Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises
By , Igor Wallossek,
1. Three New CPUs For Enthusiasts

Editor’s Note: Eager to show off what it's doing with Intel’s Haswell-E architecture, system builder CyberPower PC is offering the Tom’s Hardware audience an opportunity to win a complete system based on Intel’s Core i7-5820K processor. Read through our review, and then check out the last page for more information on the configuration, plus a link to enter our giveaway!

A little more than 10 years ago, Intel introduced the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4 GHz. It boasted one Hyper-Threaded core, 512 KB of L2 cache, a 2 MB L3 cache, and a quad-pumped 800 MHz front-side bus. Haven't seen that term in a while, have you? Back then, the Pentium was manufactured at 130 nm and composed of 178 million transistors. Intel sold the thing for $1000, dropped it into the now-ancient Socket 478 interface, and gave the chip a thermal ceiling just over 100 W.

None of us could have guessed that, a decade later, Intel’s cutting-edge flagship would sport a lower base clock rate, accelerating to 3.5 GHz only in situations when thermal headroom allows. And yet, that’s exactly where the new Core i7-5960X lands. Of course, the difference is we’re dealing with an immensely more sophisticated piece of technology, and the world now knows frequency isn’t always the answer to improving performance.

The Core i7-5960X plays host to eight physical cores able to work on 16 threads concurrently by virtue of Hyper-Threading. So, applications optimized to break tasks into pieces are sped up through parallelism. Each core has its own 32 KB L1 instruction and data caches, along with 256 KB of L2 space. A massive 20 MB of L3 cache is shared between them, working out to the magical 2.5 MB per core Intel’s architects aim for.

And while 2004’s Extreme Edition handled host processing duties exclusively, 2014’s integrates a lot more functionality. The -5960X has its own on-die PCI Express controller, exposing up to 40 lanes at 8 GT/s (that’s official PCI Express 3.0 support). It’s also armed with the world’s first quad-channel DDR4 memory controller, officially rated for data rates as high as 2133 MT/s out of the gate.

In-Depth Reading

If you’d like to learn more about Intel’s Haswell architecture, which is the foundation for every core in a Haswell-E-based CPU, please check out The Core i7-4770K Review: Haswell Is Faster; Desktop Enthusiasts Yawn

Drilling down a bit deeper, the -5960X centers on Intel’s modern Haswell architecture. However, because this is the server/workstation-oriented version, it’s referred to as Haswell-E. You get the additional PCIe connectivity (Haswell-based desktop CPUs only come equipped with 16 lanes) and aforementioned memory controller (existing Haswell processors are limited to two channels of DDR3 support), but lose the on-die HD Graphics engine featured so prominently back when those fourth-gen Core CPUs launched.

Intel rightly assumes that anyone buying a powerful workstation or gaming box will install discrete graphics cards. Rather than eating into the transistor budget with a built-in GPU, all available resources are thrown into creating a more capable host processor.

Despite this smart accounting, the Haswell-E die still measures more than 355 mm² and is composed of 2.6 billion transistors—nearly 15x the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition’s count. It’s manufactured using Intel’s 22 nm node and specified for a 140 W TDP. Expect to see the CPU surface immediately at a familiar $1000 price point.

Core i7-5930K And Core i7-5820K

Any time we test one of Intel’s thousand-dollar showpieces, we acknowledge its gravitas, all the while contending that most enthusiasts prefer to spend less and lean on their technical acumen to maximize performance through overclocking. In the case of Haswell-E, only the Core i7-5960X is an eight-core model. Buying one of the lesser models means cutting a couple of cores and some cache, at least.

Fortunately, games typically don’t penalize you for dropping from eight to six cores, particularly when you’re running on Intel’s efficient architectures, and doubly so when frequency increases at the same time. As a result, the Core i7-5930K is a better candidate for gamers with money to spend on ultra-high-end hardware. It’s based on the same physical die as the -5960X. Intel simply disables two cores and 5 MB of shared L3. What remains is six cores, 15 MB of last-level cache, all 40 lanes of PCI Express 3.0, and the quad-channel memory controller. Base clock rate jumps to 3.5 GHz, while the peak frequency, controlled by Turbo Boost technology, increases to 3.7 GHz. The Core i7-5930K is priced at $583, potentially "saving" you more than $400.

