Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Announces Devil's Canyon Core I7-4790K: 4GHz Base Clock, 4.4GHz Turbo

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the let-the-bleeding-edge-do-the-bleeding dept.

Intel 157

MojoKid (1002251) writes "Last year, Intel launched two new processor families based on the Haswell and Ivy Bridge-E based Core i7 architecture. Both chips were just incremental updates over their predecessors. Haswell may have delivered impressive gains in mobile, but it failed to impress on the desktop where it was only slightly faster than the chip it replaced. Enthusiasts weren't terribly excited about either core but Intel is hoping its new Devil's Canyon CPU, which launches today, will change that. The new chip is the Core i7-4790K and it packs several new features that should appeal to the enthusiast and overclocking markets. First, Intel has changed the thermal interface material from the paste it used in the last generation over to a new Next Generation Polymer Thermal Interface Material, or as Intel calls it, "NGPTIM." Moving Haswell's voltage regulator on-die proved to be a significant problem for overclockers since it caused dramatic heat buildup that was only exacerbated by higher clock speeds. Overclockers reported that removing Haswell's lid could boost clock speeds by several hundred MHz. The other tweak to the Haswell core is a great many additional capacitors, which have been integrated to smooth power delivery at higher currents. This new chip gives Haswell a nice lift. If the overclocking headroom delivers on top of that, enthusiasts might be able to hit 4.7-4.8GHz on standard cooling."

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are com (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#47154445)

why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are coming soon?

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#47154481)

Better yet, why get this *now* when you can wait til the price drops after the next iteration hits.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (5, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | about 3 months ago | (#47154641)

Better yet, why get this *now* when you can wait til the price drops after the next iteration hits.

If you wait ten years you can possibly get one from someone for free!!

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47157325)

Or, with just a small amount of risk, you can get one for free soon after they are released...

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47157475)

Quite possibly, but by then, the memory modules will cost you an arm and a leg! (Or an x86 and a leg?)

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154773)

I'm waiting for the Core i7 4860DX/2 66GHz.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154833)

I'll only buy one if it comes in a case with a connected and operational 'TURBO' button

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47157521)

Why would you want that one? I'm sure it will only support 640 GB of main memory.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (5, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about 3 months ago | (#47154775)

Some of you early-adopters may laugh at this, but this has been my upgrade strategy for decades now and from a bang-for-the-buck perspective it's extremely effective.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154911)

Not really. With my Difference Engine I only get around $0.10 per instruction since running the waterwheel ain't free.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47155939)

Some of you early-adopters may laugh at this, but this has been my upgrade strategy for decades now and from a bang-for-the-buck perspective it's extremely effective.

It's not just about the bang, either, but about the boon or the bane. If you wait for a while, you get to see whether something has massive fail built into it. When I buy based on hope I usually fail. When I buy based on what seems to have held up, I am usually happy. Leaving time for the 1.1 or 2.0 rev motherboard and some bios updates, and for some video driver updates, really improves system stability.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47156331)

Yup. I usually buy somewhat trailing edge stuff myself.

A friends aunt once asked what kind of computer she should buy, and she said "you're going to tell me to buy the most expensive computer around, aren't you?". To which I said "nope, I'm going to tell you to buy the cheapest machine you can find which can have its memory upgraded to at least double what entry level is, because you don't need anything faster, but more memory is always better".

Several years later, she was still happily running the same machine, and never once found it too slow. She had passed on the advice to several friends, all of whom felt they ended up with a better computer as a result.

I know for me, I'm pretty much never CPU bound, and haven't been in quite some time. Memory, however, is something you should buy as much as the machine can hold.

I know some people will need this much CPU power, but for most people I suspect CPU speed hasn't really mattered in years. The early adopters just ensure that in a year or so we'll all be able to buy it for half the cost.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

InvalidError (771317) | about 3 months ago | (#47155537)

When Ivy Bridge came out, popular Sandy Bridge chips' prices went up and Intel also bumped Ivy Bridge chip prices up $10-20.

When Haswell came out, many of the more popular Ivy Bridge chips went up $10-20 again.

How many years has it been since the last time Intel made major price cut announcements after introducing newer higher-end models within a product line or even introducing a new product line? I do not remember reading about such announcements in over five years; instead of slashing prices, Intel simply discontinues models altogether. If you want to buy Intel chips at prices significantly below launch prices, you have to either buy second-hand or find a vendor who has surplus stock they need to get rid of. (Or buy from Microcenter which appears to have some sort of sweetheart deal with Intel for unlocked chips.)

