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

[ALXAndy]

but you've got no DDR 4 Mobo

does DDR 4 fit an existing mobo, man i must be dumb

no it doesn't the slot is further over to the left.......... well there you go!

I wouldn't buy into DDR4 with your money lol. That's how dead set I am against a new technology.

I got bored of BSODS many years ago.

 

[Dave2150]

Seems crucial have started selling DDR4 in the UK, having a quick look at the quad channel kits seems that 16GB kits are about £240ish 32GB kits are about £380 and 64GB kits are about £700!

Hopefully when some more competitors bring out some memory we might see a slight price war?

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

 

[Dave2150]

.
Only die hards switched to Ivy. Only hardened die hards went Haswell, and only the craziest went Devil's Canyon.

Again, this is just amd fanboy nonsense.

If anyone was in the market the buy a new pc when Ivy was released - it was the best performing CPU at the time, with the most upto date motherboard features.

If anyone was in the market to buy a new pc when Haswell or Devil's canyon was released - they are both the best performing CPU's available at the time, with the most up to date feature set on their respective new chipsets.

Not everyone upgrades every 6/12 months. For someone who needs to upgrade right now - Devil's Canyon is simply the best performing cpu for the money - no questions asked.

Saying that only 'die hards' went Haswell is being extremely ignorant. What else would people spend their money on now, who are buying a new PC and want the best performing mainstream CPU?

If they bought a AMD - they'd get far less performance in every commercially available game/application, far less heat, greatly reduced electricity bills etc, fully up to date instruction sets - there's just no competition.

This is coming from someone who always bought AMD cpu's when AMD actually made competitive products. Sadly, my last AMD was a FX2, donkeys years ago.

 

[Sylver123]

I usually upgrade my system every 2-3 years. Now it's about time I did it again.

By the time I have the money to spend on the new system, the x99 platform will be out by then, so of
course this is what I will go for unless Skylake is just around the corner and is said to be much better.

 

[ALXAndy]

Again, this is just amd fanboy nonsense.

If anyone was in the market the buy a new pc when Ivy was released - it was the best performing CPU at the time, with the most upto date motherboard features.

If anyone was in the market to buy a new pc when Haswell or Devil's canyon was released - they are both the best performing CPU's available at the time, with the most up to date feature set on their respective new chipsets.

Not everyone upgrades every 6/12 months. For someone who needs to upgrade right now - Devil's Canyon is simply the best performing cpu for the money - no questions asked.

Saying that only 'die hards' went Haswell is being extremely ignorant. What else would people spend their money on now, who are buying a new PC and want the best performing mainstream CPU?

If they bought a AMD - they'd get far less performance in every commercially available game/application, far less heat, greatly reduced electricity bills etc, fully up to date instruction sets - there's just no competition.

This is coming from someone who always bought AMD cpu's when AMD actually made competitive products. Sadly, my last AMD was a FX2, donkeys years ago.

Another post of mine taken out of context. Also full of nonsense.

First up I was talking about upgrade paths. If you bought Sandy, then went on to Ivy, Haswell etc (buying new boards). Get it? that's what I was referring to.

Each one gives you 5-10% over the last, neither make any difference to gaming given that 110 FPS is no difference in reality to 100 FPS.

Moving to AMD. Don't talk to me about power. No one complained when the 920-980x were 140w CPUs out of the box and could hit temps in the low 90s. Neither of them saved any one any money on 'leccy, no one cared. Just like I don't care that my 3970x is a 150w CPU at stock speeds.

I shudder to think what it's doing now, mind.



Click it. 12 Phases. And know what?



When my £100 AMD can hit 803 points. It's kinda, you know? disappointing. Thankfully I didn't really spend much more on it than a 4790k and good board. (the 3970x not the AMD rig)

So basically my £100 AMD performs 2/3 as well as my 3970x in heavily threaded apps, yet, cost a cool grand when it was released.

I reiterate, AMD CPUs are absolutely fantastic value for money. Their only, single, down side is support. If AMD had worried more about getting support for their 8 cores every one would be saying "Well the 4670k is a good CPU, but 4 cores in this day and age is a bit mean"

IE - if the AMD was supported properly it would be better than Intel's £160 4 core offering. For £100. You don't even need an amazing board for brilliant SLI CFX support. £90 is the entry fee, get a good cooler, pretty much guaranteed 4.7ghz.

And that's my issue. Given I've been into computers for 33 years now I WANT to see more cores being used, more cores being sold, more cores being supported. I couldn't care who makes them. We were told 2 cores was enough for years, then we were told 4 cores was in.. We always get pretty much half of their server products.

