• 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 Owners Thread***

smogsy said:
just to confirm (as possible adopter)

Gaming Only:
the 6 core & 8 Core chips technically are no better than say a i7 3770k unless your pushing tri/qaud GPU's
because games do not utilise quad-core properly in most cases. & the faster less cores would better in this case

also the 28 lanes equates to 2 way 16x & 8x or 3 way 8x
Click to expand...

Wanna back that up with something?
 
im asking not telling. having 2 cores doing nout & lower clocked in theory would be slower or the same as a 3770k
 
There's been a beta BIOS released for the Gigabyte X99 boards (or at least the UD5), which "fixes Turbo Boost issue". The issue was that cores weren't clocking up properly in some cases - so much so that Superpi, for example, was taking a good couple of minutes to run its 4M test, something which takes less than a minute on my old 2600K. After the update it's down to 48 seconds, which puts it neck-and-neck with a similarly clocked 3770K.

The FPS counter in Diablo III shows in the low 200s without vsync and no AA now, as opposed to a somewhat stuttery 35-60 yesterday. I don't know what the 2600K managed, but I suspect it would have been close to the current numbers. D3 is a resolutely single-core game, at least according to the Intel XTU program.

Windows generally now seems smoother and more responsive too - much more like it should be!
 
Last edited:
Born_2_Kill_83 said:
Misread the tone, my mistake, theres more to a CPU than cores, it also depends on your monitor and GPU's, I have 3770k and making the upgrade.
Click to expand...

agreed

but if the games barely use qaudcore they wont be using sixcores & the cores are slower so a 3770k would be better in theory.

6 cores at 3.5ghz say or 4 at 3.7 (game only uses 4) so in "theory" 3770k is better

personally i kinda want the x99 though!

dont really want to spent 2k though for worse performance if gaming sense
 
smogsy said:
agreed

but if the games barely use qaudcore they wont be using sixcores & the cores are slower so a 3770k would be better in theory.

6 cores at 3.5ghz say or 4 at 3.7 (game only uses 4) so in "theory" 3770k is better

personally i kinda want the x99 though!

dont really want to spent 2k though for worse performance if gaming sense
Click to expand...

To be fair it seems like most of the reviews I've read state that you'd need to be on a serious setup for the 6 or 8 cores to make any difference from a gaming point of view. Most reviewers seem to agree that where these chips really thrive is in video editing, rendering, etc.

From the Vortez review:

'As with every high end desktop solution we still need to be mindful of just who is going to benefit from the platform, and once again it isn't gamers. Not only would your budget need to be astronomically higher than you should ever spend on a pure gaming system, PC games simply don't use multiple cores well enough to exploit the power of having eight available. Most are optimised for two, some for four, but eight is very much off their radar. Sixteen logical cores via hyperthreading? Forget about it.'

From bit-tech:

'These are huge gains but again, to see it out perform its closest rivals, the software needs to be addressing all 16 threads and putting all of them under heavy load. Our game tests made this clear - not only are they all clearly GPU limited with the CPUs we used, even at our toned-down graphics settings and using a mighty GTX 780, but additional clock speeds resulted in almost negligible gains in performance. It's clear that you'd need to drastically boost the graphics horsepower for any of these CPUs to impact on gaming performance.'
 
can't wait for my x99 parts to arrive! no idea how long it will be though because my ram is not in stock but "overdue"
 
So anyone got a decent overclock yet. ?
Not interested in ES only retail.

Long thread all talk no overclocks :(
 
Anyone upgraded from an i7 920 to a 5820K or 5930K? Is it noticeably quicker outside of benchmarks?

I'd be coming from a i7 920 which is only running at 3Ghz due to case/space constraints currently (and the fact the thing is a like radiator).
Mainly I seem to be playing games these days but I do give it a good work out with VM's from time to time, which I'll probably be increasing the VM use in the near future and maybe some game footage encoding too.

My 920 has lasted well, but the X58 platform is coming up short on features these days, X99 seems the logical step albeit expensive step.

P.s. Is M.2 that important because I remember Intel releasing some new SSD's recently that just plug into a PCIe slot.
 
Yah, sorry been flapping.

Bit crude at the moment but 4.6@ 1.3v is a good start. Can get 4.7 stable with little under 1.38v but will test further tomorrow. This is one hot chip though. Hit 75c easy even with heavy water at those voltages.

hIXFblN.jpg
 
What do you mean by 'heavy water'?
What's your setup?
How much rad space per component?

I am going for a bit of overkill so I am not really fussed about it, but I am curious :)
5820k + single GTX 980 (probably a Classy, if I can get one) with 1080 rad (3 EK PE 360). I want to push both as far as I can in benches and have good 24/7 overclock too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom