DDR4 Info:D?

[Lays]

Okay:/

 

sorry if I sounded mean, it's just until it's closer to release, I don't think we'll get actual legitimate answers and not just speculation stuff. especially since it's not supposed to be released for like 10 months anyways 

[ViruZ_HUN]

sorry if I sounded mean, it's just until it's closer to release, I don't think we'll get actual legitimate answers and not just speculation stuff. especially since it's not supposed to be released for like 10 months anyways 

well its not released but it exists.

 

Í just saw this: http://wccftech.com/idf13-intel-demonstrates-haswell-e-ddr4-memory-x99-chipset-based-motherboard/

 

and they ahve already pictured one haswell-e CPU so i think everything which will come later in 2014 already is manufactured but ofc it is secret:/

[SoaresGaming]

Oh believe me, I have a couple systems myself with Windows 95 and 98, I have a couple 486 CPU's as well

I'm using a Pentium I at this moment in my home computer, but this isn't my main computer now... Thank GOD!

[DroPouT1999]

Thx!

 

What do you think Haswell-e will support then:D?

 

DDR3 or 4. Since Haswell-e seems to be well priced in the future and many people wants then to buy it, But then maybe the ram will be expensiver then the CPU?

I think it will be like Socket 775: supporting both, maybe 8 DDR3 slots and 4 DDR4 Slots.

 

Or maybe they'll just make different mobos. Only time will tell. 

[ViruZ_HUN]

I think it will be like Socket 775: supporting both, maybe 8 DDR3 slots and 4 DDR4 Slots.

 

Or maybe they'll just make different mobos. Only time will tell. 

okay thx.

 

How was it about Socket 775?

[deathjester]

Do you even know what Moore's law states?

The number of transistors on a chip will double every 18ish months.

GTX680    - April 2012    - 3.5 Billion - Fully utilized GK104

GTX780Ti - End of 2013 - 7.1 Billion - Fully utilized GK110

Need any more proof?

And I am sorry, but tell me, who on earth needs a last or current gen i7 except below budget-content creators and similar power users (3D modelling, movies, programming etc)?

i5 is enough gaming, and will be for the next year or 2, unless consoles push multithreading. i3 is enough for any other general tasks.

 

GPU's are still at 28 nm. Thanks for playing!

 

I said they have a few die shrinks left. CPU's? Don't (not as far as performance gain when OC). Last time I checked a CPU is not a GPU. We are simply going to have to increase the amount of CPU's we use. A Haswell-E will prob be the last big hurrah and it will have no integrated, probably no VRM on die (heat reasons, and the heat somewhere else in the system), solder under the lid and need water cooling to run all 8C/16T's, Seeing a 4770k comes near throttling on the stock cooler on a render at STOCK speeds lol. To use multiple cpu's what are we going to need? 20 power phases?

 

There is one chip to be excited about as far as CPU's and it will only effect rendering. GPU's probably won't even need it with die shrinks, unless you are putting 4 cards in a machine, in which case good luck cooling the die shrinks and a 8c/16t. I am thinking good custom loops or bust. You blame the consumer for lack of progression when the consumer has to delid, water cool etc, just to make some of these parts work 24/7. Also the consumer is forced to buy a new MB each and every  cpu "upgrade". Give me a break. The number's don't lie. An OC Sandy Bridge is as viable now as it was when it came out, runs cooler, and will outlast these hotter then hell die shrinks, which will be lucky to last til warranty on a stock cooler.

 

Well you're depressing and don't understand how the technology for computer components work.

 

I know enough not to spend 100 plus dollars on a case and put a I3 in it, just because some website said the case was awesome. Now go buy a Broadwell after reading that the engineering chips OC well in inaccurate reviews that they pulled with Haswell (AMD did the same thing with R9 290x). When it clocks to 4.0 ghz? Admit you have been had lol. 

[martinrox1568]

I heard it will have a 16GB stick, which blows my mind

Well 16gb sticks have existed for years, atleast on the server side. Hell, some Xeons support 384gbs of ram 

[TechSage]

Well 16gb sticks have existed for years, atleast on the server side. Hell, some Xeons support 384gbs of ram 

It was a typo, they were talking about 32GB which confused me because we don't have any consumer grade 16GB sticks

[DroPouT1999]

okay thx.

