Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K detailed specifications exposure

[Homeles]

I a little disappointed in the octo core clocked at only 3GHz.

If a 5930k over clocks to 4GHz ill probably go that route.

The more cores you have, the less thermal budget you have for clocking them.

 

[Grooveriding]

Another reason I think these are fake. I don't think they'll release an 8 core extreme edition CPU for a g that is not clocked higher, or at least on parity, than its lesser brethren. Won't seem all that extreme. The caveat to the the 8 core is that it will likely not overclock as well as the 6 core, need more voltage to get the same clocks and run hotter as well once you get into overclocking.

SB-E & IB-E are pretty similar in this respect. They run really hot with voltages of 1.35V+ under load. Even when I had an NH-D14 on one my 3930ks it still roasted. You need to use custom water cooling to get big overclocks and keep temperatures down. HW-E is going to be the same.

I'll be happy to get a 4.6 out of the octocore, anything above that will be bonus.

 

[Sweepr]

The 3GHz 8-core version probably has a very agressive Turbo, so it should be close/on par with the 3.5GHz 6-core version in most apps and ~15% faster in highly MT tasks.

 

[AdamK47]

I'll be happy with a 5960X @ 4GHz

 

[SAAA]

Its going to be $1000. That is the problem I have with it. I was hoping that Haswell-E would bring 8 cores to the mainstream pricing, it hasn't.

Yes it's still a lot... but much less than the 1700$ (?) that you need now for a eight core (locked) server chip.
Plus someone seems to like it anyway!

I'll be happy with a 5960X @ 4GHz

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yes it's still a lot... but much less than the 1700$ (?) that you need now for a eight core (locked) server chip.
Plus someone seems to like it anyway!

the bummer is that intel gave us 8 core native silicon with 32nm SB-E, they just never fully enabled a part for an i7 and we only ever saw 6 core i7s, which made some sense when they produced 6 core native Ivy-E parts so that they would have felt pressured to release the 10 core Ivy-E chips to i7 to produce at least an 8 core part.

now we're back to a native 8 core, but on 22nm and still no love

 

[KaRLiToS]

Maybe some boards will come with PLX chips.

I am very disapointed by the PCI-E lanes and the 5930k not being a 8 core CPU.

I will not upgrade this year.

 

[rituraj]

I hoped the naming scheme to be like 5980X (8core) 5940K, (Again 8 core but less speed) and finally 5930K 6 core or 5820K quad core. Then later release a higher model named 5990X. Not that I can make a mathematical sense ( 8 & 4 for 8 core, 3 & 6 for 6 core, 2 for quad core, thats the best I can do) out of intel's naming scheme, or any other CPU/GPU for that matter, but it seemed more likely to me.

And any idea why intel never includes an IGP with their E parts? Don't put HD 4600, but at least spend some die area to put something like those old HD graphics things, just in case the Graphics card goes bad or one wants to buy the GPU later. And put a single HDMI; Hell, even VGA would do.

 

[zir_blazer]

And any idea why intel never includes an IGP with their E parts? Don't put HD 4600, but at least spend some die area to put something like those old HD graphics things, just in case the Graphics card goes bad or one wants to buy the GPU later. And put a single HDMI; Hell, even VGA would do.

Because those IGPs are intended for consumer platforms. E parts are designed around enterprise needs, so all the die is pretty much raw CPU horsepower.
Server Motherboards like this one still includes special integrated GPUs intended for IPMI, they provide Hardware based remote desktop capabilities via a dedicated NIC so you can even access the BIOS at POST time for a fully remote system, and also have a VGA for local output. However, judging by the specs (Matrox G200eW), these GPUs are based on more than a decade old technology, and I wouldn't be surprised if even 2D performance isn't adequate due to the fact that we're using much bigger resolutions than back at that time.

 

[guskline]

Happy with my WC'd 3930k @ 4.6Ghz.:biggrin:

 

[RussianSensation]

If more games will start taking advantage of multi-core CPUs, if Intel releases a sub-$400 hexa-core, even without HT, it'll be pretty hard to recommend a 4790K unless DDR4 prices are really high or the 5820K chip ends up a poor overclocker.