And I wouldn't mind if that half, you know? wasn't their server products but they are. I find it hard to believe that so many people brand themselves enthusiasts when they are getting absolutely buggered when it comes to being ripped off all the time.

Servers can have 64 cores. Servers can use 64 cores. Why the fudge are we making do with bloody 4?

 

[mmj_uk]

Intel are just desperate for something to try and make people buy again. Contrary to what you see around forums like this (with a small handful of users buying everything they have to sell) people just ain't stupid. Many still have their Sandy rigs, as they fully understand just how good they are and how rubbish Ivy and Haswell are for an upgrade path.

The same could be said of Piledriver but I don't see many AMD owners still running Bulldozer nowadays? AMD fanboys would be wetting themselves with excitement if AMD released a 10% faster Steamroller FX8 next week followed by a 10% faster Excavator FX8 a year from now.

You just sound envious that Intel are still giving people a reason to upgrade, unlike AMD who haven't been an attractive option since the Phenom X6.

When Intel released Sandy AMD were still slightly competitive. I laid out just how my 8320 can beat I7 920s very easily in enterprise and threaded benchmarks. Intel knew this.

Bulldozer wasn't even out when Sandy Bridge launched let alone Piledriver so why even compare 8320 to i7 920? it's embarrassing.

Nehalem was competing against Phenom II at a time when Bulldozer was still being hyped as the next K7. The Phenom II X6 was still getting soundly beaten by Nehalem in the majority of situations where core speed mattered, you keep pointing to "enterprise and threaded benchmarks" because it's the only area where AMD has been competitive in recent years, even though it's largely irrelevant in most normal day to day use. Phenom X6 was severely outclassed by Gulftown, it's only because it had two extra cores that it did well in some situations against Nehalem.

They released Sandy to take the crown once and for all, but, slipped up and released too much, especially with the 3930k.

And they have been looking for a product to wow people with ever since.

They have been focussing on reducing TDP and improving the IGP, the tri-gate transistors used in IB onwards do not overclock as well as classic transistors so it has seemed like they haven't gone very far recently. Increasing power efficiency is obviously more important to them than "Wow'ing people".

Only die hards switched to Ivy. Only hardened die hards went Haswell, and only the craziest went Devil's Canyon.

So what's the problem with that? enthusiasts will buy whatever is fastest even if the difference is marginal. If you see a problem with that I'd suggest joining a different forum as you're a fish out of water here.

 

[413x]

I wanted to go amd
I even had the board. Was only the cpu I needed
I still went and bought a i7 4770k

There really wasn't any other option
Is only very specific applications where amd keeps up unfortunately

 

[Tom B]

I really don't see the point in discussing AMD CPUs in a topic about Haswell-E, especially given the fact that there is no comparable AMD CPU to contrast it with.

 

[ALXAndy]

The same could be said of Piledriver but I don't see many AMD owners still running Bulldozer nowadays? AMD fanboys would be wetting themselves with excitement if AMD released a 10% faster Steamroller FX8 next week followed by a 10% faster Excavator FX8 a year from now.

It beats the 5% and more heat Intel keep giving out. Plus you wouldn't need a new motherboard for it either.

You just sound envious that Intel are still giving people a reason to upgrade, unlike AMD who haven't been an attractive option since the Phenom X6.

5% plus a new motherboard is not a reason to upgrade, it's clear stupidity.

Bulldozer wasn't even out when Sandy Bridge launched let alone Piledriver so why even compare 8320 to i7 920? it's embarrassing.

Why not? I've seen plenty of I7 owners saying their old 920 is faster than an AMD. Don't see you going around taking exception to that?

The technology in the PD is about as old as the 920, so why not compare the two? Not like the 8320 is not available any more is it?

Nehalem was competing against Phenom II at a time when Bulldozer was still being hyped as the next K7. The Phenom II X6 was still getting soundly beaten by Nehalem in the majority of situations where core speed mattered, you keep pointing to "enterprise and threaded benchmarks" because it's the only area where AMD has been competitive in recent years, even though it's largely irrelevant in most normal day to day use. Phenom X6 was severely outclassed by Gulftown, it's only because it had two extra cores that it did well in some situations against Nehalem.

Phenom 2 Deneb was made to compete with the quad core 45nm Intel CPUs, not the I7. That's not how the Intel boys want to see it though. No, they want to think AMD tried to compete with the I7 because then they get all warm and fuzzy thinking that Intel kicked AMD's arse again. Sadly it wasn't like that.

AMD have made so many statements on competing now that it's not even funny. As for comparing? funny ! every time Intel release a new CPU every one brags about how much faster it is that PD. But that's OK with you Mr Double Standards?

