Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Report: Haswell-E CPUs to Debut in September

By - Source: VR-Zone | B 23 comments

It looks like we'll be seeing the new Haswell-E CPUs arrive in September. Ahh, finally.

A report has been posted on VR-Zone.com, a Chinese website, with the release date information of a handful of Intel processors. Included in the list are the upcoming Haswell-E processors, including the new X99 platform.

The report mentions that the new 4th generation Intel Core i3-4370, Core i3-4360T, Core i3-4160, and Core i3-4160T, as well as the Pentium G3460, Pentium G3450T, Pentium G3250, and Pentium G3250T, which are all Haswell Refresh SKUs, will come to shelves on July 20, 2014. These CPUs will drop into the LGA1150 socket, and will work on both 8-Series motherboards as well as 9-Series motherboards (only the H97 and Z97 are out).

Next up we have the Haswell-E parts, beginning with the Core i7-5820K. This chip is the starting point for the X99 platform, and is rumored to carry a sub $400 price tag. This chip is said to carry six processing cores and work with 15 MB of cache. The chip's base frequency is set at 3.3 GHz, with a minimum speed of 1.2 GHz. This will result in a chip that performs well at an acceptable price tag.

Then there is the Core i7-5930K, which is said to carry six cores and a price tag of approximately $600. It features the same 15 MB of cache along with a base clock of 3.5 GHz. In terms of performance, it shouldn't be too far off from the cheaper Core i7-5820K, although it does cost $200 more. This is likely because of the PCI-Express configuration of the chip. The cheaper i7-5820K has only 28 PCI-Express lanes. This will allow you to install up to three graphics cards with eight lanes dedicated to each card, with four lanes left over for added devices. The $600 Core i7-5930K will have 40 PCI-Express lanes, making room for up to four graphics cards with eight lanes each, with another eight lanes to spare.

Finally, there is the most extreme Core i7-5960X, the top-tier chip in the lineup, with eight processing cores, and 20 MB of cache. The cores will all clock in at a base frequency of 3.0 GHz, probably to remain within the 140 W TDP, which all the CPUs carry. It will have the same PCI-Express configuration as the i7-5930K (40 lanes). No word on pricing yet, although given the history of Intel's most extreme CPUs, we can expect it to hover around the $1000 mark.

These specifications for the Haswell-E chips are older rumors, so do still take them with a grain of salt. It should give you a good idea of what to expect, though. The new report shows that they will be coming out in September, and we'll obviously see the release of the X99 platform.

Whether the report is true remains unknown, though VR-Zone is known to get these things right from time to time, so we're quite tempted to believe it. We also saw a number of X99 motherboards (though, of course, the vendors won't tell us that it's X99) at Computex, so the timing does seem right.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • -4 Hide
    tom10167 , June 25, 2014 11:06 AM
    The 5960x is marketed as having 500MHz slower clock speed, the same number of lanes, same number of cores, but 5MB more cache, and it's 70% more money? lol, well that makes that decision easy
  • 5 Hide
    hardcore_player , June 25, 2014 11:39 AM
    the 5960x has 8 cores , 16 threads 20mb of cash and runs at approximately 3GHz whereas the 5930k has 6 cores , 12 threads , 15mb of cash and runs at 3.5GHz , i believe that the 5930k will be the favorite choice among hardcore gamers because of the higher clock speed compared to 5960x , it has less cores , but who cares even the most demanding games can't utilize all 8 cores , so definitely the 5930k will be all about hardcore gamers and professional 3d designers .
    the 5960x will be for the people who need the power of the extra 2 cores provided , for rendering and video production where every second counts , yeah time=money.
    i definitely will buy one of them but only the benchmarks can tell , can't wait for release date .
  • 2 Hide
    deadbc77 , June 25, 2014 11:52 AM
    I'm sure glad i fought off my temptation to buy Z97.Can't wait to do a X99 build,but i guess i'll have to.Time to get all my ducks in a row.
  • Display all 23 comments.
  • -1 Hide
    bison88 , June 25, 2014 11:58 AM
    Quote:
    The 5960x is marketed as having 500MHz slower clock speed, the same number of lanes, same number of cores, but 5MB more cache, and it's 70% more money? lol, well that makes that decision easy



    Not to mention an extra $500 for 2 extra CPU cores that have been on Extreme parts for quite some time, alas disabled intentionally. Intel continues to bore the market.
  • 3 Hide
    dgingeri , June 25, 2014 12:07 PM
    How are the motherboard manufacturers supposed to handle the fewer PCIe lanes in the 5820k? Is it going to be a different socket, like the Xeon E5-2400 series? If so, that is a big mistake. Besides, putting fewer PCIe lanes on that chip, without the IGP, when the socket 1150 is already anemic and unworkable with more than two video cards, is another mistake. That 5820k sounds like a huge series of compromises that render it a chip without a market.
  • 0 Hide
    dstarr3 , June 25, 2014 12:18 PM
    Can't wait to see what the new T processors are about. If the TDP is still 35W or even less, they would be perfect for an SSD-based, fanless, totally silent HTPC.
  • 3 Hide
    SuperVeloce , June 25, 2014 12:31 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The 5960x is marketed as having 500MHz slower clock speed, the same number of lanes, same number of cores, but 5MB more cache, and it's 70% more money? lol, well that makes that decision easy


    Not to mention an extra $500 for 2 extra CPU cores that have been on Extreme parts for quite some time, alas disabled intentionally. Intel continues to bore the market.


