Intel Haswell-E price list available

[jhu]

Unfortunately, girlfriends are expensive, so it looks like I won't be upgrading until next year.

Oh? What does your computer think about that?

 

[NTMBK]

The LGA 2011/HEDT platform is skipping Skylake-E and Cannonlake-E for Icelake-E.

LGA 2011-3 (Haswell-E) (2015) -> LGA 2011-3 (Broadwell-E) (2016) -> LGA 2011-X (Icelake-E) (2017)
LGA 115x (Skylake) (2015) -> LGA 115x (Cannonlake) (2016) -> LGA 1xxx (Icelake) (2017)

Icelake is apparently on something new but I can't get the Carbon soot out of my ears.

Haswell-E is out in 2014, so your "roadmap" falls at the first hurdle...

 

[Techhog]

The LGA 2011/HEDT platform is skipping Skylake-E and Cannonlake-E for Icelake-E.

LGA 2011-3 (Haswell-E) (2015) -> LGA 2011-3 (Broadwell-E) (2016) -> LGA 2011-X (Icelake-E) (2017)
LGA 115x (Skylake) (2015) -> LGA 115x (Cannonlake) (2016) -> LGA 1xxx (Icelake) (2017)

Icelake is apparently on something new but I can't get the Carbon soot out of my ears.

Let me guess, you have vaguely related slides and Linkedin profiles to prove it, and anyone who says otherwise, including Intel, is lying?

 

[NTMBK]

Also, this.

Broadwell and Skylake Xeons.

 

[Idontcare]

Let me guess, you have vaguely related slides and Linkedin profiles to prove it, and anyone who says otherwise, including Intel, is lying?

*We* are the music makers... and *we* are the dreamers of dreams.

If you get that quote, and I mean really get it, then you understand that not everything Nostra posts should be scrutinized as verifiable fact...sometimes the creators really do have a hand on the tiller every now and then

 

[Techhog]

If you get that quote, and I mean really get it, then you understand that not everything Nostra posts should be scrutinized as verifiable fact...sometimes the creators really do have a hand on the tiller every now and then

He's the one who claims that everything he says is fact, so I'll scrutinize it as such. If he doesn't want scrutiny, he shouldn't post his speculation as fact on a public forum.

 

[Makaveli]

Play games.

That is the last reason to buy it.

I know you always buy the top end extreme models but i'm surprised you are looking at it this time. I'm expecting poor overclocking from that 8 core chip and you will probably need full water at the minimum if you expect to cool it.

I'm expecting highly overclocked 6 cores models to provide a better gaming experience.

 

[Makaveli]

Pffft. You buy this and you'll be stuck with it while others move to Skylake and beyond. The 4770 is already close up to the 3930K unless its something heavily multithreaded. I'll move to hexa once games really need it and it likely enters mainstream.

I was told the same thing when I got my gulftown chip. Yet almost 5 years later my system still holds it own. If your someone that tends to keep a computer for 3-5 years with some incremental updates in between that time its a vary valid purchase.

 

[tential]

I somehow knew that those suggesting that Intel was going to let go of one of their "precious" six-core enthusiast-class CPUs for only $330, were likely just dreaming.

Samesies. still the price isn't bad for 6 core.

Pick it up at Microcenter with the discounts they offer and you're set!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Samesies. still the price isn't bad for 6 core.

Pick it up at Microcenter with the discounts they offer and you're set!

Yeah, true. It might show up at $330 at MC. Here's hoping!

 

[tential]

Yeah, true. It might show up at $330 at MC. Here's hoping!

I honestly wouldn't be surprise if there was a mobo deal that effectively made it that price .

That said the 4790k is probably the best CPU for pure gaming.

 

[RussianSensation]

Pffft. You buy this and you'll be stuck with it while others move to Skylake and beyond. The 4770 is already close up to the 3930K unless its something heavily multithreaded. I'll move to hexa once games really need it and it likely enters mainstream.

Yes, but 3930k was not $426. This is a $150+ price drop on a 6 core chip, bringing the price even lower for 50% more cores. I mean over the course of 3-5 years, I would take a 4.4-4.5Ghz HW-E over a 4.7-4.8Ghz 4790K because I believe we will see a popular game take advantage of more than 4 cores in the next 3-5 years. The 2 unknowns are DDR4 prices and overclockability.

