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
eckre - Friday, June 14, 2013 - link
VERY disappointing CPU, if you disregard ALL of the fake synthetic benchmarks, and use only the real world ones, the gains over the 3770K are 0.03%, max 8.8% and average at about a 3% Improvement. 3%? Not worth it. Motherboard? Z87 was suppose to drop PCI but all the motherboards still have it and nothing outrageous. So basically lower power consumption, better on board video performance and no discernible improvement over the 3770K.i7Ahmed920D0 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
GOOD BYE 920 D0 Ill never forget you ! Your going to moms rig ! Helllllooooo 4670k with upto 40% better performance for 225 bucks !Yangorang - Thursday, June 27, 2013 - link
There are some rumors that the Haswell desktop processors run fairly hot - can you confirm this at all in your testing?calico-uk - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link
Face it, A consumers market, not a true imagine of technology evolution. Low power with high temps? Just doesn't ring true, unless the chip has been purposely ' Restricted ' with only one cause in mind sales and protection of future sales. In layman's terms Greedy bastards more concerned with markets and money and not the Desktop guy who's impressed with performance. Blame Mac, Windows 8. And your tiny fucking phone.James McGrath - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
This test is a little bias against the Core 2 duo I think. What they have done is essentially pitch the very top end on Intel's last 4 generations against a mid to low end core 2 duo. It would be more fair if that generation was represented by a qx9770 or even a Q9650.clyman - Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - link
I have been involved in computer hardware, software and programming since 1986. There has never been a more reliable processor than Intel, at any time. The current ones still have to be tested over time, but I would not buy one. If you put enough case fans with the inferior processors, they might last 2 or 3 years. With an Intel processor, even overclocked with no case fans, provided you used the intel chipset, nearly 100% of them kept running for 5 or more years. Without overclocking, I still don't know when they will die, since none have to my knowledge. I have built at least 100 computers and have only built a couple non intel ones. It was obvious right away how inferior they were to intel. Also, I love my i7 haswell on an asus z87-pro motherboard. There is no need to overclock, the processor and memory score 7.8 out of 7.9 on the windows scale and the onboard graphics scores a 6.8. Not bad ratings. Also, the CPU only uses 7 to 8 watts of power most of the time.numskulll - Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - link
I'm quite happy with my undervolted Athlon 620 and Radeon 4200 graphics. More computing power than I need 99% of the time, estimated tdp of about 55-60 watts (1% of use) and system idle of about 40w (80+% of use). And if I ever play games it takes a few seconds to bung in a suitable graphics card. I doubt it will go belly-up in the foreseeable future, but if it does it only cost £50 second-hand about 3 years ago and would be even less to buy now.duttasanjiv - Friday, November 14, 2014 - link
I am planning to get a new i5 4690 system for 1080p transcoding. I am not interested in GPU assisted transcoding. My focus is on QuickSync assisted transcoding. It is said that latest Quicksync is almost comparable to CPU based transcoding.It is annoying to see all sites compare only obsolate systems with a vague spec. (including AnandTech). Then, they omit any screenshots. Some are so weird thay put the video at youtube!! How can one compare the quality after youtube again transcoded it?
So far I am looking for a scientific, specific comparison on -
1) i5 4690 or atleast 4570 with CPU only & with QS
2) Screenshots in PNG
3) Specifying what settings were used? What QRF / what QCF? What speed presets - 'slow' or medium? What profile - high or main?. 'faster' or 'very fast' settings speed presets is worthless.
2) What is the source format - 1080i or 1080p? How long? What was the target size.
3) What QuickSync performance settings were used? I heard that haswell supports 7 performance vs quality settings. Also never found if QS supports any other parameters.
Merely mentioning FPS or time won't help.
I request you to pl. provide us with such an comprehensive comparison with will help many users like me, to settle all doubts for good. Thx so much in advance...
minitt - Sunday, December 7, 2014 - link
They dropped I5 750 and I7 920 from the gaming benchmark because both the processor will put up decent FPS which will take away most of the lime light from the haswell. A 4.0 ghz clocked i5 750 or i7 920 is still capable of keeping the modern GPUs running at 100% .I would be more than happy if someone can prove me wrong.Miller1331 - Tuesday, December 1, 2015 - link
I have the 4770k in my Desktop which is used primarily for high end music production and it eats up everything I have thrown at it thus far