They have been focussing on reducing TDP and improving the IGP, the tri-gate transistors used in IB onwards do not overclock as well as classic transistors so it has seemed like they haven't gone very far recently. Increasing power efficiency is obviously more important to them than "Wow'ing people".

LOL. They are shrinking dies, reducing power use and improving the IGP for laptops and tablets. Then they are selling them as enthusiast products.

Put it this way. If Intel do not remain competitive in the laptop/tablet/insert portable device here < > market they will go bankrupt. As much as I'd like to think that the silly people here who buy everything they make are enough to keep them afloat they're not. It really is as simple as that.

So what's the problem with that? enthusiasts will buy whatever is fastest even if the difference is marginal. If you see a problem with that I'd suggest joining a different forum as you're a fish out of water here.

Enthusiasts (refrains from using other names) will buy a piece of dog poo, so long as they slap a badge and a label on it.

 

[Andy7]

It beats the 5% and more heat Intel keep giving out. Plus you wouldn't need a new motherboard for it either.



5% plus a new motherboard is not a reason to upgrade, it's clear stupidity.





Why not? I've seen plenty of I7 owners saying their old 920 is faster than an AMD. Don't see you going around taking exception to that?

The technology in the PD is about as old as the 920, so why not compare the two? Not like the 8320 is not available any more is it?




Phenom 2 Deneb was made to compete with the quad core 45nm Intel CPUs, not the I7. That's not how the Intel boys want to see it though. No, they want to think AMD tried to compete with the I7 because then they get all warm and fuzzy thinking that Intel kicked AMD's arse again. Sadly it wasn't like that.

AMD have made so many statements on competing now that it's not even funny. As for comparing? funny ! every time Intel release a new CPU every one brags about how much faster it is that PD. But that's OK with you Mr Double Standards?





LOL. They are shrinking dies, reducing power use and improving the IGP for laptops and tablets. Then they are selling them as enthusiast products.

Put it this way. If Intel do not remain competitive in the laptop/tablet/insert portable device here < > market they will go bankrupt. As much as I'd like to think that the silly people here who buy everything they make are enough to keep them afloat they're not. It really is as simple as that.





Enthusiasts (refrains from using other names) will buy a piece of dog poo, so long as they slap a badge and a label on it.

If you are happy with AMD then cool. Nobody is forcing you to buy Intel Products.

You remind me of kids arguing years ago about Sega and Nintendo consoles.

Chill out and enjoy yourself sometime.

 

[Ayahuasca]

5930k will be my choice I think with a GTX 880 or something.

 

[Dave2150]

Another post of mine taken out of context. Also full of nonsense.

First up I was talking about upgrade paths. If you bought Sandy, then went on to Ivy, Haswell etc (buying new boards). Get it? that's what I was referring to.

Each one gives you 5-10% over the last, neither make any difference to gaming given that 110 FPS is no difference in reality to 100 FPS.

Moving to AMD. Don't talk to me about power. No one complained when the 920-980x were 140w CPUs out of the box and could hit temps in the low 90s. Neither of them saved any one any money on 'leccy, no one cared. Just like I don't care that my 3970x is a 150w CPU at stock speeds.

I shudder to think what it's doing now, mind.



Click it. 12 Phases. And know what?



When my £100 AMD can hit 803 points. It's kinda, you know? disappointing. Thankfully I didn't really spend much more on it than a 4790k and good board. (the 3970x not the AMD rig)

So basically my £100 AMD performs 2/3 as well as my 3970x in heavily threaded apps, yet, cost a cool grand when it was released.

I reiterate, AMD CPUs are absolutely fantastic value for money. Their only, single, down side is support. If AMD had worried more about getting support for their 8 cores every one would be saying "Well the 4670k is a good CPU, but 4 cores in this day and age is a bit mean"

IE - if the AMD was supported properly it would be better than Intel's £160 4 core offering. For £100. You don't even need an amazing board for brilliant SLI CFX support. £90 is the entry fee, get a good cooler, pretty much guaranteed 4.7ghz.

And that's my issue. Given I've been into computers for 33 years now I WANT to see more cores being used, more cores being sold, more cores being supported. I couldn't care who makes them. We were told 2 cores was enough for years, then we were told 4 cores was in.. We always get pretty much half of their server products.

And I wouldn't mind if that half, you know? wasn't their server products but they are. I find it hard to believe that so many people brand themselves enthusiasts when they are getting absolutely buggered when it comes to being ripped off all the time.

Servers can have 64 cores. Servers can use 64 cores. Why the fudge are we making do with bloody 4?