 

How was it about Socket 775?

Some boards support both (seperate DDR3 slots) or either.

[ViruZ_HUN]

Some boards support both (seperate DDR3 slots) or either.

damn, it would look stupid to hve both DDR3 and DDR4 slot son one mobo:D

[martinrox1568]

It was a typo, they were talking about 32GB which confused me because we don't have any consumer grade 16GB sticks

yeah. . . they also existed. Here's a 32gb stick http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT2K32G3ELSLQ41339

[ViruZ_HUN]

yeah. . . they also existed. Here's a 32gb stick http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT2K32G3ELSLQ41339

bad thing is that it cant be put in regular desktops...

[DroPouT1999]

damn, it would look stupid to hve both DDR3 and DDR4 slot son one mobo:D

They don't look too bad, they just look like triple channel mobos.

[Art Vandelay]

No we won't because the limit on silicon was hit with Sandy Bridge. All improvements since have been mediocre. Moore's law is dead. All we are getting is optimization and faster stock chips with less headroom now with die shrinks. GPU's are also getting close to their thermal limit as well. If you think we are going to have a holodeck anytime soon, you are living in a fantasy world with Michio Koo Koo, who has never invented anything and thinks theory and non working models are fact. Regardless. Silicon? Don't expect anything fantastic here on out other then optimizing what we already have and making it communicate better. 

 

The reason we haven't seen much since Sandy Bridge is because there really isn't much demand for greater performance in CPUs. There's really only been a push for a greater power efficiency, which has been happening.

 

Things will probably slowly get better, and if there becomes more demand for more powerful CPUs, then we'll probably see more powerful CPUs.

 

We've been hearing that CPUs can't get any faster for a decade.

[deathjester]

 

 

The reason we haven't seen much since Sandy Bridge is because there really isn't much demand for greater performance in CPUs. There's really only been a push for a greater power efficiency, which has been happening.

 

Things will probably slowly get better, and if there becomes more demand for more powerful CPUs, then we'll probably see more powerful CPUs.

 

We've been hearing that CPUs can't get any faster for a decade.

 

If you believe that? You haven't overclocked your 2600k. Do it and you will beat most of the Haswell's on this forum...

 

It has to do with heat on die shrinks and chips failing or being completely stable at certain temps. If you want to argue that? Good luck. Each die shrink past Sandy has oveclocked worse with higher temps, which = same or worse performance.

 

Please explain how Intel is going to magically solve this problem. You might as well say that Intel is going to figure out how to turn water into wine. 

[Art Vandelay]

If you believe that? You haven't overclocked your 2600k. Do it and you will beat most of the Haswell's on this forum...

 

It has to do with heat on die shrinks and chips failing or being completely stable at certain temps. If you want to argue that? Good luck. Each die shrink past Sandy has oveclocked worse with higher temps, which = same or worse performance.

 

Please explain how Intel is going to magically solve this problem. You might as well say that Intel is going to figure out how to turn water into wine. 

My SB chip that's overclocked to 4.9 GHz (it's realistic maximum before it gets to a dangerous voltage) is about as powerful as a 3770k at 4.7GHz, which a lot of 3770ks were realistically capable of. I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard, a lot of Haswell chips were able to reach around the same clock speeds as Ivy Bridge and because of a higher IPC, they were effectively faster chips. Things seem to be getting faster, albeit at a slower rate. Sandy Bridge is not the fastest chip out there anymore. The increase in performance seems to be related to how much competition there is, more than anything else.

[deathjester]

My SB chip that's overclocked to 4.9 GHz (it's realistic maximum before it gets to a dangerous voltage) is about as powerful as a 3770k at 4.7GHz, which a lot of 3770ks were realistically capable of. I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard, a lot of Haswell chips were able to reach around the same clock speeds as Ivy Bridge and because of a higher IPC, they were effectively faster chips. Things seem to be getting faster, albeit at a slower rate. Sandy Bridge is not the fastest chip out there anymore. The increase in performance seems to be related to how much competition there is, more than anything else.