Regarding Skylake-K, I am starting to have doubts it will even release on time:

"According to a new availability guidance from Intel, which was published by Chinese VR-Zone web-site, the Broadwell-H/Broadwell-K processors for desktops and high-performance notebooks will hit the market between the 29th and the 36th weeks of 2015, which is mid-July – early-September."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...well_K_Processors_to_July_September_2015.html

So many conflicting reports coming out that it makes it difficult to assess the accuracy of the information. At the same time, if 5820K can overclock to 4.5Ghz consistently, this is possibly another Q6600! Such a CPU should last 4-5 years for gaming, and a gamer can always resell it next year and grab BW-E for even higher clocks. Not a bad way to jump on the 6 core goodness. It is possible this overclocked chip will beat the $999 4960X overclocked.

Obviously for 4770/4790K users, this is not an upgrade. Yet, for i7 920-970/i7 860-880 users who keep their CPUs for 5-6 years, 5820@4.4-4.5Ghz should be a no brainer compared to getting a 4790k system. The long term cost over 5-6 years amortized in a yearly basis will be pretty close but the performance increase could be substantial over time.

Things look even better for X99 if a gamer wants to do SLI + Ultra M.2 SSD, something that isn't possible on any Z97 board.

 

[voodoo7817]

Yet, for i7 920-970/i7 860-880 users who keep their CPUs for 5-6 years, 5820@4.4-4.5Ghz should be a no brainer compared to getting a 4790k system. The long term cost over 5-6 years amortized in a yearly basis will be pretty close but the performance increase could be substantial over time.

While this is possible, you have 'no brainer' in your first sentence and 'could be' in your second. Methinks that makes it not a 'no brainer?' Considering the additional platforms costs (CPU itself, DDR4 ram, 2011 mobo, anything else?) for these 6-core chips, and the fact that a 4790k platform has higher clockspeeds and can be purchased today, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Especially if you are a gamer and plan to upgrade in 3-4 years rather than 5-6.

Is my defensiveness over my recent 4790k upgrade from my 860 showing? . In all honesty though, to your point, I do think we're at another "2C vs 4C" type decision point, but the fact that most software still doesn't use 4C makes me feel comfortable that I won't be missing out on much by not getting a 6C CPU this year. We'll see!

Edit: Just saw your edit: I do miss out on going SLI (which I've never done anyway), but I did get an ASRock Z97 Extreme6 mobo that has an Ultra M.2 slot, so I will be able to run those SSDs when they become more mainstream.

 

[cbn]

While this is possible, you have 'no brainer' in your first sentence and 'could be' in your second. Methinks that makes it not a 'no brainer?' Considering the additional platforms costs (CPU itself, DDR4 ram, 2011 mobo, anything else?) for these 6-core chips, and the fact that a 4790k platform has higher clockspeeds and can be purchased today, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Especially if you are a gamer and plan to upgrade in 3-4 years rather than 5-6.

Is my defensiveness over my recent 4790k upgrade from my 860 showing? . In all honesty though, to your point, I do think we're at another "2C vs 4C" type decision point, but the fact that most software still doesn't use 4C makes me feel comfortable that I won't be missing out on much by not getting a 6C CPU this year. We'll see!

Edit: Just saw your edit: I do miss out on going SLI (which I've never done anyway), but I did get an ASRock Z97 Extreme6 mobo that has an Ultra M.2 slot, so I will be able to run those SSDs when they become more mainstream.

I think a cpu such as i7-4790K will be plenty for many people for quite some time. (Seriously, even an overclocked Pentium G3258 is plenty of cpu based on my experiences provided the GPU and settings are matched appropriately)

Now with that mentioned, I just wonder when folks start using 120 Hz refresh rate 4K monitor(s) at highest detail settings how much father ahead i7-5820K would be compared to i7-4790K in both average and minimum frame rates and frame time variance?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think a cpu such as i7-4790K will be plenty for many people for quite some time.

However, when folks start using 120 Hz refresh rate 4K monitor(s) at highest detail settings....I wonder how much father ahead i7-5820K would be compared to i7-4790K in both average and minimum frame rates and frame time variance?

120Hz 4K? We're still waiting on 4K @ 60Hz to become mainstream. AFAIK, there is literally no data-transport standard for displays capable of 4K @ 120Hz yet. We might need to wait another 5-6 years for HDMI 3.0, or DP 2.0.

Trust me, by the time we have 4K @ 120Hz "gamer" displays, the i7-5820K will be old news. Way old.

