I7 5820k pcie lanes: Haswell-E Core i7-5820K Will Only Have 28 PCI-Express Lanes

Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K and i7-5820K Tested

Today marks the release of Intel’s latest update to its Extreme processor line with a trio of Haswell-E models including Intel’s first consumer socketed 8-core product. This is the update from Ivy Bridge-E, which includes an IPC increase, a new X99 chipset, the first consumer platform with DDR4 memory, and a new CPU socket that is not backwards compatible. We managed to get all three CPUs ahead of launch to test.

August 29th, The Haswell-E Launch

As part of PAX Prime today, three major launches are occurring:

— New line of Haswell-E i7 CPUs
— New line of X99 motherboards using the new LGA2011-3 socket
— An upgrade from DDR3 to DDR4 memory, using the new 288-pin slots

Each of these launches is an upgrade over the previous enthusiast models in the market. The Haswell-E processors will support up to 8 cores on i7, the X99 motherboards have increased connectivity and focus on newer storage methods, and the DDR4 memory supports higher frequency memory at lower voltages than DDR3.

Our coverage will be split to cover all three major launches. This article is talking about the Haswell-E CPUs, we will have another article discussing the new X99 chipset and motherboards, with a third about the new DDR4 memory. There is a small amount of overlap in the data between the three, but check out our other articles this week to find out more.

The New CPUs

Getting straight to the heart of the matter, Intel is keeping the enthusiast extreme range simple by only releasing three models, similar to the initial Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E launches.

The top of the line will be the 8-core i7-5960X with HyperThreading, using a 3.0 GHz base frequency and 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes for $999 for 1000 units. This pricing is in line with previous extreme edition processor launches, but the base frequency is quite low. This is due to the TDP limitation: sticking two extra cores produces extra energy lost as heat, and in order to get the TDP down the base clock has to be reduced over the six-core models. This is a common trend we see in the Xeon range, and as a result it might affect the feel of day-to-day performance.

The mid-range i7-5930K model mimics the older i7-4960X from Ivy Bridge-E by having six cores and 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, however it does differ in the frequencies (the 5930K is slower) and the memory (5930K supports DDR4-2133). Pricing for this model is aimed to be highly competitive at just under the $600 mark.

The entry level model is a slightly slower i7-5820K, also featuring six cores and DDR4-2133 support. The main difference here is that it only has 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes. When I first read this, I was relatively shocked, but if you consider it from a point of segmentation in the product stack, it makes sense. For example:

For Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E, the i7-4820K and i7-3820 CPUs both had four cores, separating it from the other six cores in their series. For Nehalem, the quad core i7-920 was a super low clocked version compared to the quad core i7-965 and hex-core i7-980X which was released later. In these circumstances, the options for the lower $400 part were either fewer cores or lower frequency. Intel has decided to make the lower cost Haswell-E processor with fewer PCIe 3.0 lanes, but this is an even better scenario for most consumers:

Having 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes means dual GPU setups are at PCIe 3.0 x16/x8 (rather than x16/x16), and tri-GPU setups are at x8/x8/x8 (rather than x16/x16/x8). Very few PC games lose out due to having PCIe 3.0 x8 over PCIe 3.0 x16, meaning that performance should be almost identical. On paper, there should be a smaller performance difference with this setup than if the frequency had been reduced, or the fact that people would complain if there were fewer cores. Having six cores puts it above the i7-4790K in terms of market position and pricing, and the overall loss is that an i7-5820K user cannot use 4-way SLI, which is a very small minority to begin with.

The only downside to all the 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes is that there is no physical way to improve the PCIe lane situation. If the frequency was low, the user could overclock. If there were fewer cores, overclocking would also help mitigate that. Despite this, on paper it looks like that performance difference should be minimal.

The raise in TDP from 130W to 140W puts extra strain on user cooling. Intel still recommends its TS13X liquid cooling solution as a bare minimum – this is the same cooling solution Intel suggested for Ivy Bridge-E. Users wanting to overclock might expect another 150W pushing the i7-5960X up to 4.3 GHz (see our overclocking results later in the review), suggesting that an aftermarket thicker/longer radiator liquid cooler might be in order.

The CPU

The base silicon for the three mainstream Haswell-E processors is of a similar construction to the previous generation, with a dedicated L3 cache in the middle and the processors around the outside connected by a ring:

All eight cores in the silicon will have access to the cache for the top of the line Core i7-5960X. For the six core models, the i7-5930K and the i7-5820K, one pair of cores is disabled; the pair which is disabled is not always constant, but will always be a left-to-right pair from the four rows as shown in the image. Unlike the Xeon range where sometimes the additional cache from disabled cores is still available, the L3 cache for these two cores will be disabled also.

Intel was quite happy to share the dimensions of the die and the transistor counts, which allows us to update this table with the new information:

CPU Specification Comparison
CPU Manufacturing Process Cores GPU Transistor Count (Schematic) Die Size
Intel Haswell-E
8C
22nm 8 N/A 2. 6B 356mm2
Intel Haswell
GT2 4C
22nm 4 GT2 1.4B 177mm2
Intel Haswell
ULT GT3 2C
22nm 2 GT3 1.3B 181mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge-E
6C
22nm 6 N/A 1.86B 257mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge
4C
22nm 4 GT2 1.2B 160mm2
Intel Sandy Bridge- E 6C 32nm 6 N/A 2.27B 435mm2
Intel Sandy Bridge 4C 32nm 4 GT2 995M 216mm2
Intel Lynnfield
4C
45nm 4 N/A 774M 296mm2
AMD Trinity
4C
32nm 4 7660D 1. 303B 246mm2
AMD Vishera
8C
32nm 8 N/A 1.2B 315mm2

This shows how moving from a six core Ivy Bridge-E die to an eight core Haswell-E increases the die area from 257 mm2 to 356 mm2 (a 39% increase) and the number of transistors from 1.86 billion to 2.6 billion (a 40% increase). This means that adding 33% more cores actually requires more space and more transistors. Part of the increase as well might be the migration to a DDR4 memory controller.

The span of the extreme processor space historically from Intel has a distinct pattern. The CPUs with the lower cores are often clocked the fastest, but over time the speed of the SKU with the most cores might match the lower core model. Then when the next update arrives with more cores, the frequency is again reduced:

Intel Extreme Edition Comparison
  Nehalem
(130W)
Sandy Bridge-E
(130W)
Ivy Bridge-E
(130W)
Haswell-E
(140W)
Four
Cores
<3. 0 GHz i7-920 1.0MB L2
8MB L3
     
3.2 GHz i7-965 1.0MB L2
8MB L3
     
3.6 GHz   i7-3820 1.0MB L2
10MB L3
   
3.7 GHz     i7-4820K 1MB L2
10MB L3
 
Six
Cores
3.2 GHz   i7-3930K 1.5MB L2
12MB L3
   
3.3 GHz i7-980X 1.5MB L2
12MB L3
i7-3960X 1.5MB L2
15MB L3
  i7-5820K 1.5MB L2
15MB L3
3.4 GHz     i7-4930K 1. 5MB L2
12MB L3
 
3.5 GHz i7-990X 1.5MB L2
12MB L3
i7-3970X (150W)1.5MB L2
15MB L3
  i7-5930K 1.5MB L2
15MB L3
3.6 GHz     i7-4960X 1.5MB L2
15MB L3
 
Eight
Cores
3.0 GHz       i7-5960X 2.0MB L2
20MB L3

When you take the cache sizes into account (click a CPU to see the cache size), it becomes very difficult to do a like-for-like comparison. For example, the i7-990X and the i7-5930K are both six-core, 3.5 GHz base frequency models, but the i7-5930K has 3MB more L3 cache. Similarly with the i7-980X and the i7-3960X.

Nehalem Sandy
Bridge-E
Ivy
Bridge-E
Haswell-E
   
 

 

The X99 Chipset

We will go into more detail in our motherboard review piece, but the basic X99 chipset layout from Intel is as follows:

For CPUs with 40 PCIe lanes, the chipset diagram above will allow x16/x16/x8 scenarios or x8/x8/x8/x8/x8 with additional clock generators. For the 28 lane CPU, this becomes x16/x8/x4, which might make some PCIe slots on the motherboard redundant – it is worth checking the manual first which should show each combination. With ASUS motherboards, they have implemented a new onboard button which tells 2x/3x GPU users which slots to go in with LEDs on the motherboard to avoid confusion.

The platform now uses DDR4 memory, which has a base frequency of 2133 MHz. Almost all consumer motherboards will use either one DIMM per channel or two DIMMs per channel, making up to 64GB of memory possible with the latter. Should 16GB UDIMM DDR4 modules come along, it is assumed that with a microcode update, Intel will support these as well.

X99 will also support 10 SATA 6 Gbps ports from the chipset. This is a rather odd addition, because only six of those ports will be RAID capable. Most motherboards will list which ones are specifically for RAID, but this dichotomy makes me believe that the chipset might use a SATA hub on die in order to extend the number of possible ports.

The socket looks roughly the same from X79 to X99, but the main differences include the notches inside the socket, making sure that you cannot misplace the wrong CPU in the wrong socket. The pin layouts are also different, making them incompatible. The socket arms for fixing the CPU in place also change, with X99 arms requiring to be pushed around and out rather than out then in.

All the main motherboard manufacturers will have models ready on day one. These will be in the micro-ATX and ATX form factors, with most models aiming at the high end for functionality and performance such as the ASUS X79 Deluxe and the ASRock X99 OC Formula. There will be a few models for the cheap side of the market, such as the MSI X99S SLI PLUS and the GIGABYTE X99-UD3.

Prices should range from around $230 to $400+. See our X99 motherboard coverage for a more in-depth look.

DDR4 and JEDEC

All the Haswell CPUs will support DDR4 only, and the new DDR4 design means that the DRAM slots will not be able to take DDR3 due to a different placement of the notch and DDR4 has more pins. DDR4 modules are also a slightly different shape whereby the middle pins of the memory are longer than those on the outside.

For motherboards with single sided latches, this can make it a little trickier to put in because the module might feel in place but both ends need to be firmly in the slot.

The CPUs are listed as supporting DDR4-2133 which in terms of JEDEC timings is 15-15-15. This is similar to when DDR3 first launched, at the nice low (but high at the time) speed of DDR3-1066 7-7-7. While DDR4-2133 CL15 sounds slow, DRAM module manufacturers will be launching models up to DDR4-3200 CL16. This turns the DRAM Performance Index (MHz divided by CAS) from 142 to 200.

DDR4 is also at a lower voltage than DDR3, with 2133 C15 modules requiring 1.2 volts. Prior to launch, G.Skill, Corsair, Crucial and ADATA all sent out preview images of their modules, with a few even releasing pricing to etailers ahead of time. 

Modules should be available from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-3200 at launch, with the higher end of the spectrum being announced by both G. Skill and Corsair. See our DDR4 article later this week for more extensive testing.

Haswell-E and the Battle with Xeons

One of the main issues Intel has with its Extreme platform is the respective enterprise platform based on its high end Xeon processors. In the server world, the customers demand a certain level of consistency for each platform to match up with their upgrade and replacement cycle. As a result, while mainstream Haswell processors were launched in June 2013, it has taken another 14 months for the enthusiast versions to hit the market. This cadence difference between mainstream and extreme silicon is primarily driven by the Xeon market requiring the same platform for two generations. In this case, the Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E platforms, with the LGA2011-0 socket, we held in place for three years before the upgrade to Haswell-E with LGA2011-3. If you are wondering why there is the big difference in release date from Haswell to Haswell-E, there is your answer.

That being said, the consumer range of extreme processors is actually a small market for Intel compared to the Xeons. The market is pushed more out of the prosumer level customers that require performance but at a lower cost, or as a platform for Intel to show how fast it can go at a certain power limitation and then allow extreme overclockers to blow through it as much as possible.

The prosumer market is the important one for the consumer grade silicon. For small businesses that rely on CPU limited throughput, such as video editing, video production, scientific computation and virtualization, having the high performance in a single, low-cost product can produce a significant upgrade in throughput, allowing projects to be completed quicker or with more accuracy. While these prosumer would love the higher powered Xeons, the cost is overly prohibitive, particularly in the long term, or the lack of memory overclock capability has a negative effect.

With this long delay in extreme platform upgrades, it gives Intel the chance to test new functionality out on the mainstream segment. One of the prevailing problems with Ivy Bridge-E is that it relies on the X79 chipset which is showing its age. The new Haswell-E platform and the X99 chipset borrows plenty of cues from Z87 and Z97 in terms of input/output and connectivity support, based on the Xeon customer request of ‘SATA Express looks good, we will have that’.

The drive for lower power is also true, even in high performance systems. For datacenters, the majority of the cost of the facility is typically the energy usage for the systems and the cooling. Thus if a datacenter can use a more energy efficient system, it probably will. So the transition from DDR3 to DDR4 also involves a drop in DRAM voltage from 1.5 volts to 1.2 volts. This does not sound like much for a home system with 4-8 DRAM modules, but in a datacenter with several thousand systems, each using 8-64 sticks of memory, saving a few kW helps bring down the power bill.

This extreme cadence will eventually land Intel with a bit of an issue. If the gap between the mainstream CPU architecture and the performance CPU architecture widens more, then at some point there will be a two-generation difference. This means the server side will have to decide if having fewer faster cores with the highest IPC on the market is better than 2-3 year old slower processors. This would also mean a dichotomy based on whatever features are added. This would suggest that at some point, Intel may have to cut out an entire platform of processors but still maintain the two-generation platform consistency that the server market requires.

Competition and Market

Perhaps unsurprising Intel’s main competition is from itself on the consumer CPU side. As in the table above, the 5960X now leads the new charge on 8-core processors with the 6-core i7-5820K sitting at the back with a reduced lane count but also with a reduced price. Doing a direct comparison based solely on frequency and core count we can see that the i7-3960X matches the i7-5820K, showing how the platform evolves (as well as a position of the price point) over time. This bodes well, perhaps suggesting that Skylake-E’s lowest processor will be a similarly specified Haswell-E i7-5960X but with a higher IPC, should the trend continue.

Intel’s nearest challenger for consumer CPUs from outside is still the FX-9590 which we reviewed recently, but at 220W it needs another 50% power and is only competitive in a few choice benchmarks for 1/3 of the cost.

Today’s Coverage

From Intel’s Haswell-E CPU launch, several questions immediately spring to mind:

How much faster is Haswell-E over Ivy Bridge-E?
How well do these CPUs overclock?
I have an i7-3960X at 4.8 GHz / i7-4960X at 4.5 GHz, should I upgrade?
I already have the i7-4960X and run at stock, should I upgrade?
Do the 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the i7-5820K affect gaming?

One of the big questions on should I upgrade from X58 or X79 will always be towards the chipset, which we will cover in the motherboard review.

But our testing here aims to answer all these questions, in terms of a stock vs. stock comparison through to an overclocked comparison for prosumers making the most of their enthusiast system or users attempting to go down the low-cost X99 route. All of our benchmark results will be in Bench as well for comparisons to other consumer and server processors. 

 

Evolution in Performance: IPC and Memory Bandwidth
The Intel Haswell-E CPU ReviewEvolution in Performance: IPC and Memory BandwidthIntel Haswell-E OverclockingPower Consumption, Test SetupCPU BenchmarksGaming BenchmarksAdditional Overclocking ComparisonIntel Haswell-E Conclusions

Tweet

The Differences Between 5960X, 5930K and 5820K Processors (Haswell-E)

 Home > Processor > The Differences Between 5960X, 5930K and 5820K Processors (Haswell-E)

So I heard over the radio that Intel has just released a new line of extreme core processors based on this year Haswell architecture, also known as Haswell-E. Like, Wall-E. E as in Extreme. Get it? Haha. Worst dad’s joke. ever.

Anyway. First off, these bad boys belong to the high-end bracket and they obviously come under a premium price tag.

Casual gamers and basic system builders won’t be able to justify a reason why they should spend over $400 for a similar performance they could easily find in lower cost Haswell Core i7 or i5 processor. For power users, it definitely would be a good investment if you are coming from more than four generations behind. Because in raw processing and clock-for-clock benchmarks, the Haswell-E shows 8% faster than Ivy Bridge and 13% faster than the ol’ Sandy Bridge.

Nevertheless, very one thing that could draw your attention is the appearance of DDR4-3200 memory for the first time in forever. Which is really fast. Plus quad-channel. Which is really huge. Plus X99 chipset. Which is really..well.. fancy. Plus 8 or 6 freaking cores if you could afford it. One other selling point is you will be able to brag about it to your neighbors, friends and their children in every conversation.

Alright. Now, let’s take a look at all the essential differences between the three Haswell-E CPUs –5960X, 5930K and 5820K.

Intel Skylake i7 6700k, i5 6600k vs. Haswell and Sandy Bridge Processors – 125% Brutal

Architecture

Except for the last Sandy Bridge-E line up (i7 3970X) that based on 32nm architecture, all the Ivy Bridge-E and today Haswell-E (socket 2011-E) are built with 22nm manufacturing tech. That means the processors are more power efficient (0.976v), their platform is denser and contain more transistors.

Cores / Threads / Cache / RAM

  • 5960X
  • 8 Cores
  • 16 Threads
  • 20MB L3
  • DDR4-2133
  • 5930K
  • 6 Cores
  • 12 Threads
  • 15MB L3
  • DDR4-2133
  • 5820K
  • 6 Cores
  • 12 Threads
  • 15MB L3
  • DDR4-2133

Speed

  • The 5960X comes with the lowest clock at 3.0 GHz due to the its high density from carrying the two extra cores. Turbo speed pushes an extra 300 Mhz to 3.3 GHz mark. Though that’s not too impressive, it’s pretty reasonable for an 8-core processor. And remember you can overclock this bad boy because it’s unlocked.
  • Of all three, the six-core 5930K has the highest clock speed at 3.5 GHz with Turbo Boost up to 3.7 GHz. This processor performs almost like a twin of the 4960X from the last gen high-end Ivy Bridge, which is three times more expensive. It also runs 10-15% faster than the old Sandy Bridge-E 3960X.
  • The entry-level six-core 5820K runs at a moderate 3.3 GHz and sprints up to 3.6 GHz when needed. If you want to tap into the power of high-end workstations, this processor won’t break the bank and for most of all, it won’t disappoint you.

Thermal Design Power (TDP)

By default, all Haswell-E draw a maximum of 140W. However, this number can quickly increase two-fold as soon as you overclock your processor anywhere above 4.2 GHz.

During a classified top-secret test in a local park, my 5960X runs at 4. 3 GHz would draw 278W for its own good. Boy, that’s a tad above a GTX 980 on full load. So you know you will need a very decent PSU and liquid cooler if you are gonna challenge ’em Haswell-E at their best potential.

PCIe Lanes

  • 5960X
  • 40 PCIe Lanes
  • 16x/16x or 8x/8x/8x/8x/8x
  • 5930K
  • 40 PCIe Lanes
  • 16x/16x or 8x/8x/8x/8x/8x
  • 5820K
  • 28 PCIe Lanes
  • 16x/8x or 8x/8x/8x

In order to keep the cost of the 5820K affordable for entry-level high-end system builder, Intel cut the number of PCIe lanes by 12; whereas it is 40 for the 5960X and 5930K. The x99 chipset on the other hand might give you an additional PCIe x4 slot for other use, yet this depends on the manufacturer of the motherboard.

Now in reality, an 8x slot won’t compromise much performance (if any) from a SLI/Crossfire setup. However, you can’t do a 4-way SLI with the 5820K — if you can live with that, you could save yourself $200 for other components, such as those DDR4 memory.

Last of all, for those who paid attention to the 5820K you’d probably noticed that the amount of the available PCIe lanes do not add up right -don’t worry it is not a typo. The total of 16x/8x or 8x/8x/8x obviously is 24; out of 28 PCIe lanes from the specs sheet. The extra 4 will rely on the manufacturer’s decision, it could be used for mSATA, mini PCIe or M.2 socket, etc…just so you know.

Instructions

All the goodies that more than often most of us don’t know what the hell they are. But as long as they are here, I think we’re safe. If you are interested, feel free to use our trusted Google university for research.

  • MMX
  • SSE, SSE2 ,SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1 + SSE4.2
  • AES
  • AVX
  • AVX2
  • EM64T
  • NX,XD
  • VT-x
  • EPT
  • VT-d

Other notes

This happens so often so I gotta remind those of us who’re gonna buy these Haswell-E cpus : they don’t come with processor cooling fan. You need one of these 2011-E compatible coolers for your system (any 2011-socket compatible cooler also works with the new Haswell-E). Don’t sit there and cry like I did when my 5960X arrived early but no fan to run it. So, check out this comparison between Corsair H60, H75, H80, H90, h200 and h210 Liquid Cooling Kits while you’re at it.

One last thing you must know is that these Haswell-E CPUs do not have integrated graphics chipset –means you are gonna need your own video card to able to, you know, see things on the monitor…That’s pretty much all I have to share with you. Thank you for reading the article, enjoy your build and drop a few words with us in the comment section!



Intel Core i7-6950X (Broadwell-E) Review

Written by

Antony Leather

May 31, 2016 | 07:03

Tags: #broadwell-e #broadwell-e-review #haswell-e #lga2011-v3 #x99 #x99-review

Companies: #intel

1 — Intel Core i7-6950X (Broadwell-E) Review2 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Turbo Boost Max 3. 03 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Test Setup4 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — DDR4 and Memory Speed Tests5 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — PCMark 8 Video Editing and Photo Editing6 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Terragen 3 and Cinebench R157 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Unigine Valley and Power Consumption8 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Overclocking, Performance Analysis and Conclusion

Click to enlarge

Today marks somewhat of a milestone in desktop PC performance. 2016 sees the introduction of the first desktop 10-core CPU, and it comes in the form of the Core i7-6950X. It’s taken a decade to get here since the first desktop dual-core CPUs and for anyone that can make real use of this monstrous power, then all things point to the Core i7-6950X being one seriously powerful CPU indeed.

As well as the possibility of having 20 threads at your disposal alongside several graphics cards, there’s more being unveiled today than just a 10-core CPU. If you’ve been following the rumour mill, then you’ll likely have guessed the Core i7-6950X wasn’t going to be the only CPU coming to retailers today.

There’s actually a total of four new CPUs — all compatible with current X99 motherboards. While they’re all massively powerful CPUs that offer more cores and threads and demand more cash than the mainstream Core i7-6700K, Intel mixes things up again when it comes to PCI-E lanes, just as we saw with the Haswell-E launch.

