Haswell-E Core i7-5820K Will Only Have 28 PCI-Express Lanes
Tags:
-
Processors
-
Motherboards
-
Intel
Last response: in News comments
N.Broekhuijsen
August 21, 2014 1:56:45 PM
Leaked Gigabyte X99 motherboard manuals appear to confirm that the Core i7-5820K will only be able to address 28 PCI-Express lanes, in contrast to the 40 lanes of its superior counterparts.
Haswell-E Core i7-5820K Will Only Have 28 PCI-Express Lanes : Read more
Haswell-E Core i7-5820K Will Only Have 28 PCI-Express Lanes : Read more
More about : haswell core 5820k pci express lanes
-
Reply to N.Broekhuijsen
squirrelboy
August 21, 2014 2:11:56 PM
maroon1
August 21, 2014 2:13:45 PM
Related resources
- Intel Core i7-5820K Haswell-E - Forum
I would love something like this for my next build! Get one of these in a little mATX box that can only fit one GPU and you would never miss the extra PCIe lanes. If Intel is going to continue focusing on performance per watt instead of increasing raw horsepower then the only way up will be to go after CPUs with more cores anyways.
-
Reply to CaedenV
m
0
l
bluestar2k11
August 21, 2014 2:37:34 PM
I was planning to have the 4930k in my next computer for the coming year, but I think I'll throw this 5820 in instead^^ I want a CPU with 6 cores and HT, I figure it would last me like the next 5-7 years, with overclocking capability.
And should games start being ported with greater CPU requirements from consoles threading, having 6 actual cores with 12 threads available should really help. I'm just not sure I'm sold on the DDR4... great speeds and bandwidth, but horrible timings. Might be able to be overclocked though... maybe... Will this CPU support quad channel memory like the 4930?
And should games start being ported with greater CPU requirements from consoles threading, having 6 actual cores with 12 threads available should really help. I'm just not sure I'm sold on the DDR4... great speeds and bandwidth, but horrible timings. Might be able to be overclocked though... maybe... Will this CPU support quad channel memory like the 4930?
-
Reply to bluestar2k11
m
4
l
SirKnobsworth
August 21, 2014 2:53:26 PM
Chris Droste
August 21, 2014 3:34:39 PM
im actually kinda surprised a vendor hasn't done a DDR3 x99 board. with most OC kits you'll get the same bandwidth and tighter timings, so the only real benefit comes down to voltage, but even then there's a few low-voltage DDR3 kits out there and if you're going multi-GPU, 6core, quad-channel memory, something tells me you're not going to flip out over 0.45v. sure there's x79 boards but are any of them reporting haswell-E support?
-
Reply to Chris Droste
m
0
l
oxiide said:
Quote:
So those 12 PCIe lanes cost an extra $200.This is already absurdly expensive hardware, considering how well the mainstream stuff performs. If you want to get the most for your money, you aren't looking at triple GPU setups anyway.
It's not about mutli GPU setups, some might need to install some other PCIe cards and when that is installed, does your PCIe lanes for your GPU still get reduced down to say from x16 to x8?
-
Reply to lp231
m
2
l
tryingmybest
August 21, 2014 4:12:40 PM
This is a stupid move , I was expecting the new chips to have 64 lanes for quad 16x pcie , or at least the X version to be 64 lanes m and the rest 40 lanes.
And we ended up with a stupid 28 lanes , not even 32 lanes to give you full 16x,16x
Whos the idiot working at intel who suggested this 28 lanes crap?
And finally , I was expecting the new chip to start from 8 cores and end at 12 cores . The xeons already have 15 cores .
So the entry level 8 and 10 cores , and the x 12 cores . With the price tag of , $400,600,1000.
shame on you AMD for letting intel steal our money for nothing new . We had 6 cores with 40 lanes for yeaaaaaaars , this new generation just offered ddr4 thats it .
And we ended up with a stupid 28 lanes , not even 32 lanes to give you full 16x,16x
Whos the idiot working at intel who suggested this 28 lanes crap?
