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

[escrow4]

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 . . . . . .

 

[OCGuy]

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 . . . . . .

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]

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.

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

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 . . . . . .

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]

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 . . . . . .

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.

 

[davidthemaster3]

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?

 

[NTMBK]

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 PCIe controller is integrated into the CPU.

 

[davidthemaster3]

The PCIe controller is integrated into the CPU.

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 ...

 

[Ajay]

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]

Snip

totally agree RS.

Well said.

 

[aigomorla]

reintroduction of the NF200 *cough*...

board vendors will make a work around for the limited pci-e lanes...

they have done it b4.

Except only expect to see them on overpriced 300+ dollar boards...

 

[Kougar]

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'll happily give up 12 PCIe lanes, if I get an unlocked hex-core at 4820k prices.

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]

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?

 

[tidy]

.

 

[perfectchaos]

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?

Bump on this question

 

[Galatian]

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.

 

[Unoid]

Any new info?

It's extremely hard to get excited about any new CPU tech anymore. Intel competing against themselves and all us enthusiasts suffer.

2600k Is lasting so long.

 

[Ajay]

Just a couple of engineering board shots from CES. Looks like M.2 x4 will be supported, at least on some boards, which will be nice future proofing.

 

[Railgun]

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.

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.

 

[Unoid]

Is there any word on Cores/price yet?

I'm sure many of us really want an 8-core for ~500, but obviously intel will screw us over and leave 8-core for the $1000 slot.

Do we know if Intel is Market segmenting features like they did on haswell-K series?

 

[Makaveli]

Is there any word on Cores/price yet?

I'm sure many of us really want an 8-core for ~500, but obviously intel will screw us over and leave 8-core for the $1000 slot.

Do we know if Intel is Market segmenting features like they did on haswell-K series?

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.

 

[Techhog]

Is there any word on Cores/price yet?

I'm sure many of us really want an 8-core for ~500, but obviously intel will screw us over and leave 8-core for the $1000 slot.

Do we know if Intel is Market segmenting features like they did on haswell-K series?

The OP answers your cores question while also more or less confirming $1000 or the octocore.

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.

I doubt Intel will charge that much for the entry-level (5820K) model. $400 seems more likely.

 

[tamm]

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]

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.

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]

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)

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]

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.

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.