Your decision, yet again, will be a tactical one, but in case you missed the last X99 CPU review, we’ll do a little recap. The PCI-E lanes are split into two distinct groups as far as the CPUs are concerned. 40-lane CPUs can dish out the full 16-lane bandwidth to two GPUs in a two-way setup with a further eight lanes available too. This configuration was introduced with the launch of the X99 chipset in 2014, and is a slight upgrade from X79 in that if you stretch to more than three GPUs, it could only manage to dish out a four-way x8 configuration whereas X99 Haswell-E and Broadwell-E systems can do five-way x8.

Click to enlarge

However, with Haswell-E came the Core i7-5820K, which only has 28-lanes and even basic maths tells us that two-way setups won’t be granted a dual x16 configuration. In fact, apart from the addition of a few extra next-gen storage formats and two extra CPU cores, there’s very little on offer with a 5820K-based X99 system compared to Z170 and a Core i7-6700K. The difference is even smaller now that there are lots of Z170 boards with at least one M.2 port with full PCI-E x4 bandwidth plus SATA Express and some even have U.2 now as well.

Pin layout and CPU core diagram — Core i7-6950X — Click to enlarge

While the choice at the low-end is somewhat familiar — the new Core i7-6800K is the poor old CPU with only 28-lanes — there are now three 40-lane options, each with different frequencies, cache and a trio of core options, meaning that if you’re gunning for a two-way GPU setup, you have a tough decision to make. Or, at least, it might appear that way at first, but the price of the new CPUs may well make that decision for you.

The Core i7-6950X is slated to retail for an eye-watering $1,569 — around 50 percent more than the Core i7-5960X did at launch. There’s obviously a few good reasons for this — you’re getting an additional two cores and four threads, the CPU is Turbo Boost Max 3.0 enabled (more on that in a minute), there’s 5MB extra shared cache and the manufacturing process has moved on from 22nm with Haswell-E launched in August 2014 to 14nm with Broadwell-E, again with Tri-gate transistors. The new CPUs also sport per-core overclocking, although this has been available to some extent already, but they also introduce AVX ratio offset and VccU voltage control. AVX instructions can put extreme heat loads through the CPU — they’re one reason why recent versions of Prime95 run considerably hotter than older versions such as 26.6. We haven’t had time to look into this feature, but our guess would be that offsetting the ratio could reduce this load and associated heat in some situations.

Intel CPU Base Clock Turbo Freq Cores/Threads Cache PCI-E 3.0 Lanes TDP Price
Core i7-6950X 3GHz 3.5GHz 10/20 25MB 40 140W $1569 / £1197
Core i7-6900K 3.2GHz 3.7GHz 8/16 20MB 40 140W $999 / £760
Core i7-6850K 3.6GHz 3.8GHz 6/12 15MB 40 140W $587 / £448
Core i7-6800K 3.4GHz 3.6GHz 6/12 15MB 28 140W $412 / £314

The new 10-core isn’t the true replacement for the Haswell-E based 8-core for the simple reason there’s still an eight-core option here — the Core i7-6900K, which retails for a more competitive $999 — essentially the same as the old Extreme Edition 8-core. In fact, along with the same smaller manufacturing process as the rest of the Broadwell-E line-up, the Core i7-6900K, which also sports 40 PCI-E lanes, is still an upgrade over the old Core i7-5960X, as it has 200MHz added to the base and turbo frequencies, which stand at 3.2GHz and 3.7GHz respectively, plus the addition of new Turbo Frequency tech.

There’s yet a further option if you’re still gunning for a two or three-way GPU setups and need those 40 PCI-E lanes, which is the Core i7-6850K. This is essentially the replacement for the old Core i7-5930K, sporting just 100MHz bumps to base and turbo frequencies plus the same cache amount. Finally, there’s the Core i7-6800K, which actually sports an identical turbo frequency to the old Core i7-5820K, but has a launch price around $20 higher, and most other specifications are the same too except for the addition of Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0. The die shrink here points at a tick, rather than a tock in Intel’s tick-tock cycle, but with the company killing this off a few months ago, this could mean that Broadwell-E isn’t the last CPU to land on LGA2011-v3 if Intel makes the move to its new development process immediately.

1 — Intel Core i7-6950X (Broadwell-E) Review2 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Turbo Boost Max 3.03 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Test Setup4 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — DDR4 and Memory Speed Tests5 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — PCMark 8 Video Editing and Photo Editing6 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Terragen 3 and Cinebench R157 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Unigine Valley and Power Consumption8 — Intel Core i7-6950X Review — Overclocking, Performance Analysis and Conclusion

Intel’s Overdue Desktop 8-Core Is Here – Techgage

It was a glorious thing when Intel released its Gulftown-based Core i7-980X in early 2010. It was the first desktop CPU out of the company that featured six cores, and it felt like a relative boon to those, like me, who run virtual machines, encode video, compile software, and more. In the end, I was left seriously impressed with that chip.

At that time, I naively believed that an eight-core was in our near-future. In fact, I outright expected Sandy Bridge, which released in late 2011, to have an eight-core model. It didn’t. I didn’t let anything dampen my spirits though, as at the end of my look at the Core i7-3960X, I said something to the effect of, “I can’t imagine that eight-core models will not be released within the next six months or so.”

I’m not sure what got that into my head. A staggering 1,020 days have passed since the 3960X’s announcement, and we finally have an eight-core chip at our disposal. Admittedly, I wasn’t exactly enthralled by what the Core i7-4960X brought to the table, but with eight cores, I think the i7-5960X has a great chance at having a different conclusion.

Welcome to Haswell-E:

That’s a chip that means business. All Haswell-E processors are built on a 22nm process, but the eight-core of course tops the transistor count charts, with 2.6 billion – 800 million more than the Core i7-4960X. As expected, these transistors are built using Intel’s much-touted Tri-Gate 3D design.

Like Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E, Haswell-E has 2011 contact points on its belly, but its processors will only support the latest socket revision, called LGA2011-3. At the moment, those are only going to be found on motherboards featuring Intel’s X99 chipset.

In regards to the function layout, nothing has really changed between Ivy Bridge-E and Haswell-E, and that’s because the design isn’t broken. All of the cores still sandwich the cache, and other key functions are found at the top and bottom.

The X99 chipset is Intel’s first desktop offering from Intel (or AMD, for that matter) to support DDR4 memory, and somewhat humorously, it officially supports very modest 2133MHz speeds. Chances are good that if you buy into this platform, you’ll be winding up with memory faster – or perhaps much faster – than this.

One important thing to note about this block diagram is the mention of “up to” 40 PCIe lanes. Last-gen, that didn’t matter too much, but this gen, it does. Intel’s decided to separate its smallest LGA2011-3 chip, the i7-5820K, further from the others by limiting its PCIe lanes to 28. Both the i7-5960X and i7-5930K have the expected 40, so for those who are building the highest-end gaming PCs possible, the i7-5820K may not be an ideal choice.

Intel’s sticking to the “3 model” scheme it started with Sandy Bridge-E for this launch, with the bottom CPU set to sell for $389 in quantities of 1,000. That should result in prices at etail of about $420 or so. The middle model bumps the price to $583, which nets you slightly faster stock speeds, as well as the full 40 PCIe lanes. The big gun is the i7-5960X, Intel’s debut eight-core. As is tradition for Intel’s top-end parts, this chip is priced at $999.

Cores Threads Clock Turbo Cache PCIe Lanes TDP $/1,000
Core i7-5960X 8 16 3.0GHz 3.5GHz 20MB 40 140W $999
Core i7-5930K 6 12 3. 5GHz 3.7GHz 15MB 40 140W $583
Core i7-5820K 6 12 3.3GHz 3.6GHz 15MB 28 140W $389
Core i5-4790K 4 8 4.0GHz 4.4GHz 8MB 16 88W $339
Core i7-4690K 4 4 3.5GHz 3.9GHz 6MB 16 88W $242

Intel’s Core i7-5820K, despite its fewer PCIe lanes, is quite an attractive chip compared to the i7-4790K. It has a much slower clock, but it has 50% more cores, and far more L3 cache. For the most part, it’s similar to last-gen’s i7-4930K. That chip was 100MHz more at stock, and 200MHz more at Turbo, but had 3MB less L3 cache and cost $200 more.

As for the other two models, there’s quite a bit to talk about. For starters, the i7-5960X has a glaring flaw: Its stock speed is 3. 0GHz. I don’t recall the last time any Intel enthusiast chip had dipped that low, and it’s hard to see that spec next to a $999 price tag. But on account of the fact that the chip has eight cores – something none of the other chips do, and something no AMD chip is going to hold a candle to – that drop in clock can be forgiven. Still, it doesn’t look right.

I haven’t put even two seconds into overclocking the i7-5960X as of the time of writing, but after talking to a couple of different vendors, I’ve come to the conclusion that a 4.5GHz overclock is going to be somewhat of a pipe dream. 4.0GHz, however, should be no problem at all to hit, especially if you don’t mind giving the chip a bit of extra voltage.

Even if you were to boost the chip to a static 3.7GHz or 3.8GHz across all of the cores, that dramatically enhances the appeal of the chip, and negates the fact that the i7-5930K is clocked a bit higher at stock.

Above is a shot of our i7-5960X sample cuddling with ASUS’ X99-DELUXE motherboard. This board is the first X99 offering I’ve touched, and so far, I’m beyond impressed with it. As you can probably imagine, this board will be the focus of my first X99 review, so stay tuned for that – there’s a lot to talk about.

Before moving on, there’s something interesting in that shot above: If you look closely at the CPU, you’ll see it say “USA”. I couldn’t help but ask Intel about this, since all of the CPUs I’ve received from the company have largely come from Costa Rica or Malaysia, and I was told that the USA label will not be carrying over to the retail products. So now that I’ve wasted your time with this information, let’s talk about DDR4.

Corsair was kind enough to send along a kit of its Vengeance LPX for our testing. This 16GB kit is clocked at DDR4-2800 speeds, although as I quickly found out, that speed is a little hard to hit at this point in time, and even after talking to ASUS and Corsair, I’m not entirely sure why. At 2800MHz speeds, my bandwidth score in Sandra was actually less than it was with the sticks clocked at 2400 or 2666. It could be that I have a bunk memory controller in my chip, or ASUS’ EFI needs some further tweaking. What I do know for sure is that there are some definite launch quirks here.

Desktop DDR4 at this point is bleeding-edge, and its pricing reflects it. I tackled this a couple of times recently in our news section, so I’m going to borrow a table from a post I wrote earlier this week to help illustrate things here.

DDR3 DDR4 Premium
2133MHz 2x8GB $163 (G.SKILL, 1.5V, CL 11) $220 (Crucial, 1.2V, CL 15) +35%
2133MHz 4x8GB $315 (G.SKILL, 1.65V, CL 10) $440 (Crucial, 1.2V, CL 15) +40%
2400MHz 2x8GB $153 (ADATA, 1.65V, CL 11) $230 (Crucial, 1.2V, CL 16) +50%
2400MHz 4x8GB $320 (Mushkin, 1.65V, CL 11) $460 (Crucial, 1.2V, CL 15) +44%

If you’ll be building an X99-based PC, you’re quite obviously going to be shelling out a fair bit of money to get up and running. I think I’m safe to assume that 16GB is going to be the amount of memory most people will go for, and at the moment, that will set you back just over $200 for a modest kit. Couple that with a $300 motherboard and at least the $400 i7-5820K, and that becomes a $900 base to your new PC.

Performance Expectations

Hey, Intel! I think I see an AMD engineer snooping around outside!

Alright, with Intel not looking, I have this to say: You probably don’t need an eight-core Intel processor. It could be that such a thing doesn’t even need to be said, but I just feel better by saying it anyway.

The fact of the matter is, even six cores is overkill for most people. It takes specific scenarios to take proper advantage of the resources that such a chip provides, and at the moment, that doesn’t include gaming. Intel does make mention of 3DMark’s Physics test benefiting from the extra cores, but that’s not exactly representitive of actual gameplay.

Who’d benefit from such a big CPU the most are those who encode lots of video, render a lot of 3D projects, compile large applications, run multiple virtual machines, and in general, do some pretty hardcore stuff with their PC.

Because the i7-5960X is clocked at a mere 3.0GHz, the i7-5930K stands out. It might lose two cores, but it’s at least 500MHz faster, and of course, $400 less than the eight-core.

That all being said, let’s tackle a couple of quick numbers. Intel claims that its eight-core Haswell-E will prove up to 32% faster in 3D rendering (based on Cinebench scores), and up to 20% faster in 4K video editing (based on Adobe Premiere Pro CC). Further, in its test of converting a 4K source video to 1080p using HandBrake, the i7-5960X proved 69% faster than the quad-core i7-4790K, and up to 34% faster than the i7-4960X.

With that all taken care of, we can now move onto a look at our own performance tests, to see what the i7-5960X is truly made of. For the sake of this review, I’m going to be comparing the i7-5960X directly to the i7-4960X. I would have loved to have been able to include i7-4770K results in this review, but due to time constraints, I was unable to re-test the chip using our updated test suite. Fortunately, the real comparison involves the chips that are included, so let’s get a move on and get to comparing – well, after a quick look at our testing system and methodologies.

Support our efforts! With ad revenue at an all-time low for written websites, we’re relying more than ever on reader support to help us continue putting so much effort into this type of content. You can support us by becoming a Patron, or by using our Amazon shopping affiliate links listed through our articles. Thanks for your support!

Intel turns its attention to desktop performance, unveils 8-core Haswell-E processor

Intel took the wraps off its most powerful consumer CPU at the PAX video-game conference in Seattle, WA, today. Intel’s Core i7 High-end Desktop Processor Family, code-named Haswell-E, consists of three unlocked processors that support hyperthreading, DDR4 memory, and Intel’s all-new X99 chipset.

The top-of-the-line Core i7-5960X boasts eight cores (16 processor threads), 20MB of cache, and 40 PCIe 3. 0 lanes. This $999 processor runs at a base clock frequency of 3.0GHz and torques up to 3.5GHz in turbo mode. 

Intel manufactures server chips with almost twice as many cores as this, but the company won’t bring that technology to its consumer business any time soon. It doesn’t need to—it’s already competing with itself on that front.

The Core i7-5930K provides six physical cores (12 processor threads), 15MB of cache, and 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. Its base clock frequency is 3.5GHz (up to 3.7GHz in turbo mode) and costs $583. The Core i7-5820K is also a six-core (12 processor threads) CPU with 15MB of cache, but it supports only 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes. It runs at a base clock of 3.3GHz and a turbo frequency of 3.6GHz. Intel is pricing this chip at $389.

Since all three processors are unlocked, system builders and end users can tweak the PC’s BIOS to run the CPUs at even higher clock speeds. 

Intel is shipping three Haswell-E processors. This chart compares them to each other and to Intel’s existing unlocked Haswell parts.  

When Intel launched the original Haswell family of processors in June 2013, its messaging was all about power consumption, integrated graphics, and cooling. In other words, Intel was most interested in pursuing the laptop, hybrid, and tablet markets. Sure, the fourth-generation mobile and desktop Core processors were somewhat faster than the third-generation Core processors that preceded them (with a notable exception that I’ll explain in a moment), but that chip family’s biggest improvements were reduced power consumption (to extend battery life), better graphics (to reduce the need for outboard GPUs and to extend battery life), and lower thermal design power or TDP (to reduce cooling requirements and extend battery life). TDP specifies how much electrical power a computer must be able to dissipate in a worst-case scenario: while the CPU is operating at its maximum speed for a sustained period.

Did I mention Intel’s focus on battery life?

Power users had to wait (and wait) for Ivy Bridge-E parts to get their next fix. Those unlocked processors, based on Intel’s third-generation Core architecture, hit the market in September 2013. The best of that family of three maxed out at six cores (with hyperthreading to support 12 processor threads).

Like Ivy Bridge-E, Haswell-E CPUs don’t waste any die space on integrated graphics. Anyone who buys one of these parts, or a complete desktop PC built around one, will rely on one or more discrete video cards for graphics.

Haswell-E processors are the first consumer desktop CPUs to support quad-channel DDR4/2133 memory.

And that’s where Haswell-E’s support for up to 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes comes into play: It enables a motherboard to support up to four discrete video cards (Ivy Bridge-E boasted the same feature). As you’ve probably guessed, anyone looking to upgrade from Ivy Bridge-E to Haswell-E will also need to buy a new motherboard and memory.

Intel’s Haswell-class Extreme Edition parts must be installed in a motherboard with an LGA 2011-v3 socket and an Intel X99 chipset.  

The big changes

The cores on Haswell-E processors share up to 20MB of L3 cache and are the first consumer desktop CPUs to support DDR4/2133 memory, providing four memory channels where Intel’s most recent CPUs support only two channels to DDR3 memory (at speeds up to 1866MHz). While some boutique PC builders are touting the benefits of this increase in bandwidth, an Intel spokesperson told me in a briefing earlier this week that in these early days, DDR4’s primary benefit will be reduced power draw.

Digital Storm and other boutique PC builders will be among the first to jump on the Haswell-E bandwagon. 

That gave me a chuckle, because Intel otherwise threw caution to the wind in terms of thermal design power; after all, you’ll never see one of these chips in a notebook.

Each of the three new Extreme Edition processors has a TDP of 140 watts. That’s 10 watts higher than its Ivy Bridge-E parts, and it’s considerably higher than Intel’s other unlocked Haswell processors—the Core i7-4790K (code-named Devil’s Canyon) and the Core i5-4690K—which have TDPs of just 88 watts. Intel’s mainstream Core i7 desktop processors, meanwhile, have TDPs as low as 35 watts.

In addition to its DDR4 support, Intel’s X99 chipset provides up to six USB 3.0 ports, eight USB 2.0 ports, eight PCIe 3.0 lanes, and 10 SATA 6Gbps ports (Intel’s X79 chipset supports six SATA ports, but only two are the faster 6Gbps variety). Support for Intel’s Rapid Storage Technology 13.1 is optional. Intel describes the X99 chipset as “Thunderbolt Capable,” but X99 motherboards must be “Thunderbolt Ready,” meaning they have a connector for a Thunderbolt 2 add-in card.

Thunderbolt 2 offers twice the bidirectional throughput of the original Thunderbolt spec—20Gbps—and supports daisy-chaining up to six devices on a single port. Who needs that much throughput? Content creators editing 4K video, rendering 3D images, or developing games. Thunderbolt 2 is overkill for most consumers; but since it comes in the form of an add-in card, you won’t pay for it unless you need it.

Target customers

As I said at the beginning, Haswell-E is aimed at gamers, content creators, and unabashed PC enthusiasts. Intel claims the Core i7-5960X is up to 20-percent faster at editing 4K video, 32-percent faster rendering 3D graphics, and 14-percent faster processing game physics and AI. Intel also claims that Haswell-E’s increased core and thread counts enable its best processor to convert 4K video to 1080p (using Handbrake), 34-percent faster than its six-core Core i7-4960X (Ivy Bridge-E), and 69-percent faster than its quad-core Core i7-4790K (Haswell).

Content creators and gamers will benefit most from the power of Intel’s Haswell-E processor. 

Most popular content-creation programs—including Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas Pro, and Cakewalk Sonar—are multi-threaded and can take full advantage of the multiple cores and processor threads Intel’s Extreme-series processors deliver. Games will benefit somewhat less, and this class of CPU is complete overkill for productivity apps and media playback. But speed junkies are sure to be pleased. 

Intel provided us with a Core i7-5960X so we could vet these claims; unfortunately, we didn’t get a compatible motherboard in time to publish benchmarks. I’ll update this story with that information soon.

Author: Michael Brown, Executive Editor

Michael is TechHive’s lead editor, with 30+ years of experience covering the tech industry, focusing on the smart home, home audio, and home theater. He built his own smart home in 2007 and used it as a real-world test lab for product reviews. Following a relocation to the Pacific Northwest, he is now converting his new home, an 1890 Victorian bungalow, into a modern smart home.

Intel Core i7-6800K Review | PC Gamer

Our Verdict

The i7-6800K is most affordable Broadwell-E part, providing more CPU cores for not much more than an i7-6700K, though the 6700K still wins in gaming comparisons.

Intel has this somewhat strange feeling separation of ‘mainstream’ and ‘enthusiast’ platforms, with a release cadence and model names that are sure to confuse the uninitiated. Take the Core i7-6700K, a «6th Generation Intel Core» part that launched last year, codenamed Skylake; that’s not too confusing, though without searching out performance charts you can’t really tell how fast the part is just by its name. Now compare that with the Core i7-6800K. You might assume that this is also a 6th Gen part, but it’s actually 5th Gen Broadwell-E. And which part is faster depends on what you’re actually doing.

We’ve already covered all of the major points of interest for Broadwell-E in our monolithic review , but today we’re going to provide the executive summary, focusing on the ‘budget’ entrant for Broadwell-E, the 6-core i7-6800K . We’ll include a few charts highlighting the overall performance picture, but if you want additional low-level details we’ll refer you back to the earlier article.

The Core i7-6800K is the spiritual successor to the Core i7-5820K . Both have six CPU cores with Hyper-Threading (SMT allows two threads per core), and both come with 28 PCIe Gen3 lanes. The main updates with Broadwell-E involve slightly higher clock speeds on the 6800K and the move to a 14nm process, with some minor improvements in architecture that boost performance a few percent. And if you want the i7-6800K instead of the i7-5820K, you’re looking at around a $50 price premium.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a 5820K for testing, but in practice there’s not a huge difference between it and the more expensive i7-5930K. You get 28 PCIe lanes instead of 40 lanes, along with slightly lower (by 100-200MHz) clocks. The PCIe lanes might sound like a pretty big deficit, but in practice it only really matters if you want to run more than three GPUs, and then only with Nvidia (since AMD allows CrossFire with x4 connections).

You can still do 3-way SLI (three x8 connections), and x8 vs. x16 hasn’t typically been an issue in performance—the bigger problem has always been getting good 3-way scaling. Now that Nvidia is recommending only 2-way SLI for the GTX 1080/1070, though, the need for 40 PCIe lanes has become even more limited. Even with dual GPUs and an M.2 SSD, you could still get by with 20 lanes; adding 10GbE and a second PCIe SSD might present an issue, though.

All the Broadwell-E consumer parts are multiplier unlocked, which means overclocking is relatively simple—just add a decent cooler, bump up the multiplier, and you’re all set. There’s more flexibility than that if you really want to tweak for the final 1-2 percent performance, but other than bragging rights and setting overclocking records there’s no real need for that. Our test 6800K was good for 4.4GHz, but only at a rather high 1.40V.

But the question you’re probably most interested in is, how does the i7-6800K compare to the competition? Here are a few charts, showing stock and overclocked performance for our current collection of CPUs, with the 6800K highlighted. These are the overall charts showing average (geometric mean, technically, so that all results carry equal weight) performance across nine CPU benchmarks and eight games, along with system power use while gaming; if you want to see the individual charts for all the tests, I again refer you to our monolithic Broadwell-E review .

