Haswell-E Reviews

[wand3r3r]

His conclusion is hands down the most idiotic statement written in TechReport in the last 5 years. Does the author not realize that Z97 chips run dual cards at the same x8/x8 setup that the 5820K would? But you can even do x8/x8/x8 Tri-fire and incur maybe a 2-3% performance hit? With his logic no one should buy a 4790K either since it's even more gimped. Facepalm.

You have to recognize this was a poor choice to gimp?

AT tested with "mid range" cards in SLI and saw clear drops 110->105 FPS, imagine the new (upcoming) AMD cards using XDMA crossfire through those lanes. Yes it's similar to the 4790k in lanes, but this is the enthusiast platform being gimped. Gamers lose on this one. I agree with the sentiment. Now go tri/quad crossfire, oh wait you need to "upgrade" to the $600 processor to avoid losing even more FPS.

 

[SPBHM]

You have to recognize this was a poor choice to gimp?

AT tested with "mid range" cards in SLI and saw clear drops 110->105 FPS, imagine the new (upcoming) AMD cards using XDMA crossfire through those lanes. Yes it's similar to the 4790k in lanes, but this is the enthusiast platform being gimped. Gamers lose on this one. I agree with the sentiment. Now go tri/quad crossfire, oh wait you need to "upgrade" to the $600 processor to avoid losing even more FPS.

the test is not comparing just PCIE but also the CPU side is a little slower and could justify the difference (and OC will solve that), and there is a small margin of error, the result is really close.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

finally they made the 60X a good part, it clearly offers something more, while the older ones were just about a bigger price basically

yes, 60X is now a "good" part at the expense of the 30K part, which had been an excellent part.

Intel isn't doing us any favors by charging $610 more to not neuter the 2.6B chip; we're not getting more, we're just not getting less.

these are all V8 engines they're selling us for $389, $599, and $999, but only the $999 allows you to use all 8 cylinders.

but just like with the i7 980X and eventual i7 970, I'd wager intel will eventually release an 8 core non X part once sales of the 5960X/5930K start to slow down and they can no longer milk those profit margins.

 

[SPBHM]

yes, 60X is now a "good" part at the expense of the 30K part, which had been an excellent part.

Intel isn't doing us any favors by charging $610 more to not neuter the 2.6B chip; we're not getting more, we're just not getting less.

these are all V8 engines they're selling us for $389, $599, and $999, but only the $999 allows you to use all 8 cylinders.

but just like with the i7 980X and eventual i7 970, I'd wager intel will eventually release an 8 core non X part once sales of the 5960X/5930K start to slow down and they can no longer milk those profit margins.

they killed the 30K, but the 20K now is better than what the 30K was IMO, the 60X is a lot better than what the 60X was and the same price, this is a lot better than what it could have been, you never know what is coming next when companies like Nvidia are asking 3K for a VGA which isn't even the fastest on the market.

ideally an 8 core 30K with less l3 would exist, but... I think 20K with 6 cores is a better thing overall.

 

[Termie]

You have to recognize this was a poor choice to gimp?

AT tested with "mid range" cards in SLI and saw clear drops 110->105 FPS, imagine the new (upcoming) AMD cards using XDMA crossfire through those lanes. Yes it's similar to the 4790k in lanes, but this is the enthusiast platform being gimped. Gamers lose on this one. I agree with the sentiment. Now go tri/quad crossfire, oh wait you need to "upgrade" to the $600 processor to avoid losing even more FPS.

After I thought about TechReport's statement more, I saw it in a different light: with X99, you're paying for 40 PCIe lanes, and yet when you buy a 5820K, some of those lanes are disabled. In that sense, the CPU is devaluing your chipset. I look forward to CrossfireX tests that show whether additional PCIe lanes help with XDMA. If they do, then there's a serious problem with that CPU for high-end systems. If they don't, for most users it's going to end up being a harmless maneuver by Intel to differentiate CPUs.

Put another way, if Intel released a 6-core Haswell on s1150, people would be jumping for joy, and wouldn't complain one bit about PCIe lanes. Hard to ignore the platforms costs, I guess (X99/DDR4).