The lack of PCIe lanes might not be a big deal if one is running 1-2 GPUs but if the system is to have a couple M.2 drives or SATAe in RAID, then it could quickly become a bottleneck. Even then, modern GPUs hardly lose much performance when running PCIe 3.0 x8/x8 in CF/SLI. It'll be interesting to see with DX12 in 2015 if having a 6-core CPU will be better for games or if a faster IPC architecture from Skylake will win over.

If we look at what Haswell's IPC increase brought to gaming vs. SB/IB, even in CPU demanding titles, it's not much actually (compare 2600K vs. 4770K in Watch Dogs for example). I think once DX12 drops and allows more multi-threading in games, and developers focus even more on PS4/XB1's development in 2015, a 6-core 5820 @ 4.2-4.3Ghz may end up faster in games than Skylake @ 5.0ghz. We might end up with a situation of Q6600 @ 3.4ghz/Q9550 @ 3.6ghz that was slower than a 3.8-4.0ghz E8400 but ultimately the quads beat the faster dual core as games became more multi-threaded.

Could we see a repeat of this in 2015?

The greatest unknown is DDR4 prices.

EDIT: Well looks like i7 4790K will have 4.1 Ghz base clock and a boost of 4.4Ghz. With such clocks, it seems Intel is positioning the 4790K as the overclocker's/gaming CPU while the i7 5820K will be a productivity CPU. Hmm....I guess we'll have to see which one wins over in games once both are overclocked. In the short term, I am going to give i7 4790K the nod since DX12 is not out yet.

 

[Ajay]

I'll be happy with a 5960X @ 4GHz

I would have said the same thing 6 months ago. Now, I've kind of decided that I want a larger jump in single threaded performance, so I'd be happy with hexacore @ 4.6 GHz+. The only issue I'm a bit bothered by, is that I don't think x99 supports M2x4 - which looks freaking awesome!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I would have said the same thing 6 months ago. Now, I've kind of decided that I want a larger jump in single threaded performance, so I'd be happy with hexacore @ 4.6 GHz+. The only issue I'm a bit bothered by, is that I don't think x99 supports M2x4 - which looks freaking awesome!

X99 doesn't have to support it, as we see from the ASRock Z97 Extreme 6, we can take x4 PCI-e lanes direct from the CPU for an M.2 port, and Haswell-E has those in spades (even this supposed PCI-e 'limited' 5820K with 28 lanes would be far better off than any of 1150 CPUs with only 16). It will just be up to the motherboard manufactures to deliver the options.

 

[Ajay]

X99 doesn't have to support it, as we see from the ASRock Z97 Extreme 6, we can take x4 PCI-e lanes direct from the CPU for an M.2 port, and Haswell-E has those in spades (even this supposed PCI-e 'limited' 5820K with 28 lanes would be far better off than any of 1150 CPUs with only 16). It will just be up to the motherboard manufactures to deliver the options.

Excellent point! Any why wouldn't they do so on at least their mid to high end X99 boards. Thanks - it's really a no-brainer now.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Excellent point! Any why wouldn't they do so on at least their mid to high end X99 boards. Thanks - it's really a no-brainer now.

and if we judge from what we saw with X79, the "low end" X99 boards won't exactly be low end...

 

[IntelUser2000]

Not sure how reliable this is because this guy posted the (possibly) Devil's Canyon fake.

You mean this "fake"?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36392137&postcount=116

The 5960X has 3.3GHz Turbo with all cores. That's lower than 5930K at base clocks.

4790K vs 5930K:

The latter has 50% more cores but the former is clocked pretty high. This is going to make it finicky to choose in quite a bit of applications.

 

[mikk]

You mean this "fake"?

No, not this.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

You mean this "fake"?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36392137&postcount=116

The 5960X has 3.3GHz Turbo with all cores. That's lower than 5930K at base clocks.

