The Haswell Review: Intel Core i7-4770K & i5-4670K Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 1, 2013 10:00 AM ESTDie Size and Transistor Count
Moving on to die sizes and transistor counts, this year Intel is striving to be more straightforward and accurate than was the case with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. With the Bridge generation we didn’t initially get comparable numbers, only for the correction to throw in additional confusion. For Haswell Intel is laying things out from the start, listing both possible numbers so that either can be compared.
| CPU Specification Comparison | |||||||||
| CPU | Manufacturing Process | Cores | GPU | Transistor Count (Schematic) | Die Size | ||||
| Haswell GT3 4C | 22nm | 4 | GT3 | ? | 264mm2 (est) | ||||
| Haswell GT2 4C | 22nm | 4 | GT2 | 1.4B | 177mm2 | ||||
| Haswell ULT GT3 2C | 22nm | 2 | GT3 | 1.3B | 181mm2 | ||||
| Intel Ivy Bridge 4C | 22nm | 4 | GT2 | 1.2B | 160mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge E 6C | 32nm | 6 | N/A | 2.27B | 435mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge 4C | 32nm | 4 | GT2 | 995M | 216mm2 | ||||
| Intel Lynnfield 4C | 45nm | 4 | N/A | 774M | 296mm2 | ||||
| AMD Trinity 4C | 32nm | 4 | 7660D | 1.303B | 246mm2 | ||||
| AMD Vishera 8C | 32nm | 8 | N/A | 1.2B | 315mm2 | ||||
The two numbers for the most common Haswell configuration, Haswell GT2 4C, are 1.4 billion schematic transistors and 1.6 billion layout transistors. Why and what is the difference? The former count is the number of transistors in the schematic (hence the name), and is generally the number we go by when quoting transistor counts. Meanwhile the second number, the layout number, is the number of transistors used in the fabrication process itself. The difference comes from the fact that while the schematic will use one large transistor – being a logical diagram – production will actually use multiple transistors laid out in parallel for layout and process reasons. So how many transistors does Haswell have? It has both 1.4B and 1.6B, depending on which number we’re after, with 1.4B being the number Intel is passing around.
In any case, even among quad cores Haswell is going to come in a couple of different sizes. Along with the 1.4B transistor, 177mm2 4C/GT2 version of Haswell, there is the 4C/GT3 version of Haswell, which Intel doesn’t list the die size or transistor count for. Based on our rough measurements of the physical die we’re at 264mm2, which including the epoxy covering the die will run a bit large.
Breaking things down to the GPU portion of Haswell, based in turn on these measurements I came up with an 87mm^2 adder for the extra hardware in Haswell GT3 vs. GT2. Doubling that 87mm^2 we get a rough idea of how big the full 40 EU Haswell GPU might be: 174mm^2. If my math is right, this means that in a quad-core Haswell GT3 die, around 65% of the die area is GPU. This is contrary to the ~33% in a quad-core Haswell GT2. I suspect a dual-core + GT3 design is at least half GPU. Meanwhile Crystalwell, the 128MB eDRAM, adds another 84mm2 die (by our measurements) to the entire package.
On a comparative basis, the 4C/GT2 version of Haswell is roughly 200M transistors and 17mm2 bigger than the comparable 4C/GT2 version of Ivy Bridge. The transistor count increase is roughly what we’d expect, with most of those transistors going to Haswell itself while the GPU remains relatively unchanged. Though it’s interesting to note that while this marks a 17% increase in transistors, it’s only an 11% increase in die size. Ivy Bridge was a small die for an Intel, and while Haswell grows larger in exchange for the additional functionality the new architecture provides, it’s still a fairly small GPU and reaches a density greater than Ivy Bridge itself. Or to put this another way, Intel’s last tock CPU, Sandy Bridge, was larger still by almost 40mm2. It’s only once we start adding the relatively big GT3 GPU, and not the CPU, that we see Intel go well above 200mm2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
210 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Nice review Anand, it's pretty much what I expected from Haswell. 5-15% over IVB with all the bells and whistles of Lynx Point Z87 (6xSATA6G, more USB 3.0 etc.) This will make a nice upgrade for me coming from an OC'd i7-920 and X58 platform, now to see what deals MicroCenter has on the 4770K.I would have liked to have seen normalized clockspeed comparisons in the 5-gen Intel round-up but understand this does not reflect real-world results, given SB and above have much better turbo boost and base clocks. I think it would've given a better idea of IPC however, for those who have been overclocking their older platforms to similar max OC levels.
I also would have liked to have seen more gaming and OC'ing tests but understand this first review needed to cover most of the bases for a general audience, look forward to more testing in the future along with some looks at the Z87 chipset nuances.
Concillian - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
So what I'm seeing is 4770 compared with 3770... ~13% more power at load for Hasswell, but less than 10% more performance in the benchmarks? Is that correct?A5 - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Anand's numbers put it at 13% faster with an 11% power increase. Not sure how you did the math.Concillian - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
You're right in that particular test. +12% power for +13% performance. Still disappointing. Most of the other benchmarks are showing less than 10% improvement, but we don't know the power story. Overall disappointing. With all the talk about power efficiency, I was hoping for +5-10% performance at the same or lower power consumption. All the power benefits seem to be at idle.gipper51 - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
I'm glad I went ahead and built my 3770 system a few months ago instead of holding out for Haswell. Nothing about Haswell was worth waiting for (for my needs). Damn...based on this and Intel's roadmaps I may be on IVB for a looooong time.LordSegan - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
Very weak new chip. Minimal increase in performance unless you are running a render farm or using a crappy ultra book. Useless for desktop gamers.vlvh - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
I'm just wondering what the rationalisation for using a Core 2 Duo for comparison benching is? Surely a Core 2 Quad (eg Q6600) would be a more accurate representation seeing as all the other parts in the benchmark are quad core.WhoBeDaPlaya - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
You'd think Anand would have covered something as important as this.I did not see this in _any_ of the reviews.
Also, the wording on the BCLK overclocking is a little odd. So bottom line - can we OC the 4770 using BCLK or not?
Kevin G - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
The actual BLCK changes will be pretty much inline with what you'd be able to do on Z68 or Z77, about 110 Mhz max.Socket 1150 and Z87 add another bus multiplier to feed the CPU like socket 2011 parts have. So you can have a 100 Mhz clock feeding the PCI-E controller with a 1.25x multiplier a 125 Mhz clock will feed the CPU cores before the CPU multiplier. Increasing the BCLK to 108 Mhz and a 1.25 bus multiplier would equate to a 135 Mhz clock before the CPU multiplier is applied.
jmcb - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link
All this means is when I finally get my first quad core PC, a 3770k will be cheaper. I see no reason to get this over that.