 

[Redstorm]

I smell a rat, every review today has been about the 5960X, No review has posted overclocks for the 6 core parts.
This may have been mandated by Intel in return for receiving review samples.

Or,
The 6 core parts overclock like a dream (2 less cores 25% less heat?) maybe.
Or they over clock like dogs.

I hope it's the former.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I smell a rat, every review today has been about the 5960X, No review has posted overclocks for the 6 core parts.
This may have been mandated by Intel in return for receiving review samples.

Or,
The 6 core parts overclock like a dream (2 less cores 25% less heat?) maybe.
Or they over clock like dogs.

I hope it's the former.

I think the culpit is laziness. Half the review I checked for example uses GFX cards like HD7950, HD7970 and GTX770. Some with old drivers as well, not to mention old OSes. Simply to avoid having to retest any compare systems.

 

[ashishmishra]

Hey guys, just bought the 5820K, Asus x99 Deluxe, 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2800 from Microcenter. Set overclock to XMP Profile 2 (DDR4-3000) in the ASUS UEFI and simply kept upping my multiplier till I reached 4.5 Ghz. Any higher wasn't stable in Windows. Everything else is on auto and the motherboard is feeding 1.277V to the processor. I'm sure I can get higher with some further manual tweaking but I'm really tired so the quick and lazy OC will have to do for now.

Coming from a 3930K running at 4.5 Ghz at 1.42V, I'm happy with the lower temperatures, lower power draw per my UPS (about 100W lower compared to my old OC'ed chip) and also given that there are some IPC improvements it was in the end worth it for me. Plus I plan on selling the old hardware to recoup some money.

EDIT: Also I forgot to add, the 4.5 Ghz OC is LinX stable for 10 passes.
Corsair H110 speed was medium
Idle: Hottest core was 40, coolest core was 35. (Recorded a minute after boot)
LinX: Hottest core was 85, coolest core was 74.

 

[Termie]

I smell a rat, every review today has been about the 5960X, No review has posted overclocks for the 6 core parts.
This may have been mandated by Intel in return for receiving review samples.

Or,
The 6 core parts overclock like a dream (2 less cores 25% less heat?) maybe.
Or they over clock like dogs.

I hope it's the former.

Actually, just about every reviewer mentioned that Intel only sampled the 5960X. This is not unusual in the release of a CPU series. The 4690K, for instance, was reviewed by practically no one.

I think the culpit is laziness. Half the review I checked for example uses GFX cards like HD7950, HD7970 and GTX770. Some with old drivers as well, not to mention old OSes. Simply to avoid having to retest any compare systems.

They test with whatever they have in their permanent stable. Intel didn't provide Titan Blacks or 295x2s with their CPUs.

Anyway, if you guys are concerned, just check out the comprehensive review over at Tom's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918.html

All three CPUs, tested with a Titan.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 4690K, for instance, was reviewed by practically no one.

Not correct.

https://www.google.dk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=stwBVMuwIqPmyQOy-4DwAw#q=4690K+review

They test with whatever they have in their permanent stable. Intel didn't provide Titan Blacks or 295x2s with their CPUs.

Same sites didnt have an issue testing 290X, 780ti and so on.

Also its still no excuse for the outdated software.

But again, it saves them alot of time. But at the same time make their reviews semi worthless.

Anyway, if you guys are concerned, just check out the comprehensive review over at Tom's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918.html

All three CPUs, tested with a Titan.

Yet they completely fall flat too:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-8.html

Power, OC etc only the 5960X.

 

[Termie]

...

But again, it saves them alot of time. But at the same time make their reviews semi worthless.

If enthusiasts expect comprehensive reviews comparing a huge variety of hardware and software, then they're going to have wait until long after the NDA expires for their reviews. But that doesn't really fly for major product introductions, unfortunately.

Frankly, Anandtech's review was shocking in its enormous length and breadth. I attribute that to the fact that they have Dr. Ian on duty writing all their major hardware reviews, and as a Ph.D, he's used to putting in extreme hours for his testing.

