Rumor: 2014 Intel Haswell-E chip to come with 8-cores and DDR4 support

While some of us might be happy to have the latest Haswell chips inside our laptops, enthusiasts out there might not be so impressed. But there’s some really good news from Intel regarding plans for next year.

A supposedly leaked slide from an Intel presentation points towards the company’s plans for their E-line of chips. The E line is focused on power and performance and it consists of some of the most powerful desktop CPUs.

According to this slide, Intel is planning to release an 8-core Haswell CPU somewhere in the second half of 2014. If this proves true this would be the first 8-core Desktop CPU from Intel.

The Haswell-E product will probably be based on a second iteration of the Haswell architecture due out next year. The new chip could offer up to 20MB L3 cache, support for DDR4 and, of course, 16 threads thanks to its hyperthreading technology.

There’s no clear indication about what the performance of such as chip would be but speculation puts it at between 30-50% above this year’s Ivy Bridge-E processor.

Source: VR-Zone | Images via VR-Zone

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's first party Xbox One games will have $59.99 prices

Next Story

Samsung starts mass producing PCIe SSDs for Ultrabooks

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Meh, best waiting for broadwell which is a proper SoC and just 14nm, instead of having this apu + pch chip. Also broadwell will likely have hardware decoding for h265 and vp9, i highly doubt this will have both of those. Nice chip though.

Looks like I'm finally going to have something worthwhile upgrading to from my ageing i7 980. Just a shame I'm going to have to be waiting over a year for it...

Ilys said,
Looks like I'm finally going to have something worthwhile upgrading to from my ageing i7 980. Just a shame I'm going to have to be waiting over a year for it...

Eyy.. dont be sad I've got 970. It gave a good run.. it i dont find any problem with it... although i am not hard core gamer.

AMD whats that... /s on a side note... considering that they now have a 5ghz cpu you would think that they would just engineer it to do more work per a cycle... cmon... surely... dont know anything architecturally wise... and why they can or cant do this. but when AMD was ahead they had more cycles per a clock... so do it again.

My Main PC is AMD3800 x2... @ 2.5ghz its like 7-8-9 years old.. still running, but I could really do with a new pc but been waiting for that something special.

ahhell said,
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You know how one processor running at 2Ghz isn't necessarily faster than another processor running at 1.8Ghz? That's because the 1.8Ghz is doing more "work" per cycle.

He's saying that if you have a 5Ghz processor and you could make it do more "work" per cycle, you'll get a much bigger performance gain than just trying to increase the clock speed further.

This is an interesting state of affairs. When Intel launched the Pentium 4, the idea was that they could increase performance by just increasing the clock speed and that's when they started hitting 3Ghz+. AMD on the other hand, stopped with the clock speed rate and concentrated on efficiency, so you would get a 2.2Ghz AMD processor that outperformed a 3Ghz intel processor (usually using less power as well).

Then Intel hit a roadblock and discovered that it was extremely difficult to get past 3Ghz without causing instability or huge amounts of heat (yeah, you can overclock a P4 to 4Ghz and beyond but you need special cooling) so they went back to the drawing board and started concentrating on efficiency. The intel core series was born and suddenly intels sub-2Ghz processors were faster than their old 3Ghz+ processors.

I don't know what happened, but at some point AMD decided to go the other way and seemingly concentrate on increasing clock speeds. The whole situation is the reverse of about 10 years ago.

you are a legend, could of not written it better myself.
Saved me loads of typing....

This...is what i was on about

Kushan said,

You know how one processor running at 2Ghz isn't necessarily faster than another processor running at 1.8Ghz? That's because the 1.8Ghz is doing more "work" per cycle.

He's saying that if you have a 5Ghz processor and you could make it do more "work" per cycle, you'll get a much bigger performance gain than just trying to increase the clock speed further.

This is an interesting state of affairs. When Intel launched the Pentium 4, the idea was that they could increase performance by just increasing the clock speed and that's when they started hitting 3Ghz+. AMD on the other hand, stopped with the clock speed rate and concentrated on efficiency, so you would get a 2.2Ghz AMD processor that outperformed a 3Ghz intel processor (usually using less power as well).

Then Intel hit a roadblock and discovered that it was extremely difficult to get past 3Ghz without causing instability or huge amounts of heat (yeah, you can overclock a P4 to 4Ghz and beyond but you need special cooling) so they went back to the drawing board and started concentrating on efficiency. The intel core series was born and suddenly intels sub-2Ghz processors were faster than their old 3Ghz+ processors.

I don't know what happened, but at some point AMD decided to go the other way and seemingly concentrate on increasing clock speeds. The whole situation is the reverse of about 10 years ago.

If it was so simple to increase the efficiency AMD would have done it a long time ago. Takes a lot of advanced engineering and physics (that I do not come close to understanding) to achieve that.

Looks nice but I'm waiting off for Skylake along with MacBook Pro and iMac refresh - honestly there really isn't much of the compelling nature unless you're really going to push the CPU to its limits when doing things like real time video editing etc

As a video and effects guy, this is great news. Looking forward to seeing some raw benchmarks next year and some pricing.

8 cores and DDR4. Was waiting for Skylake, but maybe I need to upgrade my Sandy Bridge system when Haswell-E comes? :-)

I know Was gonna wait for Skylake in 2015 or what the plan was to get 14nm and DDR4, but if broadwell's postponed, so is probably Skylake. And with DDR4 coming earlier.. I can't wait 4 years to upgrade 2015 is the latest. ^^

cleverclogs said,
130 watts. Are Intel major share holders of energy companies?

It's 8 cores and DDR4... The second generation of DDR4 will probably greatly reduce the power.

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) - 125W
Phenom II 965 (Deneb) - 125W
Phenom II 1090T (Tuban) - 125W
FX-8120 (Bulldozer) - 125W
FX-8320 (Piledriver) - 125W

And I do *not* want to say that Intel is any better. It's just not news.

I guess AMD by that time will make either 2 processor in single motherboard to suport 8+8 cores or will ship in their server range stuff and put 16 cores in single process