 

[cbn]

120Hz 4K? We're still waiting on 4K @ 60Hz to become mainstream. AFAIK, there is literally no data-transport standard for displays capable of 4K @ 120Hz yet. We might need to wait another 5-6 years for HDMI 3.0, or DP 2.0.

Trust me, by the time we have 4K @ 120Hz "gamer" displays, the i7-5820K will be old news. Way old.

Display port 1.3

 

[RussianSensation]

I think a cpu such as i7-4790K will be plenty for many people for quite some time. (Seriously, even an overclocked Pentium G3258 is plenty of cpu based on my experiences provided the GPU and settings are matched appropriately)

Now with that mentioned, I just wonder when folks start using 120 Hz refresh rate 4K monitor(s) at highest detail settings how much father ahead i7-5820K would be compared to i7-4790K in both average and minimum frame rates and frame time variance?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-pentium-g3258-review

I had a feeling that shamelessly unprofessional reviews from sites like TechReport testing 1-2 worthless dual threaded games would lead to erroneous conclusions that somehow 4.5Ghz dual core Pentium is fast enough for modern games. Checking proper reviews of sites like Sweclockers or Digital foundry or AT quickly revealed it to be grossly inadequate even for a GTX760 in games such as BF4, Crysis 3. Add Watch Dogs, Arma 3.

Not saying 4790K won't last 3-4 years but all it takes is 1-2 hugely popular games like it did during Q9550 vs. e8400 generation and it makes the purchase for 5820 worth it to dual GPU users especially.

Again, when the switch happened from dual to quad core, very quickly all Core 2 Duos became obsolete. We can't say when that will happen if at all in the next 5 years but then why even argue for the 4790k? In that case, might as well save $100 and get 4690k and upgrade when more games take advantage of more than 4 threads. This argument goes both ways.

Somehow people think paying $100 for HT is worth it but $100 more for 2 more cores is not worth it.....

 

[voodoo7817]

Somehow people think paying $100 for HT is worth it but $100 more for 2 more cores is not worth it.....

You make fair points, but when estimating I think you continue to err toward your own side a little too much. For one, the 5820 will not not only be $100 more when considering whole platform costs. Next, I would agree that the 4690k is a better 'bang for buck' purchase than the 4790k, but when looking at total platform cost and longevity, the HT and additional GHz seem like reasonable upgrades. I'm actually not much of an overclocker either, so if I'm unable to do much in regards to that, at least I'll still have those extra GHz out of the box.

Additionally, my understanding is that the 4790k will outperform the 5820 in a fair amount of applications for a fair amount of time, pretty much anything that isn't highly multi-threaded, no? While that increased performance might be negligible, it is still outperforming a more expensive CPU and platform. And while I don't plan to use the iGPU in the long term, I did actually get the system up-and-going using it while my dGPU was in another machine. There's definitely some value in having that option there.

One last point, jumping from 2C to 4C was a 100% increase in cores. 4C to 6C is a 50% jump. It's reasonable to think that the difference between a 4C and 6C CPU may not be as drastic as 2C to 4C, especially for gaming. It's also my understanding that regular Skylake, let alone Broadwell, won't have 6C, so it's not like that's going to be 'mainstream' for quite a while. 4C was much more 'mainstream' when the shift to '4C as a necessity' for gaming happened, and I just don't see many game studios developing games that can only be run well by users on -E platforms.

Now, for those who like to SLI and will buy Ultra M.2 drives in the near-term, I agree that Haswell-E seems to be a great platform to buy into. But that's not most of the market, and it's definitely not me.

Having said all of the above, as much as I want to think that my recent purchase was a good one (and I do), I also want to see CPU tech make some big leaps ASAP. I would not be too disappointed if the market starts to shift toward demanding more cores and that leads to a significant improvement in computing across the board (gaming, productivity, etc.). Thanks for engaging in this discussion.

 

[cbn]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-pentium-g3258-review

I had a feeling that shamelessly unprofessional reviews from sites like TechReport testing 1-2 worthless dual threaded games would lead to erroneous conclusions that somehow 4.5Ghz dual core Pentium is fast enough for modern games.

Well, the Pentium G3258 does seem fast enough for modern games (at least going by my impressions in Battlefield 3 64 player).

I think the key to making it work though is to keep resolution and detail settings reasonable. This to keep stress on the cpu to feed the GPU in check.