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 months ago | (#47155987)

I've been waiting years for the quad-core 65W Socket 775 CPUs to come down. The Q9550S was released in January of 2009 and still goes for over $200 [ebay.com] . Meanwhile the Core 2 Duo in the system I would upgrade is working fine; I just check ebay a couple times per year to see if I can pick up a quad core for cheap, but no.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 3 months ago | (#47156657)

Sold listings on ebay point to an average selling price of $125-150 for the Q9550S, some of which came with motherboards. The 45nm Yorkfield chips didn't seem to be very popular and were released quite late. Most folks went with Nehalem CPUs, so the low number of C2Qs from that era likely keep the prices high. The 65nm Q6600 was far more popular, easy to overclock, and can be had for cheap. I have a X38 based system I would like to upgrade myself, but with the high cost of CPUs and DDR2 memory, its likely to get replaced completely at this point.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 months ago | (#47157263)

But that Q6600 sucks down 105W / 155W Max, so I am loathe to put it in my home server (which runs all the time) - on top of the electrical costs, it would be a gamble on the PSU and cooling in that box... and what is a more annoying waste of time than an "almost stable" system?

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47157695)

Uh...go buy a Pentium G3420, or its successor, but not before the machine breaks down? For the money it costs, it seems to me you're solving a non-existent problem. (The new server boards with Atom C2750 are nice for multi-threaded workload in a similar performance range, with very little power, though. That depends on what you're running, of course. More expensive though, but you get ECC and proper server interfaces at least.)

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#47157411)

You could get a low end motherboard and a Haswell Pentium G : dual core and dual thread, but the same multithreaded performance as that Q9550S roughly, for less power use.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 3 months ago | (#47154617)

Because this is available now and Broadwell isn't?

Also when Broadwell is released you know what? There will still be better processors released in the future! So better wait until the very best one is released ..

Reason to get this is that 1) it exist now and 2) it's better than the last. Number two could actually be an argument to get what was released last if you think that provides a better value.

Obviously if you already have a decent machine and can wait / have a processor from before the refresh then you likely don't have to rush out and get this one but can wait a little longer. But if you want a PC now then Broadwell isn't an option because it's not here.

Re: why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156829)

The 3rd reason which is very important is : revenue from these new products fund the company for r&d, which is extremely expensive. I'm not saying everybody should always like cutting edge the market finds a way to balance out - most buy newest releases like in oem computers, some buy older stuff.

Could you imagine if everybody always waited until the latest version to buy the earlier version. We would never advance. So we need people to buy the latest stuff we need people to buy the older stuff.

Re: why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47157257)

It's similar to brand new car buyers. Without them there would be no used market. But damn they are stupid as rocks and buy far to many automatics.

Re:why get this when Broadwell + new chipsets are (3, Insightful)

Salgat (1098063) | about 3 months ago | (#47154691)

There are always new parts coming soon, you eventually have to pull the trigger and buy at some point.

some times are better than others (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 3 months ago | (#47155007)

If you know that a new model is coming out in the very near future, then it might be best to wait. Either you get the new model, or else you can sometimes pick up the old model for cheaper.

More useful metrics? (4, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 months ago | (#47154459)

Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?

Re:More useful metrics? (3, Informative)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 3 months ago | (#47154505)

Because it doesn't have the wow-wee factor compared to raw clock speed numbers.

Re: More useful metrics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154509)

Less glamorous, too technical for mainstream. = less money for company

Re:More useful metrics? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154585)

Maybe because FLOPS hasn't been such a great metric in more than a decade? On a modern architecture, you could estimate FLOPS as some constant times the clock speed, but then you end up with not all operations taking the same number of clock cycles. Or then you have SIMD to consider. Or what if you're interested in a square root function, do you need full precision or some approximation is okay? And heck, that's coming from someone that actually cares about FLOPS... most day to day applications have other bottlenecks.

But if that's what you wanted, you could just look up the clock speed and divide by the price.

Re:More useful metrics? (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 3 months ago | (#47154629)

For several reasons: FLOPS is a metric that depends on the algorithm used as well as on the system load. The system load could be minimized by running the benchmark on a bare-bone system multiple times and then averaging the results, but you still get serious variations. A FLOPS benchmark also depends on the RAM-speed and the amount of memory channels on the CPU chip if the benchmark is memory-hungry. Also, are you interested in running a large (parallel) computation over several days or a gazillion of short calculations in parallel? Also, not everyone is interested in the FLOPS performance. Lots of applications are more dependent on the performance of the integer unit.

