Haswell-E to have 8 cores

[deadrats]

http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-core-i7-ivy-bridge-e-core-i3-haswell-lineup-detailed/37832.html

don't know if you guys have heard but the extreme edition haswells, due out next year, will be octo core parts instead of hexa cores.

for those of you that don't know, the slowest SB-E hexa core is the 3930k and can be had for $500, though microcenter every once in a while drops the price down to $400 for a couple of weeks, then they raise the price again.

assuming history repeats itself, come thanksgiving 2014 we might be able to pick up an 8 core 16 thread cpu for $400. with avx2 and tsx, this thing could be just what the doctor ordered for encoding 2/3/4k video with avc/hvec.

[jman98]

Interesting news, but you remind me of a guy I used to work with who was always getting wood from the latest software releases that IBM put out (we were an AIX shop - shudder) and demanding that us system admins install bleeding edge software that sometimes had nasty bugs in it. 2k and above video has failure written all over it. I have no problem with eating those words and being held accountable should I be wrong, but I don't see how it even seems rational to believe that the marketplace wants this and that consumers who have already failed to adapt to BD and HDTV as hoped for are going to magically throw away the HDTVs some of them bought and go with even higher definition video that doesn't even have an official media format made it for it yet.

[deadrats]

2k and above has failure written all over it? are you serious? i'm going to assume you have never seen 2k, 3k or 4k on a nice monitor, have you? it's like the difference between 1080p and full D1, assuming the video is of a high quality source and properly encoded.

[aedipuss]

umm don't get too excited. 2k is 1920x1080. 4k is only 3840x 2160.

[El Heggunte]

I have nothing against 4K resolution in a movie theater, for example. But I don't see the point of it in broadcasts or in "the successor to the Blu-Ray disc" Without a 120-inch screen (minimum), 4K to me will be the same as using 1024x768 in a 14-inch CRT monitor, something will not feel quite right

[deadrats]

umm don't get too excited. 2k is 1920x1080. 4k is only 3840x 2160.

2k is 2048 x 1080, 3840x2160 is 4k ultra hi def tv, 4k DCI is 4096 × 2160, full 4k is 4096 × 3112 and there's a couple of other variants in between.

download the 2k cinema version of sintel and the 1080p version downscaled from 4k and see for yourself:

http://www.sintel.org/download

[aedipuss]

wikipedia 4k video-
4K Ultra HD

4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 pixels (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) and is one of the two resolutions of ultra high definition television, the other being 8K UHD which is 7680 pixels × 4320 pixels (33.2 megapixels). Both are aimed at consumer televisions. 4K UHD has twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 1080p HDTV format, with four times as many pixels overall.[1]


and 2K has always been 1920x1080.

[johns0]

2k resolution is 2048 x 1080 in all the sites I've researched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

[deadrats]

as i already pointed out, 4k ultra hi def is 3840x 2160 but there are a number of 4k variants to the resolution:

instead of arguing with me all of 20 seconds worth of googling your way to wikipedia and you would have found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

[Hoser Rob]

I agree with jman about >2K video.

There's been real research done on perceived quality of 1080p video. The median TV viewing distance is 9 feet. For someone with normal 20/20 vision, considering TV pixel size and the angle subtended by that, you'd need a 70" screen to actually be able to see the detail of 1080p video.

By my reckoning, with 4K at that distance you'd need a 10 to 12 foot screen.

It's ridiculous. And I don't think it'll sell either. I think it's an act of desperation by an industry hit hard by the global economic slowdown.