Checking proper reviews of sites like Sweclockers or Digital foundry or AT quickly revealed it to be grossly inadequate even for a GTX760 in games such as BF4, Crysis 3. Add Watch Dogs, Arma 3.

Well 760 GTX is a $240 Video card (lowest price on Newegg is $220 AR).

For my own personal overclocked G3258, I probably won't go over a R7 260X.

P.S. AT used a 770 GTX(s) for the Pentium G3258 testing. Other websites often used larger cards.

Not saying 4790K won't last 3-4 years but all it takes is 1-2 hugely popular games like it did during Q9550 vs. e8400 generation and it makes the purchase for 5820 worth it to dual GPU users especially.

Again, when the switch happened from dual to quad core, very quickly all Core 2 Duos became obsolete. We can't say when that will happen if at all in the next 5 years but then why even argue for the 4790k? In that case, might as well save $100 and get 4690k and upgrade when more games take advantage of more than 4 threads. This argument goes both ways.

Somehow people think paying $100 for HT is worth it but $100 more for 2 more cores is not worth it.....

I agree. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see i7-5820K and X99 obsolete the highest tier of Z97 boards.

Why pay so much for a high end Z97 and i7-4790K when i7-5820K and X99 is potentially cheaper?

Anyway, I don't think anyone can disagree that six cores will be able to feed larger video card(s) better than four cores. The question is how much better? (My bet is that the gap between six and four cores will increase further as resolution increases. The greater the cpu compute, the better the ability to keep FPS high and frame time variance low compared to quad core, etc.)

 

[atticus14]

From a gamer's perspective, I think due to devs typically not optimizing the best for PC, extra cores will soon become important as PCs will once again have to brute force their way through next gen ports. Even with an exceptionally weaker cpu that the consoles have, it still will have 8 cores and AAA devs will be forced to make 6 cpu threaded games to see the best results. Aside from that, gamers who record videos or stream, should also find more benefits that a 6 core chip could offer.

GTA V on PC should hopefully give us a good perspective of what will happen in the future.

But there's also games like Star Citizen that may very well push 6+ cores too, once you get to the MMO-ish part of the game.

 

[Lepton87]

Unfortunately, girlfriends are expensive, so it looks like I won't be upgrading until next year.

Someone's missing on the mobile revolution.

 

[YBS1]

Anybody care to speculate as to if we may actually see an X99 board in the mini-itx form factor? There hasn't been a mini-itx HEDT thusfar, but mini-itx hadn't really caught fire back when X58/X79 were introduced. I've had my NCASE M1 sitting here collecting dust, a HW-E would be tempting to throw in it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Anybody care to speculate as to if we may actually see an X99 board in the mini-itx form factor? There hasn't been a mini-itx HEDT thusfar, but mini-itx hadn't really caught fire back when X58/X79 were introduced. I've had my NCASE M1 sitting here collecting dust, a HW-E would be tempting to throw in it.

Interesting thought, because there will be less RAM slots, but I'm guessing that the overall TDP of the HEDT CPUs may make that a bit prohibitive, for "most" mini-ITX cases. (How many mini-ITX cases exist that can take aftermarket tower heatpipe coolers?)

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the debate over Haswell E six core vs quad core will ultimately come down to overclocking and total platform cost. If the six core overclocks consistently to 4.5 ghz or so, then obviously it will be the best performance option, although more expensive. However, with the 4790k we already have a quad that turbos to 4.2 on all cores stock and seems to consistently overclock to 4.5 to 4.7. So if Haswell E is a poor overclocker, I am not sure the extra oomph in a few selected games will be enough to offset the lower clockspeed and higher (depending on mb and ram prices) overall system cost. I think it is far from a slam dunk for either processor though, unless you have money to burn and are dumping close to a grand on dual gpus, in which case a bit more for cpu, ram, mb is not a big deal.

Edit: I also would disagree that dual cores are "obsolete". Even if you dont consider the i3 (which *is* a dual core) a pentium, especially the 3258 overclocked, will play any game currently available, granted at some reduced settings. It is certainly not the best choice, and even considering the cost it is better to go for an i5, but it is a viable gaming platform with a mid-range dgpu.

 

[ithehappy]

Guys I have a stupid question here. I see that 4790k's TDP is 88W, and 5820k's TDP is 140W. So does that mean that when in idle, the latter will consume more power than the 4790? I have always wondered about this, but all I can see are some technical figures, but what about real life usage?