From a gaming perspective that 3.0GHz will likely hammer minimum frames, games love clockspeed. And I'm not going to spend $1K on a CPU inferior in anyway to a $600 option. And I'm not going to spend $600 on a hexa core that hasn't had any meaningful clockspeed improvements over the last one. Where is the love Intel? Crap out a 4Ghz stock base octa core and I'll pay $1K for it . . . . . .
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Core i7-5960X, 5930K, 5820K detailed specifications exposure
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If you are normally a $200-300 CPU consumer, and they put out a chip that you would pay $1k for, they would charge ~$3k for it.
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
but those aren't going to be examples of people who might be on the fence between considering a 4790K and Haswell-E, but with the intention to leave them at stock. To be on that fence they have to have some idea about what the parts are to make that distinction
no, it most likely will not. If the game is pushing the CPU so hard that its running at its base frequency and without turbo, then that game is going to be destroying all lesser CPUs even harder
also, intel can get very aggressive with their turbo levels on their 8+ core parts, far more than their 4 core, particularly on the mainstream quads where there's just not much reason to spread out the turbo levels. Turbo steppings on the 8 core Haswell-E might mean up to 3.4GHz with 6-8 cores loaded, 3.5GHz with 5 cores loaded, 3.6GHz with 4 cores loaded 3.7GHz with 3 cores loaded, 3.8GHz with 2 cores loaded, and up to 3.9GHz for one core. But I'm not so sure that base clock is even real (its not that high for an 8 core intel part as there are 8 core Xeons that are 3.3GHz base and turbo up to 4GHz) and definitely don't know the turbo levels, and wouldn't be surprised in the least if its highest turbo levels are at least on par with the highest turbo levels of the 4790K.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Overclocking comes into play when choosing between 4790K and 5820K/5930/5960X. It's not realistic to expect a 5960X to overclock as well as a 4790K. If you upgrade often, then in the short term, 4790K @ 5.0-5.1ghz+ is better for games than a 5820K @ 4.4-4.5Ghz. However, if one were to keep the system for 3-4 years as some i7 920 @ 3.9-4.0ghz users did, I'd rather get a 5820 @ 4.4-4.5ghz than DC at 5.1Ghz. I remember when E8400 4.0-4.4Ghz was recommended over Q6600/Q9550 @ 3.2-3.8Ghz and look how that turned out?
For those who don't do any productivity work that take advantage of more than 4 cores, in the short term 4790K and then upgrade to Skylake will be preferable over even the 8-core 5960X because it's not as if in 6 months 90% of games will use 6 cores+. But with Skylake K processors make their 1H 2015 debut? It's looking less and less likely.
As mentioned earlier, even with less lanes, the 5820K on X99 will still have more lanes than 4790K on Z97. If you want 2 Maxwell cards in SLI + a fast M.2 drive (esp. the Asrock's PCIe 3.0 x4 implementation), then 4790K on Z97 is automatically out.
"In order to equip the motherboard with an M.2 x4 port, ASRock had two choices. They could combine four lanes from the chipset/PCH into a single slot, although that would severely limit the number of controllers that could be placed on the motherboard without additional PCIe switches. The other method was in the x8/x4/x4 allocation from the CPU, earmarking the final x4 for the M.2. In this method, installing an M.2 drive in this x4 slot would reduce any chipset overhead, but it would also reduce the other PCIe lanes down to x8/x4. This removes any chance of SLI,"
We have stalled on the storage performance for a while and Ultra M.2 PCIe 3.0 x 4 is a nice boost that some enthusiasts are eyeing upgrading to. In that case X99 would have another theoretical advantage until Asrock releases Extreme 9 X97 board with a PLX chip. Of course availability of M.2 SSDs has to increase and they have to be available at reasonable prices. For now, it's more of a novelty.
Last edited:
davidthemaster3
Senior member
How will having a different number of PCIe lanes work on motherboards?
The motherboard makers deactivate certain PCIe slots when you put a 5820K in?
The motherboard makers deactivate certain PCIe slots when you put a 5820K in?
NTMBK
Lifer
The PCIe controller is integrated into the CPU.
davidthemaster3
Senior member
Of course, but if the mobo has two x16 slots and a x8 slot (like for the 5930k), the 5820k won't have enough lanes running from the cpu to the slots ...
