The Haswell Review: Intel Core i7-4770K & i5-4670K Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 1, 2013 10:00 AM ESTThe Launch Lineup: Quad Cores For All
As was the case with the launch of Ivy Bridge last year, Intel is initially launching with their high-end quad core parts, and as the year passes on will progressively rollout dual cores, low voltage parts, and other lower-end parts. That means the bigger notebooks and naturally the performance desktops will arrive first, followed by the ultraportables, Ultrabooks and more affordable desktops. One change however is that Intel will be launching their first BGA (non-socketed) Haswell part right away, the Iris Pro equipped i7-4770R.
| Intel 4th Gen Core i7 Desktop Processors | ||||||
| Model | Core i7-4770K | Core i7-4770 | Core i7-4770S | Core i7-4770T | Core i7-4770R | Core i7-4765T |
| Cores/Threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
| CPU Base Freq | 3.5 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 2.0 |
| Max Turbo | 3.9 (Unlocked) | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.0 |
| Test TDP | 84W | 84W | 65W | 45W | 65W | 35W |
| HD Graphics | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 | Iris Pro 5200 | 4600 |
| GPU Max Clock | 1250 | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | 1300 | 1200 |
| L3 Cache | 8MB | 8MB | 8MB | 8MB | 6MB | 8MB |
| DDR3 Support | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 |
| vPro/TXT/VT-d/SIPP | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Package | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | BGA | LGA-1150 |
| Price | $339 | $303 | $303 | $303 | OEM | $303 |
Starting at the top of the product and performance stack, we have the desktop Core i7 parts. All of these CPUs feature Hyper-Threading Technology, so they’re the same quad-core with four virtual cores that we’ve seen since Bloomfield hit the scene. The fastest chip for most purposes remains the K-series 4770K, with its unlocked multiplier and slightly higher base clock speed. Base core clocks as well as maximum Turbo Boost clocks are basically dictated by the TDP, with the 4770S being less likely to maintain maximum turbo most likely, and the 4770T and 4765T giving up quite a bit more in clock speed in order to hit substantially lower power targets.
It’s worth pointing out that the highest “Test TDP” values are up slightly relative to the last generation Ivy Bridge equivalents—84W instead of 77W. Mobile TDPs are a different matter, and as we’ll discuss elsewhere they’re all 2W higher, but that is further offset by the improved idle power consumption Haswell brings.
Nearly all of these are GT2 graphics configurations (20 EUs), so they should be slightly faster than the last generation HD 4000 in graphics workloads. The one exception is the i7-4770R, which is also the only chip that comes in a BGA package. The reasoning here is simple if perhaps flawed: if you want the fastest iGPU configuration (GT3e with 40 EUs and embedded DRAM), you’re probably not going to have a discrete GPU and will most likely be purchasing an OEM desktop. Interestingly, the 4770R also drops the L3 cache down to 6MB, and it’s not clear whether this is due to it having no real benefit (i.e. the eDRAM functions as an even larger L4 cache), or if it’s to reduce power use slightly, or Intel may have a separate die for this particular configuration. Then again, maybe Intel is just busily creating a bit of extra market segmentation.
Not included in the above table are all the common features to the entire Core i7 line: AVX2 instructions, Quick Sync, AES-NI, PCIe 3.0, and Intel Virtualization Technology. As we’ve seen in the past, the K-series parts (and now the R-series as well) omit support for vPro, TXT, VT-d, and SIPP from the list. The 4770K is an enthusiast part with overclocking support, so that makes some sense, but the 4770R doesn’t really have the same qualification. Presumably it’s intended for the consumer market, as businesses are less likely to need the Iris Pro graphics.
| Intel 4th Gen Core i5 Desktop Processors | ||||||
| Model | Core i5-4670K | Core i5-4670 | Core i5-4670S | Core i5-4670T | Core i5-4570 | Core i5-4570S |
| Cores/Threads | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| CPU Base Freq | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
| Max Turbo | 3.8 (Unlocked) | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.6 |
| Test TDP | 84W | 84W | 65W | 45W | 84W | 65W |
| HD Graphics | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 | 4600 |
| GPU Max Clock | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | 1150 | 1150 |
| L3 Cache | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB |
| DDR3 Support | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 | 1333/1600 |
| vPro/TXT/VT-d/SIPP | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Package | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 | LGA-1150 |
| Price | $242 | $213 | $213 | $213 | $192 | $192 |
The Core i5 lineup basically rehashes the above story, only now without Hyper-Threading. For many users, Core i5 is the sweet spot of price and performance, delivering nearly all the performance of the i7 models at 2/3 the price. There aren’t any Iris or Iris Pro Core i5 desktop parts, at least not yet, and all of the above CPUs are using the GT2 graphics configuration. As above, the K-series part also lacks vPro/TXT/VT-d support but comes with an unlocked multiplier.