Stock Performance

Starting with stock performance, for gaming the difference between the fastest modern Intel processor and the slowest Intel part we’ve tested is ten percent. In other words, you could build a gaming rig with the fastest consumer graphics card, the GTX 1080 (we’ll leave out the non-consumer Titan X), and at most you’re losing ten percent by running with an i5-6400 compared to the i7-6700K. But that also brings up another interesting point: All of the Broadwell-E and Haswell-E systems are actually slightly slower in overall gaming performance than the i7-6700K, and even the i5-6600K. For gaming, there’s really little need to move to Intel’s ‘enthusiast’ X99 platform.

Flip over to CPU intensive workloads like video editing or 3D modeling and we have a completely different story. Now, Intel’s new i7-6800K is just a hair faster than the previous generation Core i7-5930K while costing about $130 less. It’s also ten percent faster than the i7-6700K, and 50 percent faster than the i5-6600K. But there’s still one final catch….

The sample i7-6800K chip I tested might be a bit of a dud, or perhaps there’s some odd interaction between the motherboard firmware and CPU, but for now it ends up being the second highest power draw of all the chips tested, just a bit ahead of AMD’s power hungry FX-8370. The gaming result is a bit odd, though, considering CPU tests put the 6800K at about 20W less than the 6900K and 6950X; it appears the 6800K hits close to maximum CPU power use while gaming, where the 8-core and 10-core chips are able to save some power by not having to run all cores at maximum load. Regardless, the 6800K ends up being a bit of a power pig.

Overclocked Performance

Overclocking doesn’t radically alter the picture—everything that can overclock gets faster but the margins remain relatively stable. For gaming workloads, overclocking also didn’t improve performance all that much; the 6800K is only two percent faster than stock, mostly because the primary bottleneck at 1080p Ultra is still the graphics card. Even the gap between the fastest and slowest Intel parts tested is only slightly larger, 11 percent now instead of ten percent. This isn’t to say overclocking doesn’t help in other ways.

Bumping from the stock 3.4-3.6GHz of the i7-6800K to a steady 4.4GHz gives us a theoretical 22-29 percent increase in performance. In practice, our CPU-centric testing improves by 22 percent overall, and the 6800K, 6850K, and 5930K are all basically tied when it comes to overclocked CPU performance. As the least expensive choice among those three, the 6800K gets an easy recommendation. Running both CPUs overclocked, the 6800K is also 20 percent faster than the 6700K, as the stock clocks are far more conservative with Broadwell-E, and it ends up being 54 percent faster than the 6600K.

Overclocking does increase the power use by another 31W under load, however, and you’ll definitely want a beefy cooler if you’re going to overclock processors with six or more cores. But if you’re after improved CPU performance, the X99 platform has a lot to offer.

The sensible Broadwell-E

Given the pricing on Intel’s latest enthusiast chips, Broadwell-E isn’t something most people are going to be jumping to purchase. The 10-core part costs as much as a complete high-end gaming system, and the 8-core i7-6900K is still over a grand. Meanwhile there are two 6-core parts, the i7-6800K and i7-6850K , and while you might think the 6850K would have some added goodness for the extra $180, in practice the extra PCIe lanes are rarely a factor for most builds. If you’re putting together a rig that will need more than the 28 PCIe lanes the 6800K offers, you’re probably also looking at the 8-core or 10-core parts.

At stock clocks, the 6850K ends up a scant three percent faster in CPU tasks, while in games it’s basically a wash (less than a one percent difference). We’d still lean more toward skipping X99 entirely—you could either go for Skylake’s i5-6600K or i7-6700K for less money, or if you’re in no rush, Kaby Lake should improve performance a bit more while adding some extra features, though Kaby Lake will launch mobile first and isn’t expected on desktop before early 2017.

The biggest problem with the i7-6800K is that even though Broadwell-E is a bit faster than Haswell-E, in practice there’s not much reason to go for the i7-6800K over the older i7-5820K. Right now at least, Broadwell-E seems to require more voltage for overclocking, and on the samples we’ve tested maximum clock speeds have dropped 100-200MHz. The result is a virtual tie in performance, unless you’re running stock in which case Broadwell-E should be 5-10 percent faster. The reality is that further improvements to CPU performance are becoming increasingly difficult, and while there are always use cases where having more cores is advantageous, most people rarely have a need for more than four cores.

Incidentally, the replacement for Broadwell-E is also on the horizon. Skylake-X is due out sometime in 2017 and will apparently use a new socket R4 (LGA2066). There will also be Kaby Lake-X parts with fewer cores for the platform, meaning potentially we’ll see a bit of a coming together of Intel’s mainstream and enthusiast platforms—there will still be a separation, but there might be some options priced in the $200-$250 range so potential customers can get their foot in the door with a 4-core part and later upgrade to a 10-core if they want. That platform is probably a year away, though, so much could change.

So who should be looking at i7-6800K? If you’re after the best gaming platform currently available, Z170 and LGA1151 win out over X99 and LGA2011-3: slightly higher gaming performance for less money. How much less? On average, a complete Z170 build with i7-6700K and a GTX 1070 will set you back around $1150, and you can knock $100 off the price by opting for the i5-6600K. For similar quality, X99 with an i7-6800K starts at $1300. But some gamers like to do more than just game, so if you’re routinely doing live streaming, or perhaps some video editing, the minuscule loss in gaming performance is more than compensated for by the large jump in CPU performance.

Of the four new Broadwell-E enthusiast processors, only two are really worth considering. The i7-6950X is the fastest enthusiast CPU around, with ten CPU cores backing it up, but the stratospheric pricing makes it unattainable for most mere mortals. The i7-6800K ends up being the best of the new batch, with reasonable pricing and a level of performance essentially equal to the more expensive i7-6850K. It’s still not the best overall CPU, particularly for gaming, but if you want more than an i7-6700K, it’s the most sensible choice.

Read our review policy

Intel Core i7-6800K Review

The i7-6800K is most affordable Broadwell-E part, providing more CPU cores for not much more than an i7-6700K, though the 6700K still wins in gaming comparisons.

Jarred’s love of computers dates back to the dark ages when his dad brought home a DOS 2.3 PC and he left his C-64 behind. He eventually built his first custom PC in 1990 with a 286 12MHz, only to discover it was already woefully outdated when Wing Commander was released a few months later. He holds a BS in Computer Science from Brigham Young University and has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge ‘3D decelerators’ to today’s GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.  

Processors. Processors Benchmarks in reduced resolution

Fifth generation Intel processor built on 22nm Haswell-E architecture and designed for Socket LGA 2011-v3.

not hot
overclocking on ASUS boards is offered by the OC Tuner utility built into UEFI. With the help of BCLK and a multiplier, it will allow you to achieve a stable 4125 MHz.

The Intel Core i7-5820K is a 6-core, 12-thread CPU designed for Intel X9 motherboards.9. Formally, this is the most affordable processor in this line, the cost of which in our country is slightly higher than the recommended value of $396, albeit not by much.

Intel Core i7-5820K is friendly with DDR4 RAM, the base clock frequency is 3300 MHz, in turbo acceleration mode the value rises to 3600 MHz. Cache — 15 MB. As you probably remember, the main difference between the Intel Core i7-5820K and older brothers in the lineup is the limitation on PCI-E bandwidths, there are 28 of them available against a maximum of 40 units (this is precisely the hardware limitation).

Heat dissipation stone
is at around 140 W, but we have to admit that this is the only processor from the fifth generation that does not overheat even under boxed air cooling (as well as under simple coolers designed for Intel Core i7 under Socket LGA 2011). For example, in the 7Zip application and multi-threaded archiving with the activation of all cores and threads, the Intel Core i7-5820K heats up to 41 degrees. At a frequency of 4200 MHz and a voltage of 1.252 V, the value increases to 58 degrees, which does not exceed the permissible operating temperatures.

Test stand:

Motherboard — /
RAM — 3000 MHz
Video card —
Power supply —
Cooling system — Evercool NI2011E-9525SP

Overclocking fifth generation processors is still not the most pleasant task (and not particularly rewarding).

With the performance of the Intel Core i7-5820K, everything is in order, for home server tasks and rendering, this processor is the best solution. Based on it, you can also assemble a fairly powerful entry-level server.

Is this CPU required for a powerful gaming system? Rather no than yes, because the difference compared to, which is cheaper, adds up to only a few frames / s. The meaning in the Intel Core i7-5820K appears when you install a pair of high-performance video cards of the level or 980. On the other hand, there are not so many particularly demanding games that would not be enough for one graphics adapter. Perhaps GTA V will present new questions to modern hardware
.

Overclocking fifth generation processors is still not the most pleasant experience (and not particularly rewarding). Firstly, the performance at 3600 MHz is already more than impressive. Secondly, even the slightest increase in voltage greatly affects the level of heat dissipation and operating temperature. When overclocking the CPU over 4200 MHz, air cooling is no longer enough. Thirdly, motherboards and software are not yet fully optimized for easy and straightforward overclocking.

For example, motherboards based on Intel X99 for some reason are not able to organize the necessary functioning of the power subsystem in an automatic manner, everything has to be done manually, setting the working values ​​of in the old fashioned way
, that is, by trial and error.

With the performance of the Intel Core i7-5820K, everything is in order, for home server tasks and rendering, this processor is the best solution.

On two ASUS X9 test motherboards9-Pro and above 4200 MHz, it was not possible to raise the frequency on the Intel Core i7-5820K. The selection of voltage, as well as the combination of BCLK and multiplier, led the system to cyclic reboots. However, as mentioned above, a full-fledged overclocking of the Intel Core i7-5820K is best done with CBO.

The best option painless and not hot
overclocking on ASUS boards is offered by the OC Tuner utility built into UEFI. With the help of BCLK and a multiplier, it will achieve stable 4125 MHz
.

Thus, the most ideal solution is to use the Intel Core i7-5820K with four DDR4 RAM modules and one or two high-performance video cards in default mode. Such a system will be enough for gaming applications, and for a remote server, and for working with graphics, as well as high-definition video.

Test results for Intel Core i7-5820K:

Intel Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K and i7-5820K overview | Three New Enthusiast Processors

Just over a decade ago, Intel introduced the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. This model used a single core with Hyper-Threading technology, 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache and an external bus frequency of 800 MHz. The last characteristic has not been seen in actual solutions for a long time, right? This Pentium was designed on a 130nm process and had 178 million transistors. The processor was sold for $1000, installed in an ancient socket 478, and its thermal threshold reached more than 100 watts.


Who would have thought that in ten years, Intel’s flagship chip would have a lower base clock speed, and it would accelerate to 3.5 GHz only in situations where thermal headroom allows. Here comes the new Core i7-5960X
. Of course, it must be taken into account that today we are dealing with more complex technologies, and, as we already know, performance can be increased not only by increasing the clock frequency.

Core i7-5960X
carries eight physical cores that can process tasks in sixteen threads at once thanks to Hyper-Threading technology. Applications that are optimized for parallelization of tasks get a significant speedup in this way. Each core has 32 KB of L1 cache for instructions and data, as well as 256 KB of L2 cache. The volume of the L3 cache is as much as 20 MB, that is, 2.5 MB per core.

While the 2004 Extreme Edition chip was optimized for purely computing tasks, the 2014 model has many more features. Core i7-5960X
The
has its own onboard PCI Express controller capable of processing 40 lanes at 8 GT/s (the official PCI Express 3.0 specification). The chip is also equipped with the world’s first quad-channel DDR4 memory controller, officially designed for a data transfer rate of 2133 MT / s.

If you dig a little deeper, it turns out that Core i7-5960X
The
is based on the modern Intel Haswell architecture. But since this version is focused on servers and workstations, the architecture in it is called Haswell-E. You get additional PCIe lanes in the solution (there are only sixteen in Haswell desktop CPUs) and the aforementioned memory controller (existing Haswell processors are limited to supporting two DDR3 channels), but you lose the built-in HD Graphics graphics core that was so touted when the fourth generation Core processors appeared .

Additional information:

If you want to learn more about the Intel Haswell architecture, which is the main processor core on Haswell-E, we suggest reading our review of the Core i7-4770K
.

Intel reasonably assumed that people buying a powerful processor for a workstation or gaming system would use discrete graphics cards. Instead of installing an unnecessary GPU that eats up chip space, it was decided to use the freed up resources to create a more powerful central processor.

But even with no graphics core, Haswell-E’s die area is over 355 mm², and there are 2.6 billion transistors on the die itself — almost fifteen times more than the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. The chips are manufactured on the basis of a 22-nanometer process technology and are designed for a thermal package of 140 W. The expected price of this CPU is the same $1000.

Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K

Every time we test a thousand dollar Intel processor, we recognize its importance, but understand that enthusiasts would rather spend less money and use their technical knowledge to achieve maximum performance through overclocking. In the case of Haswell-E, only 9 are octa-core processors. 0019 Core i7-5960X
. In younger models, there are fewer cores and cache.

Fortunately, games generally don’t lose performance when moving from eight to six cores, especially when it comes to efficient Intel architecture. However, the FPS increases noticeably with increasing clock speed. As a result, the Core i7-5930K is a more suitable candidate for an expensive high-end gaming system.
. The processor is built on the same with Core i7-5960X
crystal. Intel simply disables two cores and 5 MB of L3 cache. There are six cores, 15 MB of shared L3 cache, 40 PCI Express 3.0 lanes, and a quad-channel memory controller. The base frequency jumped to 3.5 GHz, and the peak frequency under the control of Turbo Boost technology — up to 3.7 GHz. Core i7-5930K
The
is priced at $583 and could potentially save you over $400.

If this is also expensive, then you should take a closer look at the Core i7-5820K
for $389. It’s also a six-core chip with 15MB of shared L3 cache and a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller. However, Intel is cutting the number of PCI Express lanes from 40 to 28. To be honest, this loss is not as big as it might seem. There are enough lines for one, two and even three video cards, unless, of course, AMD and Nvidia allow arrays in the x8/x8/x8 configuration. According to Intel official data, the processor Core i7-5820K
The
supports line splitting, but splitting must occur at the system board level.

Core i7-5820K
loses slightly in clock speed when compared to Core i7-5930K
: Base is 3.3 GHz or up to 3.6 GHz with Turbo Boost.

Turbo Boost clock speeds on Core i7-5000 series processors

Model
Intel Core i7-5960X
Intel Core i7-5930X
Intel Core i7-5820X
Price (recommended), $ 1000 583 389
Base frequency, GHz 3 3. 5 3.3
One active core, GHz 3.5 3.7 3.6
Two active cores, GHz 3.5 3.7 3.6
Three active cores, GHz 3.3 3.6 3.4
Four active cores, GHz 3. 3 3.6 3.4
Five active cores, GHz 3.3 3.6 3.4
Six active cores, GHz 3.3 3.6 3.4
Seven active cores, GHz 3.3 no no
Eight active cores, GHz 3. 3 no no

Enthusiast trio of chips

All three of the models we tested are either Extreme Edition chips or have a K suffix, meaning they have unlocked multipliers allowing for more free overclocking compared to mainstream Intel Haswell processors.

It’s nice that soft solder is used as a material between the Haswell-E die and the large heat spreader covering the Core i7-5000 series CPU. Compare with cheaper Haswell processors that use less efficient thermal paste. In our lab, chips with thermal paste warmed up quickly, thereby limiting voltage rise with both air and liquid cooling. The soldered thermal interface provides more efficient heat transfer, potentially raising the performance ceiling that can be achieved from Haswell-E.

Needless to say, top hardware companies have high hopes for the Core i7-5960X
and similar models. We have a large Noctua NH-D15 air cooler and an Intel BXRTS2011LC closed loop liquid cooling system in our lab. G.Skill sent DDR4-3000 memory modules with CAS 15 timings for testing. ASRock and MSI offered several impressive motherboards. Now the first review of motherboards on LGA 2011-3 from major manufacturers is being developed. It’s not a typo, a new platform really comes into play.

Intel Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K and i7-5820K overview | X99, LGA 2011-3 and DDR4: getting ready for the big update

Haswell-E will need a lot of new hardware.

Intel squeezed almost all of its potential out of the LGA 2011. The interface appeared with the Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) processors almost three years ago. However, some variables break compatibility, such as the introduction of DDR4 memory.

Old and new processors have the same physical dimensions and mounting holes. However, Core i7-5000 CPUs are fixed differently than 4000 or 3000 series chips, so you won’t be able to accidentally install a model for LGA 2011 into the LGA 2011-3 interface.

Special notches on the mount will not allow you to confuse Haswell-E with Ivy Bridge-E or Sandy Bridge-E, even though the number of legs is the same — 2011. For Core i7-5960X processors
, Core i7-5930K
or Core i7-5820K
requires an X99 based motherboard.

But there is good news. Maintaining dimensions from the previous generation ensures compatibility with older cooling systems. But before using, you need to make sure that your LGA 2011 heatsink or water block can handle the increased thermal limit of Haswell-E. Previous generation Intel flagship models were limited to 130W, the new Core i7s were limited to 140W, and overclocking can significantly increase power consumption figures.

X99 Express: Platform Controller Hub with familiar functionality

Intel chipsets are developing relatively slowly. The more functions are implemented in the processor itself, the less tasks fall on the PCH. And what remains rarely changes. If you were hoping to see any drastic changes in communication on the X99, then you are likely to be disappointed.

However, X79 is already outdated and X99 at least practically brings the new top chipset up to modern standards. It activates 14 USB ports, six of which support the USB 3.0 standard. There is an integrated Gigabit Ethernet network controller. Naturally, HD Audio. Don’t forget about eight PCI Express 2.0 lanes for connecting expansion cards through expansion slots or through third-party controllers built into the board. Perhaps the most significant improvement is the introduction of support for 6Gb/s SATA devices.

It’s frustrating that Intel still links the PCH and the CPU via four DMI 2.0 lanes. Bidirectional throughput is 2 GB/s. It’s not hard to imagine that the combination of edge, network, and storage traffic would easily fill a fairly narrow channel.

The situation is saved by a large number of PCIe lanes in the two most expensive CPUs for connecting fast graphics adapters, SSD and GbE.

DDR4 is a new memory technology. What is it for?

Since modern multi-channel memory controllers are built into processors, we rarely hear about bandwidth limitations, which are most often associated with the integrated graphics core on the chip. Ivy Bridge-E supports up to four DDR3 channels at up to 1866 MT/s or more than 40 GB/s of bandwidth.

So why DDR4?

There is no need to upgrade to a new memory standard in the enthusiast computing segment. But if you look at Intel processors, which are starting to appear in the server and mobile segments, then the introduction of DDR4 seems like a very sensible step.

For example, the lower supply voltage (1.2V) helps reduce power consumption compared to the 1.5V DDR3 modules that are commonly used today. This effect will be difficult to trace in today’s article, since the DDR4 modules available in our laboratory are rated at 1.35 V, and in some cases they require even more voltage. In enterprise-class solutions, several Haswell-EP processors will use modules rated at 1. 2 V, which provide noticeable power savings.

DDR4 factories today use more advanced technology to increase density. This is important for server buyers who need high RAM capacity. The amount of memory required in servers is not comparable to the amount of memory typical of Haswell-E based PCs, for which 32 or 64 GB in eight slots will be more than enough.

DDR4 also achieves higher data rates starting at 2133 MT/s. However, this also increases delays. We noticed that Core i7-4960X
The
, which runs on DDR3-1866 memory, is not far behind the Core i7-5930K
with DDR4-2133 in the SiSoftware memory test.

During our tests, we noticed that there are still some issues that need to be fixed. X99-based motherboards featured in our lab are constantly receiving new updates, most of which are related to DDR4 compatibility. But some don’t work at all. Others are trying to set the speed above 2666 MT/s. At the moment we have to switch from BCLK 100 MHz to 125 MHz or higher. The 2800 and 3000 MT/s options are not very stable. Until issues with firmware, module compatibility, and pricing are resolved, it is DDR4 that may become an obstacle, due to which enthusiasts who are cautious in their choice will prefer to wait a bit.

The end of summer — the beginning of autumn has always been a hot time in the IT industry, since it is during this period that a large proportion of various announcements and events fall. AMD has already managed to please gamers with an addition to the family of AMD Volcanic Islands video cards — the AMD Radeon R9 285 solution based on the AMD Tonga Pro graphics core. Its eternal rival NVIDIA is preparing a response in the form of launching a new series of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 9xx video accelerators. Although the processor market cannot boast of the same activity, however, the beginning of autumn here was also marked by a high-profile event — the release of platform Socket
LGA2011

v
3
and next generation high performance Intel Haswell-E processors
.

Despite the fact that the top solutions from the Intel Sandy Bridge-E and Intel Ivy-Bridge-E families still have no equal in terms of performance, they are already obsolete. The same can be said about the entire Socket LGA2011 platform. The Intel X79 Express chipset has long fallen short of the modern requirements of a high-performance system. To some extent, motherboard manufacturers tried to correct the situation by soldering third-party controllers for SATA 6 Gb / s and USB 3.0 ports. However, it could not go on for so long, because a new platform and a new microarchitecture were required. Thus, the appearance of a new family of high-performance processors became almost a fait accompli, the only question left was: “When?”

August of this year was the answer. Perhaps, it will seem to someone that Intel has delayed too much with the announcement of the Intel Haswell-E line. However, there are quite objective reasons for this: it was necessary to «run in» the new Intel Haswell microarchitecture in practice, as well as to enable memory manufacturers to saturate the market with DDR4 standard solutions.

The main innovation in the Intel Haswell-E family was the introduction of an 8-core device in the model range, while previously top-end Intel desktop processors included a maximum of 6 cores. The second improvement concerned the memory controller: there was a transition from the DDR3 standard to DDR4 with a much higher bandwidth. According to the company, all this allows in multi-threaded applications to achieve an increase of 79% compared to 4-core solutions. The only pity is that today there is not so much software that takes full advantage of the principles of multi-core and multi-threading. Therefore, in real conditions, the difference in performance may not be so impressive. But this is more a question for application developers, because, for their part, processor manufacturers have already done everything possible to increase the speed of the PC. But we will consider the real performance of new products a little later during testing, but now let’s focus in more detail on the theoretical part of the issue.

Microarchitecture features

Processors from the Intel Haswell-E family are based on an 8-core semiconductor chip. Apparently, in less powerful models (Intel Core i7-5930K and Intel Core i7-5820K), which include 6 cores, the remaining 2 will simply be blocked. Following its «Tick-Tock» strategy, Intel used a well-established 22nm process to manufacture Intel Haswell-E solutions, but at the same time changed the microarchitecture from Intel Ivy Bridge to Intel Haswell.

