Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
just brew it! wrote:I find it pretty hard to get excited about what are essentially minor tweaks. IMO the last real revolutions in x86 were the introduction of 64-bit instructions and integrated DRAM controllers. (OK, hardware virtualization support was pretty huge too, but that's not something everyone uses.)
Visigoth wrote:Well, from the GPU side of things, expect a big improvement. From 16 EU's to 40 EU's (on the GT3 at least) is nothing to sneeze at, so you'll be getting about 2.5x the performance without any tweaks! This will make Haswell IGP graphics useful for things other than playing HD video, like OpenCL-supported programs (assuming Intel's driver team fix that issue, as it's admittedly behind the competition on that front).
On the CPU side, they'll be streamlining more operations and make efficient use of the 22nm process, now that it has stabilized. For Ultrabooks, the PCH will be on-die (or on-package, there's a little confusion about this), so Ultrabooks will also see a big reduction in motherboard size. For desktops and "regular" notebooks, the transition of the PCH to on-die/on-package will start with Broadwell. I believe Broadwell will be a bigger change for desktop users than Ultrabook users, as Ultrabooks will have already transitioned to the on-die/on-package PCH.
DeadOfKnight wrote:Visigoth wrote:Well, from the GPU side of things, expect a big improvement. From 16 EU's to 40 EU's (on the GT3 at least) is nothing to sneeze at, so you'll be getting about 2.5x the performance without any tweaks! This will make Haswell IGP graphics useful for things other than playing HD video, like OpenCL-supported programs (assuming Intel's driver team fix that issue, as it's admittedly behind the competition on that front).
On the CPU side, they'll be streamlining more operations and make efficient use of the 22nm process, now that it has stabilized. For Ultrabooks, the PCH will be on-die (or on-package, there's a little confusion about this), so Ultrabooks will also see a big reduction in motherboard size. For desktops and "regular" notebooks, the transition of the PCH to on-die/on-package will start with Broadwell. I believe Broadwell will be a bigger change for desktop users than Ultrabook users, as Ultrabooks will have already transitioned to the on-die/on-package PCH.
Well I don't know if moving the PCH on die is going to improve desktops, although it could potentially mean that the motherboard socket they use might finally last us a good long time, as it clearly will not with Haswell.
Airmantharp wrote:I'm inclined to agree with you there, it's just going to take up that much more die space that could be used for extra CPU/GPU cores. They're still going to have to communicate with external chips on the motherboard, and they're already bringing the Haswell chipset down to 32nm, so I don't see the motherboard makers being able to fit a whole lot more onto ATX boards.I think that moving the PCH on die is a fairly stupid move; it's just an interface aggregator. You're still going to need external chipsets to connect various other components to like USB, SATA, Ethernet, Thunderbolt, and so on to their respective physical interfaces. Seems like it would make much more practical to continue to update the link between the CPU and the PCH to support more connections and higher bandwidths like they have been doing since LGA1366 debuted.
DeadOfKnight wrote:Fully integrated voltage regulator, thereby moving another component from the motherboard onto the CPU.
Esben_DK wrote:DeadOfKnight wrote:Fully integrated voltage regulator, thereby moving another component from the motherboard onto the CPU.
I wonder how this will influence the Haswell motherboard industry, since with Ivy Bridge and all motherboards before, a lot of attention is given to designing the VRM. In many ways it's what defines the difference between mid-end and high-end motherboards. Without a seperate VRM, I imagine motherboards will be much more similar, feature-wise and physically.
End User wrote:Why wait for Haswell? You've got a great base system that is worth upgrading if you need more performance:
• you are running a K. Are you OC'ing?
• SSD
• are you a gamer in need of more performance? If so that GPU is holding you back.
• your motherboard supports 16GB of memory - memory is cheap!
Esben_DK wrote:DeadOfKnight wrote:Fully integrated voltage regulator, thereby moving another component from the motherboard onto the CPU.
I wonder how this will influence the Haswell motherboard industry, since with Ivy Bridge and all motherboards before, a lot of attention is given to designing the VRM. In many ways it's what defines the difference between mid-end and high-end motherboards. Without a seperate VRM, I imagine motherboards will be much more similar, feature-wise and physically.
DeadOfKnight wrote:If it is, I suspect JBI is right, and that it's not truly a "fully integrated VRM", but just the control portion that talks with the CPU to know how much power to deliver.
just brew it! wrote:I can't imagine them moving the entire VRM onto the CPU; it would have to be just the VRM controller chip (which is a very small fraction of the total board real estate occupied by the VRM). The VRM uses hefty power MOSFETs, inductors, and filter capacitors, none of which can be integrated onto the CPU die. So the mobos will still look essentially the same physically.
Airmantharp wrote:You drop the VRM into the CPU, and suddenly the motherboard just got a lot smaller and the system got easier to cool at higher power draws.
just brew it! wrote:Airmantharp wrote:You drop the VRM into the CPU, and suddenly the motherboard just got a lot smaller and the system got easier to cool at higher power draws.
Concentrating more of the heat in a single spot doesn't necessarily make the system easier to cool, especially if it pushes the CPU closer to the top end of of its thermal envelope.
Airmantharp wrote:What if they just moved it on-package?