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

[Svyper1]

All mine. 50/50 from what I can see. Two hex cored Intel rigs, two AMD rigs. Two Titans, one GTX 480 Lightning and one AMD R7990.

Hardly bloody biased, is it?

The issue here is you are always going to have fanboys who don't know the actual facts jumping into threads like this and not quite understanding what is being said.

really ? again you're wrong

it is not 50/50 have a look again

150w for 12 threads (12.5w per thread)
220w for 8 threads (27.5w per thread)

thats 120% less efficient btw you're also reffering to a very old tech in comparison previously i was actually refering to 9370 vs 4770

 

[ALXAndy]

what he's saying is that the Haswell cpu would be far better if AMD were equal competitors........... they aren't !

AMD VS NVIDIA is proof of this...... graphics cards are vibrant/ there's lots going on there, but the CPUs market is dead.

it will only improve if AMD can catch up

They don't want, or need, to catch up. All they needed to do was secure the entire gaming sector all to themselves (both consoles) and then wait for console ports with their fingers interlinked and their hands behind their heads.

The Piledrivers are a five year old technology under the hood. They don't care though, because they know what they can do when used fully.

At some point as a company you have to stop and say "That'll do..."

Intel just continue on with their own devices (now it's laptops and tablets) whilst getting out their sticker and badge kit and then selling it to us for reasons other than it was designed for.

Ivy Bridge was not for us. Haswell was not for us. Both of those were absolutely pointless to a desktop user, but they soon marketed and sold them to us. And like the gullible fools we are* we sold our Sandybridge/Ivybridge/Haswell rev 1 chips and bought the new ones, even if it meant a motherboard change.

The issue now, though, is that people are becoming less easily fooled. They are clocking on to what Intel are actually doing.

*don't count me in that. I read this.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

And just bought myself a FX 8320 and clocked its **** off. Oddly enough the premonition did have meaning.

 

[ALXAndy]

really ? again you're wrong

it is not 50/50 have a look again

150w for 12 threads (12.5w per thread)
220w for 8 threads (27.5w per thread)

thats 120% less efficient btw you're also reffering to a very old tech in comparison previously i was actually refering to 9370 vs 4770

Two AMD rigs, two Intel rigs. 50/50.

Don't you dare taking what I say out of context, there's absolutely nothing I hate more.

You can add another board and CPU combo to that too (my second 8320).

 

[Svyper1]

no they are not 50/50

clock speed means nothing to the amount of information it can handle per second

stop reffering to old dated and held back versions of tech

this is Haswell -E Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K specifications thread, this is not amd 8320

 

[ALXAndy]

no they are not 50/50

clock speed means nothing to the amount of information it can handle per second

stop reffering to old dated and held back versions of tech

this is Haswell -E Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K specifications thread, this is not amd 8320

OMG. You really don't understand a simple equation, do you?

I'm talking about % of ownership. 4 rigs in total. Each one would be 25% of my computer ownership. Two are Intel, two are AMD. Simple maths, 50% of the rigs I own are Intel, 50% are AMD.

So, I deduce, 50/50. That means I am about as balanced as it could possibly be with the hardware I own, which means your 'biased' comment has about as much basis as a cup made from chicken wire.

 

[pmc25]

Can a mod please purge most of the last 2-3 pages? :3

 

[Varsh]

No offence guys but I just have to say that you're behaving like children, take it elsewhere and keep on topic. Anyway to what I mentioned on the last page:

What do you guys think would be a worthwhile upgrade from my 3820? The 4820 was kind of worthless as it was almost the same performance wise but would you think 5820 would give a significant boost?

Ideally the 5960 would be what I want for my work (and I can't afford Xeons) but if those prices are right then even that would be out of the question for me.

 

[mmj_uk]

Can a mod please purge most of the last 2-3 pages? :3

I was thinking the same, getting rather sick of seeing Intel/NVidia threads being trashed by AMD fanboys.

