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

[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

The point, Mal, was that you no longer need a £800 CPU to play games. IE - a £100 AMD will do, because the architecture is almost a complete match for the stuff being written for the majority (IE, console users) and then it'll be slopped over to PC without much thought, as it always has.

And, when it arrives, an 8 core £100 AMD chip will do a fine job.

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

It's not an argument, or a flame war. It's two types of CPUs, both pretty much do the same thing, both have a place in the hierarchy, whether the fan boys like it or not. And I mean fanboys from both sides.

Me? neutral. I've spent money just to make sure of it.

 

[~Mike~]

Is there any relevant information in this thread relating to the thread topic? It just seems to be people arguing and attacking others.

 

[PHazlington]

I'm pretty excited about DDR4...

E: maybe not the price, though. It's gonna be soooooo expensive.

 

[PFS38]

As a gamer you only need to use a cpu that does not bottleneck your gpu. This is why many people continue to use X58 platform. Its no different to highend X79 when it comes to performance in games. The only difference is that it may use more power but thats it.

 

[scotsdragon]

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

Since your a man whos undoubtly played about with these chips, (i know you cannot go against an NDA) would you say this new line will live up to the hype?

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

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.

Yeah, the fact I'd have to get new memory is very off putting I must admit as I didn't get the RAM I'm using now very long ago (bought two sets when OCUK had a very nice sale price) and I can imagine DDR4 will be very expensive...

 

[PFS38]

Since your a man whos undoubtly played about with these chips, (i know you cannot go against an NDA) would you say this new line will live up to the hype?

If anything your better off going for the refresh as the first line will be expensive and plagued with teething troubles.

 

[ALXAndy]

If anything your better off going for the refresh as the first line will be expensive and plagued with teething troubles.

+1.

Yeah, the fact I'd have to get new memory is very off putting I must admit as I didn't get the RAM I'm using now very long ago (bought two sets when OCUK had a very nice sale price) and I can imagine DDR4 will be very expensive...

And that's the kicker. Intel could have easily released a hex core for 1150, but no, if you want our three year old Xeon with a high clock then you're gonna have to spend, big.

 

[Dave2150]

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.

*****. 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.

More nonsense yet again.

If I remember correctly, the original I7 and I5 cpu's were the first mainstream CPU's to use DDR3, one of the first at least.

Here's some components of the system I purchased in 2008 (the hardrive and PSU were for a different build):



6GB of DDR3, for £150, triple channel version.

I'm still using it today, over 5 and a half years later. I added another 6gb of memory (different vendor) a few years later, both coexist fine with no compatibility issues. This is on the original X58 chip, on the Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard.

When Haswell-E launches, you can be sure we'll have a good choice of stable DDR4 modules from the top vendors. Yes, it will be more expensive than old gen DDR3, but it's the latest tech, so of course it will command a price premium.

 

[Mal X]

The point, Mal, was that you no longer need a £800 CPU to play games. IE - a £100 AMD will do, because the architecture is almost a complete match for the stuff being written for the majority (IE, console users) and then it'll be slopped over to PC without much thought, as it always has.

And, when it arrives, an 8 core £100 AMD chip will do a fine job.


.

yes true, also, anyone expecting this new wave of Haswells to be any better than now is deluded..........all you'll get is more of the same...........what we really needed was a much more powerful version of the old i5..... or a cheaper version of that top end i7.....these new Haswells will deffo run hot, because this is a manufacturing Assembly fault and has nothing to do with the design of the chip......if the same crew assemble this new chip then we've had it.....and it'll deffo be the same bunch of idiots

i would be careful in saying that we'll get console ports fixed at 60fps from now on, because a few developers might not.

plus finally, you'll deffo need more than a 100 quid AMD if you decide to game at 4K

 

[ALXAndy]

More nonsense yet again.

If I remember correctly, the original I7 and I5 cpu's were the first mainstream CPU's to use DDR3, one of the first at least.

Here's some components of the system I purchased in 2008 (the hardrive and PSU were for a different build):



6GB of DDR3, for £150, triple channel version.

I'm still using it today, over 5 and a half years later. I added another 6gb of memory (different vendor) a few years later, both coexist fine with no compatibility issues. This is on the original X58 chip, on the Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard.

When Haswell-E launches, you can be sure we'll have a good choice of stable DDR4 modules from the top vendors. Yes, it will be more expensive than old gen DDR3, but it's the latest tech, so of course it will command a price premium.

You remember completely wrong. So total fail on that one.

DDR3 was first launched on socket 775 for E CPUs. The Nvidia 790i was DDR3. My friend paid $250 for 2gb (two 1gb sticks) of OCZ.



There you go, said I still had it. I've removed the spreaders because tbh that's about all it was good for. At the time he bought a Q6600, 790i Ultra SLI motherboard (EVGA) and so on. He never did get to buying the 8800 Ultra he wanted, because it was just bsod heaven since 1911. Even after prolonged phone calls to EVGA it just didn't work.

1.95v. LMAO. Crap timings too, DDR2 demolished it.

http://www.evga.com/articles/389.asp

 

[mmj_uk]

And that's the kicker. Intel could have easily released a hex core for 1150, but no, if you want our three year old Xeon with a high clock then you're gonna have to spend, big.

