What Does Intel's Haswell Platform Mean for the Future of Computing?

21

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

vrmlbasic

I can't wait for AMD to finally go "all in" on the APU concept. Their engineers have talked about the huge performance advantages of performing as much floating-point operations as possible on an on-chip GPU over "cpu-only" FLOPs and FLOPs offloaded to a discreet CPU, and how AMD is committed to that line of thinking, but then they went and gave us main desktop CPUs (bulldozer) which have horribly gimped FLOP performance. Irony abounds.

I'd like to see main desktop chips from AMD which contain an integrated graphics solution, but are truly designed to use that only for floating point number crunching for the CPU and to leave the graphical rendering to a discreet graphics card. A modern, more kick-ass, on-chip version of yesteryears' "math coprocessor".

Currently for Trinity AMD requires software engineers to code their floating point math to use the integrated graphics. What if AMD could craft their CPU such that all floating point math were done by the integrated graphics by default? Sounds like a win to me.

It would annihilate Intel's paradigm of slapping sub-par (though progressively better) integrated graphics onto a chip as rote and trying to make the CPU burly enough to tackle everything thrown at it.

In a sense, Intel is still thinking "single-core" design in a "multi-core" world; now that we have the tech, why not offload the FLOPs to a "separate processor" which can do them much, much, much faster than the CPU alone?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

"It would annihilate Intel's paradigm of slapping sub-par (though progressively better) integrated graphics onto a chip as rote and trying to make the CPU burly enough to tackle everything thrown at it."
----------------------------------------------------------

Stop smoking Crak

The cost of modern compute performance relies on a number of factors you did not even consider

Software compatability for other Software
1. Windows 8 runs around 80% of the software that XP can handle

Hardware compatability for Software:
2. AMD computers "correctly" run about 85 - 90% of the programs that an Intel CPU can handle

Quality of Compute:
3. Registry Conflicts can be eliminated as well as "Blue Screens of Death"
on Systems such as XP by installing only the programs that cannot be made to run as portable applications

Portable Adobe Audition or Portable Photoshop may run fine on an XP machine but may crash horribly on a Windows 8 Box

Minimum Performance Value of Hardware Components
4. How fast is the very minimum you wish to go without crashing?

Even if AMD was faster and had better graphics than Intel, I would never resort to an AMD chip even at half the price unless the quality of compute performance and compatability was at least equal to INTEL

avatar

aarcane

I wonder what the server versions will be like. Perhaps if the power savings are sufficient I can get permission to replace some AMD and C2D chips.

avatar

TechGoudy

Well I think this is quite interesting, Intel is making this move in my opinion because they have no competition in the performace area and they realize they need to step it up in the mobile area by creating better integrated graphics and better battery life. This is going to create an interesting effect if they can perfect these three fields in the mobile market: power, integrated graphics, and battery life.

On another note, until developers catch up with multi-threaded applications that actually take advantage of the architectures that Intel is dishing out, we probably won't see a huge increase in processing power and more cores. Seems to me devs have hit a big barrier and Intel is just "walking" (in terms of a leap in processing power) in a sense while they wait for them to catch up.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Powerful?

It probably can't even run XP natively without gimping it

Any takers?

avatar

Ilander

You know what also had a 10 Watt TDP? The original Pentium. Who cares for desktops, leave the power conservation train and give us performance! When we have "flagship" CPUs that only use 77 Watts, my heatsink/fan cries.

avatar

bpstone

Improved battery life is always a plus. I cannot stand electronics with bad power consumption and small batteries. A dead portable device is a useless one. An Ultrabook for me is not used for gaming anyhow.

avatar

Gezzer

Over all it looks good.. well except for one thing.
How Intel will integrate voltage regulation into the die. It'll be a boon to mobile users, but it could make overclocking even harder.
I guess it'll be a little clearer how Haswell will overclock after it launches. I'll keep my fingers crossed till then, but I won't hold my breath.

avatar

azuza001

I'm still perfectly happy with my Core I7 870 at 4Ghz with a Geforce 670. I'm not sure who these people are who need a "good graphics card" but don't want to get their hands on a "dedicated graphics card". Even if Haswall was 3X better than Ivy's graphics it's still just another low in solution thats not good for much past video encoding/decoding.

While I like the idea of putting a graphics core onto the processor for a number of different reasons I don't ever see me purchasing a system that doesn't have it's own graphics system for display purposes. And when a dedicated graphics card is detected what happens then? The integrated graphics on the core is shut off or ignored right? What would be cool is if that graphics core could be dedicated to it's own thing in these situations, like I could tell Batman Arkumn City to use the Integrated Graphics Core for Physix support or encode a video on it while gaming on the dedicated card. Finally if the system was smart enough to detect that the Integrated Core was not doing anything and the dedicated one was busy trying to do 2 or 3 things at once (kind of like how windows determines what thread go's to what processor for multi-thread applications) it could smartly push one of those tasks onto the Internal one.