BTW I own several AMD products but I don't claim to be unbiased, my preference is definitely towards Intel/NVidia as they offer better products/services in my experience. I don't go around the forum trashing AMD threads though.

 

[Mal X]

Ivy Bridge was not for us. Haswell was not for us. Both of those were absolutely pointless to a desktop user, but they soon marketed and sold them to us. And like the gullible fools we are* we sold our Sandybridge/Ivybridge/Haswell rev 1 chips and bought the new ones, even if it meant a motherboard change.

The issue now, though, is that people are becoming less easily fooled. They are clocking on to what Intel are actually doing.

*don't count me in that. I read this.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

And just bought myself a FX 8320 and clocked its **** off. Oddly enough the premonition did have meaning.

from reading that in detail, the most important thing he mentioned is that you need as much RAM as possible on your GPU, Mobo as well of course........... which CPU you have wasn't as important.......because they all have their good and bad points

in all the reviews i've read the Intel is a vastly superior cpu to the AMD, i dont think that that you can defend the AMD with its lower price, because it's too far behind and not even as good as my old i5 2500......people are after performance more than anything else.

the Haswell has this dreadful problem with running too hot, but this can be fixed, but if you still only end up with 4.4 OC, then this is still much faster than my i5 at 4.8, people have short memories because the old i5 had problems overclocking too, i can remember all the threads here.

the AMD is the only one that overclocks easily, it always has been, but unfortunately it's too far behind nowadays

 

[Boomstick777]

Can a mod please purge most of the last 2-3 pages? :3

No offence guys but I just have to say that you're behaving like children, take it elsewhere and keep on topic. Anyway to what I mentioned on the last page:

I was thinking the same, getting rather sick of seeing Intel/NVidia threads being trashed by AMD fanboys.

BTW I own several AMD products but I don't claim to be unbiased, my preference is definitely towards Intel/NVidia as they offer better products/services in my experience. I don't go around the forum trashing AMD threads though.

+1

 

[zoomee]

Can a mod please purge most of the last 2-3 pages? :3

Not sure exactly what your expecting. This is an internet forum. Maybe, more and more posts discussing the same meaningless information in a different way?

We got no clues on price or performance yet. All we got so far is a set of numbers with tech specs, useful on paper but not a lot more....

 

[ALXAndy]

from reading that in detail, the most important thing he mentioned is that you need as much RAM as possible on your GPU, Mobo as well of course........... which CPU you have wasn't as important.......because they all have their good and bad points

in all the reviews i've read the Intel is a vastly superior cpu to the AMD, i dont think that that you can defend the AMD with its lower price, because it's too far behind and not even as good as my old i5 2500......people are after performance more than anything else.

the Haswell has this dreadful problem with running too hot, but this can be fixed, but if you still only end up with 4.4 OC, then this is still much faster than my i5 at 4.8, people have short memories because the old i5 had problems overclocking too, i can remember all the threads here.

the AMD is the only one that overclocks easily, it always has been, but unfortunately it's too far behind nowadays

Go run Cinebench R15 on your I5 2500. Please post back with the results.

If you want to make it more fair, run Asus Realbench R2.0 and post your multi tasking scores.

Ta.

 

[Boomstick777]

Go run Cinebench R15 on your I5 2500. Please post back with the results.

If you want to make it more fair, run Asus Realbench R2.0 and post your multi tasking scores.

Ta.

I want to play too..

 

[silvagti]

Can we start a new AMD vs Intel flamewar thread so you guys can duke it out

Seriously, remember you're arguing over pieces of silicon manufactured by global corporations. Unless you have your life savings invested in shares in either company it's not like it really matters that much.

Let's all try to get along and play nicely together!

Actually back on topic I've been looking at the specs of the i7-5820k and i7-5930k. Other than the clock speed they seem to be identical. This is probably a total noob question but if they're both K series multiplier unlocked chips why would anyone pay more for the 5930k when presumably you'll be able to overclock either to similar speeds?