Re:More useful metrics? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#47154783)

Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?

Because the target market for this thing doesn't consider that a useful metric, and never has.

For some years now (at least back to the P4 era, if memory serves), Intel has always offered the mad-crazy-overclocker-must-go-faster-edition CPU at the top of their (desktop, sorry Xeon buyers!) price list, usually ~$1,000. This part is always an astonishingly poor value, unless what you want is the fastest x86 money can buy. Most of them go to gamer e-peen setups, they may sell some to compute customers who have some pathologically hard-to-parallelize problem and thus need the fastest single threaded performance they can get, rather than more cores with lower performance per thread but far lower cost.

If you are actually shopping for CPUs, you probably want something like CPUboss [cpuboss.com] , or CPUbenchmark [cpubenchmark.net] which allows you to do fairly easy comparisons of performance/price (albeit for performance as measured by one or more general benchmarks, if your workload is somewhat atypical, your mileage may vary).

Re:More useful metrics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155637)

If this is the case, why don't Intel make their mad-crazy CPU as a dual-core, sacrificing the extra cores for a tiny bit of extra single-thread performance? That gets gamers their best possible gaming (assuming the second core runs everything apart from the game itself).

Re:More useful metrics? (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47155889)

If this is the case, why don't Intel make their mad-crazy CPU as a dual-core, sacrificing the extra cores for a tiny bit of extra single-thread performance? That gets gamers their best possible gaming (assuming the second core runs everything apart from the game itself).

Since the Xbox 360, gamers have needed quad-core to keep up with console/PC cross-platform titles. The 360 has no OS to speak of, and has three cores, which is how we arrive at the four-core figure. Now that game consoles have said fuck it, we're going to eight cores, gamers will need the same. They won't need more core, though, because the consoles now have relatively significant operating system services which run concurrent with the game and the developers aren't expecting to be able to use the entire machine.

Re:More useful metrics? (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 3 months ago | (#47157295)

For some years now (at least back to the P4 era, if memory serves), Intel has always offered the mad-crazy-overclocker-must-go-faster-edition CPU at the top of their (desktop, sorry Xeon buyers!) price list, usually ~$1,000. This part is always an astonishingly poor value, unless what you want is the fastest x86 money can buy. Most of them go to gamer e-peen setups, they may sell some to compute customers who have some pathologically hard-to-parallelize problem and thus need the fastest single threaded performance they can get, rather than more cores with lower performance per thread but far lower cost.

I do a lot of compiling, and I generally build myself a new PC every 8-10 years. Many people I know buy cheaper components only to have to replace them 3-4 times before I replace mine. I did get an EE processor back in 2008, and I'm still using it now and will for the forseeable future. For me, the compilation speed is still very acceptable 6 years in, and it's very possible I won't bother replacing my computer anytime soon - I'll probably get another 6 years out of it. Given my experience with my first EE processor, I'll probably spend the $ again and have it last another 12 years.

Re:More useful metrics? (3, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 3 months ago | (#47155331)

Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?

Because most people don't care about these things anymore. Take this from TFS:

Haswell may have delivered impressive gains in mobile, but it failed to impress on the desktop where it was only slightly faster than the chip it replaced.

In reality, Haswell had double the FLOPs thanks to the new FMA instructions, near double the integer throughput thanks to AVX2, and a significant boost to multithreaded code thanks to TSX.

In practice, people saw maybe a 10% speedup in what they actually do. A flops/$ metric would significantly inflate the actual value people would see from these CPUs.

The thing is, these measurements are either synthetic (who has code consisting of nothing but FMA?), hard and uncommon to use (Integer SIMD is rare and AVX2 has a confusing idea of "lanes" that splits some 256-bit ops into two 128-bit ones), or not on all CPUs (TSX is disabled on their unlocked K line for some reason).

Re:More useful metrics? (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#47157229)

"The thing is, these measurements are either synthetic (who has code consisting of nothing but FMA?), hard and uncommon to use (Integer SIMD is rare and AVX2 has a confusing idea of "lanes" that splits some 256-bit ops into two 128-bit ones), or not on all CPUs (TSX is disabled on their unlocked K line for some reason)."