 

Those were highly binned engineering samples my friend. Many Haswell's can't break 4.2 before temps get out of control. Not all Ivy's got to 4.7 either. 

 

Your Sandy > 4.2 ghz Haswell. My friend has one on a ROG board on water cooling. It happens and it happens a lot.  I am not saying all Haswell's are bad (mine isn't), but if you took the average overclock of every series? Sandy would come out on top (they are all really close) while having the lowest temps, which makes them the best out of the 3.

[ViruZ_HUN]

Those were highly binned engineering samples my friend. Many Haswell's can't break 4.2 before temps get out of control. Not all Ivy's got to 4.7 either. 

 

Your Sandy > 4.2 ghz Haswell. My friend has one on a ROG board on water cooling. It happens and it happens a lot.  I am not saying all Haswell's are bad (mine isn't), but if you took the average overclock of every series? Sandy would come out on top (they are all really close) while having the lowest temps, which makes them the best out of the 3.

lol we just turned a RAM thread to a CPU fight:D

[Art Vandelay]

Those were highly binned engineering samples my friend. Many Haswell's can't break 4.2 before temps get out of control. Not all Ivy's got to 4.7 either. 

 

Your Sandy > 4.2 ghz Haswell. My friend has one on a ROG board on water cooling. It happens and it happens a lot.  I am not saying all Haswell's are bad (mine isn't), but if you took the average overclock of every series? Sandy would come out on top (they are all really close) while having the lowest temps, which makes them the best out of the 3.

I wonder how so many random people who are not professional reviewers are ending up with engineering samples then. [sarcasm]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking-thread-with-statistics

 

Haswell seems to overclock just as well as Ivy from what I've seen. There were just problems getting it to OC well at first because there were some new voltages that you needed to get stable.

 

My Sandy Bridge chip is better than a Haswell at 4.2GHz, but comparing my average overclocking CPU to one that is below average is not a good comparison. Most of the ones I'm seeing in the OCN thread seem to have hit 4.5GHz on a decent cooler. Some much higher, whereas in a Sandy Bridge thread, on a good cooler most people seem to hit around 4.7GHz. It's really not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

 

Intel CPUs are getting more powerful over time.

[deathjester]

I wonder how so many random people who are not professional reviewers are ending up with engineering samples then. [sarcasm]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking-thread-with-statistics

 

Haswell seems to overclock just as well as Ivy from what I've seen. There were just problems getting it to OC well at first because there were some new voltages that you needed to get stable.

 

My Sandy Bridge chip is better than a Haswell at 4.2GHz, but comparing my average overclocking CPU to one that is below average is not a good comparison. Most of the ones I'm seeing in the OCN thread seem to have hit 4.5GHz on a decent cooler. Some much higher, whereas in a Sandy Bridge thread, on a good cooler most people seem to hit around 4.7GHz. It's really not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

 

Intel CPUs are getting more powerful over time.

 

Because they are going past 1.3 v (not recommended), blowing away recommended temps and think booting windows is stable? 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1722630/intel-god-quick-dirty-guide-4ghz-haswell.html

 

Half the people in that thread can't do 4.4 with 1.25-1.3V on Vcore, 1.9-2.1 VCCIN (adds more heat) and 3500 cache...

 

My friend works in the industry and is a computer science grad. He has forgotten more about computers then you will ever know and has been overclocking since before Celeron 300A (which is when I got into it). His 4770k won't go past 4.2 before 1.3v. He has the most expensive z87 board out there, has ran the ram at 1600mhz instead of 1866 (not that it matters since that is the one thing haswell does well). There are other people on this forum who have posted the same. 

 

http://www.originpc.com/configurator/d/d3.aspx?SYSTEMID=2

 

Want to know why they have 4.1 ghz to 4.8 ghz on WATER? Because some people get stuck at 4.1 on WATER lol. They guaranteed 4.4 up until last week...They must have had one really fantastic Haswell or else they are just marketing.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/06/06/haswell-heat/

 

"According to PC Pro, manufacturers who produce pre-overclocked gaming systems have found that the retail chips they've just received are only hitting speeds of 4.2GHz to 4.4GHz stably compared to up to 4.8GHz with pre-production engineering samples."