While a 770SLI setup is a bit unusual, it certainly isn't underpowered. It far exceeds the performance of a 780 Ti at the tested 1080p resolution, which is the resolution that makes sense when testing CPUs.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hey guys, just bought the 5820K, Asus x99 Deluxe, 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2800 from Microcenter. Set overclock to XMP Profile 2 (DDR4-3000) in the ASUS UEFI and simply kept upping my multiplier till I reached 4.5 Ghz. Any higher wasn't stable in Windows. Everything else is on auto and the motherboard is feeding 1.277V to the processor. I'm sure I can get higher with some further manual tweaking but I'm really tired so the quick and lazy OC will have to do for now.

Coming from a 3930K running at 4.5 Ghz at 1.42V, I'm happy with the lower temperatures, lower power draw per my UPS (about 100W lower compared to my old OC'ed chip) and also given that there are some IPC improvements it was in the end worth it for me. Plus I plan on selling the old hardware to recoup some money.

EDIT: Also I forgot to add, the 4.5 Ghz OC is LinX stable for 10 passes.
Corsair H110 speed was medium
Idle: Hottest core was 40, coolest core was 35. (Recorded a minute after boot)
LinX: Hottest core was 85, coolest core was 74.

Nice. Its a great chip if most do 4.5 ghz that easily.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Overall, I think the line up is very impressive. You get increased performance per dollar at all 3 price points. What used to be the quad is now a hex core for not much more money. What used to be the extreme edition is now priced 40% less. And the extreme edition is now 8 cores instead of 6 at the same price. Only negatives are the platform cost and the lesser pci-e lanes on the 5820k, but it is still a much better value than the previous quad core E CPU. Besides, if one wants to spend 1000 to 2000 dollars on gpus alone for tri or quad sli, seems like 200.00 more for the CPU with more pci-e lanes is a minimal increase.

 

[psolord]

The haswel-e is a very nice series for those that need the cores, but personally as a gamer I am not impressed.

Very bad OC for when you need it.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-6/overclocking.html

I mean come on my 2500k can hit 5ghz. I played the whole Crysis 3 at that speed and everything was great.

When a time comes to need great IPC with great clock in a game (Assassins Creed, Arcania etc), the haswell-e just doesn't cut it. The extra cores do not help either.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

I'll wait for Broadwell quad and the ddr4 to drop in price.

 

[Sweepr]

Only negatives are the platform cost and the lesser pci-e lanes on the 5820k, but it is still a much better value than the previous quad core E CPU. Besides, if one wants to spend 1000 to 2000 dollars on gpus alone for tri or quad sli, seems like 200.00 more for the CPU with more pci-e lanes is a minimal increase.

Agreed. Seriously, a Core i7 5820K Oced >4GHz is no slouch in games/apps that can't take advantage of +4 cores and you got extra cores that might be useful if you plan to keep the same system for many years (doing GPU upgrades every 1-2 years). My Bloomfield/Gulftown system started with a single HD5870 and it's now pushing 2x HD7970's. I expect a similar longevity from my future Haswell-E/Broadwell-E build.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The haswel-e is a very nice series for those that need the cores, but personally as a gamer I am not impressed.

Very bad OC for when you need it.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-6/overclocking.html

I mean come on my 2500k can hit 5ghz. I played the whole Crysis 3 at that speed and everything was great.

When a time comes to need great IPC with great clock in a game (Assassins Creed, Arcania etc), the haswell-e just doesn't cut it. The extra cores do not help either.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

I'll wait for Broadwell quad and the ddr4 to drop in price.

We need more reuults on overclocking, but those are very poor results compared to most other reviews. Anand got better than that on the eight core.

 

[RaistlinZ]

The haswel-e is a very nice series for those that need the cores, but personally as a gamer I am not impressed.

Very bad OC for when you need it.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-6/overclocking.html

I mean come on my 2500k can hit 5ghz. I played the whole Crysis 3 at that speed and everything was great.

When a time comes to need great IPC with great clock in a game (Assassins Creed, Arcania etc), the haswell-e just doesn't cut it. The extra cores do not help either.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

I'll wait for Broadwell quad and the ddr4 to drop in price.