Yes 920's use a lot of power compared to Sandy/ivy/haswell. No-one is buying a 920 now though. We have to look at the new CPU's available today.

You can have either a power effficent 88w Devil's Canycon, which blows any AMD cpu out of the water, in a wide variety of games. Many games are not multi-threaded. We all know how pathetic that £100 AMD cpu fares in those games.

There's simply no contest for anyone buying a mainstream CPU today.

With the 4790k you get:

Far faster CPU in every game/program/benchmark available.
Far lower power usage, far lower electricity bill per year (some care about it)
Fully up to date z97 chipset, supporting all the new technologies.

With any currently available AMD cpu, compared to the 4790K, you get:

What you pay for. A cheap CPU that is satisfactory for budget users out there. For anything other than budget, 4790k is by far the better choice

 

[ALXAndy]

Yes 920's use a lot of power compared to Sandy/ivy/haswell. No-one is buying a 920 now though. We have to look at the new CPU's available today.

You can have either a power effficent 88w Devil's Canycon, which blows any AMD cpu out of the water, in a wide variety of games. Many games are not multi-threaded. We all know how pathetic that £100 AMD cpu fares in those games.

There's simply no contest for anyone buying a mainstream CPU today.

With the 4790k you get:

Far faster CPU in every game/program/benchmark available.
Far lower power usage, far lower electricity bill per year (some care about it)
Fully up to date z97 chipset, supporting all the new technologies.

With any currently available AMD cpu, compared to the 4790K, you get:

What you pay for. A cheap CPU that is satisfactory for budget users out there. For anything other than budget, 4790k is by far the better choice

What I'm saying is no one cares dude. No one cared when Intel made a 150w quad core extreme, no one cared when the I7s ate power. At the time AMD were doing E versions of their Athlons which used little power, as were Intel. How many people around here have an I5 T or whatever they're called? that would be about none.

It's a really silly argument tbh.

I know the 4790k is a better CPU. Whether or not it's a better choice? that remains up to the buyer, and, depends on what he is using it for.

All APIs now point to the CPU being eliminated. So AMD's Mantle probably won't catch on (see? I'm able to criticise anything where I see fit) but, what it will do is get M$ to work a bit harder on DX12. So once again AMD would have had an idea that ends up being used everywhere for everyone's good.

 

[Mal X]

you guys are just going around and around in circles..... but the thread is all about are these new CPUs worth buying.

1.... no, not if you already have a 4790k or a 4770k
2.....if you want to upgrade from the above, then wait to see what's released next year.

these will be about the same, or maybe 5% more powerful than our ones, thus not worth £250 or more

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

Ive got the upgrade itch with a [email protected], really fancy X99, but for gaming would the 4790k be better? Just feels like old tech now....

 

[ALXAndy]

Ive got the upgrade itch with a [email protected], really fancy X99, but for gaming would the 4790k be better? Just feels like old tech now....

Haswell E = Haswell with more cores. It really is as simple as that. However, Haswell E = more heat. On Sandybridge E the maximum overclock on a store bought cooler/AIO is around 4.6ghz. Some get 4.7, I get 4.8.

However, on regular old Sandy 5ghz was very common with far less heat and power use.

If a game only supports 4 cores then Haswell E will actually be worse than Haswell Devil's. The reason? if it's only seeing four cores it only cares about clock speed. The Haswell E range will lose, I predict, around 10% of the clock speed of the quad core. The 8 core Haswell will be even hotter, so again, the 6 core will no doubt clock higher.

There is no sane reason right now to jump from D's C to Haswell E. Not unless you need as many cores as you can get, in which case you would already have a SBE/IBE rig and wouldn't need to buy Haswell E.

The only fathomable reason other than workstation/rendering/modelling etc for buying a Haswell E is that you want to look ahead into the future, when hopefully everything supports 8 cores. Then they will come into their own.

Well, unless you like benchmarking of course.

I think I'm going to buy an 8 core IBE chip soon. They're carrots @ £150 on Ebay.

 

[Mei]

i think youve got to really want some onboard feature or just love shiney things to want to upgrade atm
tho who the hell dont like shiney things

be nice to see more on the new motherboards

 

[vsg28]

So speaking of X99 and Haswell-E, Pieter had this to say on HWBOT:



This was posted on the 22nd, and if he is right (he pretty much always is) then we got another 2 weeks before Haswell-E. This is way sooner than I expected. TTL in one of his videos hinted at this too but I didn't take him seriously then.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Ah balls.

 

[vsg28]

It could be a soft launch, or is that just my wallet speaking?