Should Haswell be able to play most games?

My newphew wants to buy a gaming pc so he could play with me online. He didnt want to spend much. I told him he could wait a year and get a Haswell laptop for about $500 and it could run most of the games at playable settings. I told him that because its rumored that Haswell will be around 2.5 times powerful. Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful. So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.

So do you think Haswell should be able to play most games at playable levels of graphics?

Nope. And your understanding is almost as bad as 6x4=24GHz

Im sure my math logic is right for this measure of graphics power.

Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful.So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.slipknot0129

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful.So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful.So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.slipknot0129

Fail understanding of computers and math.

"40 is 2.5 times bigger than 16 so the performance will bet 2.5 times more."

What are you, 12?

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful.So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.slipknot0129

Your math is right, your common sense is not.

It wont happen like, no one (including AMD or Nvidia) can make a 200% increase in GPU power in 1 gen.

I think the main problem with IGPs right now is the fact that while Intel has been trying to lower the TDP on newer CPUs, they're also trying to pack in higher IGP performance, which is kind of clashing with the whole lower TDP point, especially in a laptop. Its kind of hard to maintain a high CPU performance with a high IGP performance, AMD's solution has always been just lower the performance on the CPU and increase the throughput to the APU's GPU, and in a sense they've always had better integrated performance from that perspective. As far as laptops are concerned, $500 isn't going to get very far even with newer IGP technology. Even though Haswell is suppose to boast a lot more performance, increased shader count doesn't necessarily correlate with THAT much better frames, they're things to take into account like driver support, optimization and etc. Long story short: If your nephew is looking to play games, he should just spend a little more money and get something with a discrete card paired with a good CPU.Blicen

Its not about which is more powerful, its about the lowest common demoninator being enough. I say Haswell is enough to play all pc games.

I'd recommend Haswell to people I know that wants to get into pc gaming when it comes out.

lulz TC's pc knowledge is laughable almost meme worthy

owns an alienware x51

assumes they know everything about pc gaming XD

tc cpu's matter very little in the overall scheme of things gaming wise and haswells IGP is likely to be a joke. intel is aiming for hd 4670/5570 like preformance. they will likely fail. so intel has a LONG way to go before their going to be playing every game without a gpu card of their own.

as for the cpu itself atm a phenom I x4/athlon II x4/core 2 quad/a6-3650 is still more than enough for todays gaming needs at +50 fps

[QUOTE="Blicen"]I think the main problem with IGPs right now is the fact that while Intel has been trying to lower the TDP on newer CPUs, they're also trying to pack in higher IGP performance, which is kind of clashing with the whole lower TDP point, especially in a laptop. Its kind of hard to maintain a high CPU performance with a high IGP performance, AMD's solution has always been just lower the performance on the CPU and increase the throughput to the APU's GPU, and in a sense they've always had better integrated performance from that perspective. As far as laptops are concerned, $500 isn't going to get very far even with newer IGP technology. Even though Haswell is suppose to boast a lot more performance, increased shader count doesn't necessarily correlate with THAT much better frames, they're things to take into account like driver support, optimization and etc. Long story short: If your nephew is looking to play games, he should just spend a little more money and get something with a discrete card paired with a good CPU.slipknot0129

Its not about which is more powerful, its about the lowest common demoninator being enough. I say Haswell is enough to play all pc games.

I'd recommend Haswell to people I know that wants to get into pc gaming when it comes out.

What credentials or experience qualifies you to make that statement?

You could get an hp dv6 with an Amd A8 3550mx and a deticated 7690 for about $550, Which can run pretty much most to all games out.

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]

[QUOTE="Blicen"]I think the main problem with IGPs right now is the fact that while Intel has been trying to lower the TDP on newer CPUs, they're also trying to pack in higher IGP performance, which is kind of clashing with the whole lower TDP point, especially in a laptop. Its kind of hard to maintain a high CPU performance with a high IGP performance, AMD's solution has always been just lower the performance on the CPU and increase the throughput to the APU's GPU, and in a sense they've always had better integrated performance from that perspective. As far as laptops are concerned, $500 isn't going to get very far even with newer IGP technology. Even though Haswell is suppose to boast a lot more performance, increased shader count doesn't necessarily correlate with THAT much better frames, they're things to take into account like driver support, optimization and etc. Long story short: If your nephew is looking to play games, he should just spend a little more money and get something with a discrete card paired with a good CPU.GummiRaccoon

Its not about which is more powerful, its about the lowest common demoninator being enough. I say Haswell is enough to play all pc games.

I'd recommend Haswell to people I know that wants to get into pc gaming when it comes out.

What credentials or experience qualifies you to make that statement?

In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010

In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]Even if it were a 50% increase that would bring pretty much all games at playable levels. Enough for the average consumer to not need a dedicated gpu. I think its gonna be at least double the performance of Intel HD Graphics 4000, Many of the newest games can be played at 30 frames on Ivy bridge so Haswell could pull 60+ on Haswell.

Its not about which is more powerful, its about the lowest common demoninator being enough. I say Haswell is enough to play all pc games.

I'd recommend Haswell to people I know that wants to get into pc gaming when it comes out.

slipknot0129

What credentials or experience qualifies you to make that statement?

In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010

In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What credentials or experience qualifies you to make that statement?

slipknot0129

In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010

In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x.

Yes marketing slides are proof

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

What credentials or experience qualifies you to make that statement?

GummiRaccoon

In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010

In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x.

Yes marketing slides are proof

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]I dont know these charts that are like moores law for igp's and other info ive read. Also the fact that Igp's are improving at a much faster rate than ever seen before.

In 2007 Intel promised to deliver a 10x improvement in integrated graphics performance by 2010

In 2010 Intel announced that the curve had shifted. Instead of 10x by 2010 the number was now 25x.

Blicen

Yes marketing slides are proof

[QUOTE="Blicen"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Yes marketing slides are proof

slipknot0129

no

My newphew wants to buy a gaming pc so he could play with me online. He didnt want to spend much. I told him he could wait a year and get a Haswell laptop for about $500 and it could run most of the games at playable settings. I told him that because its rumored that Haswell will be around 2.5 times powerful. Being that Ivy has 16 units for graphics and Haswell has 40 units for graphics. So that seems to be a lot more powerful. So in theory instead of 30 frames in Bf3 you'd get 75 frames at the same settings with Haswell over Ivy bridge.

So do you think Haswell should be able to play most games at playable levels of graphics?

slipknot0129

I am really starting to love this kid, everything he says is just total gibberish.......you sir do make me chuckle :lol:

[QUOTE="Blicen"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Yes marketing slides are proof

slipknot0129