Intel

Haswell

E

Processor chip from the line
Intel

Ivy

Bridge

E

As a result, all the improvements at the structural level implemented in Intel Haswell processors (as well as their successors: Intel Haswell Refresh and Intel Devil’s Canyon) migrated here: improved sampling and branch prediction mechanisms, support for AVX2 and FMA3 instructions, increased cache performance of the first and second levels, the presence of a voltage converter on the CPU side. 0003

As we noted earlier, the maximum number of cores has increased: 8 for the Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition versus 6 for the previous flagship. Taking into account Intel Hyper-Threading technology, we get 16 independent threads instead of 12 at the output. The increase in the number of cores also affected the amount of cache memory in the third level (L3). Now its volume can reach as much as 20 MB.

As for the memory controller, in addition to the transition to the DDR4 standard, the frequency of supported modules has also increased. The manufacturer guarantees stable operation of memory sticks at speeds up to 2133 MHz. For representatives of the Intel Ivy Bridge-E generation, this figure was limited to 1866 MHz. Although, it is obvious that by overclocking it will be possible to achieve even better results. At least, some memory manufacturers are hinting at this, already offering sets of modules capable of operating at frequencies of 3000 and 3333 MHz. The configuration of the controller itself remains the same: 4 channels with a maximum memory capacity of up to 64 GB.

Naturally, such indicators also affected the complexity of the processor itself. So the 8-core modification of Intel Haswell-E includes 2.6 billion transistors, while the flagship of the Intel Ivy Bridge-E family has only 1.86 billion. The crystal area also increased: from 257 mm 2 to 356 mm 2 . In order not to further increase its dimensions, the manufacturer abandoned the integrated graphics core. Indeed, why is it in a processor costing $400 — 1000?

The only node that hasn’t changed is the PCI Express line distribution unit. As before, their number reaches 40 pieces (x16+x16+x8 or x8+x8+x8+x8+x8). All of them comply with the PCI Express 3.0 standard. Thus, Intel Haswell-E solutions are the best suited for creating powerful gaming configurations with multiple graphics cards.

Socket LGA 2011-v3 platform

The introduction of a new microarchitecture and expansion of capabilities led to a change in platform. The processor is still the main link and includes the main controllers. The chipset is responsible for ensuring the correct operation of peripherals: sound and disk subsystems, network controllers, USB connectors, and PCI Express 2.0 expansion slots. Data exchange between them is carried out via the DMI 2.0 bus.

We will explore the functionality of the new Intel X99 chipset and motherboards based on it in a separate review. Here we just note that the capabilities of the Socket LGA2011-v3 platform have increased in almost all parameters compared to the Socket LGA2011.

As for the connector itself, despite the general similarity of design, fasteners and even the same number of pins, it is not compatible with Intel Sandy Bridge-E and Intel Ivy-Bridge-E processors.

Model
row

The Intel Haswell-E processor line is represented by three models: Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition, Intel Core i7-5930K and Intel Core i7-5820K. On the market, they will replace the corresponding solutions from the Intel Ivy-Bridge-E family: Intel Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition, Intel Core i7-4930K and Intel Core i7-4820K.

As can be seen from the table, only the flagship of the series is equipped with 8 cores. The rest of the processors have 6 cores, including the younger model Intel Core i7-5820K. Apparently, Intel took into account user reviews regarding the 4-core Intel Core i7-4820K, which practically does not differ in performance from the Intel Core i7-3770K. Now the difference between the top «civilian» processor Intel Core i7-4790K and a junior representative of high-performance solutions (Intel Core i7-5820K) will be more noticeable.

The increase in the number of transistors also led to an increase in heat dissipation: from 130 W to 140 W. Moreover, in order not to go beyond this indicator, the manufacturer in some cases had to slightly lower the operating frequency. This is especially noticeable on the example of the flagship of the Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition series, which operates at a nominal speed of 3000 MHz, and accelerates to 3500 MHz in turbo mode. Recall that its predecessor, the Intel Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition, the frequency was 500 — 600 MHz higher depending on the operating mode. However, all new products have an unlocked multiplier, so if necessary, additional speed can always be obtained by overclocking. And the presence of a high-quality thermal interface between the crystal and the processor cover will also have a positive effect on their overclocking potential. True, you will have to take care of the cooling system yourself, since high-performance solutions from Intel are not equipped with a standard cooler. Although, this is even for the better, since he would have been immediately replaced anyway.

To save the user from searching for a cooling system with sufficient efficiency, the manufacturer offers to purchase a branded maintenance-free type CBO called «Intel TS13X» for a separate amount. However, looking at its characteristics, it is still better to think about buying a good air cooler, like the Noctua NH-D15.

And finally, the most important thing is the cost of new products. Intel has remained true to itself here too, setting the price tag for the flagship of the series at $1000. 6-core Intel Core i7-59The 30K and Intel Core i7-5820K are significantly cheaper at $583 and $389 respectively. It is these models that are likely to make up the lion’s share of sales, and the Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition will be the lot of overclockers, game fans and just lovers of very powerful configurations. No matter what ill-wishers say there, there are also a sufficient number of such buyers. It remains only to be glad for the users who are lucky enough to become the owners of such an 8-core «monster».

Processor
Intel
Core
i
7-5930
K

Unfortunately, we were unable to get the flagship of the series for testing, so we will start our acquaintance with the Intel Haswell-E line with a 6-core model, namely Intel
Core
i
7-5930
K
. For greater convenience, we decided to submit the full specification of the novelty in the form of a comparative table with its predecessor Intel Core i7-4930K.

Intel
Core
i
7-5930
K

Intel Core i7-4930K

Marking (engineering sample)

SR20R
(QFRB)

Processor socket

Socket
LGA2011-v3

Clock frequency, MHz

nominal

Turbo

Multiplier

nominal

Turbo

Base frequency, MHz

L1 cache size, KB

6 x 32 (instruction memory)

6 x 32 (data memory)

6 x 32 (instruction memory)

6 x 32 (data memory)

L2 cache size, KB

6
x
256

L3 cache size, MB

Microarchitecture

Intel Haswell

Intel Ivy Bridge

Codename

Intel Haswell-E

Intel Ivy Bridge-E

Number of processor cores / threads

Instruction support

MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4. 1, SSE4.2, EM64T, VT-x, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3

MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T, VT-x, AES, AVX

Number of PCI Express 3.0 lanes

Supply voltage, V

Maximum design power (TDP), W

Critical temperature, °C

Maximum operating temperature T case , °C

Technical process, nm

Technology support

Enhanced Halt State (C1E)

Enhanced Intel Speedstep

Hyper Threading

Execute Disable Bit

Intel Virtualization

Intel Turbo Boost 2. 0

Enhanced Halt State (C1E)

Enhanced Intel Speedstep

Execute Disable Bit

Intel Virtualization

Intel Turbo Boost 2.0

Built-in memory controller

Maximum memory size, GB

Memory types

Maximum frequency, MHz

Memory subsystem bandwidth, GB/s

Number of memory channels

Maximum number of modules per channel

Built-in graphics core

Processor
Intel

Core

i
7-5930
K

Processor
Intel Core i7-4930K

Compared to the Intel Ivy Bridge-E series solutions, the physical dimensions of the new processors remain the same. However, this changed the configuration of the heat-distributing cover and the arrangement of contacts on the back side. In addition, improvements have also occurred at the electrical level, which are primarily associated with the appearance of an internal power converter. This simplifies the design of the VRM module on the motherboard, since only one base voltage is now supplied to Intel Haswell-E processors. This technology has proven itself very well on the Socket LGA1150 platform, so its appearance in the older series is fully justified.

As we noted earlier, as a result of all the modifications carried out, the Socket LGA2011-v3 connector has lost forward and backward compatibility with the Socket LGA2011. However, the mounting system for the coolers has remained the same. In other words, when changing the platform, you will not need to buy a new cooling system. The only thing worth remembering is that the TDP of new products has increased by 10 W compared to solutions from the Intel Ivy Bridge-E series.

Performance Analysis

In normal operation, the speed of the Intel Core i7-5930K is 3500 MHz with a reference frequency of 100 MHz and a multiplier of «x35». At the time of taking the readings, the voltage on the core was 1.037 V. Thus, the hero of the review is 100 MHz faster than its predecessor (Intel Core i7-4930K) and at the same time requires a slightly lower supply voltage for its correct operation: 1.037 V versus 1.080 V.

In the dynamic boost mode using proprietary Turbo Boost 2.0 technology, the multiplier increases by 2 points to the value of «x37». At the same time, the processor clock frequency increases to 3700 MHz, and the voltage to 1.071 V. However, such a speed was observed very rarely and only with a small load.

Most of the time the processor spends at a frequency of 3600 MHz, and the supply voltage varies between 1.056 — 1.071 V. As you can see, the mechanism of the Intel Turbo Boost technology has also undergone some changes. Recall that the Intel Core i7-4930K in turbo mode was 200 MHz faster, but its supply voltage was 1.232 V. MHz. In the same way behaved in the absence of load and Intel Core i7-4930K. However, here the speed of 1200 MHz is achieved at 0.684 V, while in the case of the Intel Core i7-4930K, 0.824 V was required.

: for each of the 6 cores, 32 KB are allocated for data with 8 associativity channels and 32 KB for instructions also with 8 associativity channels;

  • L2 cache: 256 KB per core with 8 associativity channels;
  • L3 cache: 15 MB for all cores with 20 associativity channels.
  • Recall that its predecessor had 3 MB less L3 cache.

    The DDR4 memory controller operates in quad-channel mode and is guaranteed to support modules up to 2133 MHz. The maximum memory capacity is 64 GB.

    Testing

    For testing the Intel Core i7-59 processor30K, we were kindly provided with a GIGABYTE GA-X99-Gaming G1 WiFi motherboard and a set of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2800 series RAM for a total of 16 GB (4 x 4 GB). The rest of the test bench configuration remained unchanged.

    Processor Bench #2 was used for testing

    Motherboards (AMD) ASUS F1A75-V PRO (AMD A75, Socket FM1, DDR3, ATX), GIGABYTE GA-F2A75-D3H (AMD A75, Socket FM2, DDR3, ATX), ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX (AMD 990FX, Socket AM3+, DDR3, ATX)
    Motherboards (AMD) ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 (AMD 990FX, Socket AM3+, DDR3, ATX), ASRock Fatal1ty FM2A88X+ Killer (AMD A88X, Socket FM2+, DDR3, ATX)
    Motherboards (Intel) ASUS P8Z77-V PRO/THUNDERBOLT (Intel Z77, Socket LGA1155, DDR3, ATX), ASUS P9X79 PRO (Intel X79, Socket LGA2011, DDR3, ATX), ASRock Z87M OC Formula (Intel Z87, Socket LGA1150, DDR3, mATX)
    Motherboards (Intel) ASUS MAXIMUS VIII RANGER (Intel Z170, Socket LGA1151, DDR4, ATX) / ASRock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer (Intel Z97, Socket LGA1150, DDR3, mATX), ASUS RAMPAGE V EXTREME (Intel X99, Socket LGA2011-v3, DDR4, E- ATX)
    Coolers Scythe Mugen 3 (Socket LGA1150/1155/1366, AMD Socket AM3+/FM1/ FM2/FM2+), ZALMAN CNPS12X (Socket LGA2011), Noctua NH-U14S (LGA2011-3)
    RAM 2 x 4 GB DDR3-2400 TwinMOS TwiSTER 9DHCGN4B-HAWP, 4 x 4 GB DDR4-3000 Kingston HyperX Predator HX430C15PBK4/16 (Socket LGA2011-v3)
    Video card AMD Radeon HD 7970 3 GB GDDR5, ASUS GeForce GTX 980 STRIX OC 4 GB GDDR5 (GPU-1178 MHz / RAM-1279 MHz)
    Hard drive Western Digital Caviar Blue WD10EALX (1TB, SATA 6Gb/s, NCQ), Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3. 5 HDD v4 (ST6000NM0024, 6TB, SATA 6Gb/s)
    Power supply Seasonic X-660, 660 W, Active PFC, 80 PLUS Gold, 120 mm fan
    Operating system Microsoft Windows 8.1 64-bit

    Choose what you want to compare Intel Core i7-5930k Turbo Boost ON

    Before proceeding directly to the analysis of the graphs presented above, we want to say a few words about the effect of Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology on computer speed. Disabling it leads to a drop in system performance by an average of 1-2%, depending on the application. Such results are quite natural, since the difference in frequency between nominal and turbo mode is only 200 MHz. However, taking into account the fact that the activation of Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology practically does not lead to an increase in the supply voltage, we recommend leaving this feature enabled.

    Now let’s move on to comparing the novelty with its competitors. Of course, they are high-performance solutions from the Intel Ivy Bridge-E family: Intel Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition and Intel Core i7-4930K. We also included top versions of «civilian» processors (Intel Core i7-4770K and AMD FX-9370) in the test to analyze whether it makes sense to choose the Socket LGA2011-v3 platform when building a powerful PC.

    The hero of the review, the Intel Core i7-5930K, demonstrated very high performance in test benchmarks, but compared to its predecessor, the performance increase was not so big — about 5%. The new flagship of the Intel Ivy Bridge-E series is on average 2% ahead. In other words, a noticeable increase in performance after buying an Intel Core i7-5930K owners of top processors for the Socket LGA2011 platform will not receive. And if you take into account that when updating the system, you will also need to change the motherboard, as well as purchase expensive DDR4 memory, then the expediency of such an undertaking looks doubtful. It would be much more reasonable to invest these funds in installing a more powerful video card or some other type of components.

    However, if a computer is purchased «from scratch» or a system is upgraded based on less productive platforms (Socket LGA1155/1150, Socket AM3+, Socket FM2/FM2+), then the situation changes dramatically. Despite the seemingly increased frequencies of Intel Core i7-4770K and AMD FX-9 solutions370, they can’t even come close to the review hero in terms of performance. In this case, the average difference in performance is 23% and 62%, respectively (of course, in favor of the Intel Core i7-5930K). Therefore, the additional costs caused by the purchase of a more expensive motherboard and memory look more justified, since it is with the help of such solutions that you can maximize the capabilities of a bundle of several video cards in games or achieve maximum productivity with complex calculations.

    Although the TDP level of the novelty is nominally 10 W higher than that of its predecessor, the Intel Core i7-4930K, in practice both systems consumed approximately the same amount of energy. Yes, and to call the Intel Core i7-5930K an «oven» against the background of the AMD FX-9370 somehow also does not turn the tongue.

    Acceleration

    Since the representatives of the Intel Haswell-E family belong to high-performance solutions, they all have an unlocked multiplier, which greatly simplifies the process of overclocking. Although, if necessary, overclocking can be done by changing the reference frequency.

    We used the first method in our experiment. By raising the multiplier to the value «x46», the speed of the novelty increased to 4600 MHz, while the base frequency was fixed at around 100 MHz, and the voltage had to be increased to 1.365 V. In this mode, the Intel Core i7-5930K passed the stress test in the LinX program without errors 0.6.4. During the experiment, the maximum recorded temperature was 93°C for the hottest core (using the Scythe Mugen 3 bench cooler). As a result, the speed increase was 31.4% relative to the nominal frequency (3500 MHz), which can be considered a pretty good result for air cooling.

    Optimization of the Intel Core i7-5930K parameters affected the performance of the computer as follows:

    Rated

    During acceleration

    Computation Suite

    SiSoft Sandra 2012

    Arithmetic

    General performance, GOPS

    Dhrystone whole, gypsum

    Whetstone double float, GFLOPS

    Multimedia

    Overall multimedia performance, MPixels/s

    Multimedia integers, MPixels/s

    Multimedia FP32/FP64 floating point MPixels/s

    CPU (Single Core), pts

    Fritz Chess Benchmark 4. 2, knodes/s

    Batman Arkham City

    DirectX 11 (fps)

    Resident Evil 5 Benchmark

    DirectX 10, Anti-aliasing x8 (fps)

    Mean value

    The average increase in productivity was 15.54%. Such an increase in speed in most cases will be noticed by the user during operation, so it makes sense to optimize the parameters of this processor. However, it should be borne in mind that a rather large load will fall on the cooling system, which not every air cooler can handle.

    With this result, we were able to take third place in the overall overclocking rating of the Intel Core i7-5930K model, which is published on the popular overclocking resource HWBot.org.

    The best result at the time of writing was 4854 MHz. It is noteworthy that in this case, overclocking was carried out by increasing the reference frequency, and not by the multiplier. A liquid-type system was used for cooling.

    Processor family Intel Haswell-E
    is a worthy continuation of a series of high-performance solutions produced by Intel. As in the cases with the Intel Sandy Bridge-E and Intel Ivy Bridge-E lines, here the manufacturer also tried to combine modern developments in the field of processor building and the IT industry.

    For example, the Intel Haswell-E family is based on the advanced 22nm process technology and the Intel Haswell microarchitecture. They received support for DDR4 memory and new AVX2 and FMA3 instructions, and the number of processing cores in the maximum configuration was increased from 6 to 8. In a word, Intel Haswell-E is not a rebranding of old solutions, but a truly new generation of processors with many improvements at the structural and electrical levels.

    We studied their capabilities using the example of the 6-core model Intel
    Core
    i
    7-5930
    K
    . With a recommended cost of about $ 583, it demonstrates phenomenal performance and easily leaves the flagships of the Intel Haswell and Intel Devil’s Canyon series. The average difference in performance is 20-23%, but in multi-threaded applications it can reach all 40-50%. Approximately the same results are observed in games.The presence of 40 PCI Express 3.0 lanes makes the Intel Core i7-59 model30K is an excellent choice for building a powerful multi-GPU gaming setup. In addition, if necessary, you can always further increase the performance of your computer by overclocking the processor by changing the multiplier or by raising the reference frequency. In our case, we easily increased its speed to 4600 MHz, which resulted in a 15% increase compared to the speed at the nominal frequency (3500 MHz). True, to carry out such manipulations, you need to acquire a good cooling system in advance, perhaps even a liquid type. Despite the use of a high-quality thermal interface between the crystal and the heat-distributing cover, TDP of 140 W still makes itself felt.

    The Intel Core i7-5930K doesn’t look that impressive compared to the representatives of the previous Intel Ivy Bridge-E family. In terms of performance, it can be compared with the Intel Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition and only 5% outperforms the Intel Core i7-4930K. Thus, the transition from the old generation to the new one does not look like a very expedient undertaking, because in this case you will have to change not only the processor itself, but also the motherboard, and also spend money on expensive DDR4 memory.

    On the other hand, AMD still doesn’t have a decent answer. Therefore, if you want to assemble a modern powerful gaming computer or a productive desktop workstation, then, as they say, there are no options here — only processors from the Intel Haswell-E family.

    We express our gratitude to the company

    When it comes to choosing Intel’s new Haswell-E generation processors, it’s hard to talk about any special variety, because there are only three different models available to the buyer. The top i7-5960X, which has 8 cores (16 threads) and two younger models with 6 cores «on board». The top processor, of course, is selected for special specific tasks, if you intend to work with applications that require multithreading, then full 16 threads will help save you a lot of time. For the tasks of an ordinary user, the performance of younger models will be sufficient, especially since the price for them differs significantly downwards. And now a logical question arises — «which of the two junior processors to choose?» In fact, they are not much different from each other. The main advantage of the i7-5930K is the support for 40 PCI-Express lines, which will be very useful if you use a large number of video cards (three or more). The i7-5820K processor only supports 28 lanes, which means that when using two video cards, the x16 — x8 configuration would be the best scenario, but it is worth noting that the price of the 5820K is lower. Evaluating both of these processors, we cannot unequivocally recommend one of them for you, here the choice will depend solely on the purpose of use, but in this review we will try to give you an idea which processor looks better in which tasks.

    Specifications are shown in the table below. The prices are taken from the price list of the CSN store in Nizhny Novgorod for the OEM version of the processor.

    As you can see, both processors have 15 MB of L3 cache, while the top 5960X already has 20 MB. The difference between the tested processors is the slightly increased frequency of the i7-5930K, although 200 MHz is not such a big difference, and in Turbo Boost mode the difference becomes 100 MHz.

    It should also be noted that 5820K and 59The 30K have a higher frequency of operation than their older brother 5960X, with a difference of 300 and 500 MHz, respectively. This fact suggests that six-core processors can be slightly faster in ordinary applications and even games.

    Extended specifications for both processors:

    Core: Haswell

    Manufacturing process: 22nm

    Cache: L1 — 12 x 32Kb, L2 — 6 x 256Kb, L3 — 15Mb (shared)

    Memory controller: Quad channel D3DR4, up to 21 MHz0003

    Socket: LGA2011-v3

    Video Core: None

    Features: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, M64T, F16C, Quick Sync Video, Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost 2.0, VT-x

    Testing

    Test stand:

    Motherboard: Asus x99 Delux

    RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666 MHz, 16 GB

    Video card: NVidia GeForce GTX 780

    Drive: Crucial MX100, 512 GB

    CPU Cooler: Corsair H75

    Power Supply: Corsair AX860i

    Operating System: Windows 7 SP1 x64

    PCMark 908

    So, let’s start our testing with PCMark 8 in various modes.

    The first test simulates the workload of processing 4K video files. First, the video quality is improved, then it is converted into a suitable format, the deshaking filter is applied and the image is displayed on a monitor with a resolution of 1920×1080. The lower the number, the better.

    The next test is to process a certain set of photos using the ImageMagik editor. Processing consists of adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, and color gamut. When one photo is processed, the rest are processed according to the same template automatically. The files used are in TIFF format, the file size is up to 67 MB. The lower the number, the better.

    Gimp Image Processing

    Gimp is a popular application for editing various types of images. Our test shows how well a computer can handle large photo libraries. The more points, the better.

    Handbrake video encoding

    This video encoder perfectly illustrates the capabilities of processors in multi-threaded mode. For the test, a high-definition video file with the H.264 codec was used. The higher the scores, the better.

    Multithreading in 7-Zip and MPlayer

    Almost everyone is familiar with the concept of multithreading nowadays, multithreading allows us to work with several applications at the same time. To implement it, we need a powerful processor (ideally multi-core) and a large amount of RAM. Our multi-threading test performs bulk copying of encrypted files using 7-Zip while playing HD video with MPlayer, which is a pretty tough test for any computer. The more points, the better.

    Total score on tests with multimedia files

    We calculate the total score in working with multimedia based on the results of the three previous tests. A score of 1000 means that the test system is as performant as our reference system, which uses an Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 at stock speed, 2GB Corsair DDR2 1066MHz RAM, 250GB Samsung SpinPoint P120S hard drive, motherboard ASUS P5K Deluxe WiFi-AP. The calculation is linear, that is, if the system scores 1200 points, then it is 20% faster than the reference one. The more points, the better.

