Haswell may not be a big deal as first thought

[Dude]

i have seen a few benchmarks even tho haswell cant over clock high it still beats ivy

post a link to the benchmarks

 

[BigTabs]

sure thing

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Even better than benchmarks, how about real life results?

 

[kbrady1979]

i have seen a few benchmarks even tho haswell cant over clock high it still beats ivy

Clock-for-clock, it is about 3% faster than Ivy Bridge, where Ivy Bridge was about 5-12% faster clock for clock than Sandy Bridge. Either one of them is a mile faster than what most people need anyway.

 

[BigTabs]

AnandTech | The Haswell Review: Intel Core i7-4770K & i5-4670K Tested


I think benchmarks push more than you will ever see but thats me

 

[BigTabs]

HARDOCP - Gaming Benchmarks - Intel Haswell i7-4770K IPC and Overclocking Review

 

[BigTabs]

Sandy bridge-E still wins

but price

 

[Dude]

I see your point, but I am content to stick with Ivy. Thanks for the links

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Sandy bridge-E still wins

but price

Ya gets whats ya pays for. Granted, it's expensive but it was what I needed to get what I wanted (additional PCI-e lanes; I'm not even overclocking). The extra cores come in handy, though. I can run all my weekly scans simultaneously without choking the CPU.

Imagine how well the IB-e will do.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

The interest in Haswell for me is the advancements its brought to the mobo but that alone isn't enough to make me upgrade from my Ivy rig but it's of interest.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

The interest in Haswell for me is the advancements its brought to the mobo but that alone isn't enough to make me upgrade from my Ivy rig but it's of interest.

The MOBO advancements had me drooling like a famous Russian pooch but the paucity of useable PCI-e lanes wouldn't have worked for me.

 

[kbrady1979]

For gaming, Ivy Bridge actually outperforms Sandy Bridge-E, but that is because of how games are coded, not the architecture. Most people who get SB-E have a very specific reason to get it, not just because it's the most expensive line and they think more money = better.

I thought about the native SATA III ports too, but when you get right down to it, unless you are running a slew of SSD's, SATA II ports provide a mile enough bandwidth for hard drives. Most HDD can barely break 150MB/s Sequential Read/Write, much less SATA II speeds of 300MB/s. So the only gain is the amount of Intel SATA ports, which are helpful only to people using a bunch of SATA devices. I have 2xSATA III ports and 4xSATA II ports on the Intel chipset...with 4TB drives out and reasonably priced, that is a ton of storage!

It's tempting for sure....allllll those SATA ports, but I hate how hit or miss the CPU/Platform is.