Obviously we’re still missing all of the Core i3 parts, which are likely to be dual-core once more, along with some dual-core i5 parts as well. These are probably going to come in another quarter, or at least a month or two out, as there’s no real need for Intel to launch their lower cost parts right now. Similarly, we don’t have any Celeron or Pentium Haswell derivatives launching yet, and judging by the Ivy Bridge rollout I suspect it may be a couple quarters before Intel pushes out ultra-budget Haswell chips. For now, the Ivy Bridge Celeron/Pentium parts are likely as low as Intel wants to go down the food chain for their “big core” architectures.
For those interested in the mobile side of things, we’ve broken out those parts into a separate Pipeline article.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
210 Comments
View All Comments
AmdInside - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
I am actually more interested in the new 8 series chipsets than Haswell. I have a Sandybridge work desktop and Ivybridge gaming desktop and would switch my Sandybridge motherboard if the chipset were backwards compatible with SB CPUs.Klimax - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Just reminder: We are more or less out of free performance without new algorithms or massive complexity/power consumption. (There are limits to what we can do)And Intel engineers won't increase complexity of chips. (Otherwise they'd have their own version of GPU problems)
Anyway, waiting for Haswell-E... (Could use AVX2, but don't wont to lose 6 cores of 3930k)
ashetosvlakas - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
"As we’ve seen in the past, the K-series parts (and now the R-series as well) omit support for vPro, TXT, VT-d, and SIPP from the list."As this is the official Haswell review and since TSX are not included in the K-series parts, I believe this is a huge omission from the review, especially since transactional memory is a revolutionary technology with a lot of potential. I find the lack of mention misleading and it should be corrected as soon as possible.
KAlmquist - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Thanks for letting us know this. Checking the specifications on ark.intel.com, I find:i5-4430 no TSX
i5-4570 has TSX
i5-4670 has TSX
i5-4670K no TSX
i7-4770 has TSX
i7-4770K no TSX
So TSX is missing from half of the current Haswell models (ignoring the low power S and T chips). So far we only have quad core chips; I expect that TSX will be missing from most of the dual core chips. It doesn't seem that TSX is intended to be used by developers writing general purpose code.
Kougar - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Is 2016 the earliest we will see Haswell-E launch?Buying a 4770K means I'm wasting 33% of the die on a GPU I don't want, and because it's a "K" chip it will also lose VT-d capability. Six-core "K" chips retain VT-d support, but buying SB-E seems silly given Haswell offers much better IPC and single-threaded performance, and later even against IB-E it would feel like paying more for less.
Intel has taken a perpetual 2-year break between updating its high end, so if IB-E launches Q4'13 then it seems Q4'15 would be the earliest Haswell-E will show up?
Charlesm1950 - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Haswell GT3e graphics come at what price? Certainly a lot more than Haswell GT2 or Richland A10 graphics. And Intel is right, Haswell GT3e graphics beats old, entry level discrete graphics cards. BUT, Haswell does not do DUAL GRAPHICS! Pair a Haswell with a dGPU and you get only the graphics horsepower of the dGPU. In short, you waste all that die area that Intel devoted to GT3e and eDRAM. On the other hand, pair a AMD Richland A10 with a dGPU and both GPUs work in tandem to give performance scores well beyond Haswell GT3e and for dare I say a lot less money. That's true even with the cheapest entry level Radeon GPU. So, Intel has created a monster graphics engine and put memory on the die - but to claim its free or the best solution is just being a fan boy for Intel.monohouse - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
this my friends, is a joke, the mighty Haswell K models will not support VT-x, LOL this is going to be the first nail in Intel's coffin in favor of AMD, and I bet AMD are going to take advantage of this (and they already take advantage of Intel's "K" marketing strategy - why buy an incredibly expensive Intel "K" model without VT-x support, when you can buy an AMD both unlocked and with VT-x support) (the joke is that a 5-year old Core 2 Duo has more to offer than the latest and greatest Intel parts [it supports VT-x]). I am running a 4300 mhz Wolfdale (Penryn) and an another 3000 mhz Conroe, none of what I see here (and in part due to the lack of VT-x support) from Haswell is of any significant enough value over my current hardware, I would have considered it if I had a Pentium 4, but even then I would rather go to the AMD side, since they present no obstacles.and I still have many functional PCI cards and I am not about to throw them away just because Intel decided not to support them (yet another nail in Intel's coffin) (in my opinion hardware has to comply with the user's wishes, not the other way around).
skrewler2 - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
Wait, what? The K series doesn't include VT-d support, I don't see anything saying they don't support VT-x.BillyONeal - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
Your comment doesn't make sense. AMD chips obviously don't have VT-x support; they have a competing standard, AMD-V. The first generation of virtualization extensions didn't make much of a dent in perf. The larger gains came as a result of SLAT which both AMD and Intel added around the Nehalem timeframe.monohouse - Sunday, June 23, 2013 - link
but SLAT is not going to be available on K models because virtualization is disabled ?