If that’s still a little rich, the Core i7-5820K lands at a palatable $389. It too is a six-core chip with 15 MB of shared L3 and a four-channel DDR4 controller. However, Intel lops off some of the PCI Express, exposing 28 lanes instead of 40. Frankly, that’s not a particularly painful wound. It leaves lots of room for single-, dual-, and even triple-card graphics configurations, so long as AMD and Nvidia certify x8/x8/x8 arrays. The official word from Intel is that the -5820K supports bifurcation of its lanes into that arrangement; however, the breakdown has to be enabled at the motherboard level.

The Core i7-5820K does lose some frequency compared to the -5930K: its base clock rate is 3.3 GHz, while Turbo Boost accelerates as high as 3.6 GHz.

Core i7-5000 Series Turbo Boost Clock Rates

An Enthusiast-Friendly Trio

Still, all three of the models we’re testing are either Extreme Edition or K-series parts, meaning they feature unlocked multipliers and can be overclocked much more freely than most of Intel’s mainstream Haswell-based processors.

Even better, Intel uses solder as an interface material between its Haswell-E die and the large heat spreader covering these Core i7-5000-series CPUs. That’s in contrast to the lower-end Haswell parts, which utilize a less effective thermal compound. Even in our own lab, those dies topped with paste heat up quickly, limiting the amount of voltage we can put through them with air or liquid cooling. A solder-based interface material facilitates faster heat transfer, potentially raising the ceiling on what we can coax from Haswell-E.

It goes without saying, then, that the companies selling high-end hardware are excited about Core i7-5960X and its derivatives. We have big air coolers like Noctua’s NH-D15 in the lab, along with closed-loop systems like Intel’s own BXRTS2011LC. Memory maker G.Skill seeded us with DDR4-3000 modules rated for CAS 15 timings. ASRock and MSI armed me with a handful of impressive-looking motherboards for today’s launch, while Thomas works on our first round-up of LGA 2011-3 boards from every relevant player.

Wait, what? LGA 2011-3? Ah, yes—there’s a new platform in play, too.

2. X99, LGA 2011-3 and DDR4: Get Ready For A Big Upgrade

And by big I mean that a move to Haswell-E necessitates a lot of new hardware.

Intel got a lot of life out of LGA 2011. The interface surfaced alongside Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) almost three years ago. However, a number of variables can change over time to break compatibility, including the introduction of DDR4 memory technology.

Physically, the old and new enthusiast processors are the same size. Their ball pattern pitch is the same, too. But Intel keys its Core i7-5000-series CPUs differently than the -4000s or -3000s, so you can’t accidentally drop an LGA 2011 model into LGA 2011-3, and vice versa.

In short, that -3 is important, and although both interfaces employ 2011 pins, Intel ensures you don’t mix up Haswell-E with Ivy Bridge-E or Sandy Bridge-E by notching the package uniquely. You need an X99-based motherboard for Core i7-5960X, -5930K, or -5820K.

There is good news, though. Consistent dimensions translate to cooling solution compatibility. Just be sure your old LGA 2011-specific heat sink or water block can handle Haswell-E’s slightly higher thermal ceiling. Intel’s previous-gen flagships were 130 W parts, these new Core i7s are rated at 140 W, and as we’ll see shortly, overclocking can quickly push power use much higher.

X99 Express: A Platform Controller Hub With Familiar Features

The evolution of Intel’s chipset business is painfully slow to watch. As functionality finds its way into the CPU itself, there’s less and less for the platform controller hub to handle. And what remains doesn’t change very often. If you were hoping for a connectivity revolution from X99, prepare for disappointment.

Fortunately, X79 was so old that X99 at least gets Intel’s top-end platform back up to modern standards. It enables 14 USB ports, six of which support USB 3.0 transfer rates. There’s an integrated gigabit Ethernet MAC. HD Audio is a requisite, of course. And we find a familiar eight lanes of PCI Express 2.0 for attaching add-ons, either through expansion slots or on-board third-party controllers. Perhaps the most notable step forward is support for up to 10 SATA 6Gb/s devices.

