Haswell -E Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K specifications

[Perfect_Chaos]

Are these going to have any % increase over regular haswell at the same clock speeds or is it just the extra cache and cores?

 

[Xplo]

It could be true about them struggling to OC you know. Latest batch of 4770k were really poor, you dont often see many over 4.8ghz on water or air. Similarily 4790k hasn't been amazing, with the best ones doing roughly the same. An average of all chips would probably be 4.6ghz.

Couple that with the fact there are two extra cores (more heat, less overclocking potential) and the 5860x with 8 cores, it could be the i7 920 again, all do 4.0ghz with the better ones, more fine tuning seeing 4.2ghz.

To be honest hopefully they all do 4.5ghz atleast.

If not, then the already bargain of the century (3930k) users will be absolutely laughing. Anybody who jumped of these on release have many many more years of happy useage without upgrading. Most do 4.8ghz fairly easily, equiv. to a 4.6ghz ivy-e and probably a 4.4ghz haswell-e. What an absolutely brilliant result people have had who got one from the off. Still can't be surpassed enough that its worthwile upgrading. I'm sure this would have been a hugely different story if AMD had stiff competition the last few years.

 

[silvagti]

Will be keeping an eye on this. Like others here I'm still running my 5 year old i7-920 and keep looking for a reason to upgrade. Even if it's pricier with 6 cores, DDR4 and the X99 chipset this is sounding like the first enthusiast chipset Intel have released for a long time based on current gen CPU's that might actually warrant the price tag they're asking for it!

Looks promising .....!

Mind you I can't handle the price tag of the 5960X but I could probably stretch to the other two if the performance was there to justify it. Nvidia's new GTX 880 should be out around the same time so that could make for a nice Xmas present for myself

 

[Zeed]

Xplo temperatures will be less of an issue as those dont use ****** tim so those should run like 10c lower core temperatures over 4770k

 

[ALXAndy]

ALXAndy i was thinking of buying cheapest 6 core one and disabling HT hoping that can give me few 100-200mhz oc That would give me 2 extra cores over I5 with hopefully descent clock on my watercooling setup.

Or you could just buy a Sandybridge E chip for cheap, and then overclock it more than the Haswell to make up the deficit and end up with pretty much the same thing for half of the price

Lol at the negative posts, people trying to convince themselves they don't want a nice Intel 8 core

If it makes them feel better it's all good I guess.

I would love one of those 5960X's, absolute monster !

Or you could just go and buy a 12 core 24 thread Xeon right now and short cut to the bit where Intel rebadge those and put them in a desktop socket?

I could have an 8 core Intel right now. I could have gotten one for less than £200 for an ES. The reason I didn't? Intel have locked the bclck and strap on the Xeons to make sure that they can use that to fleece gullible people like you Boom

I think you seriously need to understand what it is that Intel actually do. You make it sound like they're doing you a massive favour

 

[MooMoo444]

Sad that the top end is only 8 cores. It's not as much as a jump over 6 cores compared to 6 cores over 4.

 

[Orangey]

Actually it's the same... 2 cores.

 

[Jokester]

Actually it's the same... 2 cores.

Performance wise it was a 50% jump, compared to a 33% jump though this time, all other things being equal.

 

[layte]

4 to 6 is a 50% increase. 6 to 8 is only 33.3%.

Hurray for basic maths!

 

[ALXAndy]

4 to 6 is a 50% increase. 6 to 8 is only 33.3%.

Hurray for basic maths!

Intel already have 12 cored chips. So basically they are slowly rationing them and drip feeding them into the desktop market.

The issue though is that they are not desktop orientated CPUs. They are simply rebadged server CPUs.

Now back in the day this made an awfully big difference. IE, back in the days of the Pentium Pro, or the Xeon (the original Slot 2 one) the difference was enormous. A thousand pounds got you a Xeon the size of a betamax video tape and the thing absolutely trounced its desktop counterpart because the cache levels were insane. Original Xeons went up to 2mb cache, their desktop counterpart had 256k if that.

That was back in the days where AMD and Intel had completely seperate markets, each one tendered to and looked after properly.

Fast forward to now? lol. AMD and Intel design only for the server market. Then they rehash, rebadge, resocket and god knows what else to create their desktop and enthusiast markets. But the problem is that these chips are server chips and thus, only really work properly in the server/workstation environment.

Up until now Intel have been as tight as a gnat's chuff with Hyperthreading and cores. Had they put Hyperthreading into *all* of their CPUs then we would have support for it. But they don't, they reserve that for non mainstream 'enthusiast' products. As thus, and because the enthusiast market is so small, no one bothers to support these oddball techs.

Same goes for lots of cores. Why Intel did not release massively cored CPUs into 1155 and 1150 is a mystery. They did it on X58, why not carry it through?

No, instead they reserve them for socket 2011 X79 boards that few can afford, and as such you go back to coding in support.... No one bothers.