4790K vs 5930K:

The latter has 50% more cores but the former is clocked pretty high. This is going to make it finicky to choose in quite a bit of applications.

there aren't that many people out there contemplating K series options who will not be overclocking them

 

[IntelUser2000]

there aren't that many people out there contemplating K series options who will not be overclocking them

I wouldn't say its a little either. The people buying such chips are not all enthusiasts who overclock. Otherwise, the segmentation of SKUs wouldn't work at all. Quite a few go into OEM systems that ship at base. And quite a few buy them and leave it at base clocks.

I was surprised earlier this year when I found out that places like Future Shop sold systems sold for lower prices than custom-built systems. Once upon a time, price factor was enough to justify building a custom-built system, not anymore.

 

[OCGuy]

Its going to be $1000. That is the problem I have with it. I was hoping that Haswell-E would bring 8 cores to the mainstream pricing, it hasn't.

You thought an EE chip would be priced less than current offerings, while offering more? Was there something that led you to believe this specifically?

Intel Hexa-cores are not priced for "mainstream" yet, but hopefully this Octo-core starts putting some downward pricing pressure on them.

The QX9770 was $1500, and that was back when there was competition on the high-end.

Look around at how many people here boast EE CPUs currently. Statistically that will stay about the same, so I find it hard to believe so many could be upset about the pricing anyway.

Base/Boost clocks are fairly irrelevant on these chips for those who are going to overclock them, which should be most. The clocks are determined by TDP and cooling solution, which is important to OEMs as well as Intel for warranty purposes.

Edit: That being said, if you only run programs that can't use 8 cores, and don't care about bleeding-edge DDR4 adoption, the 4960x is the better option. Unless it is EOL, you can choose, which is a good thing.

 

[Ajay]

and if we judge from what we saw with X79, the "low end" X99 boards won't exactly be low end...

Tough to say. the X79 chipset was dated from launch, never mind how bad it was with the IVY-E refresh - so they were loaded up with extra components to make up for what was missing in the base chipset. I looks like X99 will be less dated and hence lower priced boards maybe meet many more price-sensitive enthusiasts' needs. In any case, we will know fairly soon.

 

[aigomorla]

I finally see an upgrade in sight!!!!

*doing chicken dance*

I can finally retire my system out, and get SATA 6G + USB3.0 on my motherboard with an overclocked octocore.

Not sure how reliable this is because this guy posted the (possibly) Devil's Canyon fake.

I know coolaler, i used to talk to him on MSN a lot back when i was testing CPU's.
If his information is fake, its because intel changed the specs on the cpu @ launch, or his pre distribution ES's were changed somewhere down the line.

I wouldn't say its a little either. The people buying such chips are not all enthusiasts who overclock. Otherwise, the segmentation of SKUs wouldn't work at all. Quite a few go into OEM systems that ship at base. And quite a few buy them and leave it at base clocks.

then i dont see the logic in why they would purchase a K or a EE branded cpu.

Its almost on the same line as someone buying a premium enthusiast class board and not tuning the BIOS on it.

They would go with a mainstream combo in which everything was pure plug and play, vs the enthusiast side where everything is Tune and Play.

 

[Ajay]

then i dont see the logic in why they would purchase a K or a EE branded cpu.

Its almost on the same line as someone buying a premium enthusiast class board and not tuning the BIOS on it.

They would go with a mainstream combo in which everything was pure plug and play, vs the enthusiast side where everything is Tune and Play.

It can be anything from Intel having too make 'K' series CPUs and selling them to OEMs for the same price as the non 'K' version to people hearing that the 'K' line is the *Top of the Line* Intel CPU and wanting them in their systems even though they are not overclockers.

 

[aigomorla]

It can be anything from Intel having too make 'K' series CPUs and selling them to OEMs for the same price as the non 'K' version to people hearing that the 'K' line is the *Top of the Line* Intel CPU and wanting them in their systems even though they are not overclockers.

K isnt the top of the line tho... the X is..

i see more X users not overclocking it, as pure Epeen that they got a 1000+ dollar cpu more so then a K series.

Well another thing can be if the K was the only cpu available for that tier.. and no mainstream cpu was available...

 

[OCGuy]

Haha Aigo I was wondering where you were for this pre-launch speculation!