Intel Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K Haswell-E CPUs Specs leaked

[LenMargaux]

Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Haswell-E

To begin with, the upcoming Haswell-E will have one X-type processor or the Extreme processor, and two K-series or the unlock processors. The Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Haswell-E processor, being the flagship CPU, features a total of 8 cores / 16 threads and has Hyper Threading. It has a base clock of 3.GHz with 20MB cache and will support DDR4 memory. It will also support multiple graphics card configuration with the first two cards running at x16 speed and the third one running at x8 speed. It will also have a maximum PCI Express link speed of 8GT/s and a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 140W.

Intel Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K Haswell-E

The Extreme processor is followed by two Core i7 processors with unlock multipliers – the Intel Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K Haswell-E. Both processors features 6 cores / 12 threads, also with Hyper Threading, and has a base clock of 3.5GHz and 3.3GHz respectively. The Intel Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K will also support DDR4 memory and a memory frequency of 2133MHz. Both processors are somewhat the same, but they differ in the PCI Express configuration. The Core i7-5930K will have 2 x16 + 1 x8 configuration, similar with the Core i7-5960X; meanwhile the Core i7-5820K will only support 1 x16 + 1 x8 + 1 x4 multiple graphics card configuration.

source: http://thepcenthusiast.com/intel-haswell-e-processors-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k/

Yeah! X99 here we go!
By the way, why 140W TDP? Isn't that high and isn't next generation CPUs supposed to have lower TDP's than their predecessors?

 

[RamboOC]

Finally, intel released true enthusiast cpu's with 140w tdp!
the tdp is close to the one on 1366 socket, but i bet the performance will be a lot higher

 

[S_I_N]

more cores more heat reason for higher TDP

 

[SparkleDJackson]

Looks like I won't be upgrading then

 

[LenMargaux]

more cores more heat reason for higher TDP

I see, I was thinking that they would release a more power-friendly processor since that is what they have been doing with their mainstream lineup. Ow well, I guess 140W wouldn't hurt much. ^_^

 

[SparkleDJackson]

That would be like owning a Ferrari and swapping the engine out to biodiesel. X series are the motogp of parts and the z are the world super bikes .

 

[LenMargaux]

I think I'll stick with the i7-5930K. The X CPU, sounds really good, but I think it would only be under utilized in my hands.

 

[Vicey]

To me this is underwhelming.

1366: Core i7 970 - 6 Cores
2011: Core i7 3930K & 4930K - 6 Cores
2011v3: Core i7 5930K - 6 Cores

I blame AMD for this, no competition in the high end has relegated the 8 Core CPU to the X prices. $1000+ for a CPU? come on. This is a joke.

Also the PCIe lane configuration is identical to X79. x16, x16, x8. This platform really should be x16, x16, x16, x16 with a further x8 on the PCH for storage, networking and USB.

The DDR4 memory is nice on the surface but what's the point? X79 already had twice the memory bandwidth that even Haswell 1150 has due to its quad-channel RAM configuration. Now we're going 6-8x faster than Haswell 1150. For what reason? - Memory bandwidth to the CPU hasn't been a bottleneck.

I'm underwhelmed. I have two X79 systems and I love them, I felt they were great upgrades over X58 offering six core CPU's at around the same price as the launch i7 940's were (£440). Adding two extra DIMM slots for 32GB RAM support on the cheap using 4GB DIMMs. By contrast X99 just feels like X79 with DDR4 "rape-your-wallet" memory.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Its only 6 and 8 core variants because not many people need more than that and if you do, you go down the server line CPUs. Its also not really cost effective to put as many cores as possible on the die as it decreases profit margins since not as many cpus can fit on a wafer. Also becomes more complicated as power and design run into physics which naturally makes things difficult. I don't see how this is AMDs fault for Intel not putting out more cores, thats kind of ignorant to say that(not trying to be rude). You have the lower profit margin issue along with the biggest issue PC market faces today, low sales across the board. Mobile devices now outnumber the amount of PCs today. It explains why hardware is stagnant; hence slow gpu/cpu advances. It has nothing to do with AMD tbh.