    Cinebench R11.5 and R15 (64bit)

    Cinebench uses the rather advanced CINEMA 4D platform to realize very complex and spectacular scenes. This test is very difficult for any processor. We also note that CINEMA 4D is a real-life tool, with the help of which effects were implemented in films such as Spider-Man and Star Wars, so this test can be considered as a very real benchmark. The more points, the better.

    Terragen 3

    This application is an advanced scenery generator, again used to create effects in various films. The lower the number, the better.

    Game testing

    Recall that the NVidia GeForce GTX 780 video card works in tandem with the tested processors, the monitor screen resolution is 1920×1080 pixels. For testing, the Fraps utility is used, for the reliability of the results, 3 measurements are taken and the average value is taken.

    Battlefield 4

    BioShock Infinite

    Crysis 3

    Power input

    During testing of processors, we completely disabled all power-saving technologies. We did this so that all test results were consistent, that is, all processors were in the same conditions. Also, we must not forget that any energy-saving programs negatively affect the maximum system performance. But for the power consumption test, on the contrary, we activated all these functions.

    Testing consisted of two stages — measuring consumption in the idle state and in the heavy load state. Measurements were taken with an external device, so the graphs below show the total consumption of the system. For the rest test, we simply loaded Windows and left the desktop open, no other applications were running.

    For the load test, we used the Prime95 stress test. Aero has also been launched. Then we waited for several minutes when the load stabilized and the power consumption became constant.

    Performance analysis

    Well, we have carried out a series of tests, compared the performance of new processors with processors released earlier, and we can draw some conclusions. As before, the higher the clock frequency, the more chances for the processor to lead, we see this from the graphs and this applies, first of all, to the Intel Core i7-4790K with its solid 4 GHz, and this despite the fact that it has only 4 cores. But the frequency of the processor is far from important in all cases, for example, in tests related to photo editing, the advantage of new processors with six cores is already quite obvious, since work with multi-threaded systems is more developed in various photo editors. Haswell-E processors were also significantly faster in the popular Cinebench tests, 59The 30K outperformed the 4970K by 26%, while the 5820K was 22% faster. After overclocking, the advantage even approached 40%. Tests in games have shown that almost all the latest processors are capable of handling any modern game, so if you are building a top gaming system, you should not chase the best stone and buy an i7-5960X, as younger processors show similar results. The saved money is better spent on a more powerful video card, for games it will be much more useful.

    According to the results of our tests, the absolute leader, of course, is the eight-core monster i7-5960X, but the younger models 5930K and 5820K are not far behind it, only the i7-4970K can compete with the new line of processors from older models. It is also worth noting the i7-4960X, if we consider a computer as a tool for working with video, then this processor may well serve as an alternative to the new Haswell-E.

    Conclusion

    Summing up all of the above, I would like to note that the new processors from Intel turned out to be quite productive, and in some tests involving multithreading, the results were even higher than we expected. As for the choice between i7-5930K and i7-5820K, everything is quite simple here, both of these processors demonstrate very high performance, and you will have to choose only based on how many video cards will be used in your system, if one, then those 28 PCI-E lanes will be enough for you, which the i7-5820K offers, and if two or three or more, then the i7-5930K will be preferable, as it offers 40 PCI-E lanes. It is also impossible not to mention the alternative to these processors. When choosing a stone for a high-performance system, pay attention to the i7-4790K, this processor has a relatively low cost, but it can compete with the tops in many applications and games.

    Introduced in November 2011, the long-lived older platform Intel X79 finally got a worthy successor this year. On August 29, 2014, Intel introduced the new Intel X99 chipset and new processors based on the Haswell-E core, which support a completely new type of RAM — DDR4, moreover, with support for all four channels, as before. In addition to supporting the new memory standard, Intel introduced its first octa-core home processor this year, the Intel Core i7 59.60X. Let’s start in order.

    Haswell-E Processors

    Finally, Haswell’s high-performance computing cores have made their way into the enthusiast segment. Haswell-E processors use a 22nm process. In this case, the crystal area is 355 square meters. mm, and the processor itself has about 2.6 billion transistors. The internal structure of Haswell-E processors is very much like that of Sandy Bridge-E (32nm) and Ivy Bridge-E (22nm): the predecessors were also conceived as eight-core solutions, but their eight-core solutions were implemented only in the server segment.

    Haswell-
    E (left) and
    Sandy
    Bridge-
    E (right)

    Despite the external similarity, the new processors are not compatible with motherboards based on the Intel X79 chipset. Haswell-E uses a smaller process technology compared to Sandy Bridge-E, and the performance of a single core is significantly higher, not to mention the memory controller, which now brings support for DDR4.

    The table below shows the specifications of Haswell-E processors and one representative of Sandy Bridge-E — Intel Core i7-3930K.

    As you can see, compared to Sandy Bridge-E, in addition to supporting DDR4 and 8 cores in the Core i7-5960X, Haswell-E added cache size and heat dissipation, which is now equal to 140 watts. By the way, some of the readers may not understand why in this article I almost completely ignore the Ivy Bridge-E processors that were released last year for the Intel X79. Actually, my logic is simple. Sandy Bridge-E were the first six-core processors and they were the first for the Intel X79 chipsetand the LGA 2011 socket. Similarly, in the case of Haswell-E, these are the first-born for LGA 2011-3 and DDR4. My gut feeling is that these processors won’t be the only ones for the Intel X99 and LGA 2011-3. In a few years, they may be replaced by, for example, processors that will also work with the Intel X99. But the PC market has not been so predictable lately, because sometimes there are technological «leaps», or vice versa, «stagnation». Whether I’m right or not, we’ll find out in three years.

    For almost three years of life, the Intel X79 chipsetin a sense, ceased to meet all the requirements of modernity. Yes, this platform and processors for LGA 2011 actually have not lost either relevance or price, but today it does not look as fresh as the same Intel Z97 chipset for Haswell processors — after all, X79 lacks support for new SATA Express and M. 2 interfaces, the number of native SATA 3.0 and USB 3.0 ports is also not the same.

    Haswell-E processors have received a new chipset. Its block diagram is shown below.

    For comparison, I propose to consider the Intel X79 block diagram:

    As you can see, initially Intel X79 did not even support PCI-Express 3.0, although this is not entirely true. In fact, even Sandy Bridge-E supported this high-speed bus, however, they simply didn’t pass the certification due to some energy-saving technologies. Therefore, PCI-E 3.0 was activated, for example, in the case of NVIDIA, with the help of an additional patch. Intel X79 also does not support USB 3.0 — only 14 USB 2.0 ports. Manufacturers had to use third party controllers to implement this interface. In the case of Intel X99 everything is fine — the new chipset supports 6 USB 3.0 ports and 8 USB 2.0 ports. The number of SATA ports has also changed — now they are supported by 10 and all of them comply with the SATA 3. 0 standard. And, of course, the main difference is the support of the DDR4-2133 MHz memory controller.

    Motherboard ASUS Rampage V Extreme

    ASUS Rampage V Extreme
    The
    is ASUS’ flagship solution based on the Intel X99 chipset. The motherboard belongs to the Republic Of Gamers family, which is traditionally held in high esteem not only by enthusiast gamers, but also by extreme overclockers.

    The flagship comes in a huge box, which is characterized by a fairly modest design in the style of ROG. On the front side, only the name of the board is indicated, there is a ROG logo, NVIDIA SLI, AMD CrossFireX, Intel and Windows logos. And, of course, it is noted that the OC Panel is also included. That’s all.

    The packaging of the motherboard is very reliable — repeated flights slightly wrinkled its outer part, but all its contents are safe and sound.

    The main information about the board is printed on the spread of the package. Here attention is paid to the OC Panel, cooling system, sound solution and new features such as Key Bot and O.C. Socket. Separately about O.C. Socket I will tell later, but you can read about the work of Key Bot in this .

    The reverse side of the package is somewhat more modest than the spread: there are only basic specifications.

    Due to the fact that Rampage V Extreme is a flagship solution, there is no need to complain about the lack of equipment.

    The complete list of items is as follows:

    1. User manual
    2. Rear panel
    3. 10 SATA 6Gb/s cables
    4. Wi-Fi Antenna (Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/g/n/ac)
    5. 1 x 3-Way SLI Bridge
    6. 1 x 4-Way SLI bridge 1 x SLI bridge(s)
    7. 1 x CrossFire Bridge
    8. Q-connector set
    9. 3 thermocouples
    10. 12 stickers for cables/stubs, etc.
    11. 1 set X-Socket 2
    12. Door Sign ROG
    13. OC Panel, which you can read about in our
    14. review

    15. Basket for 5. 25″ bay for OC Panel
    16. OC Panel cable and bolt kit.

    When you first look at the motherboard, «wow» involuntarily breaks out. In terms of design, it is made in the ASUS ROG style known to us, but this is not what gives the effect of delight. The pay is huge. It is made in the E-ATX form factor and there is practically no free space on it — it is all «strewn» with SMD components, its heatsinks are massive, and it has as many as five PCIe X16 slots.

    The massive cooling system is also striking, although part of it is just a design element. The cooling itself is divided into two sections, which are connected by a single copper heat pipe.

    The ASUS Rampage V Extreme processor power system is made according to the classic eight-phase scheme for ASUS ROG — ASUS has long proved that happiness is not in quantity, but in quality. As a power controller, ASUS uses the Extreme Engine Digi+ IV design, which includes a modified ASUS PWM Digi+, IR3555 chips, and MicroFine chokes. The processor is powered by one 8-pin and one 6-pin connector.

    The design of the processor socket, at first glance, does not differ much from LGA 2011, which was used with Intel X79 motherboards. But there is no compatibility, for a number of reasons. In fact, Haswell-E processors for the LGA 2011-3 socket have more pins than Sandy Bridge-E or Haswell-E, and the processor cover is slightly different.

    Intel Core i7-5820K (Haswell-E)

    Although there are more pins, reference motherboards with socket LGA 2011-3 have exactly 2011 pins. ASUS has taken this into account and developed its own CPU socket design that uses additional CPU pins to improve overclocking stability. As it turned out, thanks to additional contacts, you can increase the overclocking potential of Uncore, memory, and the processor as a whole.

    It is noteworthy that ASUS Rampage V Extreme is not the only «carrier» of such a socket — O.C. The socket is also used on the ASUS X99 Deluxe motherboard. Well, if your motherboard is not from ASUS, then if you want to somehow seriously overclock the Haswell-E processor, you will have to “finish” your processor for $ 1000 with a soldering iron. Interesting perspective, isn’t it?

    Image from processor modification manual
    Haswell-
    E
    from a German overclocker
    Der8
    auer

    There are four memory slots to the right and left of the processor socket. You need to fill them in from left to right and, according to the documentation, you need to start installing memory from the red slots. According to the specifications, ASUS Rampage V Extreme supports 64 GB of memory, which is somewhat strange — in one of the latest firmware for Rampage IV Extreme on the Intel X79 chipset, support for 128 GB of RAM was added. The supported memory standard is DDR4 in a quad channel with a maximum frequency of 3300 MHz.

    The top right side of the motherboard is a true piece of engineering. So, we have:

    Power and Reset buttons;
    — five 4-Pin connectors for connecting fans;
    — Post LED indicator;
    — the MemOK button well known from previous ASUS boards, which allows you to load optimal RAM profiles in case of unsuccessful overclocking;
    — Safe Boot button, which allows you to start the motherboard in «safe» mode in case of unsuccessful overclocking, while it is possible to continue BIOS settings without resetting the settings;
    — The Retry Button is required in cases where the system cyclically tries to pass POST, but cannot. This usually also happens during overclocking. Previously, in order to get the system out of such a cycle, it was necessary to turn off the power supply for a while, after which the system started and successfully issued the “Overclocking Failed” message. Now you do not need to do this — just press the button;
    is the LN2 Mode switch, which is also very familiar. The main purpose of this switch is to reset the processor multiplier to the minimum in order to save the results (screenshot) of overclocking in the case when the system is overclocked to the verge of stability and any extra / slightest load can lead to loss of results;
    — PCIe slot switches that disable the corresponding PCI Express slot;
    — two connectors for connecting thermocouples;
    — Voltage test points (under ATX 24-Pin power connector)
    — SATA M. 2 port
    — USB 3.0 front panel port

    ASUS Rampage V Extreme has twelve SATA 3.0 ports, four of which can be given under need SATA Express. True, one pair of SATA 3.0 dedicated to SATA Express is controlled by the ASMedia controller. In any case, this number of ports allows you to create a real file server at home, as there is support for Raid 0, 1, 5 and 10 levels. RAID support implemented using the Intel X9 chipset9, which is cooled by a rather large radiator:

    In addition to the standard headers for connecting case buttons and the front audio panel, you can find a few more interesting things at the bottom of the motherboard.

    For example, you can pay attention to the presence of one more header for connecting the front USB 3.0 port and front USB 2.0, two more connectors for connecting fans (of which there are already a lot on the board), a header for connecting the OC Panel. Since the board uses two BIOS chips, it also requires a button to switch between them — BIOS_SWITCH.

    In addition to BIOS_SWITCH, there are two more buttons on the bottom of the board: KeyBot and SoundStage. SoundStage allows you to switch the sound profiles of the board on the fly, but we wrote about KeyBot in detail in Maximus VII Hero and it makes no sense to repeat it. Also at the bottom you can find a Molex power connector, which serves to boost the power of the PCIe slots when using a large number of video cards. By the way, about video cards.

    The ASUS Rampage V Extreme is equipped with five PCIe 3.0 x16 slots and one PCIe x1 slot. Due to the fact that Haswell-E processors have a different number of PCI Express SLI/CrossFire lanes, the lanes are distributed differently. For example, the Core i7-5820K only supports 3-Way SLI and Triple CrossFireX since it only has 28 PCIe lanes. Senior processors, Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5960X already have 40 PCIe lanes and support quad-card configurations.

    The distribution of lines is as follows:

    X16 + x0 + x0 + x0 for one video card;
    — x16+ x16 + x0 + x0 for two video cards;
    — x16 + x8 + x8 for three video cards;
    — x16 + x8 + x8 + x8 for four video cards.

    The black slot, labeled PCIeX8_4, shares its lanes with SATA M2. In the case of using processors with 28 PCIe lanes, it will always be disabled, and free lanes will be allocated to M2.

    Since the ASUS Rampage V Extreme belongs to the Republic of Gamers family, it was quite expected to see Supreme FX as a sound solution on this board. The sound card has a Sonic SenseAmp preamplifier to support high impedance headsets up to 150 ohms. The binding uses Japanese premium capacitors from ELNA. The sound system itself is isolated from electromagnetic interference — the codec is covered with a nickel-plated cover, and the etched track in the textolite with backlight has not gone away. The output uses gold-plated connectors.

    Rear panel includes:

    BIOS reset button
    — BIOS FlashBack button
    — PS/2 combo port
    — 10 USB 3.0 ports
    — Wi-Fi antenna connectors supporting Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/ g / n / ac and speeds up to 1300Mbps
    — seven audio outputs and optical S / PDIF
    — RJ 45 network connector with Gigabit network support based on the Intel I218V controller.

    By the way, about the network connector. It is far from a secret that it often happens that the entire motherboard can burn out due to lightning if you use a dedicated line for the Internet connected to a computer directly from the provider’s hub, without routers. To protect against such cases, ASUS has developed LANGuard protection technology, which protects the board from static electricity and lightning.

    Summing up the external inspection, I would like to say that ASUS does not change its corporate identity. This is a real flagship that brings all the innovations of the ASUS ROG line, has high quality and offers more than other solutions. What is the cost of O.C. Socket or OC Panel. When creating the Rampage V Extreme, they paid attention not only to the overclocking capabilities of the board, but also paid attention to the needs of gamers, providing the board with a good sound card, an improved network controller and branded chips, like Sonic Radar or Game First.

    But how much faster and more powerful is the new platform than the old Intel X79? It’s time to find out.

    Benchmarking

    The main goal of our testing is to determine how much the Intel X99 platform and processors based on Haswell-E architecture have stepped forward relative to their first predecessors — Intel X79 and Sandy Bridge-E processors. For comparison with the Intel Core i7-5820K, an Intel Core i7 3820K processor was used. Below are the configurations of both stands:

    Platform
    Intel
    X99:

    Processor: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3 GHz (3.6 GHz Turbo Boost)
    — Motherboard: ASUS Rampage V Extreme
    — RAM: 4×4 GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4-2400 CL16-16-16-39

    Platform
    Intel
    X79:

    Processor: Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.2 GHz (3.8 GHz Turbo Boost)
    — Motherboard: ASUS P9X79
    — RAM: 4×4 GB GeIL EVO Veloce DDR3-2400 CL10-12-12-28
    — SSD drive: Kingston SSD Now V300
    — Operating system: Windows 7 X64 SP1

    Before moving on to the test results, I want to talk separately about RAM. In the case of the Intel X99 platform, we used far from the fastest quad-channel DDR4 memory set: the Kingston HyperX Predator memory strips received at our disposal have the same frequency as in the case of the Intel X99, which is 2400 MHz. But at the same time, DDR4 memory has very high latency CL16-16-16-39versus CL10-12-12-28 in the case of DDR3. In this regard, it is necessary to take into account the frequency and such delays when analyzing the results.

    AIDA 64 v4.60 results (Cache & Memory Benchmark)

    . The Core i7-3930K outperforms the Core i7-5820K in terms of read, write, copy, and latency. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that AIDA 64 is not optimized for working with DDR4 memory, or the reason for this is the high latency of DDR4 memory. In general, we have an interesting start, but how will these processors show themselves further?

    CineBench R11.5

    CineBench R11.5 is an old but still relevant multi-threaded CPU rendering test.

    Core i7-5820K, as a fresh solution, outperforms the «grandfather» Core i7-3930K, but not significantly.

    CineBench R15

    In the more recent version of CineBench, R15, the advantage of the Core i-5820K becomes more pronounced. Although, at the same time, the performance difference is 8.8%. It would seem that in the three years of existence of the Intel X79Haswell-E processors could be faster, but here we cannot ignore the influence of RAM — after all, we are using far from the fastest DDR4 memory kit. It is very likely that if we had a memory kit with a frequency of at least DDR4-2800 MHz, the advantage would be more pronounced. In addition, the Sandy Bridge-E memory controller no longer supports such a high memory frequency, even DDR3.

    wPrime 1.55

    wPrime 1.55 is also a multi-threaded test, the results of which depend on the processing power of the processor and the performance of the RAM.

    Despite the high latency of DDR4 memory, the Core i7-5820K is also faster than the Core i7-3930K. But the difference in performance is insignificant — only 3 seconds.

    HWBot Prime

    HWBot Prime is also a multi-threaded and cross-platform benchmark written in Java. It also depends on the processing power of the processor and the combination of processor-RAM in general.

    Surprisingly, but the Core i7-5820K for the first time showed a significant advantage over the «grandfather» i7-3930K. The advantage of the new platform is as much as 23.3% over the old one despite the high latency of DDR4 memory. Obviously, HWBot Prime turned out to be more sensitive to the new architecture.

    3DMark Vantage (CPU test)

    The Core i7-5820K is again faster, although its advantage is not as strong as we would like.

    The conclusion of this article will be divided into several parts.

    The first part refers to the Intel platform
    X99 . Intel X99 is a modern solution in every sense of the word. Plenty of SATA ports, support for SATA Express and SATA M. 2. Of course, we cannot remain silent about the fact that this platform also brings us support for the new memory standard in desktop systems — DDR4. In addition, with the release of Intel X99, eight-core Intel processors for the desktop segment were introduced for the first time. In this vein, Intel has no competition, AMD will need many more years to even catch up with its competitor.

    Processor
    Core
    i7-5820
    K and memory
    DDR4.
    In this case, everything is not so simple. If you’re an Intel X79 platform owner and the platform’s peripheral connectivity is to your liking, it’s well worth considering when moving from the six-core
    Sandy Bridge-E/Ivy Bridge-E on six-core

    If you plan to upgrade to octa-core
    Core i7-5960X — no compromises here, the transition is worth it. Otherwise, ask yourself if a 10-15 percent increase is worth spending thousands of dollars on an upgrade. On the other hand, if you get a kit with good high-frequency DDR4 memory, like DDR4-2800 or DDR4-3000, then it might be worth it.

    As for the Core i7-5820K, it’s worth mentioning that it’s the cheapest six-core processor in the Intel lineup — its recommended price is only $400. Its closest competitor in terms of price for the Intel x79 is the Core i7-4820K based on the Ivy Bridge-E core, which has two fewer cores and, accordingly, is significantly inferior in performance. Well, yes, the hero of our review, the Core i7-3930K, if it remains on someone’s shelves, it costs more than the Core i7-5820K even now. Below are the official prices taken from the Intel website. Judge for yourself.

    These considerations apply only to those who are thinking about upgrading their Intel X79 platform. And those who are just going to buy a new modern platform, the choice, in my opinion, is obvious. The old LGA 2011 processors and the Intel X79 chipset deservedly retired. ASUS


    Rampage
    V
    Extreme
    is a bright representative of the Republic Of Gamers family. This is a dream motherboard for many. It is equally well suited for two categories of enthusiasts: avid gamers and overclockers. For gamers-enthusiasts, it offers a wide range of hardware and software (Sonic Radar, GameFirst, etc.), and for overclockers, it offers exclusive ASUS technologies such as OC Panel and a special processor socket OC Socket. In this respect, the ASUS solution, in my opinion, is beyond competition and deserves every praise.

    ASUS
    Rampage
    V
    Extreme deserves
    Editors’ Choice Award

    Thanks:

    — Kazakhstan division
    ASUS
    for motherboard samples provided for testing
    ASUS
    Rampage
    V
    Extreme and Ram
    Kingston
    HyperX
    Predator
    DDR4-2400

    — Companies
    Alser for the processor provided for testing
    Intel
    Core
    i7-5820
    K

    Intel core i7 5820k haswell e — Dudom

    Description

    Intel launched the Intel Core i7-5820K in September 2014 at a suggested retail price of $410. This is a Haswell-E architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at home systems. It has 6 cores and 12 threads and is manufactured using 22nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 3.60 GHz, the multiplier is unlocked.

    In terms of compatibility, this is an FCLGA2011-3 socket processor with a TDP of 140W. It supports DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133 memory.

    It delivers good benchmark performance at 27.47% of the AMD EPYC 7742 leader.