Except to the people buying top-bin parts by the thousands that really do need all of these obscure ops.

Re:More useful metrics? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47157729)

Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?

Amen, brother. For example, let's take a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz [cpubenchmark.net] and a Core i7, 3.5GHz [cpubenchmark.net] . At the same TDP (and all cores utilized), the Core i7 is 28x more powerful than the P4. Even if we compensate the clockspeed to be equal (downclock the i7 to 3GHz), it clearly shows that something like "GHz" is today completely useless for comparing CPUs.

Re:More useful metrics? (1)

theManInTheYellowHat (451261) | about 3 months ago | (#47158045)

Or floating point operations / watt?

Meh. (1)

snarfies (115214) | about 3 months ago | (#47154531)

Still no consumer-level octo-core? I'll continue to stick with my Q9450 then. I'm not willing to spend thousands on a Xeon.

Before you ask, I do video work as a hobby. I often utilize all four of my cores at 100% capacity for 6+ hours on end when performing filtering and encoding. No, I am not interested in the AMD FX and their half-cores.

Get it together, Intel. I will buy as soon as you sell.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154639)

What? This [engadget.com] doesn't satisfy you?

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154845)

Not really, since it still gets beaten out by last generation's quad core i7 3770 @ 3.4GHz.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cp... [cpubenchmark.net]

Re:Meh. (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 3 months ago | (#47154747)

Lol, you do realize an i5-5370 is roughly twice as fast at video encoding compared to your old Q9450, right? Just because they haven't double the number of cores doesn't mean they haven't improved performance significantly in the consumer space.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156109)

It gets even better man, the the 3570 is quick sync capable so it's many many many more times faster at encoding when supported.

Re:Meh. (1)

afidel (530433) | about 3 months ago | (#47156219)

Quick Sync sucks ass, the quality is horrible. If they modified the algorithm to look good it wouldn't be any faster than the best software encoders using the same hardware resources and you can make the software encoders as fast by turning off the features that improve IQ.

Re:Meh. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47154803)

Still no consumer-level octo-core? I'll continue to stick with my Q9450 then. I'm not willing to spend thousands on a Xeon.

You don't need to spend thousands - my last build was a little SOHO Xen server using a Xeon 2620 [amazon.com] which is a six-core with hyperthreading. Much to my surprise, HP's benchmarks showed a 30% performance improvement under Xen with hyperthreading in use, so that's 7.8 cores worth, which is pretty good for $400. I used a single-processor mobo [amazon.com] , but dual-sockets are available. It's not a linear number cruncher (I have a hot 12-core AMD for that) but if you have a workload that needs parallelism it's a decent value. Sadly, it replaced my AMD Xen server because AMD just isn't stable under recent Xen and there's no PVH support at all.

Re:Meh. (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | about 3 months ago | (#47155735)

Haswell-E coming out later this year will have 6 or 8 cores (source [techpowerup.com] ).

Re:Meh. (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47157309)

I recently upgraded my Q9650 to a Haswell i7 4770.

I loved my Q9650. It performed stably and admirably and stayed relevant for a very long time (and is still relevant today), but my 4770 eats its lunch in ways I never imagined when buying it.

I write a lot of memory-intensive multi-core one-off software, and in some workloads my 4770 is close to twice as fast.

Anecdotal, and YMMV on real-world workloads, but the generations after Nehalem really are worth the money if you're lifting heavy weight with your CPU.

Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 3 months ago | (#47154567)

Hasn't this tired car analogy run it's course by now? Every time I hear "Turbo!" I think of this guy. [smosh.com] JFC.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154623)

Way back in the 90's some PC's had turbo buttons on the tower. I say bring that back.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154879)

Way back in the 90's some PC's had turbo buttons on the tower. I say bring that back.

I remember my 8088 in the 1980s ran at 8MHz unless the Turbo button was engaged (then it was a blazing 12MHz!).

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 3 months ago | (#47155147)

My 486 DX2 had a turbo button which was really useful (turned off) to run all my old 286 games, which were not frame limited.

Re: Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156965)

Right, I remember that. Some programs would run as fast as the CPU would allow without any kind of throttling so you would get like super high-speed motion for some of the games. Like running a video on fast forward. I guess when they built it they thought that it would never run too fast, they were wrong )

Re: Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#47157489)

I remember when you could disable the L1 and L2 caches in BIOS. Made the PC really run like crap, so I think it turned it back on immediately.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (1)

Kardos (1348077) | about 3 months ago | (#47154643)

It's not a car analogy any longer. If you find a car with tubro, it's using a CPU analogy.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155253)

Turbo boost, KITT !
http://media.moddb.com/cache/i... [moddb.com]

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154731)

Can we PLEASE get rid of extra apostrophes? Hasn't anyone over the age of eight understood that it's means it is by now?