 

[Vicey]

If there was competition from AMD, Intel would release an 8 Core K series CPU. Simple as that.

Also, it is not ignorance at all. It is stupid to say that another poster is ignorant just because you have a differing view point. I design consumer electronics. I'm fully aware of how chips are fabricated and Intels binning process.

You say people don't need 8 Cores and that's why it's not in the middle price range? Then why DDR4, people need four times the bandwidth of Haswell 1150? Since when?

As someone who actually owned two X58 systems and currently owns two X79 systems and two 3930K CPU's I can say definitively that X99 does not give me a single reason to upgrade whatsoever. And as an enthusiast, this platforms target market that's a problem for Intel.

 

[Zoot]

The clk for the 8-core is a little underwhelming particularly considering there's 8-core Xeons out there that turbo up to 4GHz, granted at TDPs of 150W. The price isn't going to be cheap either particularly once you factor the DDR4 into the equation. Still there's hope that the 5820k (if it is a hex-core) will be more affordable than the current hex-cores.

I was thinking of going Haswell-E, but I think I might just hold on to my FX-8350 for another while. I tend to like to keep my PC's for a long time, my average so far is 4 years (I've only had the latter a year and a half).

 

[tinytomlogan]

If there was competition from AMD, Intel would release an 8 Core K series CPU. Simple as that.

Also, it is not ignorance at all. It is stupid to say that another poster is ignorant just because you have a differing view point. I design consumer electronics. I'm fully aware of how chips are fabricated and Intels binning process.

You say people don't need 8 Cores and that's why it's not in the middle price range? Then why DDR4, people need four times the bandwidth of Haswell 1150? Since when?

As someone who actually owned two X58 systems and currently owns two X79 systems and two 3930K CPU's I can say definitively that X99 does not give me a single reason to upgrade whatsoever. And as an enthusiast, this platforms target market that's a problem for Intel.

You obviously also do not have a clue about what bandwidth does to newer CPU's then so you should probably just be quiet.

 

[Kushiro]

First of all I do not see why some are constantly pushing for more cores on consumper class CPU's. Do we have many if any applications that will properly utilise 4+ cores?Not really. Do we need a reason for intel to charge more for their CPU's simply because they added a few more cores? No, there are other CPU's for that purpose...

As for the Claim" Its AMD's fault' You have to realize that AMD produces both CPU's and GPU's on a strict budget, though this was their decision, I do believe that they should at least be cut some slack from this view point. Sure AMD has made some mistakes in the past, however they are learning from them and are slowly getting better and providing more innovation than they previously did, not to mention all their offerings are open not locked to exclude any compeditors.

Besides AMD has no say in how intel makes their decisions, intel has decided to neglect CPU performance in favor of iGPU performance, therefor reallocating most of the R&D funds towards the iGPU instead. All this simply so that they can claim to be 'top dog'. Now it is undeniable that intel offers greater CPU performance, we have actual benchmarks to prove it. However intel does not care about the people that keep on asking for more cores in the consumer line, they only care about profits (which is a priority for any buisness)

Sorry for the extremely long post and I would like to make it clear that I am not biased towards AMD or intel and have only had intel CPUs in my computer builds so far, however I would like to think that I have an open mind and look at the complete picture not just a fraction of it.


Sorry just one more thing, you mention why DDR4. Is more cores something that is considered industry advancement and being driven by current consumer demands(portability)? what about DDR4 then? You have to realize that DDR4 is more than just about speed...


EDIT: Sorry didnt notice tom had already gotten to it. Anyways it is understandable if you didnt know, as you are technically using SB and the increase was noticeable in Haswell tech.

 

[Damien c]

Whilst I think it's good that Intel are finally releasing a 8 core cpu, I cannot see many people really needing 8 cores at the moment, but in the next 12 months that could change we just don't know.

It will be interesting to see the reviews and will be interesting to see if the rumours are true, about some unlocked 14 or 16 core Xeon chips coming with the X99 platform.

