Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises

[RedJaron]

I talked to someone yesterday who's in this very position; opinion was
it's not enough to justify the cost involved, in his case combined with the issue of the max RAM
for the new 5Ks still only being 64GB (Intel made a mistake there IMO, should have been more).

I'm not sure what you mean by a limit to 64GB RAM. Plenty of X99 boards support up to 128GB.

That's why I said I thought Intel would have been better off having some kind of mid-range 8-core,
rather than fiddle around with cripplied PCIe for the low-end. Having only the top-end as the 8-core
makes the option a tad unaffordable to many.

I quite agree that I would've liked to see an 8-core around $600 too. My guess is they're not so worried about eating Xeon sales as completely cannibalizing the 5960X sales. Even if the PCIe on that was chopped and the L3 reduced, that would be an 8C/16T chip for under $1000.

> People conveniently forget that a Haswell @ 4.4GHz will meet or beat a SB @ 4.8GHz ...

Actually it's generally about the same or less; I did a lot of checking while prepping for posts
way back. Also, it's waaaay easier to get SB to reach 4.8+ than it is to have HW at 4.4+. One
doesn't even need water to have a 2700K at 5.0 (old TRUE + 2 quiet NDS 120s works fine);
takes me 3 mins to sort this in the BIOS with an ASUS M4E/Z.

My point is it's close enough that you can't tell the difference. Most I've read says that ( barring winning the silicon lottery, ) SB needs to be really pushed to go past 4.7 - 4.8 while 4.4 - 4.5 is around the limit for HW ( I noticed a lot of review picked samples hit 4.6 with no problem. ) I'd say both are about equally reachable. But really, the people who would most benefit from the higher clocks won't be as aggressive as the hobbyists since they care about long term. In that case, advantage starts sliding back to HW.

> ... while likely using less power. ...

Really not that much of a factor in the discussions I've had with solo pro types.

Again, not a hard and fast rule that everyone cares about, just another factor to consider in each use case.

> And if you can use AVX2, the HW is the clear winner. ...

Hardly revelant until apps make use of it.

I'm not saying it's something to sell the farm for right now, but it is another consideration for people thinking about this platform. If you're already tempted to upgrade and this helps prep you for the next few years, I can see this being a tipping point for some people.

What's infuriating is there's absolutely no reason why Intel couldn't rerelease the original
SB-E for X79, unlocked to 8-core, even shrink it for lower power. X79 could easily use an
8-core consumer CPU, Intel just chose not to because they didn't have to. And btw, check
back through the original reviews, there were plenty of expectations on the part of hw sites
that X79 would eventually have an 8-core option; would they have said all that without
initial hints from Intel?

Would have been a sweet chip for certain. I don't doubt Intel was looking at AMD, saw they didn't have anything in the space, and maybe decided to save it for later.

I really don't get why Intel made the new middle-ground $600+ CPU only a 6-core. It's just
not enough IMO. If all they're doing is setting performance/feature levels based on what AMD
can do in contrast, well, that's a mistake; their main market here is upgrades over X79 I reckon.
As some reviewers have said, Intel is competing with itself here. HW-E is obviously great for a
solo pro who's never had a 6+ core CPU before, but for the cost involved it's just not that
much better than SB-E for most users.

I agree, this is the X58/79 upgrade market. But you said yourself it's a 30% - 50% increase. I'd call that a pretty substantial improvement. If you're churning every core for most of the work day ( and even at night, ) a $2000 investment ( assuming 4x8GB DDR4 RAM, ) will get you five days' work done in three and a half ( very simplified. ) In many situations that could pay for itself in a few months. Understandably higher density RAM jacks the price up quickly, but still, you're getting at least one more day of work out of your machine each week than you were before.

Reading reviews, the wide oc variability of these new 5Ks is also worrying. I found several reviews
where HW-E samples wouldn't go over 4.2. Elsewhere, one site managed 4.7, though at a pretty
crazy voltage, and a heat/temp level I'd never be comfortable with.

Very much agree with you here. Is this a QA issue or limits of the fabbing? And this isn't something about heat from eight cores instead of six, because that should just result in a lower consistent ceiling.

If they offered an 8-core middleground
CPU for around $600 to $700 (by that I really mean between 400 and 500 UKP) which is 2X faster than
a 6-core SB-E (ie. stock vs. stock, or oc vs. oc; whichever), then I think it'd be a worthy upgrade for an
exsiting SB-E setup.

