Intel to launch Haswell chip in '3,337,200,000,000,000 nanoseconds'

Intel started shipping its fourth-generation Core PC processors, which have the code name Haswell, earlier this month, though the chips aren't readily available to consumers. Today, Intel teased the specific date when Haswell-powered PCs would officially launch, doing so in a unique way.

In a post on Intel's news website, the company revealed that it would officially "reveal all there is to know" about Haswell, in "approximately 3,337,200,000,000,000 nanoseconds." If you do the math, that means the Haswell launch will happen on June 3 in the U.S. As CNET points out, that means Haswell will launch June 4 in the time zone of Taiwan. That also happens to the first day of the massive PC trade show Computex, which is held annually in Taipei.

That almost certainly means PC OEMs will be announcing and showing off the first Haswell-based desktops, notebooks, laptops, hybrids and tablets, most of which will have Windows 8 installed for the OS. A recent report claims that the North Cape hybrid notebook-tablet reference design that has a Haswell chip inside will have up to 10 hours of battery life while in tablet mode.

Intel is also working on another Atom processor, code named Bay Trail, that's being made for tablets that will launch by the end of 2013.

Source: Intel | Image via Intel

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft OpenTech celebrates first birthday with new website

Next Story

NVIDIA PhysX demo shows highly realistic water effects

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

That's awesome marketing, giving the time in nanoseconds. At least for CPU geeks like me. We all know every nanosecond counts

Awesome, I am about to upgrade my wife machine. Maybe she can get my current i7 setup, and I can get the new Haswell ...

Will be good for icore based tablets and their prices. Still think baytrail is going to move more units at the end of the year though.

I pay off my ivy bridge system in June.

Can upgrade to Haswell by then.. unless it's only the 'mainstream' chips.

8 real cores minimum or bust, else it's pointless to upgrade. Also, these chips better damn wall be fluxless soldered this time. That damn mistake with ivy bridge chips was terrible in the enthusiast scene.

If thats a countdown timer I'm surprised someone got that screenshot to be honest...

I think I'm going to go around adding 9 extra zeros to numbers and then explaining them in the 10^-9 more often now.

Manarift said,
they must of changed it last min

don't you know Intel? they forcefully change sockets every generation (moving artificial pins here and there) so you need to also buy a motherboard each time you want to upgrade.
AMD does the right thing for consumers offering a cheap path to upgrade to a newer CPU generation. Intel does the right thing for OEMs and motherboard manufacturers lining their pockets with cash every CPU generation.

Not an excuse for Intel changing its sockets so damn often.
AMD has AM1, AM2, AM3 and FM1. Only AM3+ and FM1 are currently in use. AM3+ for consumers, and FM1 for servers.
Lets compare that to the Intel sockets you find across systems in the past decade....
I upgraded my system 2 years ago, yet cause I went with AMD, i can still upgrade to the FX 8350 without any issues. I dont need a new motherboard, it can support upto 32GB of ram, has 6 SATA connections, 1 eSATA and a couple of PCI slots I'm not even using. Having to buy a new 60-100euro motherboard would be a waste of money.
1 of the main reasons I'm sticking to AMD is their dedication to their customers.

And that is just maybe why AMD isn't really competitive in performance.

Intel changes the architecture (requiring a socket change) to keep their performance on top and it shows.

My 1366 mobo is getting long in the tooth and I'm gladly upgrading to Haswell and a new board as soon as I can.

You know what would be cool? 12 or 16 cores in one chip as a regular ol' PC or Mac.

Just a random thought, but this is cool!

And what outlier application would use it? Unless you're running workstation-class applicationss, such a CPU would be loafing too much of the time. Data point - I have a Q6600 (Kentsfield); not only LGA775 but four years DEAD - other than games, typically half the CPU is unused. And that is despite Windows 8 and heavy multi-tasking.

Agreed, nothing you will be using for everyday needs will be using more than a few cores. Virtualisation or server applications or rendering or whatnot then fair enough.
I've got a VMWare ESXi server with 8 cores (16 with hyperthreading) and it's running 5 or 6 VMs including Windows Server, Windows 7 and the rest *nix, what's the average CPU usage? 200Mhz if that.

n_K said,
Agreed, nothing you will be using for everyday needs will be using more than a few cores. Virtualisation or server applications or rendering or whatnot then fair enough.
I've got a VMWare ESXi server with 8 cores (16 with hyperthreading) and it's running 5 or 6 VMs including Windows Server, Windows 7 and the rest *nix, what's the average CPU usage? 200Mhz if that.

PGHammer said,
And what outlier application would use it? Unless you're running workstation-class applicationss, such a CPU would be loafing too much of the time. Data point - I have a Q6600 (Kentsfield); not only LGA775 but four years DEAD - other than games, typically half the CPU is unused. And that is despite Windows 8 and heavy multi-tasking.

Yea, guys, I virtualize my system like crazy, while having so many apps open. I usually use a home server. I prefer having my system always running fast, no matter what I do, because I honestly don't like freezes on a system. I've been waiting for that day. I'm a performance junky.

I mean, I was already in the forums trying to see if there's something better than Media Temple's Nitro. No, seriously, 65,000 connections simultaneously is where I need to head.

Up to 100k? Where can I have such amazing networking & performance? Because sites like OkCupid handle the connections amazingly!

I know what a cluster is bro...

But that's too large scale to be thinking of a site of my ideals. I'm talking about a site where only one server will be able to handle that much.

Mr.XXIV said,
I know what a cluster is bro...

But that's too large scale to be thinking of a site of my ideals. I'm talking about a site where only one server will be able to handle that much.

Doesn't sound like it

You are dreaming if you expect to serve 65k/sec dynamic pages from a single server.

hjf288 said,

Doesn't sound like it

You are dreaming if you expect to serve 65k/sec dynamic pages from a single server.

According to n_K, it's somewhat possible. Who knows.

Mr.XXIV said,

According to n_K, it's somewhat possible. Who knows.

Static pages yeah no problem.

PHP/MySQL with highly aggressive caching, I'd say you'd be looking at a ton of memory.

But even then it would prove more economical to spread out the load..

Yea, I was hoping Cloudflare's Railgun might cut it for me on the caching.

I was thinking about load balancing, but I wouldn't think Rackspace should be at use on the first month of the future network.

I think having more cores is a good idea, ok a single application is not going to make much use of 12 or 16 cores but how many people have a single application open. Even on an average day ill have x number of chrome tabs open, word, visio, excel, perhaps some rendering and some VM's, as well as other tools. RAM has reached the point where the processor is starting to be the throttle now.

REM2000 said,
I think having more cores is a good idea, ok a single application is not going to make much use of 12 or 16 cores but how many people have a single application open. Even on an average day ill have x number of chrome tabs open, word, visio, excel, perhaps some rendering and some VM's, as well as other tools. RAM has reached the point where the processor is starting to be the throttle now.

THANK YOU!

You and Mr.XXIV are a minority. And if you need that kinda performance... get a Server motherboard, 2-4 actual CPU's and run the Xeon's with their 12 cores. 24-48 cores ought to be enough even for you power superusers.

If you want speed in threading, I'd say AMD is a better pick though. AMD always been and still is even today, faster with loads of smaller processes. Also its cheaper for the price-performance ratio's.