Now, the bummer is that Intel continues attaching its PCH to the host processor through a four-lane DMI 2.0 connection. You get 2 GB/s of bi-directional throughput, so it’s not hard to concoct a combination of peripheral, network, and storage traffic to overwhelm the narrow pipeline.

At least the top two SKUs give you plenty of PCIe for attaching the fastest graphics cards, SSDs, and 10 GbE add-ins, right?

DDR4: A New Memory Technology, But Why?

Given today’s multi-channel memory controllers built into processor dies, we rarely hear about bandwidth limitations unless integrated graphics is involved. Last generation’s Ivy Bridge-E supported up to four channels of DDR3 at up to 1866 MT/s, and that was good for more than 40 GB/s of throughput.

So, why DDR4?

The transition isn’t really motivated by a prescient need in the enthusiast space. But as you see some of Intel’s other processing products start emerging in the server and then mobile markets, DDR4’s inherent benefits will have more of an impact.

For example, a lower supply voltage of 1.2 V helps pull power consumption down compared to the 1.5 V DDR3 modules we’re used to. Some of that is mitigated in today's piece, since the DDR4 kits we have in-house are pushed to 1.35 V, sometimes requiring even more voltage. But in an enterprise-oriented configuration, multiple Haswell-EP-based CPUs are going to use registered modules down at the standard’s specified 1.2 V, delivering quantifiable power savings.

Foundries are also manufacturing DDR4 using more advanced processes, allowing for higher density. Again, this affects server customers looking to cram tons of capacity into their machines more than enthusiasts considering Haswell-E, perfectly content to spread 32 or 64 GB across eight slots.

DDR4 also paves the way for higher data rates, starting at 2133 MT/s and scaling up from there. Latencies are up too, though. What we noticed was that a Core i7-4960X armed with DDR3-1866 isn’t too far off a Core i7-5930K with DDR4-2133 in SiSoftware’s memory bandwidth benchmark.

More apparent from our testing is that there are still kinks to be worked out. The X99-based motherboards in our lab are continuously receiving firmware updates, most of which relate to DDR4 compatibility. Some won’t boot at all. Others struggle to hit data rates in excess of 2666 MT/s. At that point, we have to switch from a 100 MHz BCLK to 125 MHz or more. The 2800 and 3000 MT/s options still aren’t stable (at least in our SoCal lab; Igor got his 2800 MT/s setup running in Germany). Until firmware, module compatibility, and pricing improves, DDR4 may be the reason cautious enthusiasts camp out on the sidelines for a while.

3. How We Tested Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K
Test Hardware
ProcessorsIntel Core i7-5960X (Haswell-E) Eight cores, 3.0 GHz (30 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011-3, 20 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-5930K (Haswell-E) Six cores, 3.5 GHz (35 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011-3, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-5820K (Haswell-E) Six cores, 3.3 GHz (33 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011-3, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Xeon E5-2687W v2 (Ivy Bridge-EP) Eight cores, 3.4 GHz (34 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011, 25 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-4960X (Ivy Bridge-E) Six cores, 3.6 GHz (36 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-3970X (Sandy Bridge-E) Six cores, 3.5 GHz (35 * 100 MHz), LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-4790K (Haswell) Four cores, 4.0 GHz (40 * 100 MHz), LGA 1150, 8 MB Shared L3, Hyper-Threading enabled, Turbo Boost enabled, Power-savings enabled
MotherboardASRock X99 WS (LGA 2011-3) Intel X99 Express, BIOS 1.18

MSI X79A-GD45 Plus (LGA 2011) Intel X79 Express, BIOS 17.8

MSI Z97 Gaming 7 (LGA 1150) Intel Z97 Express, BIOS 1.5
Memory
G.Skill 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) DDR4-3000, F4-3000C15Q-16GRR @ DDR3-2133 at 1.2 V (for stock run tests)

G.Skill 16 GB (4 x 4 GB) DDR3-2133, F3-17000CL9Q-16GBXM @ DDR3-1866 and -1600 at 1.5 V (for stock run tests)
Hard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB, SATA 6 Gb/s
Graphics
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan 6 GB
Power Supply
Corsair AX860i, 80 PLUS Platinum, 860 W
Heat Sink
Noctua NH-D15, Fan set to 100% duty cycle
System Software And Drivers
Operating System
Windows 8.1 Professional x64
DirectX
DirectX 11
Graphics DriverNvidia GeForce Release 340.52

A number of companies helped us prepare for Haswell-E.