    Ilya Gavrichenkov

    Sadly, the endless battles between fans of AMD and Intel processors are a thing of the past. Today, answering the question of which company’s processor is more profitable to purchase for a productive desktop system has become very easy. AMD has practically given up competing with Intel in the upper price segments, and therefore, starting at about the $150 threshold, there really is no choice. Any processor of the latest generation Core family that is suitable for the price will be the best option, and not because of some of its undeniable advantages, but simply because of the lack of worthy alternatives. However, among all this simplicity, it is still possible to find a sufficient reason for discussion.

    The fact is that Intel offers not one, but several desktop platforms at the same time, which may be somewhat similar in their field of application. And it’s not at all about the fact that the market at the same time there are previous and following platforms that differ in their characteristics and performance is not so noticeable. Everything is simple here, because if you compare, for example, LGA1155 and LGA1150, then in any case, the choice should be made in favor of the second, newer version — more promising and, albeit a little, but still more productive. Intel itself is pushing us to this, shaping its pricing policy in such a way that new platforms, the release of which is synchronized with the full cycle in the tick-tock strategy, cost no more than their predecessors. In other words, paying attention to obsolete products when they have a more modern replacement does not make any rational sense.

    The logical reason for the agony of choice arises from the fact that for the most productive desktops, Intel offers not the usual common LGA1150 processors of the Haswell generation, but specialized elite CPUs with Haswell-E design in the LGA2011-v3 quasi-server form factor. Formally, the LGA1150 and LGA2011-v3 platforms do not intersect in terms of positioning, as Intel tried to separate them into different price segments. But in fact, the difference in the cost of the older processor for the LGA1150 (Core i7-4790K) and the younger processor for LGA2011-v3 (Core i7-5820K) is not so important — it does not exceed 15 percent. Of course, one should also take into account the fact that the accompanying ecosystem for the LGA2011-v3 processor itself will cost a little more, however, this price difference may not be decisive for many. Therefore, here and there you can hear a completely reasonable question about which version of the system is better to prefer for certain purposes — many users are ready to seriously consider the Core i7-5820K in LGA2011-v3 as an alternative to the Core i7-4790K. And if so, we decided to devote a separate study to this issue.

    ⇡#Read more about the Core i7-5820K

    Intel’s path to release just like the Core i7-5820K, a junior processor for a high-performance platform, was not easy. Its first predecessor from the Sandy Bridge-E family that appeared in early 2012, the Core i7-3820, was a quad-core that did not even have an unlocked multiplier. In the next generation, Ivy Bridge-E, the junior Core i7-4820K processor received overclocking capabilities, but still, like the older Core i7 processors in the LGA1155 version, it was content with only four cores. The most significant step forward was made only with the introduction of the LGA2011-v3 platform and the Haswell-E processor design, as a result of which the Core i7-5820K became a full-fledged six-core CPU with a full set of overclocking features. Thus, today’s junior processor for Intel’s high-performance desktop platform can finally boast of fundamentally better characteristics than the senior processor for a commonly used platform, if only because it has one and a half times more computing cores.

    That Core i7-5820K is interesting. In relation to older processors for the LGA1150, it is a representative of a different weight category, but its recommended price is set at only $389, while the Core i7-4790K is estimated by the manufacturer only $50 cheaper — at $339. Quite a small markup for two extra cores, isn’t it? But in addition, the Core i7-5820K boasts a more capacious third-level cache, the volume of which reaches 15 MB.

    True, the presence of additional cores has a downside — lower clock speeds. The passport frequency of the younger Haswell-E is set at a rather modest level — 3.3 GHz, which is 700 MHz less than the core i7-4790K clock frequency. Of course, at the same time, Turbo Boost technology is implemented in the Core i7-5820K, but it can only increase the frequency up to 3.6 GHz, while the older Devil’s Canyon accelerates to 4.4 GHz when the turbo mode is activated.

    Since the Core i7-5820K belongs to the LGA2011-v3 platform, it’s easy to guess about its other fundamental differences from the LGA1150 processors. Firstly, the junior representative of the Haswell-E family quite naturally has a four-channel memory controller that supports DDR4 SDRAM. However, to call it a clear advantage would still be wrong. At this stage, DDR4 memory is rather poorly distributed, and it does not give a tangible performance boost. The extra charge that will have to be paid for the novelty of such a memory will be 50-60 percent at best.

    Secondly, the Core i7-5820K has a more advanced PCI Express 3.0 controller, which supports not 16, but 28 lanes, compared to conventional Haswell ones. This feature can be useful for gamers using multi-GPU configurations, or for enthusiasts who want to create a high-performance disk subsystem based on RAID controllers or server-class SSDs with PCI Express interface. Moreover, only LGA2011-v3 processors (including the Core i7-5820K) can provide three PCI Express 3.0 slots simultaneously, which allows building three-component SLI or CrossfireX configurations on their basis. However, it should be borne in mind that processors for LGA2011-v3, which are more expensive than the Core i7-5820K, provide the user with an even greater number of PCI Express lines — 40. But for the vast majority of cases, 28 lines available in the younger Haswell-E will be enough . For example, the difference in the speed of a two-component multi-GPU system with a full-fledged scheme of PCI Express 16x+16x slots and with the PCI Express 16x+8x variant provided by the Core i7-5820K is almost imperceptible.

    Speaking of other differences between Haswell-E and Haswell, one cannot fail to mention the lack of an integrated graphics core in high-performance processors for LGA2011-v3. Of course, this will not upset users of upper price range systems at all, but there is one subtlety. The lack of an integrated GPU also means that there is no Quick Sync feature, which could also be useful for the Core i7-5820K, as it allows for very fast and low-cost video transcoding.

    Nevertheless, if you sum up all that has been said, then the Core i7-5820K looks like a very attractive offer. This processor is only slightly inferior in its characteristics to the $ 600 Core i7-5930K, which means that you can expect from it about the same performance as the recent flagship, the Ivy Brige-E generation Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition. But now that eight-core processors are being offered to enthusiasts for $1,000, the price of such high processing power has dropped significantly — six-core processors have become much closer to the people.

    Let’s brush up on the specs of the current unlocked Intel Core i7 processors:

    Core i7-5930K Core i7-5820K Core i7-4790K Codename Haswell-E Haswell-E Haswell-E Devil’s Canyon Cores/threads 8/16 6/12 6/12 4/8 Hyper-Threading Technology Yes Yes Yes Yes Clock frequency 3. 0 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.3 GHz 4.0 GHz Maximum turbo frequency 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz Unlocked multiplier Yes Yes Yes Yes TDP 140 W 140 W 140 W 88W PCI Express 3.0 lanes 40 40 28 16 HD Graphics No No No HD Graphics 4600 L3 cache 20 MB 15 MB 15 MB 8 MB Memory support 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 2 channels
    DDR3-1600 Instruction set extensions AVX2 AVX2 AVX2 AVX2 Packaging LGA2011-v3 LGA2011-v3 LGA2011-v3 LGA1150 Price $999 $583 $389 $339

    As follows from the above table, the operating frequencies of the Core i7-5820K range from 3. 3 to 3.6 GHz. But according to the CPU-Z diagnostic utility, the actual frequency of the Core i7-5820K under heavy load is almost always 3.4 GHz.

    If the load falls on one or two computing cores, then this frequency can increase to 3.6 GHz.

    The operating voltages of the Core i7-5820K, like the older Haswell-E processors, are low: about 1.03-1.08 V. The uncore part of the processor, which includes, among other things, the L3 cache and the memory controller , in the nominal mode operates at a frequency of 3.0 GHz. This frequency is the same for all representatives of the Haswell-E series.

    Curiously, the Core i7-5820K, like the other two Haswell-E models, is based on an eight-core semiconductor chip with an area of ​​356 mm 2 . However, a couple of cores, along with their corresponding part of the cache memory, is disabled at the production stage, and in fact we are talking about the fact that six-core processors use a rejection from the production of eight-core processors. This fact just explains the very similar behavior of all Haswell-E processors, which, for example, manifests itself when they are overclocked.

    ⇡#Overclocking

    Despite the fact that the Core i7-5820K is the junior representative in the Haswell-E line, it has all the same overclocking capabilities as its more expensive brothers. That is, firstly, its multiplier is unlocked, and secondly, the multipliers responsible for the formation of the frequency of the memory and the Uncore block are not fixed either. In addition, the processor allows you to choose between three options for the base frequency — 100, 125 or 166 MHz, for which the frequency dividers of the DMI and PCI Express buses are optimized. As for the supply voltage of the computing cores and all adjacent nodes, it is formed by a stabilizer built into the processor.

    Similar to its older counterparts, the Core i7-5820K also has its case: a heat-dissipating cover is mounted on a semiconductor chip by soldering, which is considered the best option in terms of heat dissipation efficiency. And in this case, this can be said with complete confidence: Japanese enthusiasts tried to scalp a copy of such a processor and not only made sure that there was solder under the cover, but also captured what they saw on memorable photographs.

    However, despite all this, we cannot say that the Core i7-5820K was able to please us with the results of its overclocking. The fact that it is based on exactly the same semiconductor crystal as in the older Haswell-E led to its similar behavior when increasing the frequency and voltage beyond their nominal values. Unfortunately, the excessive heat we experienced when testing the Core i7-5960X and Core i7-5930K again made it impossible to achieve any outstanding results. And one of the best air coolers we use for heat dissipation — the two-section Noctua NH-D15 tower — turned out to be powerless in front of six cores with Haswell microarchitecture even with only 25% overclocking.

    As a result, stable operation of the Core i7-5820K turned out to be possible only at a frequency of 4. 1 GHz and with an increase in the supply voltage to 1.225 V. Further overclocking with this supply voltage led to a loss of stability, and an increase in voltage turned out to be impossible due to the this processor overheating. During the stability tests with a frequency of 4.1 GHz, the temperature of our Core i7-5820K instance reached 95 degrees, which can be considered quite acceptable temperature for Haswell-E, since these CPUs turn on throttling when heated to 105 degrees.

    Please note that we use the LinX 0.6.5 utility with support for AVX2 instructions to check overclocking — this program is the best for checking overclocking LGA2011-v3 systems. The fact is that AVX2 instructions are still not widely used in commonly used programs, but they cause unbridled heating of processor cores with Haswell microarchitecture. And this means that if the Core i7-5820K processor retains its stability in LinX 0.6.5, then problems in other cases will almost certainly not arise.

    Unfortunately, the overclocking potential of the Core i7-5820K turned out to be no better than that of the Core i7-5960X and Core i7-5930K processors that visited our laboratory before. All this unequivocally indicates that all Haswell-Es are one field of berries. And the fact that six-core representatives of the family use crystals that for some reason did not pass the selection for full-fledged eight-core modifications well explains the low overclocking of the younger Core i7-5820K. In other words, the 25% increase in clock frequency that we obtained in the course of overclocking experiments is not an unfortunate exception to the rule, but a completely natural result that reflects the general trend. In terms of the maximum clock frequencies achievable under normal conditions, the younger six-core for the LGA2011-v3 platform is seriously inferior to the older Devil’s Canyon, even though they are based on the same Haswell microarchitecture.

    For the past five or seven years, Intel has been criticized for the fact that, having remained on the market with virtually no competitors, it started slowing down progress — people, they say, crave cheap multi-core processors, but they are not. But the “useless” graphics core is constantly being improved and increased in size, so that it already occupies more than half of the processor — that would be just the cores instead. It is clear that such an approach is greatly simplified and skewed towards the primitive little world of the so-called. «computer enthusiasts» (fortunately, other users do not express their opinions especially, perceiving the computer as a completely ordinary household appliance), where discrete video cards roam the Bolshoi Theater , and performance is an independent fetish, for which there is a willingness to pay quite specific money.

    The mass market has long been living according to completely different laws, the main of which are price, simplicity and compactness (fortunately, portable computers have long ceased to be toys, and traditional modular desktops have become a niche product). Therefore, integrated video is obviously better than discrete video in all cases when it does its job, and if you can buy a processor with video for $100, then this is much better than paying $75 for a processor and the same for a video card. At the same time, it is also important that most of the processors sold as part of finished devices are dual-core — buyers do not consider it necessary to pay extra even for four cores, since they are not so useful in mass software — and then why do they need six or eight?

    However, it cannot be said that Intel does not take into account the needs of particularly demanding users at all. Moreover, it doesn’t cost her much — in the server market, increasing the number of cores is quite justified, so we have already reached 18. True, at prices that are unlikely to be liked by a private person 🙂 But the latter have something to offer. In the end, six years ago, the choice of the number of cores was not particularly a question at all: the first dual-core processors appeared in mid-2005, and quad-core ones at the end of 2006, and progress stopped there for three years. The first six-core processor was introduced in early 2010, and in mid-2011, the first six-core models with non-extreme prices appeared. This state of affairs has stabilized. for the same three years, which is typical: at the end of the past, the processor «for stukubaks» acquired eight cores, and six — once again fell in price by another one and a half times. Where are the claims? It’s just that quad-core models used to get cheaper a little faster 🙂 The non-extreme Core 2 Quad came out a quarter after the extreme one — and it took two quarters for the six-core Core i7 models. A few months later, the cheapest Core 2 Quad began to sell for less than $300 — and the six-core Core i7 is still ahead, because they have so far «sunk» only to $400. So this is where it really slows down. But, we repeat, most buyers still don’t see the point even in four cores, and indeed: if by “many” we mean at least “two”, then the history of multi-core in terms of duration is less than a third of the entire history of x86 🙂

    In general, such a precarious balance. However, processors are being released and their prices are dropping. Accordingly, it makes sense to evaluate how much the cost of acquiring «High End Desktop Processors» (as the group of devices for both versions of LGA2011 is officially called) can be justified compared to buying a top solution for a mass platform. What are we going to do today.

    Test stand configuration

    Processor Intel Core i7-4790K Intel Core i7-4820K Intel Core i7-4960X Intel Core i7-5820K Intel Core i7-5960X
    Core name Haswell Ivy Bridge-E Ivy Bridge-E Haswell-E Haswell-E
    Production technology 22 nm 22 nm 22 nm 22 nm 22 nm
    Core frequency, GHz 4.0/4.4 3.7/3.9 3.6/4.0 3.3/3.6 3.0/3.5
    Cores/Threads 4/8 4/8 6/12 6/12 8/16
    L1 cache (total), I/D, KB 128/128 128/128 192/192 192/192 256/256
    L2 cache, KB 4×256 4×256 6×256 6×256 8×256
    L3 cache, MiB 8 10 15 15 20
    RAM 2×DDR3-1600 4×DDR3-1866 4×DDR3-1866 4×DDR4-2133 4×DDR4-2133
    TDP, W 88 130 130 140 140
    Price T-10820114 T-10531106 T-10531094 T-11008379 T-11008382

    There will be five processors today: an older model for LGA1150 and a pair of older/younger ones for LGA2011 and LGA2011-3. If you approach the issue differently, then there are two quad-core processors, two six-core ones, and another eight-core processor. The «budget» solution for LGA2011 represented by 4820K, by the way, is formally even cheaper than 4790K, but in practice it can cost more — you will have to buy a video card for it. However, if you plan to buy it anyway, then this solution has not only disadvantages (lower frequency, older architecture), but also advantages (more PCIe lanes, the ability to use more memory without problems), which is why we decided to add it to the comparison .

    Although the most interesting pair we have today will be 5820K and 4960X: both are six-core, but the first one is more modern and much cheaper. True, the clock speeds are low, but the platform makes it easy to “correct” this injustice 🙂 We need the 5960X both for comparison with its predecessor on the throne, and by itself: after all, this is formally the most powerful solution in the Intel range.

    As for other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications, and its capacity of 4 GB per channel, of course, puts 4790K in initially less convenient conditions, since in the end he got a total of only 8 GB, and not 16, like the rest of the subjects. However, we considered this to be more correct than trying to equalize volumes — after all, many people purchase solutions based on LGA2011 just to install more memory. But the system drive (Toshiba THNSNh356GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) and the video card (based on the Radeon R7 260X) were the same for all subjects.

    Test methodology

    To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all test results in the first benchmark against the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops , and for all other computers, which is designed to make it easier for readers to compare and choose:

    Processor Intel Core i5-3317U
    Chipset Intel HM77 Express
    Memory 4 GB DDR3-1600 (dual channel)
    Graphics subsystem Intel HD Graphics 4000
    Accumulator SSD 128 GB Crucial M4-CT128M4SSD1
    Operating system Windows 8 (64-bit)
    Intel graphics driver version 9. 18.10.3186

    iXBT Application Benchmark 2015

    Probably the best chart to show the benefits of multithreading, because these applications use as many CPU cores as they can find. As a result, it overtook the convincing victory of 5960X — 4790K by one and a half times. True, it costs three times more, but this is a common thing: the dependence of price and performance is far from linear. Both six-cores are between them, and are approximately equal — given the different prices, this is very important. 4820K is a clear outsider — it has all the parameters worse than 4790K 🙂

    What is called — we arrived. How can this be? We recall the features of a multi-threaded test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1: for its normal operation, it is recommended to have at least 2 GB for each calculation thread — otherwise the test may “fall out” into single-threaded mode and start working even slower than without using the technology Multiprocessing (as Adobe calls it). Sometimes, as we have already found out, even 1 GB per thread is enough (i.e. 8 GB for Core i7), but not when using a discrete graphics card. But 16 GB is enough for 4820K (eight threads), but not enough for six-core processors. and death is similar for the eight-core Core i7-5960X. How it looks in practice — let’s see in detail in the table:

    Intel Core i7-4790K Intel Core i7-4820K Intel Core i7-4960X Intel Core i7-5820K Intel Core i7-5960X
    Test #1 seconds 633 767 581 612 536
    Test #2 seconds 627 337 827 950 1162

    So, without using Multiprocessing, everything is logical and predictable: additional cores give a performance boost, but not much, since the degree of their utilization is rather low in this mode of this application. The inclusion of Multiprocessing more than doubles the 4820K, which has enough memory, but it has a catastrophic effect in other cases. The performance of the 4790K just turns out to be the same as without this technology, the six-core ones slow down by one and a half times, and the eight-core 5960X — generally in two. Regarding the «normal» mode — as we already know, when installing 32 GB of memory, the processor copes with this task in 268 seconds (and even then — if you look at the performance of 4820K, you can conclude that 5960X 32 GB is still not enough to fully use the mentioned technology). And if there are only 16, it works in four times slower. Remarkably, the first test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 with less memory runs opposite for 10 seconds is faster than . Conclusion? Stepping on the shaky ground of workstations and other highly specialized configurations, it should be remembered that not everything is so simple there. You won’t be full of cores alone — and the environment must be used appropriately. And the operating modes of the software used (when there is a choice) are consistent with the environment. Otherwise, instead of speeding up the work by half, you can get its slowdown. And when studying and comparing test results on different sites, you should start with studying the test methodology (those resources where it is described in insufficient detail should not be considered at all for obvious reasons :)) — otherwise there is a risk of comparing warm with soft.

    Within the framework of extreme platforms — a beautiful ladder, which is greatly spoiled by the result of the Core i7-4790K: higher than everyone else. But we were quite ready for this from the very beginning — too many cores are not needed here, so the one with the best architecture and high clock speeds will win.

    Beating overgrown babies 🙂 For a well-known reason — in fact, no one has remade the application since Core 2 Duo, so only two cores are needed, and the maximum frequency.

    Audition tries to use additional streams, but this can only compensate for the lag in other parameters, but nothing more.

    But here it is the increase in the number of cores that is the determining factor. And (which is typical) 5820K and 4960X are approximately equal — for the second time already and again under conditions favorable for six-core processors.

    Additional cores work well when compressing data, but for decompression you need one maximum frequency — as a result, we get the equality of the tops for all three platforms and the lag behind them for younger processor models.

    As we have already said, «in everyday life» of this type, one fast core is enough. Whoever has the fastest core is the fastest one. Who has the slower cores — that one is slower. And how many of those cores — it does not matter.

    SSD is the same, platform controllers are approximately equal — general equality with a small spread.

    Given all of the above, the average temperature in the hospital would seem to make even less sense than usual, but in general it is well shown that, in general, a spherical user in a vacuum LGA2011 in both incarnations is simply not needed.

    Gaming applications

    For obvious reasons, when using the Radeon R7 260X, we limit ourselves to the minimum quality mode (for maximum settings, this video card is not enough by itself), but in full Full HD resolution (with this, it, unlike many integrated solutions, does a great job). comments to the diagrams will be one for all.

    The only result out of line is in Grid2. As you can see, the game engine not only supports multi-core processors — it can definitely use up to 16 computation threads with benefit. However, this makes no sense, since there is really no difference between 200 and 300 frames per second. Formally, there is, but in practice there is too much of the first meaning. And the lower the frame rate (primarily depending on the capabilities of the video card), the smaller the difference between the processors, even where it tries to appear: in Hitman, for example, many cores do not hurt at first glance, but if you look closely, this money is better for a more powerful video card spend, which will allow you to play not at the minimum settings. In general, a gamer should definitely limit himself to LGA1150, and not even Core i7 🙂

    Total

    First, as mentioned above, six to eight cores on the desktop are still not needed by the mass user. It does not follow from this that no one needs them, but you will still have to dance from tasks. And evaluate: will it pay off or not? Moreover, lowering prices for processors, generally speaking, will not change anything — the system will still be more expensive. Why? We remember the need for a video card. Yes, gamers still use discrete GPUs, but gamers, strictly speaking, don’t need a Core i7 at all. And if we consider professional use with the corresponding video card of the professional series, then the question of whether the processor costs $300 or $1000 may cease to matter at all — since such a video card is capable of pulling several thousand. Again, within the LGA1150 there is also a Xeon with graphics cores of the HDG P4600 series and higher, capable of competing just with budget professional cards, and the “budget” in this segment is specific: $50, in short, can’t fit in any way 🙂 Yes, and on other environments saving is also not worth it: an example of Adobe After Effects CC 2014. 1.1, for the adequate operation of all the functions of which a system with a six- or eight-core processor will have to be equipped with 32 GB of memory, has been analyzed in detail above. By the way, taking into account this factor, the Core i7-5820K ceases to look so attractive: for 32 GB DDR4 now you have to pay almost $ 600, and the same amount of DDR3 will cost less than 300, so it will be cheaper to buy the «outdated» Core i7-4930K for a “regular” LGA2011 😉

    In general, as it was said, systems based on multi-core processors are an expensive pleasure today, and it will remain expensive even with a decrease in prices for the processors themselves. But this is not so bad — the worse thing is that six to eight cores are simply not needed to solve most of the tasks facing the mass user. Strictly speaking, even four are not always needed, but there the prices for processors differ less, and the rest of the «infrastructure» is completely identical — in contrast to. Accordingly, quad-core processors are gradually turning into a mass product, at least in the desktop segment (the majority of shipments on the mobile market do not fall on them), but further. Then there are objective difficulties, which we, in fact, were studying today.