AMD are still yet to even release a decent 6-8 core CPU (unless you happen to think an 8 core CPU struggling to beat an Intel quad is decent), at least Intel's 6-8 core processors have the performance to match their core count. There's no reason for Intel to make their processors 6-8 core on their mainstream platform when AMD's 8 cores can't even match their 4.

 

[ALXAndy]

yes true, also, anyone expecting this new wave of Haswells to be any better than now is deluded..........all you'll get is more of the same...........what we really needed was a much more powerful version of the old i5..... or a cheaper version of that top end i7.....these new Haswells will deffo run hot, because this is a manufacturing Assembly fault and has nothing to do with the design of the chip......if the same crew assemble this new chip then we've had it.....and it'll deffo be the same bunch of idiots

i would be careful in saying that we'll get console ports fixed at 60fps from now on, because a few developers might not.

plus finally, you'll deffo need more than a 100 quid AMD if you decide to game at 4K

Well as I say, I could be wrong. However, it seems to me that Haswell E = Haswell with more cores. IPC should be identical to what we have now, though in fairness to Intel they may have tweaked it a little.

The thing is, unless Intel are making brand new products for the desktop market then it's just a Xeon. One that you can buy right now, without all of the new board new ram etc.

And it's nothing they couldn't have done on 1150, providing they made it clear what sort of phases it needed. AMD did it on AM3, so there was no reason why Intel needed another new socket.

But hey, how else you gonna get the people to the party? all it needed was a 12 phase 1150 board and you'd be in really.

 

[ALXAndy]

AMD are still yet to even release a decent 6-8 core CPU (unless you happen to think an 8 core CPU struggling to beat an Intel quad is decent), at least Intel's 6-8 core processors have the performance to match their core count.

Oh god here we go again.

I have an AMD 8 core chip here. I've put it up against a Westmere Xeon hex core clocked to 2ghz. Yeah yeah, the clock speed is derpy, but that's what you get on server CPUs.

It barely managed EDIT. It was actually 393 points in Cinebench R15. In the same test my 4.9ghz AMD scored 802 with some fine tuning.

I've put my 8320 up against 4ghz I7 920s and it's laughed at them, so where you get this barely quad info from is a mystery.

I don't do hearsay. Run Asus Realbench 2.0, give me back your multi tasking score. Give me your Cinebench R15 and handbrake scores and compression scores.

Because after all, why would one run tests that did not use a CPU properly? Surely that isn't fair? haha ! Intel are about as fair as Frank Bruno's derrière.

So sorry, I don't buy into off the cuff remarks like that. At the last time of checking there was no Intel quad core CPU able to beat an AMD when used properly for productivity.

The problem is people are just not interested in actual information, just "Well mine is better AMD are crap" etc.

I can tell you now, my 4.9ghz AMD rig with the 7990 in it hauls ass. I don't care what people say, because most of it is baseless.

 

[McstylisT]

AMDAndy

show us an example where your 4.9ghz AMD can surpass any basic computer benchmark compared to a i7 4790K at stock. ? Im sure the others would happily participate.

Also why have some many AMD 8 core users , upgraded to an Intel based systems and then confirmed this is best upgrade they have made. - Search the forum mate. :-|

TBH no-one is really listening anymore.

 

[ALXAndy]

AMDAndy

show us an example where your 4.9ghz AMD can surpass any basic computer benchmark compared to a i7 4790K at stock. ? Im sure the others would happily participate.

Also why have some many AMD 8 core users , upgraded to an Intel based systems and then confirmed this is best upgrade they have made. - Search the forum mate. :-|

TBH no-one is really listening anymore.

If you're not listening then put simply, stop replying.

A 4790k costs.. No wait, I'm wasting my time.

BTW. I just paid £350 for a 3970x, and it doesn't feel smoother, nor does it claim to offer the remedies people say they have found. It's no better than my 8320 thus far, and I've yet to find a game or benchmark that 'feels' any different.

So you can colour me a little unimpressed atm.

 

[Dave2150]

DDR4 memory is already on sale in Japan. Should be available soon worldwide.

The speeds on offer now are at 2133MHz, pictures below:

Prices:

Two 8GB DDR4 memory modules cost ¥35980, £207.

These modules (already on sale) run at only 1.2v.

Prices will be higher when UK Taxes etc are added, probably £230-250 for 16GB of it.

By the time Haswell-E 6 and 8 cores are released, corsair, crucial will have higher frequency parts out with lower timings.

The future is looking bright for Intel - true 6, 8 core cpu's (no shared core nonsense), can you imagine the cinebench score of a 6 or 8 core Haswell -E part? It will completely annihilate any other competition, and that's before overclocking

 

[McstylisT]

15-15-15-50 though :-/ That needs work

 

[ALXAndy]

Very high timings, as I predicted. £230-£250, that's unbranded with no heat spreaders. We will get shafted as usual.

15-15-15-50 though :-/ That needs work

As I also predicted, it will be two to three years before the timings are anything close to what we have now.

 

[Dave2150]

15-15-15-50 though :-/ That needs work

By Haswell -E release/mass availability, there should be much better ddr4 available from Corsair, Crucial etc etc