    Actually no, as far as we know, dies used for i7 49x0 and 4820 cpu are 6 core versions, 4820k was the only one with disabled cores.
  • 1 Hide
    CaedenV , June 25, 2014 12:49 PM
    Moving from my old Sandy Bridge quad core to modern quad core chips is really more of a step sideways rather than an upgrade... but being able to move up to a 6 core part for under $400 that can fully populate 2 PCIe graphics ports? Sounds like an E series chip just might be in my future yet. Granted I need to get through school first, so it will still probably wait until Skylake, but it is good to know that 6 core parts are starting to come down in price!
  • 0 Hide
    kittle , June 25, 2014 12:58 PM
    hrm.. 5930x @ 3.5ghz sounds like it "might" be an upgrade to my i7 980x. only time and benchmarks will tell
  • 0 Hide
    bison88 , June 25, 2014 2:21 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The 5960x is marketed as having 500MHz slower clock speed, the same number of lanes, same number of cores, but 5MB more cache, and it's 70% more money? lol, well that makes that decision easy


    Not to mention an extra $500 for 2 extra CPU cores that have been on Extreme parts for quite some time, alas disabled intentionally. Intel continues to bore the market.


    Actually no, as far as we know, dies used for i7 49x0 and 4820 cpu are 6 core versions, 4820k was the only one with disabled cores.


    Yeah, they fixed that error with Ivy Bridge, but the original error stemmed from Sandy Bridge.

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci7-39x0-lga2011-p1.html

    The x820 versions have always usually been there own thing with some originality behind them.
  • 0 Hide
    popatim , June 25, 2014 2:49 PM
    <grumbles> I've read this the other day :-( I've been waiting since the end of last year and now I have to wait some more ...
  • 0 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , June 25, 2014 6:44 PM
    I'm willing to bet, in terms of gaming performance, that the 4790k will out-perform the 5960x, due to the 1Ghz in clock speed differential. 4-cores vs 8 cores would be meaningless.
  • 0 Hide
    dgingeri , June 25, 2014 7:00 PM
    Quote:
    I'm willing to bet, in terms of gaming performance, that the 4790k will out-perform the 5960x, due to the 1Ghz in clock speed differential. 4-cores vs 8 cores would be meaningless.


    At first, yes, you're probably right, but there are many games in development now that are being designed around the new consoles, and that means designing around 8 cores. There will be a significant shift over to more heavily threaded games over the next year or so, specifically because of the new consoles, and 6 and 8 core PCs will have a major advantage because of that.
  • 2 Hide
    captaincharisma , June 25, 2014 8:19 PM
    wow intel has too many CPU classes now. it used to be pentium was flagship and celeron was value. now you have celeron, pentium,and core i3, i5, i7. so 3 value chips ( celeron., pentium core i3) i5 is mainstream and i7 is gaming. if anyone wants to correct me go ahead i am just trying to understand intel's madness here
  • 1 Hide
    Tanquen , June 25, 2014 11:07 PM
    But my old 6 core 3930k run fine at 4.5GHz. Still no games or apps that really use it. My VMware stuff runs a bit better with more cores but not much else.
  • 1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , June 26, 2014 1:16 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'm willing to bet, in terms of gaming performance, that the 4790k will out-perform the 5960x, due to the 1Ghz in clock speed differential. 4-cores vs 8 cores would be meaningless.


    At first, yes, you're probably right, but there are many games in development now that are being designed around the new consoles, and that means designing around 8 cores. There will be a significant shift over to more heavily threaded games over the next year or so, specifically because of the new consoles, and 6 and 8 core PCs will have a major advantage because of that.


    It'll be more than a year. More like 2-3 years. It won't happen until 8 core CPUs become part of the mainstream cycle, and then 6 months after that.
  • 0 Hide
    Draven35 , June 26, 2014 4:31 AM
    Quote:
    But my old 6 core 3930k run fine at 4.5GHz. Still no games or apps that really use it. My VMware stuff runs a bit better with more cores but not much else.
    \

    I can point out many apps that will eat your six cores for lunch.
  • 0 Hide
    dgingeri , June 26, 2014 5:08 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'm willing to bet, in terms of gaming performance, that the 4790k will out-perform the 5960x, due to the 1Ghz in clock speed differential. 4-cores vs 8 cores would be meaningless.


    At first, yes, you're probably right, but there are many games in development now that are being designed around the new consoles, and that means designing around 8 cores. There will be a significant shift over to more heavily threaded games over the next year or so, specifically because of the new consoles, and 6 and 8 core PCs will have a major advantage because of that.


    It'll be more than a year. More like 2-3 years. It won't happen until 8 core CPUs become part of the mainstream cycle, and then 6 months after that.


    Guess what, with the new consoles now released, 8 cores is mainstream.
  • 0 Hide
    red77star , June 26, 2014 8:15 AM
    X99 platform is a way to go.
  • 0 Hide
    rishiswaz , June 26, 2014 5:20 PM
    Quote:
    wow intel has too many CPU classes now. it used to be pentium was flagship and celeron was value. now you have celeron, pentium,and core i3, i5, i7. so 3 value chips ( celeron., pentium core i3) i5 is mainstream and i7 is gaming. if anyone wants to correct me go ahead i am just trying to understand intel's madness here

    Well that is partially true. Pentium and Celeron are value processors, the i3 is varied between value and mainstream, the i5 is between mainstream and gaming, and the i7 is overkill for gaming and more for professional applications. If you want to get an i7 to game there is no problem with that at all, you will get great performance, but the price/performance difference between the i5s and the i7s for gaming is skewed toward the i5. That is my take on it, it seems more reasonable because for gaming the hyperthreading on the i7 really doesn't give much more performance.
Display more comments