Because Intel is no longer in the motherboard business, it doesn’t have a platform of its own to send out. Instead, we worked closely with ASRock to benchmark using its X99 WS. MSI also supported our efforts by sending over several X99 SLI Plus boards.

Noctua helped us standardize on one high-performance air cooler by sending over its NH-D15, which is LGA 2011-3-compatible.

Representatives at G.Skill diligently helped us troubleshoot memory issues early in our testing, passing along their own experiences dialing in higher DDR4 data rates.

And of course, several other standardized components carry over from our existing bench setup: Corsair’s AX860i power supply, Samsung’s 840 Pro SSD, and a GeForce GTX Titan graphics card.

Benchmark Configuration
Adobe Creative Suite
Adobe After Effects CCVersion 12.0.0.404 x64: Create Video which includes three Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneosly
Adobe Photoshop CCVersion 14.0 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Adobe Premeire Pro CCVersion 7.0.0, 6.61 GB MXF Project to H.264 to H.264 Blu-ray, Output 1920x1080, Maximum Quality
Audio/Video Encoding
iTunesVersion 11.0.4.4 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format 
LAME MP3Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.9.9: Video from Canon EOS 7D (1920x1080, 25 FPS) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds
Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-Channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)
TotalCode Studio 2.5Version: 2.5.0.10677: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Productivity
ABBYY FineReaderVersion 11.0.102.583: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages
Adobe Acrobat XIVersion 11.0.0: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encryption
Autodesk 3ds Max 2012 and 2013
Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080
BlenderVersion: 2.68a, Cycles Engine, Syntax blender -b thg.blend -f 1, 1920x1080, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Render THG.blend frame 1
Visual Studio 2010Version 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted
File Compression
WinZipVersion 18.0 Pro: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"
WinRARVersion 5.0: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
7-ZipVersion 9.30 Alpha: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark 11
Version: 1.0.5
PCMark 8
Version: 2.0, Creative (Conventional)

4. Synthetic Benchmarks

Our first benchmark chart is busy, so I’ll make the analysis easy. Those black bars represent graphics performance, which Futuremark deliberately biases to the GPU. Since that doesn’t change, most of the results appear similar. The red bar reflects 3DMark’s overall score. It’s affected by graphics and the rest of the platform. Any scaling seen there corresponds to larger differences in the blue bar, measuring CPU-based physics calculations.

Despite facing clock rate deficits, Intel’s eight-core processors dominate. They’re followed by the six-core chips, though Intel’s Core i7-4790K operates at high enough of a frequency to almost overtake the Core i7-5820K.

The benchmark suite we use features several OpenCL-accelerated metrics. And one observation we’ll make several times in today’s story is that a fast, heavily-threaded host processor doesn’t necessarily guarantee great results in a task emphasizing the GPU. Intel’s Core i7-4790K only features four physical cores. Yet, a blistering-fast base frequency catapults it to the top of our chart. All three Haswell-E-based processors appear near each other, but behind the Core i7-4960X.

The Fritz chess benchmark is perhaps a better indicator of parallel processing potential. Both eight-core CPUs appear out in front of the rest of the field. Four hexa-core Core i7s follow, trailed by Intel’s Haswell-refresh Core i7-4790K.

In addition to the previous three system-level synthetics, we also ran SiSoftware Sandra to better characterize different parts of each product. The Cryptography and Memory Bandwidth tests are two of my favorites.