Even with X99 no one will bother, and the reason? it's not a mainstream product. But Intel don't care, because they'll fleece a good few 'enthusiasts' into buying their expensive server crap, who cares if you can't use it outside of a benchmark?

What we need to see are affordable 8/12 core CPUs that don't sit in a ridiculous socket with all sorts of crap bolted on that doesn't do anything. Then we would see core support.

AMD are not much better. We've got an 8 core huge clocked Opteron that's been about as much use thus far as a chocolate teapot. However, at least they had the decency to include two of them in their console designs for Microsoft and Sony, so at least by fluke us enthusiasts are beginning to see 8 core use.

But how many games are coded for 6+ cores? hardly any.

I've only just taken the plunge to SBE and I didn't do it because I love Intel. I did it because now that AMD have their console CPUs in place I may just be able to use it outside of video/imagery and benchmarks.

 

[Boomstick777]

they can use that to fleece gullible people like you Boom

I think you seriously need to understand what it is that Intel actually do. You make it sound like they're doing you a massive favour


** Snip rest of Andy's whingy comments *

So you're saying I'm gullible because I would like an 8 core Intel chip.. Yeah ok then. Your own personal circumstances Andy don't effect my buying choices. I always say each to their own, you obviously prefer the judgmental way of thinking. Your opinion is less valid each time you judge something on yourself not being able to afford it.

Intel give an extra 2 cores, DDR4 support at the same price point, their doing nothing wrong here, you're just mad because you can't afford one. Therefore will go out of your way to bash it, to justify in your head that's it's ok that you can't get one.

Not to long ago you were saying 8 cores would be needed this year, when you were using an AMD 8 core. Now your saying 8 core is overkill because Intel are bringing one. Very fickle mate

This will be a proper 8 core, none of that weak 8 core AMD stuff.

This CPU is a monster, don't hate on it because it's out of your price range. Just makes you look ignorant.

I would love one of these, I probably won't get one. Doesn't mean I am gonna bash it. I guess that's a more mature outlook, maybe your just not there yet

 

[Boomstick777]

Some ALXAndy quotes. Posted June 2013

ALXAndy On AMD 8 core,

So as I said, the AMD literally doubles the performance. TBH I already knew how much the Xeon was holding back my rig, which was why I decided not to wait for the board to come back and to just go with 8 cores, given that everything will support 8 cores within the next year.

In any benchmark that uses 8 cores the AMD wins. Not by a little bit, by a lot. In any game that uses 8 cores it's exactly the same. IPC is not a factor when you have double the amount of cores at your disposal.

IMO this is the way the future for PC gaming is headed. More cores the merrier

ALXAndy On Intel 8 core,

If 4ghz is the limit then it'll go down like the Titanic.

4+ core support in desktops is still extremely rare, with only a small handful of recent games taking advantage of it

---------------------------------------------------------

So Andy, IPC isn't a factor when your running more cores, unless your Intel? Which incidentally also have much higher IPC and 8 cores / 16 threads. Also not much stuff takes advantage of more than 4 cores for Intel, but for AMD everything will support 8 core this year?

Can you see how your comments may be viewed as bias and fickle?

 

[ALXAndy]

Why are you using a big font? does it remind you of crayons or something?

However are my comments biased? I own two hex cored Intel rigs and two AMD rigs. I own AMD GPUs and Nvidia GPUs (7990, SLI Titan black, GTX 670 SLI and a 480 Lightning).

Don't play the bias card on me, boy, it doesn't work.

I'm not even going to bother explaining the comments of mine that you've dug up. They were all explained then. If I didn't think core support was coming I would not have bought a 3970x. It's not the core support I am complaining about

/**** mode.

It's how the core support has come about. By Intel rebranding server products and dripping them into a market where they didn't even work.

If you don't understand that, or, that a 6 or 8 core CPU is simply an unlocked Xeon that's been around for donkeys years then there's no helping you.

Your issue is that everything has to have a side. You think that every one thinks only in the hardware they own, thus, if they dare criticise anything they're doing it for some sublime reason that even you wouldn't get.

Well you're screwed on this one, because I own one of everything. That's thrown a stick in your front wheel eh?

 

[ALXAndy]

So you're saying I'm gullible because I would like an 8 core Intel chip.. Yeah ok then. Your own personal circumstances Andy don't effect my buying choices. I always say each to their own, you obviously prefer the judgmental way of thinking. Your opinion is less valid each time you judge something on yourself not being able to afford it.

Groan. You are gullible for getting excited over a CPU that's going to cost £900 that Intel have had for years. If you want to frap yourself into oblivion then stop looking at the desktop market and look at what's available in the server market. 8 cores in this day and age is not quite what is available elsewhere. As I said to you, I can get an 8 core 2011 chip right now for less than £200. The only issue? Intel have locked it all up like a chastity belt.

And they should be lauded for that, why?

As for being judgemental? ****in A I am. And why? because I don't like being conned. Unlike you of course, who already has his pants down and his pot of butter in anticipation.