And finally , I was expecting the new chip to start from 8 cores and end at 12 cores . The xeons already have 15 cores .
So the entry level 8 and 10 cores , and the x 12 cores . With the price tag of , $400,600,1000.
shame on you AMD for letting intel steal our money for nothing new . We had 6 cores with 40 lanes for yeaaaaaaars , this new generation just offered ddr4 thats it .
-
Reply to tryingmybest
m
-5
l
tryingmybest
August 21, 2014 4:30:18 PM
Joseph DeGarmo said:
There's always a catch behind budget prices like that and this is clearly one of them. I knew that the 5820k is a $400 6-core CPU for a reason. So I figured that the best way around the PCI-E limits of this CPU is using dual GPUs, such as the R9-295X2 or GTX TITAN Z, correct? But this would be the ideal CPU for those using PCs for extreme rendering projects and only interested in single GPUs or 2-way SLI or crossfire.The reason should been , six cores are years old now and we should price the 8 cores 600$ and the X be 12 cores for 1000$. Intel are greedy.
-
Reply to tryingmybest
m
1
l
soldier44
August 21, 2014 5:27:07 PM
Emanuel Elmo
August 21, 2014 5:43:35 PM
Quote:
This is a stupid move , I was expecting the new chips to have 64 lanes for quad 16x pcie , or at least the X version to be 64 lanes m and the rest 40 lanes. And we ended up with a stupid 28 lanes , not even 32 lanes to give you full 16x,16x
Whos the idiot working at intel who suggested this 28 lanes crap?
And finally , I was expecting the new chip to start from 8 cores and end at 12 cores . The xeons already have 15 cores .
So the entry level 8 and 10 cores , and the x 12 cores . With the price tag of , $400,600,1000.
shame on you AMD for letting intel steal our money for nothing new . We had 6 cores with 40 lanes for yeaaaaaaars , this new generation just offered ddr4 thats it .
fuckin hit the nail on the head. Intel was always greedy. I think we all knew this but they have solidified there lead for so many years, now they can chill and take our money.
I am on sandy bridge-e. Was thinking of going with haswell but it looks like I am holding off for more.
-
Reply to Emanuel Elmo
m
3
l
tului
August 21, 2014 7:25:30 PM
Quote:
Joseph DeGarmo said:
There's always a catch behind budget prices like that and this is clearly one of them. I knew that the 5820k is a $400 6-core CPU for a reason. So I figured that the best way around the PCI-E limits of this CPU is using dual GPUs, such as the R9-295X2 or GTX TITAN Z, correct? But this would be the ideal CPU for those using PCs for extreme rendering projects and only interested in single GPUs or 2-way SLI or crossfire.The reason should been , six cores are years old now and we should price the 8 cores 600$ and the X be 12 cores for 1000$. Intel are greedy.
I second this. Pricing the same, 6/12 8/16 12/24(or 10/20) cores instead of the way it is now.
-
Reply to tului
m
2
l
Shin-san
August 21, 2014 8:58:54 PM
Shin-san said:
Clock speed seems a little low compared to Devil's Canyon, but who knows? The efficiency is going to be higherConservative stock clocks may indicate loads of overclocking headroom, to be optimistic about it. The Devil's Canyon i7-4790K comes stock at a relatively impressive 4 GHz, but that's basically a factory overclock.
-
Reply to oxiide
m
1
l
IQ11110002
August 21, 2014 9:40:16 PM
If you are able to afford THREE gpu's I don't think you would be buying the low end 5820 in the first place!
You would want the fastest cpu you can get stock then over clock it to ensure there would be no cpu bottlenecking. I think the 5930k will be the sweet spot as it was for Sandy-E with the 3930k I have now.
Depending on how good this 5960x overclocks with those 8 cores, I may be tempted to go all out, But usually the more cores you add the less overclocks you are going to get.