Would be incredibly impressive, but you're asking for Intel to deliver a 50% performance increase per core in only two generations. Even as impressive as SB was at its debut, it wasn't close to 50% better than the original Core ( core for core and clock for clock. )

 

[mapesdhs]

I'm not sure what you mean by a limit to 64GB RAM. Plenty of X99 boards support up to 128GB.

Full reply later, but just wanted to mention, from the info on Intel's site, the HW-E 5Ks have a max
of 64GB. The boards can have more by using XEON CPUs instead, via registered DIMMs & ECC.
I'd like to think I'm wrong, but if so then why would Intel say the max for all three 5Ks is 64GB...

Oh, the later SB can handle 5GHz no problem; I've tried five 2700Ks so far, 5GHz every time
with an ASUS M4E, takes just a few minutes. Maybe not so easy with the 2600K, but it borders
on boring when it comes to doing this with a 2700K. Or did you mean SB-E? (if the latter, then
yes, going over 4.8 can be a push, but most 3930Ks should have no problem reaching 4.7).

Ian.

 

[RedJaron]

Full reply later, but just wanted to mention, from the info on Intel's site, the HW-E 5Ks have a max
of 64GB. The boards can have more by using XEON CPUs instead, via registered DIMMs & ECC.
I'd like to think I'm wrong, but if so then why would Intel say the max for all three 5Ks is 64GB...

Hmm, interesting, I hadn't checked Ark. It does indeed say "Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type)" is 64GB. I was mainly looking at X99 mboards and found some models officially supported 128GB. I'm not sure why the mboard would support more RAM than the CPU. Perhaps the mboard mfrs meant to offer an option for 64GB memory and 64GB RAM disk? I suppose I can kind of understand the limit. If you're doing work that requires more than 64GB of RAM, perhaps you'd be better served with server components and full Xeons. Granted such a machine costs thousands, and being able to get a CPU for $1000 is much nicer than shelling out $2500+ for an E5. Then again, if you're already paying $2000 on RAM alone . . .

Oh, the later SB can handle 5GHz no problem; I've tried five 2700Ks so far, 5GHz every time
with an ASUS M4E, takes just a few minutes. Maybe not so easy with the 2600K, but it borders
on boring when it comes to doing this with a 2700K. Or did you mean SB-E? (if the latter, then
yes, going over 4.8 can be a push, but most 3930Ks should have no problem reaching 4.7).

No, I was meaning normal SB ( my reading suggests SB-E starts hitting the wall around 4.6 and don't like going above 4.7 like you said. ) Quite a few forums and threads mentioned 5.0 reachable on SB, but either with stability issues or at settings they weren't comfortable for long term use. 4.7 - 4.8 were the numbers I saw reported most often. I'm not saying that's exhaustive research, but it's matches my own experience ( my 2600K is stable at 4.8, can boot and do light work at 4.9, but I wouldn't want to push it to 5.0. )

 

[redwolfe_98]

i haven't heard anything about native support for USB 3, with the new line of processors.. the previous processors in this line didn't have native USB 3-support either, did they? or am i missing something?

i have been waiting for native USB 3 support to be added.. i know that some of the other intel processors have native USB 3 support..

i think it sucks that intel took away some of the PCI-e lanes, with the 5820..

i don't see anything appealing about this new lineup of processors.. intel says it is mostly for power-savings, with the DDR4 memory, but the processors use a lot more energy than the previous lineup, negating any savings from the DDR4 memory.. i think intel is going to find that this is their biggest flop yet..

 

[mapesdhs]

Redjaron writes:
> ... I was mainly looking at X99 mboards and found some models officially supported 128GB. ...

Yes, via Registered DIMMs, which presumably means using XEONs.


> that requires more than 64GB of RAM, perhaps you'd be better served with server components and full Xeons.

All depends on the task. I talked to an ANSYS user who said his ideal workstation would be one CPU
with 1TB RAM.

It's a pity SGI doesn't embrace workstation equivalents of its UV series (they do support Quadros, etc.),
but they've ditched any focus on gfx entirely, which is a shame. Scalability is available to dozens of
sockets, but the pricing is aimed at big data, govt, corporate, auto, defense, etc.


> No, I was meaning normal SB ( my reading suggests SB-E starts hitting the wall around 4.6
> and don't like going above 4.7 like you said. ) ...

One does tend to have to tweak somewhat more to get SB-E to 4.8+, but I think that affects the
3930K more than the 3960X. I've dealt with several 3930Ks; none came close to the excellent
volt/temp behaviour of the 3960X I obtained most recently (sold it in a build). I have no doubt it
would have been fully stable at 5 or more, but there wasn't the time to sort it out, and the buyer
wanted ultra long term stability, so we left it at 4.7.