AES-NI support allows all of these CPUs to tackle the Encryption/Decryption benchmark as fast as the memory subsystem sends instructions. Not surprisingly, the DDR4-equipped Core i7s are fastest, joined by an eight-core Ivy Bridge-EP-based Xeon E5. The Hashing routine is less consistent…unless you know what you’re looking for. CPUs employing Intel’s Haswell architecture allow for 256-bit integer operations through AVX2, and that’s where the doubling of performance comes from.

A more direct measurement of memory bandwidth aligns with each CPU’s top officially-supported data rate. In the case of the Haswell-E-based processors, that’s DDR4-2133. Xeon E5 hangs in with plenty of fast DDR3-1866, which is shared by Core i7-4960X. Dropping to Core i7-3970X pushes you to DDR3-1600, while the Core i7-4790K is at an inherent disadvantage with half as many memory channels.

5. Real-World Benchmarks

Content Creation

To be sure, Haswell-E is all about heavy lifting in content creation applications.

The flagship Core i7-5960X takes second place in our 3ds Max tests, but only because Intel’s Xeon E5-2687W v2 is an eight-core behemoth with a 3.4 GHz base frequency and 4 GHz peak clock rate. That processor sells for $2000—twice the -5960X. Shedding a couple of cores knocks the -5930K into third place, while the -5820K succumbs to Intel’s Core i7-4960X.

Next to all of that heavy metal, a $340 Core i7-4790K looks pretty darned good. There will be those times when a six-core -5820K for a few bucks more is even better, though.

Blender also rewards high core counts. Both eight-core models excel, and Core i7-5960X comes out on top (just barely) thanks to Haswell’s advantages over Ivy Bridge. The two six-core implementations of Haswell-E snag third and fourth place, employing architectural improvements to outpace Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E. The four-core Haswell design can’t keep up.

Sony’s video editing software gets some boost from our GeForce GTX Titan. And as promised on the previous page, folding OpenCL acceleration into the equation throws off our expectations. The outcome falls within a five-second range, but Haswell-E doesn’t start showing up until third place. More than anything, this tells us we’re limited by our GeForce GTX Titan. It’d take a much slower host processor to hurt the render time.

Adobe CC

The scaling in Premiere Pro isn’t as severe as, say, Blender. But the Xeon, with its eight cores and aggressive clock rate, still scores a first-place finish. Our other eight-core chip appears in fourth place, presumably due to its slower 3 GHz base frequency. Stepping up to the -5930K’s 3.5 GHz floor is enough for second place.

After Effects enjoys the Xeon’s tuned frequency, first, and Haswell-E’s efficient architecture, second. The other six-core CPUs pile in ahead of Core i7-4790K, corroborating evidence that this benchmark does benefit from parallelization.

As you no doubt already know, our Photoshop workload consists of two distinct metrics: one that uses well-threaded filters to tax host processors, and another laced with OpenCL acceleration. The former, in red, demonstrates the benefit of eight-core processors versus six-core models compared to a lone quad-core example. The latter is all over the place. The fact that Core i7-4790K is way in front suggests a few fast cores can feed Nvidia’s GeForce GTX Titan more effectively than wider CPUs operating at lower frequencies.

Productivity and Media Encoding

LAME and iTunes are our two single-threaded tests; both pummel the big eight-core -5960X for its relatively modest peak Turbo Boost bin. Core i7-5930K stretches up to 3.7 GHz, which is good enough for middle-of-the-pack finishes. But the Core i7-4790K hitting 4.4 GHz cannot be matched. Single-threaded software is so last decade, though.

Shifting gears to TotalCode Studio reminds us that the eight-core chips excel under the right conditions. And if you’re in the market for a $1000 CPU, the applications important to you are probably the sort able to benefit from lots of cores…

…like Visual Studio, for example. Haswell-E takes three of the top four positions, interrupted only by the eight-core Xeon built on an Ivy Bridge foundation. If you’re compiling big projects, paying extra for a Core i7-5820K over a Core i7-4790K could save you enough time to justify the premium.

FineReader similarly shows off what an eight-core chip is capable of. The six-core models clump up together, while four cores don’t show as well in our OCR-based test.