 

[Davva2004]

From a gaming point of view, the 5930K makes more sense than the 5960X. Less cores but higher speed per core, and still get dual 16x pcie lanes. Winner. I'll be upgrading to this after the launch prices settle down, been holding off going for Haswell as I don't like paying for an iGPU that I'll never use.

 

[Vicey]

You obviously also do not have a clue about what bandwidth does to newer CPU's then so you should probably just be quiet.

X79 is rated by Intel for 51.2GB/s memory with 1866MHz chips.
Z97 is rated by Intel for 25.6GB/s memory with 1866MHz chips.

X79 has twice the bandwidth that Z97 has and yet we are not seeing twice the performance are we? In-fact the Z97 chips clock for clock stomp over X79 in everything that doesn't use more than four cores which is the Z97 artificial limit.

So now lets take this same situation, six cores on X79 and six cores on X99. X99 doubles memory bandwidth again from 51.2GB/s to 102.4GB/s (!!) you really think we are going to see a difference? We don't even have software today that can take advantage of the previous 51.2GB/s bandwidth. The CPU is the bottleneck, not the memory bandwidth and it has been like that for ages.

Take Cinebench. If I downclock my memory to 1666MHz from 1866MHz and then increase my CPU clock by 100MHz my score goes up by .2 points - The CPU is the bottleneck, not the memory.

Same in SuperPi, 3DMark, FutureMark, in-game benchmarks, Handbrake Encoding, DBPowerAmp music Transcoding.

If you want to refute that, then that's fine but I disagree. But this isn't even my point. My point is, why give us DDR4 memory but not 8 cores for £450-£500? Why relegate the 8 core chip to a £800+ part?

Why keep the PCIe configuration the same as X79 if bandwidth is so important? x16, x8, x16? come on. Why no Thunderbolt 2? Bandwidth is king right Tom? No 20Gb/s ports? - Heck why not make it Six Channels DDR4 or Eight Channels?

Lets examine just what is different between X99 and X79

1. Core i7 X chip will have 8 cores
2. DDR4 memory you'll need to sell a liver for
3. Full compliment of SATA3 and USB 3.0 ports

And that's it?

From X58 to X79 we got two extra dimm slots, quad channel memory, a six core in the mid-range price bracket, 40+4 PCIe Lanes (40 on CPU, 4 on the South bridge) PCIe 3.0. There was a lot to love. X99 doesn't feel as compelling to me.

 

[Kaapstad]

X99 is going to be a serious downgrade if using a 5960X to drive 3 or 4 GPUs, if the CPU is a rubbish overclocker (coming with a 3.0ghz stock clock is not promising). For extreme edition CPUs we need something that can reach at least 4.8ghz and with the next gen of graphics cards on the horizon that may be nowhere near enough.

 

[The_Governour]

After reading all this then I still wonder what thermal performance we will get this time around..... will it be the same shit like the first Hasfail or not? Will we have to de lid in order to get ok temps?

Anyone know?

 

[Vicey]

After reading all this then I still wonder what thermal performance we will get this time around..... will it be the same shit like the first Hasfail or not? Will we have to de lid in order to get ok temps?

Anyone know?

I don't think we will know for sure until the reviews come out but I suspect they will use good thermal interface material.

 

[Ahtlon]

Sold my i7 950, asus RIIIE and Dominator GT memory for a good price, I wait till I see Benchmarks of the i7 4790K and maybe I wait a little bit longer if the 5820k comes out in the first half Of Q3, but I read that this cpu maybe comes in Q4. If there is not a great fps difference in games I am also thinking about the 4930K, the high-end motherboards should be cheaper then, because of the new 2011-3 socket that is coming. I always watch at the minimum fps in Benchmarks. If the DDR4 prices are going to be like the first DDR 3 when they came out, It's going to be really expensive. I remember the time I bought my E8400 , rampage extreme and 2x2gb Corsair XMS3 Dominator 1600 Mhz memory, damn it was expensive, the ddr 3 memory price was almost twice of the Corsairs 2 x 2 gb drr2 high-end memory.But it was fast. Waited 4 years with a upgrade, Hope that with the new upgrade I can do the same.