Would love to hit at least 4ghz oc on that 5960x would be worth an upgrade along with the M.2 port for 1gb/s ssd's. ddr 4 needs to improve on the timings a little though, speed is already fast enough just needs to bring the cas latency down a bit more before I really get interested.
You would want the fastest cpu you can get stock then over clock it to ensure there would be no cpu bottlenecking. I think the 5930k will be the sweet spot as it was for Sandy-E with the 3930k I have now.
Depending on how good this 5960x overclocks with those 8 cores, I may be tempted to go all out, But usually the more cores you add the less overclocks you are going to get.
Would love to hit at least 4ghz oc on that 5960x would be worth an upgrade along with the M.2 port for 1gb/s ssd's. ddr 4 needs to improve on the timings a little though, speed is already fast enough just needs to bring the cas latency down a bit more before I really get interested.
-
Reply to IQ11110002
m
3
l
icemunk
August 22, 2014 3:41:50 AM
Tanquen
August 22, 2014 9:42:43 AM
2Be_or_Not2Be
August 22, 2014 11:16:16 AM
paor
August 22, 2014 1:29:27 PM
hardcore_player
August 22, 2014 1:44:27 PM
-
Reply to hardcore_player
m
1
l
maroon1
August 22, 2014 10:58:18 PM
Quote:
nobody is whining about the 140W TDP of a six core CPU. OC those CPUs @ 4,3 -4,4 GHz and you get very close to 200W TDP ^^. I can remember very whel the hype that was made when AMD launched a 5 GHz CPU (8 core) with 220W TDP ^^. Shame
Let me correct you
1- AMD never launched 5GHz CPU. They launched 4.7GHz CPU with 5GHz max turbo clock.
2- AMD 220w CPU performs slower than intel 130w/140w CPU and 88w CPU like i7 4790K. In other worlds, the high TDP is not the problem. The problem with this CPU is that it has very poor performance for a 220w TDP.
3- No one should be whining about the 140W TDP because haswell-E is a beast when it comes to performance. Even without overclocking, it will smoke 220w AMD CPU and at same time is has much lower TDP
-
Reply to maroon1
m
0
l
Quote:
Quote:
nobody is whining about the 140W TDP of a six core CPU. OC those CPUs @ 4,3 -4,4 GHz and you get very close to 200W TDP ^^. I can remember very whel the hype that was made when AMD launched a 5 GHz CPU (8 core) with 220W TDP ^^. Shame
Let me correct you
1- AMD never launched 5GHz CPU. They launched 4.7GHz CPU with 5GHz max turbo clock.
2- AMD 220w CPU performs slower than intel 130w/140w CPU and 88w CPU like i7 4790K. In other worlds, the high TDP is not the problem. The problem with this CPU is that it has very poor performance for a 220w TDP.
3- No one should be whining about the 140W TDP because haswell-E is a beast when it comes to performance. Even without overclocking, it will smoke 220w AMD CPU and at same time is has much lower TDP
Well said
-
Reply to Nuckles_56
m
0
l
knowom
August 24, 2014 6:16:17 PM
knowom said:
The newest PCI-E revision 3 (x4) is equivalent to the old revision (1) pci-e x16 though so this whole subject matter is rather mute 28 lanes is still plenty.If a person spends $1K on a Titan Z, they expect their card to run at PCIe 3.0 to the fullest. They do not want it to run it at x8 or at x4 and then uses that old excuse "PCIe 3.0 x4 is the same at PCIe 1.0 at x16", just to make themselves feel better. Intel should have added 32 PCIe lanes on the 5820K, so at least, 2 gpus can run at x16/x16. Even the ancient x38 can do x16/x16
Core i7 5820K 28 PCIe lanes $400
$400/28 = $14.28 per lane
Core i7 5930K 40 PCIe lanes for $600
$600/40 = $15 per lane
Core i7 5960X 40 PCe lanes for $1,000
$1,000/40 = $25 per lane
Prices based on this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-haswell-e-preord...
-
Reply to lp231
m
0
l
!