 

"One manufacturer claims that pre-release chips marked as 3.5GHz parts were tested completely stably at 4.8GHz, but of the 40-50 retail units the company has tested not a single one has managed to reach above 4.2GHz without hitting unsafe temperatures or requiring too-high levels of voltage. Another firm has stated that it has had to drop plans to offer pre-overclocked Haswell systems running at 4.5GHz - a figure, again, planned based on engineering work carried out on pre-production samples provided by Intel - to 4.3GHz in order to ensure stability. 'There is a big difference in the overclocking potential between early Haswell samples and retail,' the unnamed manufacturer claimed."

 

Stop selling Intel fairy tales based on engineering chips. We knew it was a lie as soon as the retail chips hit. Most of the people hitting high clocks A) aren't stable B) are exceeding temps by A LOT, and voltage as well and needing a triple radiator and a delid to  run them C) disable HT on the higher binned 4770k (which makes the clock speed gain pointless for next gen games) or are running some turbo cores lower then the speed they claim. 

 

If you believe all Haswell's clock high then you believe all ATI R9 engineering samples do as well. Both companies used deceptive means to sell their product with the highest binned chips possible, that retail people will never see.

[Art Vandelay]

Because they are going past 1.3 v (not recommended), blowing away recommended temps and think booting windows is stable? 

they all have stress tests listed that they used, and temperatures aren't listed, so you can't say that they are over the maximum safe temp.

 

As for the max safe voltage, Sin on OCN recommended 1.45V on air, so I'm gonna go with what he said. The generally accepted maximum absolutely safe voltage for SB was 1.35V and most people had to go above that if they wanted more than 4.6GHz.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1401976/the-gigabyte-z87-haswell-overclocking-oc-guide

 

additionally, if 59% of people were able to reach 4.4GHz, that means that the average speed is probably around 4.4-4.5GHz, which really isn't that bad when you consider the IPC increase.

 

When you take a poll asking if people had reached 4.4GHz regardless of cooling with a chip that runs as hot as Haswell, you're obviously going to get something like 41% of people haven't got to 4.4. Most people on SB were getting around 4.6 GHz, so it's definitely been an improvement if you consider the IPC improvement. I can't even run past 4.7GHz 24/7 because of temperature restrictions and I can't run at 4.9 for long because it's at a fairly unsafe voltage.

[ViruZ_HUN]

^^above^^

 

So its basicly Haswell vs sandybridge?

[deathjester]

they all have stress tests listed that they used, and temperatures aren't listed, so you can't say that they are over the maximum safe temp.

 

As for the max safe voltage, Sin on OCN recommended 1.45V on air, so I'm gonna go with what he said. The generally accepted maximum absolutely safe voltage for SB was 1.35V and most people had to go above that if they wanted more than 4.6GHz.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1401976/the-gigabyte-z87-haswell-overclocking-oc-guide

 

additionally, if 59% of people were able to reach 4.4GHz, that means that the average speed is probably around 4.4-4.5GHz, which really isn't that bad when you consider the IPC increase.

 

When you take a poll asking if people had reached 4.4GHz regardless of cooling with a chip that runs as hot as Haswell, you're obviously going to get something like 41% of people haven't got to 4.4. Most people on SB were getting around 4.6 GHz, so it's definitely been an improvement if you consider the IPC improvement. I can't even run past 4.7GHz 24/7 because of temperature restrictions and I can't run at 4.9 for long because it's at a fairly unsafe voltage.

Sin on OCN is a moron then.  An OC benchmark is not a 24/7 system. Just because some random dude on the internet who can play with BIOS options says something is safe means nothing.

 

Haswell is not SB. The die shrink does not handle the same voltage and LIVE. AMD chips have huge voltage flowing through them because they are still using old die sizes. Sandy was two die shrinks ago. Ivy couldn't OC as well as Sandy with a die shrink, or handle Sandy voltage and Haswell is worse then Ivy. People running at 1.4v brick their chips in a month OFTEN. People running past 1.3v? A chip lasting half a year means nothing. They are going past what Intel recommends and what some MB manufacturers like MSI BLOCKED. They literally wouldn't let you go past 1.3v initially cus they knew temps got out of control.