 

[Boomstick777]

I've been looking at the specs of the i7-5820k and i7-5930k. Other than the clock speed they seem to be identical. This is probably a total noob question but if they're both K series multiplier unlocked chips why would anyone pay more for the 5930k when presumably you'll be able to overclock either to similar speeds?

Agreed, only difference seems to be slightly lower stock clock speed and PCI-E Lanes. 5930K seems pointless over the 5820K..

Would be aiming at 5820K to get onto the platform, next year Broadwell -K might have 2 x 8 cores, to make that mid tier more appealing.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Agreed, only difference seems to be slightly lower stock clock speed and PCI-E Lanes. 5930K seems pointless over the 5820K..

Would be aiming at 5820K to get onto the platform, next year Broadwell -K might have 2 x 8 cores, to make that mid tier more appealing.

At first I misread that and thought you meant 16 core CPUs!

I'll be very interested to see how 5820K pricing turns out and then I might consider moving up to the enthusiast platform. It's kind of hard to justify unless it's a reasonable price though as my 3770K does everything I need it to just fine...

 

[shamus21]

At first I misread that and thought you meant 16 core CPUs!

I'll be very interested to see how 5820K pricing turns out and then I might consider moving up to the enthusiast platform. It's kind of hard to justify unless it's a reasonable price though as my 3770K does everything I need it to just fine...

This is the problem with upgrading to a new platform say 3770k to 5820k. You have to ask will it be worth it performance wise and do not forget the cost of new memory. You will not be able to take your DDR3 over to the new motherboard chip-set.

 

[Silent_Scone]

If you're moving to x99 it's all about 5960x and 3000mhz 1.4v memory. Or else why call it an enthusiast platform

 

[8 Pack]

DDR4 will not be any where near 3000mhz on launch. No way!!!

 

[ALXAndy]

DDR4 will not be any where near 3000mhz on launch. No way!!!

I've tried my best to explain this as the thread has progressed. Now I could be wrong, but, from memory....

When DDR3 launched it was terrible. First off, it was terribly incompatible and there weren't many vendors pushing it out. OCZ was one, it was awful. In fact, I still have two 'launch' sticks of DDR3 and they are 1.85v and the timings were laughable. As we know, DDR3 had terrible timings and it's only been very recently that they have finally been able to match the timings DDR2 was on when it was supposedly phased out.

And the same happened when DDR2 launched. DDR was hitting speeds of close to 500mhz, DDR2 launched at 533 only the timings were far slacker. History repeated itself.

As I said before, I could be eating my hat here but I strongly doubt it. If history repeats itself as it often does in the world of computing then DDR4 will be -

No better than DDR3 at launch, and will take at least a couple of years to settle in.

Be prohibitively expensive.

But then I guess if you can see Haswell E for what it is (Haswell, only with more cores and DDR4) then like any other technology you'd be well advised to avoid it at the beginning. Prices will be high, issues will be common.

What I want to know (and tbh? it's the only thing I can't really figure out myself using 30 years of knowledge) is how it overclocks. It needs to if it's going to be £1500 or so for the top end CPU board and ram.

If it's more of the same Haswell? then maybe people will finally learn. Honestly, if it has trouble overclocking due to heat and so on then it's not going to catch on.

With CPUs I have always stayed a couple of steps back. I'm glad I did too, because I don't like buying bad products.

Boom.

** mod edit - less of the personal insults ** . I asked for benchmarks from a I5 2500, not a 4790k. If you wanted to wave your willy go do it against people with rigs that aren't as good as yours. My SBE chip hits nearly 1300 points in R15, miles beyond your paltry 4790k.

If, of course, it was a willy wave on your behalf (come on now let's be real, it totally was).

I've also got SLI Titans if you want me to start posting irrelevant spam?

To those who can read between the lines.

Thank you. It's nice to have some reasoned, well thought out intelligent discussion with you.