Intel 4th Gen “Haswell” Processor To Be Revealed In 3,337,200,000,000,000 Nanoseconds

Intel will reveal its next generation Intel Core processor in approximately 3,337,200,000,000,000 nanoseconds, give or take a few millions.

Intel’s official PR letter claims that "The new family of processors will surpass old technology expectations and usher in a host of striking new designs with incredible performance and extraordinarily long battery life.”

In case you are wondering, this means that Intel’s upcoming “Haswell” processor will launch on June 3rd, 2013 in USA.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


The game is up fools...

The game is up boys (intel & MS), most average consumers, the ones with little knowledge the mums and dads + the retards that go to Dell/HP, the ones that have been ripped off by you in the past selling useless bullshit like the cheap celeron while you create your bullshit captitalist tier market when you could have given them a decent processor... instead of cheating them with less BUS speed or less CACHE. Well they have got tablet computers with ARM and android to update their facebook page and watch youtube and write emails use skype. Oh, and not forgetting playing their angrybird! .... Have you noticed how evertime intel makes a new faster processor, MS makes a dumb bloated version of the OS to keep you where you were. And i noticed AVG and even firefox becoming bloated (larger installation) more resources hungry and almost making a case for needing more faster machines. It's some ******* conspiracy is what it is.. And even though they have made some better technology in the labs, they will sell you some old **** just so you can later pay again and upgrade. The TV guys have done the same **** with 720P so called HD ready, what the ****?! And then FULL HD 1080P..... and now 4K ULTRA HD. .. They have bought their "version" bollocks to the consumer electronics, look at the HDMI ver. 1.3, 1.4 what the ****?! Oh and what about LCD monitors, and now OLED and i've seen some really *******response time i have no idea why they even bother manufacturing these... ******* chinaman is hell bent on filling the landfill sites with sub standard bullshit while wasting the Earth's resources. I just hope some wasted people will just be claimed by cancer!

Agreed, too bad most people

Agreed, too bad most people don't use Linux. For the vast majority of tasks it outperforms Windows, and for the others you could dual boot. I dual boot, and altho i still use Windows allot for some games, allot of Windows only games work threw WINE or Play On Linux. It may only be a matter of time before all Windows software can be emulated and run directly on Linux once and for all. Eliminating the software drag on your hard earned hardware.
You voted 'no'.

OLED's use a fraction of

OLED's use a fraction of electricity of what normal LED screens take as each pixel become their own light source as an electric current goes through it. That being said, it's probably the only technology capable of true dynamic contrast, as all they need to do to get a black colour is to not power the pixel, whereas all current LCD monitors have backlighting that never shows true black on the screen. The response time of a human brain is between 20 - 100 ms, and any two things that flash beneath 100 ms is shown as a combination of both. An OLED has a response time between (2 to 16 ms), far faster than what our brains can comprehend, so unless your eyes are working at the very least 62 FPS (which it is not), then OLED screens are rather competent. I'd say OLED's are the way to go once they find a better way to manufacture it. It's far better of an environmental impact. TLDR: OLED's are already being implemented into current technology whether you like it or not. *CAPTCHA: Mustachioed*

Its all good that they have

Its all good that they have new tech available but really, theres absolutely no use for it right now... the gpus would have to be 2-3 times as fast... even then the only difference it would make is loading times which arr not even that bad now.... waaay faster than consoles.. so who really cares? people with no life and "MUST HAVE" pointless new stuff to brag about and sound smart.

We're talking about speed for

We're talking about speed for gaming here, in a time where most games are multiplaform and the average gamer on pc uses about 3-4gig of ram with developers aiming for the mainstream to sell as much copies as possible, tell me why should I invest in such a beefy cpu?


lol 128gb ram that **** is old news been running 192gb ram for a year. I want to see some serious pc's not this noobish equipment and ppl might say 192gb ram for what. umm ramdisk maybe! when u can run read and write at 7gb a sec then u will understand why!.

Congratulation your start

Congratulation your start menu pops up a few milliseconds before mine. Too bad it isn't noticeable. BTW.. it will makes the few games you have on your little space faster, but it won't make your games runs any faster, or make you even slightly better at them so.. screw off.

No, they mean what practical

No, they mean what practical application to THEIR lives would that mean. So smart yet you fail to be moderate enough to "get it". There needs to be a reason 192GB of memory and a ram disk would serve, otherwise it's a waist of resources. But then again in North America's imaginary land it's ok to be obese in any way possible. Bigger cars than necessary, more memory than necessary, it's all good. Just go back to sleep can consume as much as you can, there are professionals running the world for you. They will "take care" of you don't worry ;-)

"The new family of processors

"The new family of processors will surpass old technology expectations and usher in a host of striking new designs with incredible performance and extraordinarily long battery life.” Anyone else getting tired of the robots ruling the world? These are not the words of a healthy and whole human being.

We do, if you put the limited

We do, if you put the limited requirements of your personal computing experience aside and think about the data centers that make the internet what it is today you'll realize how important it is to increase the amount of cores and ram per machine. One server blade with 16 cores consumes a lot less power than two blades with 8 cores, takes up less space and generates less heat.

I agree, but on the same note

I agree, but on the same note, increasing the number of cores overall is a good thing right? That way you have more CPU "Horse Power" for less power consumption and heat. At least according to my limited knowledge. I got the cheep 6-core AMD CPU with a wimpy 2.6Ghz simply because i did not need the performance of a faster CPU, but the slow speed 6-core was not allot of money at all. Seemed logical for a mid range used like myself. And i would like to see a nice 8-12 core CPU in the next 2-3 years. Also it was nice to see the PS4 and SuckBox720 using more cores at slower speeds. Should push the game industry into programming games to utilize more cores.

You do realize three

You do realize three nanoseconds for a processor would actually be slower than .3 trillionths of a nano right?? Its like comparing the human brain, the brain waves at three seconds would take a week to reach you fingers for response. Where as trillionths would be the speed at which I smack you but your too stupid to realize I smacked you. I guess Intel wins favors by record numbers huh.

Add new comment