It seems the reviewer limited himself to only 1.25v to overclock with. Pretty weak if you ask me.

 

[Lepton87]

Overall, I think the line up is very impressive. You get increased performance per dollar at all 3 price points. What used to be the quad is now a hex core for not much more money. What used to be the extreme edition is now priced 40% less. And the extreme edition is now 8 cores instead of 6 at the same price. Only negatives are the platform cost and the lesser pci-e lanes on the 5820k, but it is still a much better value than the previous quad core E CPU. Besides, if one wants to spend 1000 to 2000 dollars on gpus alone for tri or quad sli, seems like 200.00 more for the CPU with more pci-e lanes is a minimal increase.

I don't agree, If they decided to stick to 6 cores for their EE CPU I'm sure it would have 20MB of cache and higher frequency like 3.6/4.0 just like its predecessor instead of 3.5/3.7 of course it would't make much impact on performance but at least their new EE wouldn't be slower in some benchmarks then 4960X like 5930K is.
ps. If could buy 4930K for the same price as 5820K I would, because of DDR3 and full 40 lanes. Sadly IPC advantage of HW-E is eaten by the lower OC headroom. Intel, why no solder but this polymer crap again?

 

[smakme7757]

I didn't realise these new CPUs were already available. I've been looking at upgrading my old 1150 32GB RAM home lab to socket 2011 with an extra 32Gb RAM to make 64GB.

I almost ordered the i7-5930K along with a ASUS X99-S and then i saw that it required DDR4 .

That really burst my bubble. I could justify the CPU and motherboard, but buying 64GB of DDR4 would have made it a pretty expensive investment.

Almost seems like a waste to buy a x79-Deluxe motherboard with a Core i7-4930K now. Which was my original plan yesterday..

 

[TheRyuu]

Not sure for HB but Tech Report use a X264 XC with AVX2 implemented and allegedly FMA but seems to me that X264 coding is purely integer related and that both FMA and AVX1.0 are useless in this case.

AVX was still useful at speeding somethings up because of its 3-operands. But yes, the float stuff is pretty useless for x264.

 

[Enigmoid]

Not too sure why people are so concerned about DDR4.

Cheapest 1 x 8GB DDR4 2133 is $102

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=14&sort=a10

Cheapest 1 x 8 GB DDR3 1600 is $73

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=11&Z=8192001&sort=a10

You are looking at about 40% more GB for GB assuming you are not going to buy the stupid expensive kits. Its $30 more.

If you want a 4x4 DDR4 Kit (quad channel) it will cost you $203

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=

The cheapest 4x4 DDR3 kit (1600 mhz) is $155.70

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=

Paying about $47 more. A 2 x 8 kit for DDR3 is about $127, you are paying $76 more.

Its more money but its not hundreds of dollars more unless you are paying hundreds of dollars (32-64 GB) of RAM anyway. For a full 64 GB you are looking at $631 for DDR3 and $816 for DDR4. $185 difference or 29% more. The $185 when you look at how much the build is going to cost anyway becomes much smaller.

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=11&Z=65536008&sort=a10

In a few months DDR4 will have dropped much more.

Its bad if you already have DDR3 but for a new system the reduced costs of HW-E along with the performance increases cancels it out.

 

[smakme7757]

Not too sure why people are so concerned about DDR4.

Cheapest 1 x 8GB DDR4 2133 is $102

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=14&sort=a10

Cheapest 1 x 8 GB DDR3 1600 is $73

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=11&Z=8192001&sort=a10

You are looking at about 40% more GB for GB assuming you are not going to buy the stupid expensive kits. Its $30 more.

If you want a 4x4 DDR4 Kit (quad channel) it will cost you $203

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=

The cheapest 4x4 DDR3 kit (1600 mhz) is $155.70

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3938566&SID=

Paying about $47 more. A 2 x 8 kit for DDR3 is about $127, you are paying $76 more.

Its more money but its not hundreds of dollars more unless you are paying hundreds of dollars (32-64 GB) of RAM anyway. For a full 64 GB you are looking at $631 for DDR3 and $816 for DDR4. $185 difference or 29% more. The $185 when you look at how much the build is going to cost anyway becomes much smaller.