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154957)

Hasn't anyone over the age of eight understood that "it's" means "it is" by now?

FTFY.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155215)

Can we PLEASE get rid of posts that don't apply to the parent? Idiot.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#47156959)

Hasn't this tired car analogy run it's course by now? Every time I hear "Turbo!" I think of this guy. JFC.

It isn't a car analogy. It WAS... back in the late 80s.

IBM-compatible PC clones came out with a switch in the back to boost the clock speed higher than the "official" IBM speed. This was called "turbo" even though, in practice, people set it there and left it there. Think of it as an early form of overclocking.

Although, to be fair, Intel's CPU "turbo" is probably a bit more of a car analogy because it's a temporary speed boost, not a permanent one.

Re:Can we PLEASE get rid of "turbo" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47157465)

Sure the name might seem silly, but the feature itself is very good. They could call it something like Thermal Adaptive Automatic Overclocking, but "turbo" is much simpler.

Wow (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 3 months ago | (#47154571)

Not terribly expensive if this is accurate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]

Re:Wow (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 3 months ago | (#47155081)

Yeah, this isn't Haswell-E just yet. As far as I know, that will build upon Devil's Canyon and go up to 8 cores on a single chip, with HyperThreading of course. It should also come with a new platform, chipset and socket to support DDR4 and SATAe. Personally, that's the jump I'm really looking forward to: Intel's first 8-core desktop chip.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156787)

You will be able to shave off about $50 from that price if you got it from Amazon. Newegg is a rip-off.

NGPTIM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154633)

Did we not learn our lesson with "NAPLPS" and "SCSI"?

Re:NGPTIM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156913)

SCSI is pronounced as "scuzzy".

Devil's Canyon? (1, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47154645)

LOL, I predict all sorts of batshit crazy protests over that one ... ZOMG, teh Intel are teh Satanists.

Re:Devil's Canyon? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 months ago | (#47155189)

It's why there are no 666MHz parts. Memory, processors, buses... All 667Mhz.

Re:Devil's Canyon? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47155405)

Nah, they did the original designs on a Pentium 2, and it couldn't do floating point math properly. ;-)

Re:Devil's Canyon? (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 3 months ago | (#47155567)

It's why there are no 666MHz parts. Memory, processors, buses... All 667Mhz.

Well that and 666 2/3 rounds up to 667.

Re:Devil's Canyon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156357)

666.6666666mhz

Re:Devil's Canyon? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47157787)

It's why there are no 666MHz parts. Memory, processors, buses... All 667Mhz.

Try this: round(1000 * 2 / 3)

NGPTIM is rather clumsy.. (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 3 months ago | (#47154701)

I propose they refer to their Next Generation Polymer Thermal Interface Material as 'NexGen Poly TIM'.

Re:NGPTIM is rather clumsy.. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47154969)

"Special Polymer Used in New Komputers."

About time... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#47154795)

A lot of us really do need powerhouse laptops and I really could use a 4ghz-5ghz boosted quad i7 laptop. I really hope we get some real performance in the upper end soon.

Possibly more interesting (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 months ago | (#47154885)

Also announced were an i5 and a Pentium-branded Devil's Canyon processors. All three have the same TIM upgrade and overclocking focus. The i5-4690K is similar to the i7-4690K, dropping hyperthreading, a bit of cache and some stock clock, but for $100 cheaper ($242 instead of $339, if reports are accurate).

The really interesting one is the Pentium G3258. Two cores, no hyperthreading, but with an unlocked multiplier, for $72. If you care more about single-threaded performance than multi-threaded, this might be a very cool thing. Buy one, and a good aftermarket cooler, and overclock it into the 4GHz range. If your load is mainly single-threaded, like far too many games are, that can give you the same performance but be much, much cheaper.

Re:Possibly more interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47157287)

I have a Core i7 950 from ages ago, and overclocked it to 4.5 ghz. It still benchmarks faster than most of what Intel is releasing these days, so I just sit waiting for something better. It seems that the desktop CPUs have stalled out, which is very depressing. I want something faster, Broadwell would probably only double my CPU perf at best.