Intel give an extra 2 cores, DDR4 support at the same price point, their doing nothing wrong here, you're just mad because you can't afford one. Therefore will go out of your way to bash it, to justify in your head that's it's ok that you can't get one.

DDR4. Meh. Come back to me in about two years when it's

1. Actually better and faster and as settled as DDR3.

2. Doesn't cost a fortune.

It's funny how you think Intel are giving things though. They're charging for them with aplomb.

Not to long ago you were saying 8 cores would be needed this year, when you were using an AMD 8 core. Now your saying 8 core is overkill because Intel are bringing one. Very fickle mate

This will be a proper 8 core, none of that weak 8 core AMD stuff.

LOL. That's undeniably hilarious. So because it's an Intel 8 core it has merit?

You're forgetting something, dimmy, Intel 8 core chips are £900. AMD ones are £100.

But your argument, right up until Intel were about to launch an 8 core chip was "Get an Intel, nothing uses 8 cores".

I predicted behavior like yours. I predicted that at least one person would say "Hey, every one 8 cores now that Intel makes one !"

This CPU is a monster, don't hate on it because it's out of your price range. Just makes you look ignorant.

I would love one of these, I probably won't get one. Doesn't mean I am gonna bash it. I guess that's a more mature outlook, maybe your just not there yet

Oh dear if only you actually understood. Go on, whilst you believe to be in honesty mode admit that you're not getting one because of the simple fact you can't afford it. That's the real truth eh?

And you can't afford it because Intel are jokers when it comes to their technology and how they distribute and market it. Not because of people like me bashing on it.

 

[cheesyboy]

It's good to have you back, Andy.

 

[Gibbo]

Will be interesting to see if they keep the same price points, £240 for a hex core?

Intel normally always stick to price points, maybe at most £20 more per CPU at launch if stock is in allocation.

 

[ALXAndy]

The problem I see isn't £240 for a hex core CPU. It's £240 for a hex core CPU, then the board you need for it £300+ then the horrendous launch price of DDR4.

There is absolutely no physical reason upon this planet why they couldn't launch a hex core for 1150.

But no. It has to be a big song and dance event where the price of admission is just ridiculous. Thing is, they have no qualms about releasing cheap hex cored Xeons into the server market that run on DDR3 on a regular 2011 board.

Boom doesn't seem to understand any of that though.

 

[Boomstick777]

Don't play the bias card on me, boy, it doesn't work.

Mate you got totally caught out, the quotes show your totally bias and fickle. When speaking about your 8 core AMD chip you said 8 cores are the future, 8 cores don't even need high IPC. Then regarding Intel's 8 core CPU you suddenly say 8 cores aren't relevant and if it's only 4GHz it will sink like Titanic. You just totally contradicted yourself. Just take it like a man.

The Intel 8 core will be a beast. Don't hate on it just because it's out of your price range.

So so fickle..

------------------------------

Some ALXAndy quotes. Posted June 2013

ALXAndy On AMD 8 core,

So as I said, the AMD literally doubles the performance. TBH I already knew how much the Xeon was holding back my rig, which was why I decided not to wait for the board to come back and to just go with 8 cores, given that everything will support 8 cores within the next year.

In any benchmark that uses 8 cores the AMD wins. Not by a little bit, by a lot. In any game that uses 8 cores it's exactly the same. IPC is not a factor when you have double the amount of cores at your disposal.

IMO this is the way the future for PC gaming is headed. More cores the merrier

ALXAndy On Intel 8 core,

If 4ghz is the limit then it'll go down like the Titanic.

4+ core support in desktops is still extremely rare, with only a small handful of recent games taking advantage of it

 

[Andy7]

At the end of the day when AMD held the performance crown with their first FX chips they were charging a fortune for it, don't forget that fact.

Intel hold the performance crown now and are doing no different to what AMD did. Think about it?

Does anyone really think that if AMD brought out a chip tomorrow that would beat anything by Intel they would sell it cheap?

 

[Boomstick777]

At the end of the day when AMD held the performance crown with their first FX chips they were charging a fortune for it, don't forget that fact.

Intel hold the performance crown now and are doing no different to what AMD did. Think about it?

Does anyone really think that if AMD brought out a chip tomorrow that would beat anything by Intel they would sell it cheap?

+1 Exactly this mate.

AMD even tried to get away with it on the FX 9590

At least Intel are selling genuinely high end parts here. That offer new features, updated chipset, DDR4 etc.

Intel already have AMD beat with the lower cost mainstream line, i.e 3570K, 3770K, 4690K, 4770K, 4790K etc.

X99 is just for enthusiasts with enthusiast price tag. If AMD had anything even remotely competitive against this it would be priced in line with it. AMD just don't have anything right now. No point people getting upset about it, it is what it is. Doesn't make them any less desirable, I would love a 5960X. Basically your getting the kind of performance now that AMD may have in about 3-5 years. For some it's worth the money. For people that can't afford it can go with 4690K > 4790K / Z97 and still have system that's many many times faster than AMD's stuff.