I just find it a waste of space for a graphics part in the Processor that won't ever get used by some people. Hell I'd rather get a version with the graphics core removed for a lower price in this situation.

avatar

livebriand

Personally, I'd want to at least have a minimum of graphics on the CPU, just in case the onboard ones fail (though I have a cheapo 210 in the closet from an upgrade, just as a a backup). Also, on a laptop it's handy for battery life purposes. (think Nvidia Optimus)

avatar

Sierra11784

Damn it AMD, get Steamroller out before Haswell and make it competitive so Intel doesn't charge an arm and a leg for these new chips. Haswell looks great, but if AMD tanks by the time these new chips come out Intel will over-charge people due to a simple lack of competition. I'm going to need a new ultrabook by next year and I don't want to spend more than I should on it.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

*cough*troll*cough*
Complaining about AMD "getting in the game" or "competitive" solely so Intel won't price gouge is a rather pathetic reason to keep another company around. If you are that much of an Intel fanboy then suck it up and pay for the product you want.
Why cater to the competition's consumer that has no interest in you when you have your own loyal consumers to keep satisfied?

avatar

Valor958

I just don't see any way that AMD can really compete in the long run. They always seem to just be 'the other guys' in the market anymore related to desktops.
Mobile they're doing ok, but they just seem on the down turn.

avatar

Happy

Yep. But the main problem (imho) is that AMD is making hardly any profit anymore and so how are they going to afford to do the necessary research to make breakthroughs to be able to keep up with Intel? The scientific research necessary to keep up with Intel is extremely expensive and if AMD is only making 36 million a quarter in profit then how can they do it?

Sadly, I see AMD as being on their last legs. I'll be surprised if AMD is alive in ten years. I wouldn't even be surprised if AMD is bankrupt in five years.

avatar

chaosdsm

AMD can compete, but they need to change their way of thinking to do so. Llano APU's were a step in the right direction, Bulldozer & Piledriver a step in the wrong direction. Put simply, 2 processing cores sharing 1 FP core was a horrible idea that resulted in minimal performance gains even in highly multi-threaded apps. Meanwhile, Llano had amazing performance from a per-watt perspective.

Hopefully AMD's new CPU architecture master (hired just a couple months ago) will see this, and convince the board to make a change that will put AMD back on track as "competition" for Intel.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I can't wait for AMD to finally go "all in" on the APU concept. Their engineers have talked about the huge performance advantages of performing as much floating-point operations as possible on an on-chip GPU over "cpu-only" FLOPs and FLOPs offloaded to a discreet CPU, and how AMD is committed to that line of thinking, but then they went and gave us main desktop CPUs (bulldozer) which have horribly gimped FLOP performance. Irony abounds.

I'd like to see main desktop chips from AMD which contain an integrated graphics solution, but are truly designed to use that only for floating point number crunching for the CPU and to leave the graphical rendering to a discreet graphics card. A modern, more kick-ass, on-chip version of yesteryears' "math coprocessor".

Currently for Trinity AMD requires software engineers to code their floating point math to use the integrated graphics. What if AMD could craft their CPU such that all floating point math were done by the integrated graphics by default? Sounds like a win to me.

avatar

bpstone

I too think that AMD needs to get on the ball. Personally I agree with them dropping their desktop CPUs in the future. It is a waste of company resources. They need to focus in on the sections they are doing well at in the market (APUs). It will be bad for the consumer if AMD does not keep at least some pressure on Intel. Common sense: No competition equals high prices.

avatar

limitbreaker

Yeah they really need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to compete at all in 2 years the way theyre going... Its sad because i really like amd as a company, theyre usually the good guys in business model.

avatar

limitbreaker

More effiency is good news and itll give amd a chance to catch up in performance in desktops but will hurt them in the portable department which seems like the only thing amd cares about right now.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

portables are the only thing mass consumers care about right now, which is why intel and amd are following the trend. I just hope that neither company forgets about the PC users what gave them their start and are still using a Real Computer, not some paper thin underpowered tin can or tablet.

avatar

dpgdog187

Darn right PCLinuxguy!

I think we all understand that this technology could very well end up being the brain for the next evolution of the smart device but no one wants to play to use handhelds forever! Although handhelds are grand devices they will always pale in comparison to desktops in terms of performance and overall versatility.

AMD, screw the clock race! I want 16 cores all over 4GhZ with support for quadfire native! HEADSHOT!

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.