*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154893)

And I'm too poor to upgrade from my 1.6GHz Pentium Dual Core. :

Re:*sigh* (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#47157823)

Keep an eye on the Core i3 lineup, they have a good price/performance ratio, and a low power consumption as a bonus.

Why wait for this when (1)

Tmackiller (959837) | about 3 months ago | (#47154915)

Quantum computing is just around the corner. -_-

Wow...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47154955)

This is literately the first time in years that Intel has released a CPU that works with the existing motherboard. Ha (No Ivy/Sandy Bridge does not count as it replaced a previous socket type as well as replacing a chipset.)

The TIM improvement might make it worth an upgrade if you previously had the i3/i5 model that fits this socket, otherwise the performance is merely incremental, and of no interest to users who actually use the virtualization features.

As I've said before, Intel has hit the wall, there are one or two die shrinks left, but these are going to come at enormous cost, so it's better for Intel to not even bring it out until a competitor (eg AMD) moves to the die size they're already on (currently at 28nm where as Intel is at 22nm) or leapfrogs it. Nobody wants to shrink the die further because it will be less profitable in the long term, and further shrinks will be more error prone. As it is the current generation of CPU's have questionable reliability for use in servers because of quantum tunneling randomly happens due to weak spots in the die at high thermal levels.

Likewise NAND memory lifespan is reduced with every die shrink, who's to say that CPU lifespan isn't also affected. We just replace our electronics faster than we've had enough time to test it. All these smartphone/tablet devices are going to see a lot of disposal in the next 5 years due to the NAND wearing out or the CPU/RAM failing. Nevermind the battery.

I have faith in Intel to not screw things up, much more than AMD (who somehow went back to the "weaker FPU" model of competition's of the unreliable K6 era for some boneheaded reason.) If I buy a CPU I want a clock-for-clock performance match between the ALU, FPU and other core technology (eg onboard GPU), and I'm not willing to trade power consumption/thermal headroom just for a cheaper part. If AMD can't compete at the high end then maybe they shouldn't compete at the high end and instead aim at the general consumer parts that go into Dell's instead of Apples.

Crappy TIM Application for IVB and HW (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | about 3 months ago | (#47155027)

Thanks Intel for shafting your early adopters and denying that there is a problem with the IHS assembly process for IvyBridge and Haswell. The TIM that they used is actually quite good, it's just the spacing inconsistency between the die and IHS during manufacturing that is the issue.

Wow! .6 GHz Faster Than 3 Year Old 2600k! (0)

BrendaEM (871664) | about 3 months ago | (#47155477)

I better pry my chip out right after I finish this!

BTW, my 2600k will overclock to 4.2GHz on air, but I don't do it--because that speed difference is so incremental, and so is Intel's progress.

The problem is: many program usually are largely single threaded, such as CAD and meshing operations for many other 3D applications.

Re:Wow! .6 GHz Faster Than 3 Year Old 2600k! (3, Insightful)

imashination (840740) | about 3 months ago | (#47155929)

3D Animator here. I made the same mistake as you, thinking my 2.8GHz i7 920 (overclocked to 3.7GHz) would be as fast a current 3.7GHz i7. Each new generation of i7 has been ~5% faster clock for clock. For example my new i7 laptop at 2.6GHz is roughly the same speed as my desktop at 3.7GHz in both single and multi threaded tasks.

In other news... (4, Insightful)

Torp (199297) | about 3 months ago | (#47155493)

My 2 year old Ivy Bridge Core i7 is fast enough, and will be fast enough for the foreseeable future with no overclocking. Neither Intel nor AMD will get any money from me for at least 3 more years ;)
Last time an overclock was meaningful for me was when I had a Pentium 1 at 233 Mhz. The bus was 66 Mhz, and that was the ram speed as well. Upping it to 250 Mhz on a 100 Mhz bus (remember back when multipliers went in 0.5 steps?) speed greatly improved the overall responsiveness of the system.

Re:In other news... (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#47155635)

The sad thing is that my positively ancient Core2Duo 2.4Ghz is still plenty fast for most tasks these days. This isn't the old days where upgrading the CPU every couple of years gave noticeable improvements to the OS and generic applications like word processors and web browsers. Worse, application developers have been focusing on improving speed (especially on browsers) instead of just jamming in more features. Its getting harder and harder to find motivation to upgrade. We really need some CPU dependent killer app to convince people to get back on the upgrade treadmill. Maybe some sort of AI?

