-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Haswell -E Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K specifications
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
My body is ready. Not sure about my wallet 
Think I'll just pick up the chip on day one, see what the memory kits do whilst I wait for the ROG.
Think I'll just pick up the chip on day one, see what the memory kits do whilst I wait for the ROG.
These are all server memory modules, with ECC enabled etc - so there's a big price premium for those features.
Once they release the non ECC stuff, expect a nice price drop
Well spotted, I hadn't noticed that, I was just blindsided by the name DDR4!
That's my main worry that we'll see very little benefit from the extra cores in certain apps and the potentially lower clock speed could result in worse performance than the, substantially cheaper. quad core chips. It would REALLY suck paying £300+ more than a similar X79 based setup and finding it actually runs slower!
Time will tell I guess..
Looking forward to the benchmarks in 2 weeks time
Is that the date the NDA lifts? Didn't realise it would be so soon.
Last edited:
he is wrong again...
clock speed is not the overall speed of the cpu. No 2 chips are equal speed at the same clock speed.
They may be haswell but different ranks of the same cpu series have different levels of information per sec. example i3 single core at 3.5 ghz is not the same as i5 3.5 or i7 3.5.
Theres more to cpus than just clock speeds and cores.
At this point in time it is only speculation to say whether or not the e series will beat the others core per core because all we have is the surface numbers...
Wait for reviews tbh. Back when the SBE and IBE chips launched there were nowhere near as many games that supported that many threads. In fact, it was pretty much none apart from ARMA II.
Watchdogs does, BF3 does, BF4 does, Metro LL does to name a couple. TBH? how it reviews will strongly depend on the games and apps used to review it with.
Any way, just for fun I just bought an 8 core Ivybridge CPU. For £110. Rest assured I will see for myself how well it scales.
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswelle-...ations-unveiled-flagship-8-core-boost-33-ghz/
i wouldn't get too excited because all of these have a low clock speed, the flagship 8 core cpu is the worst of all at 3.0 to 3.3...... the 2nd cpu not so bad at about 4.0, but the 3rd is a waste of time....it's just a low performing 2nd cpu that's been rebranded......what a rip off.
i dont care if it's a revised cpu/more focused towards gamers etc, because to me it looks like it's the same as now.... or 4% faster or maybe even slower..... but it's definitely not worth 250 quid if you already have a 4770k .
i deffo cant wet my pants over any of these
i wouldn't get too excited because all of these have a low clock speed, the flagship 8 core cpu is the worst of all at 3.0 to 3.3...... the 2nd cpu not so bad at about 4.0, but the 3rd is a waste of time....it's just a low performing 2nd cpu that's been rebranded......what a rip off.
i dont care if it's a revised cpu/more focused towards gamers etc, because to me it looks like it's the same as now.... or 4% faster or maybe even slower..... but it's definitely not worth 250 quid if you already have a 4770k .
i deffo cant wet my pants over any of these
Last edited:
http://wccftech.com/intel-haswelle-...ations-unveiled-flagship-8-core-boost-33-ghz/
i wouldn't get too excited because all of these have a low clock speed, the flagship 8 core cpu is the worst of all at 3.0 to 3.3...... the 2nd cpu not so bad at about 4.0, but the 3rd is a waste of time.
i deffo cant wet my pants over any of these
again wait till actual performance reviews to make jdugements. It doesn't look too convincing for a "flagship" processor to be lower clocked. However it has 33% more cache than the "2nd best". This also takes into effect for the overall performance of the cpu.
It does look that the 8 core is mainly for multitasking...just have to wait and see
yes, the best would be an updated version of the i5 2500..... with maybe 6 cores......because us gamers dont need 8 cores....not yet anyway.
what we seem to be getting is only a very slight increase in performance from generation to generation... or in this case, the same performance but more cores!!!!..... because the reviews mention this.............. this lack of brute performance/major upgrade is because AMD aren't any good anymore, so there's no need for Intel to really push the boat out.
finally and very important too........... what games are due out over the next 2 years that will require 8 cores at 4.6, that wont be capped at 60fps and also be console ports !!!!!..... i therefore speculate that 4 cores at 4.8 will be more than enough for the next 3 years, the only thing you need to worry about is your GPU your PSU and your RAM
ALXAndy is right, Intel are just ripping you off
Last edited:
yes i understand this, but that CPU is very expensive and for that price its clock speed should be about 4.0...... we'll wait and see
Tbh that could well be the max overclock.
YEA i'm deffo no expert like you guys, but from my research over the last two weeks this top end cpu looks like a modified Xeon..... the 2nd definitely looks like the best, this one will probably OC ok, but how it compares to that top end i7 4930K i dont know
that's the cpu i should have got...dam it.
Last edited:
but again the core IIRC is an improvement so you will still have the best 6 core desktop cpu in your system. If DDR4 does deliver ( i know not on the timings ), on the bandwidth performance front you might be pleasantly surprised.