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/memory/#t=11&Z=65536008&sort=a10

In a few months DDR4 will have dropped much more.

I guess you're just talking in general terms and not to anyone specifically:

Personally, the prices aren't a problem for 8/16Gb of RAM. I want 64GB. The initial outlay is quite a lot of money. $816 isn't exactly a pittance.

If I moved to socket 2011 I could reuse my current 32GB in my server and 32GB in my workstation for a total of 64GB. Then just pickup 8Gb for the workstation. With 2011-3 I'll have to buy 64GB outright. It's the only reason I'm not going to considering moving to 2011-3 and rather move to 2011 and wait until x99 matures.

Summary: Sucks for those with a lot of DDR3 memory already available

If I was buying a 100% new machine from scratch I'd buy into the new architecture and DDR4.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't agree, If they decided to stick to 6 cores for their EE CPU I'm sure it would have 20MB of cache and higher frequency like 3.6/4.0 just like its predecessor instead of 3.5/3.7 of course it would't make much impact on performance but at least their new EE wouldn't be slower in some benchmarks then 4960X like 5930K is.
ps. If could buy 4930K for the same price as 5820K I would, because of DDR3 and full 40 lanes. Sadly IPC advantage of HW-E is eaten by the lower OC headroom. Intel, why no solder but this polymer crap again?

One review said polymer, but others thought it was soldered. In any case, Haswell seems to hit a wall at about 4.6 ghz no matter what, so I am not sure how much difference it makes.

*But* you get previously unavailable 8 core performance at 1000.00, and very similar 6 core performance at considerably cheaper price points. Seems like a win/win to me.


Edit: I agree that if they were available at the same price point, I would buy the 4930 over the 5820. But the whole point is that 5820 is markedly cheaper. The real comparison for the 5820 is the previous E quad core, and compared to that, it is a huge step up.

 

[Lepton87]

It's the enthusiast who very rarely change their whole computers, they usually they do as I do change a few parts at a time at most who have the biggest beef with this new memory as they need to replace their memory which means selling old and buying new a step that is not pleasant, I already have a lot of DDR3 memory. I have 2x4 1866MHz and 2x4 1600MHz I see no difference with 16GB over 8GB so I just use 8GB of slightly faster memory but that got me thinking...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I don't agree, If they decided to stick to 6 cores for their EE CPU I'm sure it would have 20MB of cache and higher frequency like 3.6/4.0 just like its predecessor instead of 3.5/3.7 of course it would't make much impact on performance but at least their new EE wouldn't be slower in some benchmarks then 4960X like 5930K is.
ps. If could buy 4930K for the same price as 5820K I would, because of DDR3 and full 40 lanes. Sadly IPC advantage of HW-E is eaten by the lower OC headroom. Intel, why no solder but this polymer crap again?

One review said polymer, but others thought it was soldered. In any case, Haswell seems to hit a wall at about 4.6 ghz no matter what, so I am not sure how much difference it makes.

*But* you get previously unavailable 8 core performance at 1000.00, and very similar 6 core performance at considerably cheaper price points. Seems like a win/win to me.


Edit: I agree that if they were available at the same price point, I would buy the 4930 over the 5820. But the whole point is that 5820 is markedly cheaper. The real comparison for the 5820 is the previous E quad core, and compared to that, it is a huge step up.

I think you guys are being pretty silly, and not thinking things through

it might be a tougher decision if DDR3 was as cheap as it was a year or two ago, but its not, and DDR4 prices really aren't that bad in comparison

28 lanes vs. 40 really isn't that big of a deal unless you really do plan on using at least four 8x PCI-e cards

people penny pinching on the CPU likely aren't going to be loading up like that anyway

the major advantage of Haswell-E is the total HEDT platform. X99 delivering up to 10x SATA6 ports on the intel chipset vs. 2x SATA6 ports on X79 is pretty huge, as well as USB3.0 on the intel and a plethora of choices with M.2 and SATA-e.