Or maybe it's just fine that even cheap chips are plenty powerful for most people and we can stop worrying about it. Sort of like how even cheap cars can hit highway speeds with little effort these days, and do so with good safety margins, good gas mileage, and little maintenance. Enthusiasts will complain that they have no soul, but for regular people they're perfectly good and free up resources for other endeavors.

Re:In other news... (1)

Torp (199297) | about 3 months ago | (#47155715)

Yeah, my needs are already above the norm. I could do with your core 2 duo for about 90% of my stuff. Heck, I could do with my 2009 macbook white for about 90% of my stuff.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155853)

Javascript App...

Re:In other news... (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 months ago | (#47156323)

All major browser manufacturers are putting an enormous amount of effort into making Javascript fast. Every year it gets more and more efficient. Already you can do quite complex tasks on a browser without noticeable slowdown (see: Google Docs). As long as you aren't doing something silly like ray tracing with Javascript, even my 8 year old chip is more than enough.

Re:In other news... (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about 3 months ago | (#47156409)

Not for a laptop. I have a 3rd gen i5 and because of the amount of software security and applications running, I can't imagine having this run on a C2D

Re:In other news... (1)

raxtich (3680159) | about 3 months ago | (#47156853)

Agreed. I also have an i7 Ivy and have zero complaints about performance. With 16GB of RAM and an SSD drive, I leave everything I use on a regular basis open all the time (Photoshop, Steam, Aptana, iTunes, and Firefox with numerous tabs opened). I just works, with no lag or hiccups.

TIM? RLY? (0)

DarthVain (724186) | about 3 months ago | (#47155661)

One of the two new "features" is basically TIM that doesn't suck so much?

A) The first thing than an OC does is wipe whatever the fsck is on there off.
B) Quality stuff is literally 4$ a tube, and per application is measured in pocket change. Is that significant to the cost of a high end CPU?
C) Many new components like aftermarket HS and water blocks now come with quality TIM, and not just silicone sludge.

Re:TIM? RLY? (1)

Torp (199297) | about 3 months ago | (#47156339)

They're talking about the *other* layer of TIM, between the metal capsule that you wipe off and the actual CPU core. Can't access it without a razor blade.

Re:TIM? RLY? (1)

Hodr (219920) | about 3 months ago | (#47156435)

You may be confused. They aren't referring to the white silicone paste or the sticky pad that is normally use to attach the heat spreader (top of the CPU you normally see) to the OEM heatsink/fan.

They are talking about the material used to attach the heat spreader to the actual CPU core. Unless you are prying the metal cap off the top of the CPU you aren't replacing this existing TIM with your $4 arctic silver compound.

NGPTIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156159)

Klaatu Barada N...

Necktie... Neckturn... Nickel... It's an "N" word, it's definitely an "N" word!

Klaatu... Barada... NGPTIM

*pause*

Okay then... that's it!

4 GHz (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 3 months ago | (#47156271)

I think the most significant thing is that they managed to break the 4GHz barrier. Is this a one off, or did they finally come up with the technology required to make >4GHz chips a standard thing from now on?

Re: 4 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47157111)

Imagine an of to 5ghz. That will be cool. I think a couple years ago they had to run liquid nitrogen to get a CPU high.

Intel's catching up in the clock wars! (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 3 months ago | (#47157115)

"It was released on June 8, 2007 at speeds of 3.5, 4.2 and 4.7 GHz" -- POWER6

Re:Intel's catching up in the clock wars! (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47157739)

High clock speed is a poor trade off these days. That's why the clock speed wars ceased.

If you see an oddball chip touting a 50% clock speed improvement over the current top end mass market CPUs you know you're going to need a power station and a refrigeration plant just to run the thing.

Re:Intel's catching up in the clock wars! (1)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 3 months ago | (#47157897)

High clock speed is a poor trade off these days. That's why the clock speed wars ceased.

It is? You don't say!

Re:4 GHz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47157315)

I'm running my i7 at 4.5 ghz right now. Many of them worked fine at that speed, and I'm fairly sure they released prior out of the box Intels that were 4 ghz+.

Not much in the last year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156351)

What were they doing for a whole year? Just give us 512 bit AVX on 8 core + HT already!

So is my Core 2 Q6600 obsolete now? (1)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 3 months ago | (#47157843)

Tell me the truth. I think I can handle it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>