results: OpenCL Performance
- Results: Performance Teaser, Per-Clock Perf And Threaded Apps
- Results: More Common Desktop Apps
- Results: HD Graphics 4600 In Hitman And DiRT
- Results: HD Graphics 4600 In Skyrim And WoW
- A Taste Of Things To Come…On The Desktop
That = the million dollar question. Did they do away with the bird poop and return to fluxless solder.
Intel should stop throwing insults to the overclocking crowd. We will pay another 10$ for the fluxless solder.
There is no surprise at Intel excluding TSX from the unlocked K parts. They removed teh VT-d in the Sb/IB too. Just so that people not use teh $300 chip in servers, but have to buy th e$2000 chip.
Intel are fucked up
i dont think Intel will be too happy with Toms for this preview....
So all of these results are what most people expected already: minimal increase in CPU performance while the iGPU shows significant increase? I'm not surprised really (and I believe most people have speculated this), since Haswell mostly targets the mobile segment.
@twelve25
In my opinion though, unless LGA1156 i5/i7 users really want to upgrade (native USB 3.0, more SATA 3, etc), they can still hold out with their current CPUs. Although upgrading to Haswell rather than IB does make much more sense if they really want to but there's also the reported USB 3.0 bug and we haven't seen the thermals and overclocking capability on this chip so it might actually be a turn off for some people. And yeah, I don't think many SB or IB users will upgrade to Haswell.
That = the million dollar question. Did they do away with the bird poop and return to fluxless solder.
Intel should stop throwing insults to the overclocking crowd. We will pay another 10$ for the fluxless solder.
There is no surprise at Intel excluding TSX from the unlocked K parts. They removed teh VT-d in the Sb/IB too. Just so that people not use teh $300 chip in servers, but have to buy th e$2000 chip.
Intel are fucked up
i dont think Intel will be too happy with Toms for this preview....
Power consumptions is a lot dependent on the BIOS optimizations, which are far from final.
Thanks--and yeah, VT-d is being excluded from these K-series parts, too. Funny thing is that it'll be enabled on the -4770, but not the -4770K.
If all 4 cores are being stressed (used), each core can boost itself up to 3.7GHz?
@ Chris Angelini : Can you build a few applications in linux (like 7z and h.264) with -core-avx2 optimisation and test that ? Iam eager to know how much boost pre-written, integer heavy code can get with only compiler optimisations.
Because their performance sucks in comparison to the latest Xeons, as tested by Anandtech a few days back.
i was expecting something richland related. this came outta nowhere.
Let me see what I can do there.
I am assuming that :
1. No proper working drivers.
2. ISV's not willing to release pre-alpha builds over fear of Intels NDA wrath.
Do you know if the QS3.0 performance will depend on the whether the chip has GT1/2/3 ?