The manual and BIOS would have to be different. Not really an issue since this is HEDT and the buyers will primarily purchase a system from a Boutique system integrator or go DIY. IMHO.
Makaveli
Diamond Member
Kougar
Senior member
Interesting, and plausible. Was wondering how steep the frequency drop would be between the 8 and 6 core models, and 500Mhz is actually less than I figured the difference would be.
I will second this. A hex-core chip at quad-core prices, with the same L3 cache as the next higher part would be decent. Not everyone runs dual-GPUs, and I'd much rather they remove PCIe lanes than disable even more of the L3 cache, effectively crippling performance.
I will second this. A hex-core chip at quad-core prices, with the same L3 cache as the next higher part would be decent. Not everyone runs dual-GPUs, and I'd much rather they remove PCIe lanes than disable even more of the L3 cache, effectively crippling performance.
perfectchaos
Junior Member
Hey guys
Would a 5820k be the best option from an i7 920? I looked at the 5930k and i'm not sure it's worth the extra cost, i suspect both will overclock around the same. I may get 2 gpu's (likely max) sometime, other than that i would have just 1, and i hear there's some x99 boards coming out with Sata express?
So would a 16x lane and 8x lane bottleneck 2 gpu's at all? I've checked results of cards @ 16x and 8x before and the difference is usually really small, like a few % but would it stay that way?
Would a 5820k be the best option from an i7 920? I looked at the 5930k and i'm not sure it's worth the extra cost, i suspect both will overclock around the same. I may get 2 gpu's (likely max) sometime, other than that i would have just 1, and i hear there's some x99 boards coming out with Sata express?
So would a 16x lane and 8x lane bottleneck 2 gpu's at all? I've checked results of cards @ 16x and 8x before and the difference is usually really small, like a few % but would it stay that way?
perfectchaos
Junior Member
Bump on this question
Well we really have to wait for prices to be released. Usually the 2011 mainboards demand a premium anyway and if you ask me I wouldn't cheap out on the CPU if I'm already investing into this platform.
Last edited:
Railgun
Golden Member
I'll see your carved out x4 for M.2, and I'll raise you maintaining that x8 for a proper dedicated RAID controller for said drives. 🙂
Makaveli
Diamond Member
My guess is 6 core at $500.
There are no consumer level desktop 8 core processors and because of this intel will the slap EE title on it and charge $1000.
To expect anything less would be crazy IMO.
The OP answers your cores question while also more or less confirming $1000 or the octocore.
I doubt Intel will charge that much for the entry-level (5820K) model. $400 seems more likely.
If this is true, smart moves by intel. The X820 have been pointless processors in my opinion. The X930Ks have been baragins (80% of the X for half the price). So with this theyre forcing enthusiasts to jump to the X, and the ones behind that to choose extra PCIE over a price premium. I feel it will help the lowest tier LGA2011-3s by sacrificing a tad bit of marketshare from the mid tier.
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
the non-X chips are a lot closer to X chips than 80%, its more like 95+%
although the differences in chips here seems even more absurd, not going to be very many lining up to buy the 30K over the 20K unless the 20K can't clock as high and/or the price difference is close enough (less than $100)
moonbogg
Lifer
I'll get the 5930k instead. I don't like the idea of uneven PCI-E lanes for my GPUs. 16x for one and 8x for the other? That's weird. If its like $100 more i'll just get it. What if the lanes come in handy for a PCI-E based SSD? Plus PCI-E sounds card and who knows what else might get crammed in there during the rigs lifespan.
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
I'm sure that's what intel is hoping for, wanting people to just go ahead and buy the bigger label just in case, but uneven pci-e lanes ultimately won't hurt performance, the 5820K is still better than any 1150 mainstream i7 as far as PCI-e lanes go, and those CPUs do just fine for SLI/Crossfire.
and for the majority who only want one GPU, its still plenty of PCI-e lanes for NVMe SSD, even if you do double up on the GPU
To me it seems like 5930K would be targeting the 3+ GPU crowd, but there wont be many out there willing to sink that much money into GPUs who wouldn't also be going all out on the 5960X.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