    Intel core i7 5820 • Web cheat sheet for internet entrepreneurs!

    Contents

    • 1 Shop at store:
    • 2 Order with delivery:
    • 3 Specifications
    • 4 Options, supplies and accessories for INTEL Core i7-5820K Processor OEM
    • 2 Reviews Core i7-5820K Processor OEM
    • 2 Reviews 5th Gen Core i7-5930K Processor — As expected
  • 6 Performance comparison and test results
    • 6.1 Comparison of processors
  • 7 Description
  • 8 ⇡#Read more about Core i7-5820k
  • 9 ⇡#Acceleration
    • 9.1 ECTs. integrated graphics card ✔256KB x6+15MB ✔140W ✔5 GT/s (DMI) ✔Socket LGA2011-3 Square ILM, Socket LGA2011-3 Narrow ILM ✔Haswell-E ✔Unlocked multiplier
      Computer processors Socket LGA2011-3, 6-core processors for computers, 5th generation Intel processors SKU: #1 Compare Back Forward

  • Find a replacement

    Buy at store:

    Order with delivery:

    • Features
    • videos
    • Options and Consumables
    • Photo examples
    • Reviews (1)
    • Leave a review
    • Tests
    • Information

    Features

    Active promotions ✔ Discount on purchase of GIGABYTE motherboard, GIGABYTE graphics card and Intel 9 processor0148
    Warnings
    WARNING2 No integrated video core. To be able to connect the monitor to the server, make sure you have a video card built into the motherboard, or upgrade your gaming computer or workstation with a discrete video card.
    Key Features
    Manufacturer INTEL
    Model Core i7-5820K Processor find similar processor
    Processor kit OEM
    Purpose Desktop PC
    Description (continued) Unlocked desktop processor.
    CPU bus frequency 5 GT/s (DMI)
    Series Core i7 5th generation
    Equipment type Desktop Processor
    Description instruction sets: SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.2, AVX extensions, Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x), AES hardware acceleration, Enhanced Halt State (C1E), Enhanced Intel Speedstep Technology, EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection/Execute Disable Bit)
    Power dissipation 140W suitable cooler
    Critical temperature 66. 8 °C
    Processor
    Processor frequency 3.3 GHz or up to 3.6 GHz with Turbo Boost
    Processor socket Socket LGA2011-3 Square ILM, Socket LGA2011-3 Narrow ILM compatible motherboards
    Core Haswell-E CPU core specifications
    Max. number of processors on the motherboard 1
    L1 cache 64 Kb x6 ​​
    L2 cache 256 KB x6
    L3 cache 15 Mb
    Hyper Threading Support Yes
    64 bit support Yes
    Number of cores 6
    Number of threads 12
    Multiplication 33, Unlocked multiplier
    Video
    Processor video core No integrated video card
    Number of PCI-Express lanes 28 lines, 3-slot combinable
    Memory support
    Supported memory type DDR4 PC4-12800 (DDR4-1600), PC4-15000 (DDR4-1866), PC4-17000 (DDR4-2133), 4-channel memory controller compatible memory
    Officially supported memory standards PC4-17000 (DDR4 2133MHz), PC4-15000 (DDR4 1866MHz), PC4-12800 (DDR4 1600MHz)
    Max RAM 64 GB
    ECC support No
    Configuration
    Process 22 nm
    Logistics
    Package dimensions (measured in NYX) 5. 25 x 4.5 x 0.65 cm
    Gross weight (measured in NYX) 0.051 kg

    Options, supplies and accessories for INTEL Core i7-5820K Processor OEM

    Reviews

    we may not have exploited this product, but only felt it from all sides, and after you buy it, try it in work, your feedback can make this world a better place, if your feedback is really useful, then we will publish it and give it you the opportunity to make the next purchase with us on the 2nd column.

    INTEL Core i7 5th Generation Core i7-5930K Processor — As expected

    Performance comparison and test results

    To help you make an informed choice, the processor was tested at the NYX Computer Supermarket on 14-06-2017. The test results are visually displayed in a diagram and two tables.

    The diagram shows the test results for the selected article (highlighted in red) and 9 other products with similar prices. Percentages indicate an approach to the maximum of the recorded results. That is, if your choice fell on a product with an indicator of 50%, this means that there is an analogue 2 times faster (with an indicator of 100%), but, of course, at a completely different price.

    The diagram is followed by a table with similar indicators for 10 champion products in their category, in the form of a TOP10 rating.

    Using this table, it is easy to determine the place of the processor in the general «table of ranks», as well as to estimate how expensive it will be to try to improve performance. The selected product is also highlighted in red.

    The last plate is just a list of test results. Of these, the percentage rating is calculated, which was used in the first two reports. By clicking on the name of the test, you can go to a summary table with the indicators of all products in the category, including those that are currently out of stock.

    Only items currently in stock are used for comparisons.

    If you decide to approach the choice of new equipment seriously and responsibly, the full rating of the CPU comparison, which includes the results of testing items that are currently out of stock, will be invaluable help.

    Processor Comparison

    Percentage of Highest Recorded Results across All Tests

    Description

    Intel started Intel Core i7-5820K sales in September 2014 at a suggested retail price of $410. This is a Haswell-E architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at home systems. It has 6 cores and 12 threads and is manufactured using 22nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 3.60 GHz, the multiplier is unlocked.

    In terms of compatibility, this is an FCLGA2011-3 socket processor with a TDP of 140W. It supports DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133 memory.

    It delivers good benchmark performance at 27.47% of the AMD EPYC 7742 leader.

    Ilya Gavrichenkov

    Sadly, the endless battles between fans of AMD and Intel processors are a thing of the past. Today, answering the question of which company’s processor is more profitable to purchase for a productive desktop system has become very easy. AMD has practically given up competing with Intel in the upper price segments, and therefore, starting at about the $150 threshold, there really is no choice. Any processor of the latest generation Core family that is suitable for the price will be the best option, and not because of some of its undeniable advantages, but simply because of the lack of worthy alternatives. However, among all this simplicity, it is still possible to find a sufficient reason for discussion.

    The fact is that Intel offers not one, but several desktop platforms at the same time, which may be somewhat similar in their field of application. And it’s not at all about the fact that the market at the same time there are previous and following platforms that differ in their characteristics and performance is not so noticeable. Everything is simple here, because if you compare, for example, LGA1155 and LGA1150, then in any case, the choice should be made in favor of the second, newer version — more promising and, albeit a little, but still more productive. Intel itself is pushing us to this, shaping its pricing policy in such a way that new platforms, the release of which is synchronized with the full cycle in the tick-tock strategy, cost no more than their predecessors. In other words, paying attention to obsolete products when they have a more modern replacement does not make any rational sense.

    The logical reason for the agony of choice arises from the fact that for the most productive desktops, Intel offers not the usual common LGA1150 processors of the Haswell generation, but specialized elite CPUs with Haswell-E design in the LGA2011-v3 quasi-server form factor. Formally, the LGA1150 and LGA2011-v3 platforms do not intersect in terms of positioning, as Intel tried to separate them into different price segments. But in fact, the difference in the cost of the older processor for the LGA1150 (Core i7-4790K) and the younger processor for LGA2011-v3 (Core i7-5820K) is not so important — it does not exceed 15 percent. Of course, one should also take into account the fact that the accompanying ecosystem for the LGA2011-v3 processor itself will cost a little more, however, this price difference may not be decisive for many. Therefore, here and there you can hear a completely reasonable question about which version of the system is better to prefer for certain purposes — many users are ready to seriously consider the Core i7-5820K in LGA2011-v3 as an alternative to the Core i7-4790K. And if so, we decided to devote a separate study to this issue.

    ⇡#Read more about the Core i7-5820K

    Intel’s path to release just like the Core i7-5820K, a junior processor for a high-performance platform, was not easy. Its first predecessor from the Sandy Bridge-E family that appeared in early 2012, the Core i7-3820, was a quad-core that did not even have an unlocked multiplier. In the next generation, Ivy Bridge-E, the junior Core i7-4820K processor received overclocking capabilities, but still, like the older Core i7 processors in the LGA1155 version, it was content with only four cores. The most significant step forward was made only with the introduction of the LGA2011-v3 platform and the Haswell-E processor design, as a result of which the Core i7-5820K became a full-fledged six-core CPU with a full set of overclocking features. Thus, today’s junior processor for Intel’s high-performance desktop platform can finally boast of fundamentally better characteristics than the senior processor for a commonly used platform, if only because it has one and a half times more computing cores.

    That Core i7-5820K is interesting. In relation to older processors for the LGA1150, it is a representative of a different weight category, but its recommended price is set at only $389, while the Core i7-4790K is estimated by the manufacturer only $50 cheaper — at $339. Quite a small markup for two extra cores, isn’t it? But in addition, the Core i7-5820K boasts a more capacious third-level cache, the volume of which reaches 15 MB.

    True, the presence of additional cores has a downside — lower clock speeds. The passport frequency of the younger Haswell-E is set at a rather modest level — 3.3 GHz, which is 700 MHz less than the core i7-4790K clock frequency. Of course, at the same time, Turbo Boost technology is implemented in the Core i7-5820K, but it can only increase the frequency up to 3.6 GHz, while the older Devil’s Canyon accelerates to 4.4 GHz when the turbo mode is activated.

    Since the Core i7-5820K belongs to the LGA2011-v3 platform, it’s easy to guess about its other fundamental differences from the LGA1150 processors. Firstly, the junior representative of the Haswell-E family quite naturally has a four-channel memory controller that supports DDR4 SDRAM. However, to call it a clear advantage would still be wrong. At this stage, DDR4 memory is rather poorly distributed, and it does not give a tangible performance boost. The extra charge that will have to be paid for the novelty of such a memory will be 50-60 percent at best.

    Secondly, the Core i7-5820K has a more advanced PCI Express 3.0 controller, which supports not 16, but 28 lanes, compared to conventional Haswell ones. This feature can be useful for gamers using multi-GPU configurations, or for enthusiasts who want to create a high-performance disk subsystem based on RAID controllers or server-class SSDs with PCI Express interface. Moreover, only LGA2011-v3 processors (including the Core i7-5820K) can provide three PCI Express 3.0 slots simultaneously, which allows building three-component SLI or CrossfireX configurations on their basis. However, it should be borne in mind that processors for LGA2011-v3, which are more expensive than the Core i7-5820K, provide the user with an even greater number of PCI Express lines — 40. But for the vast majority of cases, 28 lines available in the younger Haswell-E will be enough . For example, the difference in the speed of a two-component multi-GPU system with a full-fledged scheme of PCI Express 16x+16x slots and with the PCI Express 16x+8x variant provided by the Core i7-5820K is almost imperceptible.

    Speaking of other differences between Haswell-E and Haswell, one cannot fail to mention the lack of an integrated graphics core in high-performance processors for LGA2011-v3. Of course, this will not upset users of upper price range systems at all, but there is one subtlety. The lack of an integrated GPU also means that there is no Quick Sync feature, which could also be useful for the Core i7-5820K, as it allows for very fast and low-cost video transcoding.

    Nevertheless, if you sum up all that has been said, then the Core i7-5820K looks like a very attractive offer. This processor is only slightly inferior in its characteristics to the $ 600 Core i7-5930K, which means that you can expect from it about the same performance as the recent flagship, the Ivy Brige-E generation Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition. But now that eight-core processors are being offered to enthusiasts for $1,000, the price of such high processing power has dropped significantly — six-core processors have become much closer to the people.

    Let’s brush up on the specs of the current unlocked Intel Core i7 processors:

    Core i7-5930K Core i7-5820K Core i7-4790K Codename Haswell-E Haswell-E Haswell-E Devil’s Canyon Cores/threads 8/16 6/12 6/12 4/8 Hyper-Threading Technology Yes Yes Yes Yes Clock frequency 3. 0 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.3 GHz 4.0 GHz Maximum turbo frequency 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 4.4 GHz Unlocked multiplier Yes Yes Yes Yes TDP 140 W 140 W 140 W 88W PCI Express 3.0 lanes 40 40 28 16 HD Graphics No No No HD Graphics 4600 L3 cache 20 MB 15 MB 15 MB 8 MB Memory support 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 4 channels
    DDR4-2133 2 channels
    DDR3-1600 Instruction set extensions AVX2 AVX2 AVX2 AVX2 Packaging LGA2011-v3 LGA2011-v3 LGA2011-v3 LGA1150 Price $999 $583 $389 $339

    As follows from the above table, the operating frequencies of the Core i7-5820K range from 3. 3 to 3.6 GHz. But according to the CPU-Z diagnostic utility, the actual frequency of the Core i7-5820K under heavy load is almost always 3.4 GHz.

    If the load falls on one or two computing cores, then this frequency can increase to 3.6 GHz.

    The operating voltages of the Core i7-5820K, like the older Haswell-E processors, are low: about 1.03-1.08 V. The uncore part of the processor, which includes, among other things, the L3 cache and the memory controller , in the nominal mode operates at a frequency of 3.0 GHz. This frequency is the same for all representatives of the Haswell-E series.

    Curiously, the Core i7-5820K, like the other two Haswell-E models, is based on an eight-core semiconductor chip with an area of ​​356 mm 2 . However, a couple of cores, along with their corresponding part of the cache memory, is disabled at the production stage, and in fact we are talking about the fact that six-core processors use a rejection from the production of eight-core processors. This fact just explains the very similar behavior of all Haswell-E processors, which, for example, manifests itself when they are overclocked.

    ⇡#Overclocking

    Despite the fact that the Core i7-5820K is the junior representative in the Haswell-E line, it has all the same overclocking capabilities as its more expensive brothers. That is, firstly, its multiplier is unlocked, and secondly, the multipliers responsible for the formation of the frequency of the memory and the Uncore block are not fixed either. In addition, the processor allows you to choose between three options for the base frequency — 100, 125 or 166 MHz, for which the frequency dividers of the DMI and PCI Express buses are optimized. As for the supply voltage of the computing cores and all adjacent nodes, it is formed by a stabilizer built into the processor.

    Similar to its older counterparts, the Core i7-5820K also has its case: a heat-dissipating cover is mounted on a semiconductor chip by soldering, which is considered the best option in terms of heat dissipation efficiency. And in this case, this can be said with complete confidence: Japanese enthusiasts tried to scalp a copy of such a processor and not only made sure that there was solder under the cover, but also captured what they saw on memorable photographs.

    However, despite all this, we cannot say that the Core i7-5820K was able to please us with the results of its overclocking. The fact that it is based on exactly the same semiconductor crystal as in the older Haswell-E led to its similar behavior when increasing the frequency and voltage beyond their nominal values. Unfortunately, the excessive heat we experienced when testing the Core i7-5960X and Core i7-5930K again made it impossible to achieve any outstanding results. And one of the best air coolers we use for heat dissipation — the two-section Noctua NH-D15 tower — turned out to be powerless in front of six cores with Haswell microarchitecture even with only 25% overclocking.

    As a result, stable operation of the Core i7-5820K turned out to be possible only at a frequency of 4. 1 GHz and with an increase in the supply voltage to 1.225 V. Further overclocking with this supply voltage led to a loss of stability, and an increase in voltage turned out to be impossible due to the this processor overheating. During the stability tests with a frequency of 4.1 GHz, the temperature of our Core i7-5820K instance reached 95 degrees, which can be considered quite acceptable temperature for Haswell-E, since these CPUs turn on throttling when heated to 105 degrees.

    Please note that we use the LinX 0.6.5 utility with support for AVX2 instructions to check overclocking — this program is the best for checking overclocking LGA2011-v3 systems. The fact is that AVX2 instructions are still not widely used in commonly used programs, but they cause unbridled heating of processor cores with Haswell microarchitecture. And this means that if the Core i7-5820K processor retains its stability in LinX 0.6.5, then problems in other cases will almost certainly not arise.

    Unfortunately, the overclocking potential of the Core i7-5820K turned out to be no better than that of the Core i7-5960X and Core i7-5930K processors that visited our laboratory before. All this unequivocally indicates that all Haswell-Es are one field of berries. And the fact that six-core representatives of the family use crystals that for some reason did not pass the selection for full-fledged eight-core modifications well explains the low overclocking of the younger Core i7-5820K. In other words, the 25% increase in clock frequency that we obtained in the course of overclocking experiments is not an unfortunate exception to the rule, but a completely natural result that reflects the general trend. In terms of the maximum clock frequencies achievable under normal conditions, the younger six-core for the LGA2011-v3 platform is seriously inferior to the older Devil’s Canyon, even though they are based on the same Haswell microarchitecture.

    Intel Core i7-5960X (Haswell-E) Octa-Core Processor

    Part 1

    On August 29, Intel introduced three new desktop processors based on the Intel X99 chipset that make up the Haswell-E family. This family of processors is aimed at the highest performance systems. To date, the Haswell-E processor family consists of three models: Intel Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K.

    In this article, we take a closer look at the eight-core Intel Core i7-59 processor60X and compare it to Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E processors.

    The new Haswell-E family in brief

    The new processor family, codenamed Haswell-E, is the successor to the Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E families. However, if the Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E processors were compatible with each other in terms of socket and platform, then the Haswell-E processors require a completely new platform.

    More specifically, the 32nm Sandy Bridge-E processors announced by the company in November 2011, which replaced the six-core Gulftown processors, were only compatible with the Intel X79 chipsetand had an LGA2011 connector. Further, in September 2013, Intel announced the Ivy Bridge-E family of 22nm processors, which had exactly the same LGA2011 socket and were only compatible with boards based on the same Intel X79 chipset. The new 22nm processors of the Haswell-E family already have a new socket called LGA2011-3 and are only compatible with motherboards based on the new Intel X99 chipset.

    As a historical reference, we recall that the Sandy Bridge-E family originally consisted of three models: six-core Core i7-39 processors60X and Core i7-3930K, as well as a quad-core Core i7-3820. The Core i7-3960X and Core i7-3930K had a fully unlocked multiplier, while the Core i7-3820 was partially unlocked. A little later, another representative of this family appeared — the six-core Core i7-3970X processor, which differed from the Core i7-3960X only in a higher clock frequency (and higher power consumption). All processors of the Sandy Bridge-E family were based on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture and did not have an integrated graphics core. In addition, all processors were equipped with a quad-channel memory controller and supported DDR3-1600 memory. Top processors of the Sandy Bridge-E family — Core i7-39 models70X and Core i7-3960X — belonged to the Extreme Edition series. These processors had a 15 MB L3 cache shared between all cores. The Core i7-3930K processor had a 12 MB L3 cache, while the Core i7-3820 processor had 10 MB. All processors of the Sandy Bridge-E family had an integrated 40 lane PCI Express 3.0 controller that could be grouped into two PCI Express 3.0 x16 ports and one PCI Express 3.0 x8 port, one PCI Express 3.0 x16 port and three PCI Express 3.0 x8 ports or one PCI Express 3.0 x16 port, two PCI Express 3.0 x8 ports, and two PCI Express 3.0 x4 ports. 930K and Core i7-4820K. The first two models are six-core processors, and the last one is a quad-core one. All processors of the Ivy Bridge-E family are fully unlocked. Naturally, the cores of these processors are based on the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture, they do not have a graphics core. All Ivy Bridge-E processors are equipped with a quad-channel memory controller and support DDR3-1866 memory. The top model Core i7-4960X belongs to the Extreme Edition series, this processor is endowed with a 15 MB L3 cache. Processor Core i7-49The 30K has a 12MB L3 cache, while the Core i7-4820K has a 10MB cache. All processors of the Ivy Bridge-E family have an integrated 40-lane PCI Express 3.0 controller that can be grouped in the same way as in Sandy Bridge-E processors.

    Specifications for the Ivy Bridge-E family of processors are listed below.

    9The 70X/3960X replaces the Core i7-4960X, the Core i7-3930K replaces the Core i7-4930K, and the smaller Core i7-3820 is replaced by the Core i7-4820K. And once again we emphasize that the Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E processors are platform compatible with each other.

    But with the new Haswell-E processors, the situation is somewhat different. As already noted, this is a completely new platform based on the Intel X99 chipset, this is a new LGA2011-v3 socket and this is a new DDR4 memory. By the way, despite the fact that the socket is called LGA2011-v3, the number of pins in it is greater than in the LGA2011 socket. But the system for fixing the cooler has remained the same, that is, the cooler for the LGA2011 socket is also suitable for the LGA2011-v3 socket.

    So, today the Haswell-E family of 22nm processors includes three models: Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K. All processors of this family are fully unlocked. Naturally, the cores of these processors are based on the Haswell microarchitecture, they still do not have a graphics core. The top model Core i7-5960X belongs to the Extreme Edition series, this eight-core processor has a 20 MB L3 cache. The Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K processors are six-core and have a 15 MB L3 cache. All processors of the Haswell-E family have a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller and support DDR4-2133 memory (in normal operation). In addition, the processors of the Haswell-E family have an integrated PCI Express 3.0 controller, and the older Core i7-59 models0003

    Another feature of the Haswell-E family of processors is that the processor heat dissipation cover is soldered to the die to improve heat dissipation. Recall that in Sandy Bridge-E processors, solder was used as a thermal interface between the chip and the lid, but in processors of the Ivy Bridge-E family they began to use thermal paste, which was worse than solder in its heat-conducting properties. This caused a lot of criticism from overclockers, as the processors overheated during overclocking. In Haswell-E processors, Intel again switched to the use of solder, which, in theory, should improve the overclocking potential of these processors. However, do not forget that the TDP of these processors is 140 W, and their overclocking requires a very powerful cooling system.

    If we talk about the clock speeds of Haswell-E processors, they are even lower than those of Ivy Bridge-E processors. For example, the top eight-core Core i7-5960X (Haswell-E) has a nominal frequency of 3.0 GHz and a maximum of 3.5 GHz, while the six-core Core i7-4960X (Ivy Bridge-E) has a nominal frequency of 3.6 GHz, and the maximum is 4.0 GHz. Thus, the bet in new processors is not on the clock frequency, but on the number of cores. True, not all user applications are optimized for such a number of cores, and it is likely that in some applications the new eight-core Core i7-59 processorThe 60X won’t beat the six-core Core i7-4960X or even the quad-core Core i7-4790K. However, let’s see.

    Load and overclocking potential

    To test the octa-core Core i7-5960X processor, we used the following configuration:

    • motherboard: Asus X99-Deluxe,
    • graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 295X2,
    • RAM: module 4 GB each AData DDR4-2133,
    • memory mode: DDR4-2133 (quad-channel),
    • drive: Intel SSD 520 Series 240 GB.