 

http://rog.asus.com/242142013/labels/rog-exclusive/maximus-vi-series-uefi-guide-for-overclocking/

 

Asus on their Rog board with a ridiculous amount of power phases that are useless on z87...

 

"Haswell processors run hot when voltage levels are increased.

 

A very good air cooler is required for voltage levels above 1.15V.

1.20V-1.23V requires use of closed loop water coolers. 

At 1.24V-1.275V dual or triple radiator water cooling solutions are advised. 

This is assuming the processor will be run at full load for extended periods of time.

 

Using Vcore higher than 1.275V is not advised for 4 core 8 thread CPUs under full load as there are very few cooling solutions that can keep temps below thermal throttling point."

 

No MB manufacturer even advises you to pass 1.3v and they recommend a triple rad for 1.275...unless you consider computer use, playing farmville for gaming and surfing the internet as load tasks.

 

Rendering/gaming and streaming you shouldn't be passing 1.3v at all. 

[ViruZ_HUN]

Art vandelay VS Deathjester

 

Who wins?

 

Who give up?

[Art Vandelay]

 

Sin on OCN is a moron then.  An OC benchmark is not a 24/7 system. Just because some random dude on the internet who can play with BIOS options says something is safe means nothing.

 

Haswell is not SB. The die shrink does not handle the same voltage and LIVE. AMD chips have huge voltage flowing through them because they are still using old die sizes. Sandy was two die shrinks ago. Ivy couldn't OC as well as Sandy with a die shrink, or handle Sandy voltage and Haswell is worse then Ivy. People running at 1.4v brick their chips in a month OFTEN. People running past 1.3v? A chip lasting half a year means nothing. They are going past what Intel recommends and what some MB manufacturers like MSI BLOCKED. They literally wouldn't let you go past 1.3v initially cus they knew temps got out of control.

 

http://rog.asus.com/242142013/labels/rog-exclusive/maximus-vi-series-uefi-guide-for-overclocking/

 

Asus on their Rog board with a ridiculous amount of power phases that are useless on z87...

 

"Haswell processors run hot when voltage levels are increased.

 

A very good air cooler is required for voltage levels above 1.15V.

1.20V-1.23V requires use of closed loop water coolers. 

At 1.24V-1.275V dual or triple radiator water cooling solutions are advised. 

This is assuming the processor will be run at full load for extended periods of time.

 

Using Vcore higher than 1.275V is not advised for 4 core 8 thread CPUs under full load as there are very few cooling solutions that can keep temps below thermal throttling point."

 

No MB manufacturer even advises you to pass 1.3v and they recommend a triple rad for 1.275...unless you consider computer use, playing farmville for gaming and surfing the internet as load tasks.

 

Rendering/gaming and streaming you shouldn't be passing 1.3v at all. 

 

1. Ivy Bridge is well known for being more resistant to voltage degradation than Sandy Bridge.

 

2. Sin has been very knowledgeable about overclocking and power delivery, from everything I've seen from him.

 

3. Asus ROG boards, apart from the extreme, had 4 phase PWM drivers (with doublers so they could advertise an 8 phase) on Z77 so I'd assume they're still going for as few phases as possible, and doublers halve the PWM frequency, so they don't increase voltage stability.

 

4. MB manufacturers are going to be very cautious about the maximum temperatures and voltages they give people because they don't want people to go and accidentally kill their parts. The recommended max that Sin gives is the one that you should never exceed (IIRC, he gave 1.52V as a max for sandy) whereas the recommended maximum by the manufacturer is the voltage which you can exceed but are recommended not to. This would be something like the maximum recommendation of 1.35V on Sandy. 

 

5. Delidding Haswell can lower temperatures by a significant degree, since it's not soldered like Sandy Bridge, which will buy you more overclocking headroom. CPUs would seem to be getting faster if Intel was not for this.