> Quite a few forums and threads mentioned 5.0 reachable on SB, but either with stability issues
> or at settings they weren't comfortable for long term use. ...

That's only for the 2600K. The 2700Ks were definitely better binned. Every 2700K I've tried
(five so far) happily runs at 5 with good temps and decent voltage.


> my own experience ( my 2600K is stable at 4.8, can boot and do light work at 4.9, but I wouldn't
> want to push it to 5.0. )

Definitely the case for the 2600K. I guess when I started hunting for SB parts, I just skipped the
2600K completely. Cheapest 2700K I've obtained so far was only 120 UKP, cheapest M4EZ was
only 60. Cheapest cooler that handled 5GHz no prob was 15 (old TRUE with a couple of fans; it
was in my gaming system for a while until I upgraded to an H80).

Ian.

 

[RedJaron]

i haven't heard anything about native support for USB 3,

Yes, X99 has native USB 3.0 support.


Ian, good to know on the 2600K vs 2700K. Was it also similar between the 2500K and 2550K?

 

[RedJaron]

EDIT: Lovely, a double post.

 

[mapesdhs]

Ah, now that I don't know (I assume you mean 2500K vs. 2550K), though from posts I've read so far,
the lack of HT means a 2500K's temps are low enough such that most should reach very close to 5
if not more without much effort (easier than 2600K anyway).

I do have a 2500K, not had time to meddle with it yet though.

Ian.

 

[Baconhashtags]

Any news on a dual cpu motherboard for multi-core CPUs? Maybe? Dual i7-5960x, any opinions!

 

[Baconhashtags]

How many GPU cores on the new i7, I'm only asking cos have noticed some 8 core CPUs only have 4 compute cores and then four GPUs cores! Finally a question if i ditch the onboard.graphics processing by installing a graphics card, does this free up the CPU for more compute cores?

 

[InvalidError]

Any news on a dual cpu motherboard for multi-core CPUs? Maybe? Dual i7-5960x, any opinions!

The LGA2011 E-series CPUs do not support QPI for multi-socket configurations. You need a Xeon E5-2xxx and server/workstation motherboard for that.

I seriously doubt we will see the days of inexpensive dual-CPU motherboards from the P2/P3 days again.

 

[Baconhashtags]

Any news on a dual cpu motherboard for multi-core CPUs? Maybe? Dual i7-5960x, any opinions!

The LGA2011 E-series CPUs do not support QPI for multi-socket configurations. You need a Xeon E5-2xxx and server/workstation motherboard for that.

I seriously doubt we will see the days of inexpensive dual-CPU motherboards from the P2/P3 days again.

# i agree very expensive for a home setup however, but would an E series out perform most modern multicore CPUs and leave one socket for graphic processing, Meaning no more need for Graphics cards??

 

[Baconhashtags]

Yeah i did read about the new line up of CPUs being designed able to work in a sealed fan less system possibly given a specific volume, i think it was on the main article!

 

[RedJaron]

How many GPU cores on the new i7, I'm only asking cos have noticed some 8 core CPUs only have 4 compute cores and then four GPUs cores! Finally a question if i ditch the onboard.graphics processing by installing a graphics card, does this free up the CPU for more compute cores?

These chips don't have any IGP in them at all.

 

[Baconhashtags]

How many GPU cores on the new i7, I'm only asking cos have noticed some 8 core CPUs only have 4 compute cores and then four GPUs cores! Finally a question if i ditch the onboard.graphics processing by installing a graphics card, does this free up the CPU for more compute cores?

These chips don't have any IGP in them at all.

#ok as it should be! I did notice that the IGP speeds are as good as most top end single lane graphics cards which is worth noting (intel) max frequency, but since SLI and multi lane graphics increasing performance, you can easily get triple that performance!

But as we know the extra performance come in the extra cost starting between £300-£500 per card if you don't buy the newest cards.

 

[InvalidError]

Finally a question if i ditch the onboard.graphics processing by installing a graphics card, does this free up the CPU for more compute cores?

iGP cores and CPU cores are completely different hardware/logic. On CPUs with IGPs, disabling the IGP does not "free up" anything aside from ~10W in the thermal and power budget.

As Jaron said, Intel's Extreme chips do not have an IGP at all. All HW-E has is eight CPU cores, 20MB L3 cache, a 4x64bits (256bits total) memory controller, glue logic to patch everything together and that's pretty much it. Even after removing the IGP, HW-E needs 180sqmm extra space to fit those four extra cores, 12MB extra cache, two extra memory channels and 24 extra PCIE lanes compared to mainstream Haswell.