    More detailed data on the test stand configuration:

    So, let’s look at the results of testing the Core i7-5960X processor in different boot modes. We used the AIDA64 utility to stress the CPU.

    In normal operation (without overclocking and at 100 MHz BCLK), the minimum processor frequency is 1.2 GHz (multiplier 12). In the idle state, the processor core voltage is only 0.688 V, and the power consumption is 15 W (according to the AIDA64 utility).

    Note that the maximum processor frequency (in Turbo Boost mode) is defined by the CPU-Z 1.70 utility as 3.3 GHz, not 3.5 GHz, as indicated in the documentation. The point here is that the maximum core frequency depends on the number of active cores: if one or two processor cores are loaded, then their frequency can be 3.5 GHz, and when more processor cores are loaded, their maximum frequency is 3.3 GHz.

    When loading the Stress CPU test from the AIDA64 package, the core frequency of the Core i7-59 processor60X is 3.3GHz and power consumption is 75W. Note that the voltage of the processor cores in this mode is 1.022 V. The temperature of the processor cores in this mode rises to about 60 °C when using the standard cooling system.

    When loaded with the Stress FPU test, which heats up the processor much more, the Core i7-5960X clocks at 3. 2 GHz and its temperature rises to 90 °C. The power consumption of the processor in this case is already 125 watts. In this mode of loading the processor, throttling can be observed when cooling with a standard cooler. The supply voltage of the processor cores in this mode is 1.027 V.

    Now let’s look at the features of the Core i7-5960X in the overclocked state. Let’s make a reservation right away that in the overclocked state, the AIDA64 utility (we used version 4.60) is not able to determine the power consumption of the processor. Moreover, not only AIDA64 is not capable of this, but also other utilities (for example, HWiNFO64 v4.40). Apparently, this is a feature of the Asus X99-Deluxe board: in order to overclock the processor, in the UEFI BIOS, you must first change the Ai Overclocker Tuner parameter on the Ai Tweaker tab, setting it to Manual. And immediately after that (even without actual overclocking), determining the processor’s power consumption using software utilities becomes impossible.

    We overclocked a Core i7-5960X processor at 100 MHz BCLK by changing the multiplier synchronously for all processor cores. The supply voltage and other parameters did not change. On the Asus X99-Deluxe board, we managed to overclock the Core i7-5960X to 4.4 GHz. At this frequency, the system started up and even passed the Stress CPU test, and without going into throttling.

    But the Stress FPU test at this frequency did not pass, it was only able to run at a frequency of 4.2 GHz. Naturally, as in the case of operating at the nominal maximum frequency, the throttling mode was turned on and the processor frequency was reduced to 3.8 GHz. But, nevertheless, in this mode the processor functioned stably.

    Testing

    Well, now, after a brief acquaintance with the Intel Core i7-5960X processor, let’s get acquainted with the results of its testing in games and real applications.

    To evaluate the performance of the Core i7-5960X processor, we used our standard testing methodology using iXBT Notebook Benchmark v. 1.0 and iXBT Game Benchmark v.1.0. The only thing we’ve changed is the removal of the app and content download speed test in the iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0. The fact is that the results of this test depend primarily on the performance of the storage subsystem and the speed of RAM, and since we tested the processors directly, there is simply no point in this test. And of course, the integral result was calculated without taking into account the test of application and content download speed.

    We tested the Core i7-5960X processor in two modes: stock and overclocked. In addition, for comparison, we also tested the Core i7-4960X (Ivy Bridge-E) and Core i7-3970X (Sandy Bridge-E) six-core processors. And to complete the picture, we’ve added a quad-core Core i7-4790K (Devil’s Canyon) processor, which was tested in stock mode and overclocked to 4.5 GHz. The results of all tests were normalized relative to the Core i7-4790K processor in normal operation, while the results of the Core i7-4790K was taken as 100 points for convenience.

    Core i7-4960X and Core i7-3970X processor test bench had the following configuration:

    • motherboard: Asus Sabertooth X79,
    • video card: AMD Radeon R9 295X2,
    • RAM: four 4 GB Corsair DDR3 modules -2666 (CMD16GX3M4A2666C10),
    • Memory mode: DDR3-2133 (quad channel),
    • storage: Intel SSD 520 Series 240 GB.

    More details on test bench configuration:

    The Core i7-4790K test bench had the following configuration:

    • motherboard: Asus H97-Pro Gamer,
    • video card: AMD Radeon R9 295X2,
    • RAM: four modules of Corairs DDR3 -2666 (CMD16GX3M4A2666C10),
    • Memory mode: DDR3-1600 (dual channel),
    • storage: Intel SSD 520 Series 240 GB.

    Please note that in all test benches we used the same video card, the same SSD drive and the same amount of memory. Moreover, for Core i7-49 processors60X and Core i7-3970X, we specifically used DDR3 memory at 2133 MHz. But for the Core i7-4790K processor, the use of Corsair DDR3-2666 memory in DDR3-2133 mode turned out to be impossible, since the Intel H97 chipset used in the test bench’s motherboard does not allow overclocking the memory. So the Core i7-4790K was tested with memory that worked in DDR3-1600 mode. However, in the case of a dual-channel mode and a sufficiently high memory frequency (and when using discrete graphics), the decrease in results should be purely nominal.

    So, let’s turn to the results of testing our processors in the iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0.

    In the transcoding test using the MediaCoder x64 utility, the eight-core Core i7-5960X processor has a clear advantage over all rivals. In normal operation, the transcoding speed is 51% higher than the transcoding speed using the quad-core Core i7-4790K processor.

    Tested with Adobe Premiere Pro CC, Core i7-59 octa-core processorThe 60X is also a clear leader, outperforming the quad-core Core i7-4790K by 47% in stock mode. As you can see, Adobe Premiere Pro CC is also well optimized for multi-core processors.

    A slightly more modest result is obtained in a test using Adobe After Effects CC. However, in this test, the octa-core Core i7-5960X scores 22% better in normal operation than the quad-core Core i7-4790K. But the six-core processor Core i7-4960X demonstrates in this test almost the same result as the Core i7-5960X processor, that is, here the difference in the number of cores is redeemed by their increased frequency of operation.

    Well, in the test using the Photodex ProShow Gold application (creating a movie from photos), the Core i7-5960X processor in normal operation is inferior to all the others. It seems that this test does not use all the processor cores, and the result depends more on the frequency than on the number of cores.

    In the batch photo processing test using the Adobe Photoshop CC application, the Core i7-5960X processor in normal operation, although it has a slight advantage (15%) over the Core i7-4790K, is nevertheless inferior to both the Core i7-3970X processor and the processor Core i7-4960X. And only overclocking the Core i7-5960X to a clock speed of 4.2 GHz allows you to get the level of performance that the Core i7-3970X and Core i7-4960X demonstrate in normal operation.

    Tested with Adobe Audition, octa-core Core i7-59 processor60X failed. In normal operation, it showed performance 25% lower than the Core i7-4790K, and even overclocking to a frequency of 4.2 GHz could not raise its performance level in this test to the level of the Core i7-4790K processor.

    In the text recognition test using the Abbyy FineReader 11 application, the eight-core Core i7-5960X processor showed a good result, outperforming the quad-core Core i7-4790K by 23% (in normal mode). And in this test Core i7-5960X is slightly ahead of the six-core processors Core i7-4960X and Core i7-3970X.

    But in the test using the WinRAR 5.0 application, the situation is quite interesting. When creating an archive, the eight-core Core i7-5960X processor (in normal operation) is almost 50% faster than the quad-core Core i7-4790K and has a slight advantage over the six-core Core i7-3970X and Core i7-4960X. Multi-threaded calculations are actively involved here. However, when unzipping data, the Core i7-5960X, on the contrary, loses to the quad-core Core i7-4790K is almost 26% and is inferior to the Core i7-3970X and Core i7-4960X processors.

    In general, integrally, the following results are obtained. In normal operation, the eight-core Core i7-5960X processor is only 12.6% faster than the quad-core processor with a higher clock speed, while yielding to both the Core i7-4960X processor (7%) and the Core i7-3970X processor (1.2 %) with six cores and a higher clock speed. Of course, there are separate applications where the Core i7-5960X is the leader, but there are also applications where this processor loses to everyone else or demonstrates approximately the same performance. In general, everything is not as good as we would like: after all, if a system on this processor is bought (or assembled) by a person who simply wants, without going into details, to get the maximum possible from the desktop, then his choice will be far from optimal in terms of absolute performance, and considering the price. On the other hand, if such a system is acquired by a person who understands, having something to load 8 processor cores, Core i7-59The 60X will not disappoint its owner, providing truly top performance in its class.

    Now let’s look at the test results in games (iXBT Game Benchmark v.1.0). Testing was carried out at a screen resolution of 1920×1080.

    The fact that even with the maximum quality settings all games will demonstrate a comfortable performance level (above 40 FPS) was obvious from the very beginning — after all, we are talking about the most powerful processors and the most powerful video card. Indicative in this case is the fact that in games the eight-core processor Core i7-59The 60X has no edge over six-core processors or even the quad-core Core i7-4790K. Moreover, without overclocking, the Core i7-5960X provides even lower levels of gaming performance (at maximum quality settings) compared to competitors. (The only exception is the Metro LL game, where the results for all processors are almost the same at the maximum quality settings. )

    The results clearly demonstrate that, firstly, modern games are not optimized for 8 (or even 6) that a quad-core processor is enough for a gaming PC. Secondly, for games, the performance of the video card is more important than the processor, but only if the processor performance is sufficient to load the video card. That is why overclocking the processor in frequency practically does not lead to an increase in performance in games.

    Conclusions

    So, let’s try to summarize our testing of the new eight-core processor Core i7-5960X (Haswell-E).

    First of all, we must state that the increase in the number of processor cores up to eight pieces within the TDP of 150 W became possible only by reducing the nominal clock frequency of the processor to 3 GHz. It is clear that not all user applications are optimized for multi-core, and lowering the processor clock speed can negatively affect performance in such applications. Examples of such applications are Adobe Audition CC, Photodex ProShow Gold, and even the unzip operation in WinRAR 5. 0.

    On the other hand, as it turned out, the Core i7-5960X processor overclocks very well, which makes it possible to partially compensate for the low value of the nominal clock frequency.

    In general, if we consider the eight-core Core i7-5960X processor without reference to specific server applications optimized for multiprocessing and multi-core, then in comparison with the Core i7-3970X, Core i7-4960X and even Core i7-4790K processors, there is no breakthrough in terms of performance, there is no need to speak. In normal operation, without overclocking, this processor has an integrated performance even slightly lower than the six-core Core i7-3970X and Core i7-4960X. However, we emphasize once again that we are talking about standard user applications, many of which are more sensitive to the processor frequency than to the number of cores.

    However, even taking into account the fact that the new eight-core Core i7-5960X processor does not have superiority over the Core i7-3970X and Core i7-4960X processors in terms of integrated performance in standard user applications, the new platform itself is based on the Intel X99 chipset with Haswell-E processor is more functional than the platform based on the Intel X79 chipsetwith an Ivy Bridge-E or Sandy Bridge-E processor.

    In the continuation of this article, we will consider another curious aspect of the functioning of Haswell-E processors. As we have already noted, not all user applications are optimized for multi-core. The idea is to analyze the performance of the Core i7-5960X depending on the number of active cores. Fortunately, the Asus X99-Deluxe motherboard allows you to disable processor cores.

    Intel Core i7-5930K or Intel Core i7-5820K 930K

    71.8 (+3.5%)

    Core i7-5820K

    69.3

    Performance in games and similar applications, according to our tests.

    The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Speed ​​in office use

    Core i7-5930K

    71.2 (+3.5%)

    Core i7-5820K

    68.7

    Performance in day-to-day activities such as browsers and office applications.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Heavy duty speed

    Core i7-5930K

    47.2 (+3.8%)

    Core i7-5820K

    45.4

    Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

    The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    Features Core i7-4960X Core i7-4930K Core i7-4820K
    Process

    Simple household tasks

    Core i7-5930K

    66. 7 (+3.1%)

    Core i7-5820K

    64.6

    Demanding games and tasks

    Core i7-5930K

    48.2 (+5.8%)

    Core i7-5820K

    45.4

    Extreme

    Core i7-5930K

    15.5 (+5.2%)

    Core i7-5820K

    14.7

    Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

    We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

    Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

    When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

    Benchmarks

    Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

    Cinebench R20 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-5930k

    409 (+19.6%)

    Intel Core i7-5820K

    329

    Core2222.77

    INTEL CORE I7-AREN %)

    Intel Core i7-5820k

    2301

    Cinebench R15 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-59303

    142 (+2.1%)

    Intel i7-5820k

    9,000 9000 9000 9000

    Cine

    Intel Core i7-5930k

    1149 (+5.6%)

    Intel Core i7-5820k

    1085

    Geekbench 5 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    984 (+6.2%)

    I7-5820s

    Intel I7-0002

    Intel I7-0002 Intel Core I7-0002

    Geekbench 5 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    5788 (+4.3%)

    Intel Core i7-5820K

    5537

    Blender 2.81 bmw27

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    313.2

    Intel Core i7-5820K

    331.7 (+5.6%)

    Geekbench 3 Single Core

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    3844 (+2. 7%)

    Intel Core i7-5820K

    3740

    Geekbench 3 Multi Core

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    24408 (+5.6 %)

    Intel Core i7-5820k

    23052

    Cinebench R11.5

    Intel Core i7-59303

    1.78 (+2.8%)

    Intel i7-5820K

    1.73

    Cine

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    11.7 (+5.6%)

    Intel Core i7-5820k

    11.05

    Passmark

    Intel Core i7-59303

    10240 (+4.2%)

    9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 The data is not yet populated, so the tables may be missing information or missing existing features.

    Basic

    Manufacturer Intel Intel
    DescriptionInformation about the processor, taken from the official website of the manufacturer. Intel® Core™ i7-5930K Processor (15M Cache, up to 3. 70 GHz) Intel® Core™ i7-5820K Processor (15M Cache, up to 3.60 GHz)
    ArchitectureCode name for the microarchitecture generation. Haswell E Haswell E
    Process The manufacturing process, measured in nanometers. The smaller the technical process, the more perfect the technology, the lower the heat dissipation and power consumption. 22 nm 22 nm
    Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. 10-2017 10-2017
    Model Official name. i7-5930K i7-5820K
    Cores The number of physical cores. 6 6
    ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. 12 12
    Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard for maximum FPS). Hyper-threading (note that some games may not work well with Hyper-threading, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard for maximum FPS).
    Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 3.5 GHz 3.3 GHz
    Turbo frequency The maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz
    L3 cache size The third level cache acts as a buffer between the computer’s RAM and the processor’s level 2 cache. Used by all cores, the speed of information processing depends on the volume. 15 MB 15 MB
    Instructions 64-bit 64-bit
    Extended instruction set Allows you to speed up calculations, processing and execution of certain operations. Also, some games require instruction support. SSE4.2, AVX 2.0, AES SSE4.2, AVX 2.0, AES
    Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. No No
    Bus frequency The speed of communication with the system. 0 GT/s 0 GT/s
    Number of QPI links
    TDPThermal Design Power is an indicator that determines heat dissipation in standard operation. The cooler or water cooling system must be rated for a larger value. Remember that with a factory bus or manual overclocking, TDP increases significantly. 140 W 140 W
    Cooling system specifications

    Video core

    Integrated graphics core Allows you to use your computer without a discrete graphics card. The monitor is connected to the video output on the motherboard. If earlier integrated graphics made it possible to simply work at a computer, today it can replace budget video accelerators and makes it possible to play most games at low settings. None None
    GPU base clockFrequency in 2D and idle. No data No data
    Max GPU ClockMaximum 3D clock. No data No data
    Intel® Wireless Display (Intel® WiDi) Supports Wireless Display technology using the Wi-Fi 802. 11n standard. Thanks to it, a monitor or TV equipped with the same technology does not require a cable to connect.
    Supported monitorsThe maximum number of monitors that can be connected to the integrated video core at the same time.

    RAM

    Maximum RAM Amount of RAM that can be installed on the motherboard with this processor. 64 GB 64 GB
    Supported type of RAM The type of RAM depends on its frequency and timings (speed), availability, price. DDR4 1333/1600/2133 DDR4 1333/1600/2133
    RAM Channels The multi-channel memory architecture increases data transfer speed. On desktop platforms, two-channel, three-channel and four-channel modes are available. 4 4
    RAM bandwidth 68 GB/s 68 GB/s
    ECC memory Support for error-correcting memory that is used in servers. Usually more expensive than usual and requires more expensive server components. However, second-hand server processors, Chinese motherboards and ECC memory sticks, which are sold relatively cheaply in China, have become widespread. No data No data

    PCI

    PCI-E The PCI Express computer bus version. The bandwidth and power limit depend on the version. There is backward compatibility. 3 3
    PCI configuration options
    Number of PCI lanes 40

    Data Security

    AES-NI The AES command set extension speeds up applications that use appropriate encryption. No data No data
    Intel® Secure Key An RDRAND instruction that allows you to create a high performance random number generator. No data No data

    Decoration

    Dimensions No data No data
    Supported sockets No data No data
    Maximum processors per motherboard No data No data

    Which is better

    Intel Core i7-5930K

    • On average, gaming performance is 3% better.
    • 3% faster performance in office applications and browsers.
    • In complex multi-threaded applications, faster and outperforms by 1%.
    • Price lower by $250
    • Base clock higher by 0.2 GHz.

    How are they similar

    • The number of physical cores is the same.
    • The number of threads is equal.

    Comparison of Intel Core i7-11800H and Intel Core i7-5820K

    Comparative analysis of the Intel Core i7-11800H and Intel Core i7-5820K processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical interfaces, Picture quality in graphics, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and reliability , Technology, Virtualization.
    Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

    Intel Core i7-11800H

    versus

    Intel Core i7-5820K

    Benefits

    Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-11800H

    • Newer processor, release dates difference 6 year(s) 8 month(s) more
    • run more applications at the same time: 8 vs 6

    • 4 more threads: 16 vs 12
    • Approximately 28% more clock speed: 4.60 GHz vs 3.60 GHz
    • Approximately 50% higher maximum core temperature: 100°C vs 66.8 °C
    • Newer process technology allows the processor to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 10 nm SuperFin vs 22 nm
    • 2x L1 cache (a) more means more data can be stored in it for quick access
    • L2 cache is 6.7 times (a) more, so more data can be stored in it for quick access
    • L3 cache is about 60% larger, means more data can be saved in it for quick access
    • The maximum memory size is 2 times more: 128 GB vs 64 GB
    • The performance in the PassMark — Single thread mark benchmark is about 56% higher: 3122 vs 2001
    • The performance in the PassMark — CPU mark benchmark is 2. 2 times ( a) more: 21134 vs 9828
    • Performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score benchmark about 64% more: 9657 vs 5875
    Release date 11 May 2021 vs September 2014
    Number of cores 8 vs 6
    Number of threads 16 vs 12
    Maximum frequency 4.60 GHz vs 3.60 GHz
    Maximum core temperature 100°C vs 66.8 °C
    Process 10nm SuperFin vs 22nm
    Level 1 cache 768 KB vs 64 KB (per core)
    Level 2 cache 10 MB vs 256 KB (per core)
    Level 3 cache 24 MB vs 15360 KB (shared)
    Maximum memory size 128 GB vs 64 GB
    PassMark — Single thread mark 3122 vs 2001
    PassMark — CPU mark 21134 vs 9828
    3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score 9657 vs 5875

    Reasons to choose Intel Core i7-5820K

    • Unlocked processor, unlocked multiplier allows easy overclocking
    Unlocked Unlocked / Locked

    Benchmark comparison

    CPU 1: Intel Core i7-11800H
    CPU 2: Intel Core i7-5820K

    PassMark — Single thread mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    PassMark — CPU mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Name Intel Core i7-11800H Intel Core i7-5820K
    PassMark — Single thread mark 3122 2001
    PassMark — CPU mark 21134 9828
    3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score 9657 5875
    Geekbench 4 — Single Core 922
    Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 5516
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 7.078
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 82.265
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.842
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 3.449
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 8.679

    Performance comparison

    configuration

    Intel Core i7-11800H Intel Core i7-5820K
    Architecture name Tiger Lake Haswell E
    Production date 11 May 2021 September 2014
    Price at first issue date $395 $410
    Ranking 130 1164
    Processor Number i7-11800H i7-5820K
    Series 11th Generation Intel Core i7 Processors Intel® Core™ X-series Processors
    Status Launched Discontinued
    Applicability Mobile Desktop
    Price now $299. 99
    Price/performance ratio (0-100) 12.75
    Support 64 bit
    Bus Speed ​​ 8 GT/s 0 GT/s
    Level 1 cache 768KB 64 KB (per core)
    Level 2 cache 10MB 256 KB (per core)
    Level 3 cache 24MB 15360 KB (shared)
    Process 10nm SuperFin 22nm
    Maximum core temperature 100°C 66. 8 °C
    Maximum frequency 4.60 GHz 3.60 GHz
    Number of cores 8 6
    Number of threads 16 12
    Base frequency 3.30 GHz
    Crystal area 356 mm
    Number of transistors 2600 million
    Unlocked
    Maximum number of memory channels 2 4
    Maximum memory bandwidth 51. 2 GB/s 68 GB/s
    Maximum memory size 128GB 64GB
    Supported memory types Up to 3200 MT/s DDR4 1600/1866/2133
    Device ID 0x9A60
    Number of execution units 32
    Graphics base frequency 350MHz
    Graphics max dynamic frequency 1.45 GHz
    Intel® Quick Sync Video
    Integrated graphics Intel UHD Graphics for 11th Gen Intel Processors None
    Maximum number of monitors supported 4
    Maximum resolution via DisplayPort [email protected]
    Maximum resolution via eDP [email protected]
    DirectX 12. 1
    OpenGL 4.6
    Configurable TDP-down 35 Watt
    Configurable TDP-down Frequency 1.90 GHz
    Configurable TDP-up 45 Watt
    Configurable TDP-up Frequency 2.30 GHz
    Maximum number of processors in 1 1
    Package Size 50 x 26. 5 52.5mm x 45.0mm
    Supported sockets FCBGA1787 FCLGA2011-3
    Low Halogen Options Available
    Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt
    Number of PCI Express lanes 20 28
    PCIe configurations Up to 1×16+1×4, 2×8+1×4, 1×8+3×4
    PCI Express revision 3.0
    Scalability 1S Only
    Intel® OS Guard
    Intel® Secure Key Technology
    Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX)
    Mode-based Execute Control (MBE)
    Secure Boot
    Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
    Intel® Identity Protection Technology
    Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)
    Extended instructions Intel SSE4.

    2022 © All rights reserved