 

[vertexx]

Doe anyone have any insights as to why the 5820k generally beats the 4790k in gaming in this article, whereas most other sites have the opposite except in a few of the highly optimized titles? What's different about the test setup here that has the 5820k coming out on top of the 4790k for gaming?

The only difference I really noted was with monitor resolution. This article tested at 2560x1440, where most others tested primarily at 1080p.

 

[seinfeld]

when does the Z97 get DDR4 support etc.

Never.

The memory controller is built into the CPU so it is the CPU that determines what memory standards the motherboard can support. The chipset has absolutely no bearing on that aside from its compatibility with said CPU.

Since the 97-series are only intended for use with Haswell and Broadwell CPUs which only support DDR3, there will never be a 97-series motherboard with DDR4.

If you want a mainstream CPU that supports DDR4, you will have to wait for Skylake late next year, shortly after Broadwell-K's launch, assuming Intel does not delay it.

Ahh yes thankyou Sir. That's what I meant. I'm just trying to join 2 question together really. And then mixed them up
I was asking when will the X99 be essentially available for I5 and I7 mainstream 1150 socket versions and you answered skylake CPU refresh which was supposed to be Q3 2014 but with the push back of the haswell-E or whatever this new 8 core DDr4 CPU and X99 was who knows when us peasants will get it haha

 

[InvalidError]

Ahh yes thankyou Sir. That's what I meant. I'm just trying to join 2 question together really. And then mixed them up I was asking when will the X99 be essentially available for I5 and I7 mainstream 1150 socket versions and you answered skylake CPU refresh which was supposed to be Q3 2014 but with the push back of the haswell-E or whatever this new 8 core DDr4 CPU and X99 was who knows when us peasants will get it haha

Skylake was never meant to launch in 2014; that was Broadwell which Intel officially announced last week - at least the 4.5W ultra-low-power variant of it which was originally supposed to launch in early 2014. Skylake was always intended for mid/late-2015.

As for X99 on mainstream sockets, that is not going to happen either: Skylake will get the 170-series chipsets. Considering how similar the x-series chipsets are to desktop chipsets, one might wonder why Intel bothers with different chipsets... if Intel had wanted to, they could probably have designed z97 for use with both. (Or designed HW-E for use with z97.)

 

[The3monitors]

5820/w 6 cores 12ht hmmmm. That is a great bargain. I might miss this tick though. Wait till the next gen comes out. This made me impressed that I didn't upgrade my 3770k for a 4770k.
Im not like one of those that has to buy a new car every year.

 

[The3monitors]

You know I am reading alot of these comments and I am. Kindof chuckling. Back in the day of the pentium 1 upgrading to a p2 was a huge (and I mean huge) step so much so that you had thousands of people overclocking a celeron to get the same performance out of one.
These are small increases in performance (that is until Microsoft learns how to drag the proc and mem down to a crawl with their updates) Win 9 anyone?

 

[Alsone]

TBH very little incentive to upgrade processors anymore. More cores being the main one but personally, I wouldn't switch my 4 core for anything less than an 8 core and at $1,000, it isn't going to happen. When the i7-5960X becomes the base spec model, then I might finally be interested in an upgrade.

Until then, my i7-3770K is more than enough.

 

[InvalidError]

TBH very little incentive to upgrade processors anymore. More cores being the main one but personally, I wouldn't switch my 4 core for anything less than an 8 core and at $1,000, it isn't going to happen. When the i7-5960X becomes the base spec model, then I might finally be interested in an upgrade.

Until software becomes more heavily threaded - with threads that do significant work instead of dozens or hundreds of sleepers - having more cores is not going to benefit most everyday tasks much. The biggest challenge is that tons of fundamental everyday algorithms do not thread efficiently - if at all.

 

[randomizer]

It's also hard to write non-trivial multithreaded software. The opportunity for difficult-to-diagnose bugs goes through the roof.

 

[The3monitors]

Any news on a dual cpu motherboard for multi-core CPUs? Maybe? Dual i7-5960x, any opinions!

The LGA2011 E-series CPUs do not support QPI for multi-socket configurations. You need a Xeon E5-2xxx and server/workstation motherboard for that.

I seriously doubt we will see the days of inexpensive dual-CPU motherboards from the P2/P3 days again.

Dude dont ever say that. Curses to you and your foul tongue