HandBrake rounds out a collection of benchmarks capable of utilizing whatever processing resources you offer. The $1000 Core i7-5960X matches the $2000 Xeon, both with eight cores. Haswell’s IPC-oriented advancements help carve out a victory over Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E at six cores. And the Core i7-4790K hangs in there thanks to the same modern architecture and a 4 GHz base clock rate.

Compression

Sorting by our CPU test, WinZip tells a similar story as most of the benchmarks preceding it: eight cores are fastest in a parallelized workload, six cores are also swell, and four execution cores appear quite mainstream.

WinRAR isn’t as damning. Its limited optimizations are more inclined to favor the Core i7-4790K’s high clock rate.

Meanwhile, 7-Zip breaks the tie. More so than we might have guessed at the outset of today’s review, a lower-clocked eight-core processor can flex its muscle in a collection of common software. You don’t necessarily need a specially-written engineering or financial analysis title to realize big gains.

6. Battlefield 4, Grid 2, And Metro: Last Light

Battlefield 4

I knew the content creation, productivity, and media encoding benchmarks would make the Core i7-5960X look good. After all, a great many of those tests were selected months and years ago for their ability to isolate host processor performance. But I’m counting on the games to show value in the six- and even four-core processors, since they often favor architecture and clock rate over core count.

Battlefield 4 gives us an early taste of that hypothesis in practice; the Core i7-5820K and -5930K take first and second place. More surprising is that the Core i7-4790K falls to last. It centers on Haswell and sports the highest clock rate in our comparison. Big L3 caches have to be giving the eight- and other six-core CPUs their advantage.

Grid 2

Known for its host processor and memory dependency, Grid 2 might have been expected to exhibit a wider delta between first and last place. But all of these CPUs feed a single GeForce GTX Titan quickly. The Core i7-5820K notably claims its second first-place finish, followed by Intel’s Core i7-4790K. It’s good to know you don’t need to drop disgusting amounts of cash on your next platform to get great frame rates, right? Invest in your graphics subsystem instead.

Metro: Last Light

Even though Metro is a GPU showcase, we can’t help but notice the Core i7-5820K in first place again. The -4790K and -5930K following it are just slightly faster than three generations of Extreme Edition processors, plus a $2000 Xeon.

7. Star Swarm, Thief, Tomb Raider, And WoW

Star Swarm Stress Test

Given AMD’s use of the Star Swarm demo to show how Mantle alleviates CPU dependency, we hoped to use the DirectX-based build for the opposite purpose. But our frame rate over time graph is downright frenetic. It’s hard to know whether a 300-second sample accurately pits these platforms against each other.

To be fair, Oxide Games concedes to the non-deterministic nature of its stress test. It’s the same issue we face trying to benchmark Arma 3 and Battlefield 4’s multi-player components—as soon as you involve the AI calculations needed to tax a processor, variability starts affecting the results. Removing this would shift the bottleneck back over to graphics.

Thief

The Core i7-5820K shows up at the top of another gaming chart, again followed by Core i7-4790K. Not that the results in Thief are particularly telling. All of these CPUs are fast enough to keep up with a single GeForce GTX Titan.

Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider has the -4790K on top of the -5820K, though both CPUs trail Intel’s Core i7-3970X. In reality, there’s just no way you’d be able to distinguish between any of these platforms, particularly considering their low frame time variance numbers.

World of Warcraft

WoW is another game known for exaggerating platform characteristics. And you can add it to the list of titles particularly fond of Intel’s Core i7-5820K, with the -4790K not far behind. Flip through to the frame rate over time chart, and you’ll see a tight grouping through our benchmark run.

If anything, the Core i7-5960X’s lower clock rate negatively affects its frame time variance result. The same holds true in almost every other game benchmark, too.

8. Power, In Depth: Stock Clock Rates

Our German lab went the extra mile for drilling down into power consumption, cutting the braiding from our power supply's cables to give us the same measurement capabilities you've seen in our graphics card launch coverage. The readings are based on the four-channel HAMEG HMO 3054 oscilloscope.

Consumption is measured at two different points, allowing us to, for the first time, quantify how much power is lost to the voltage regulators. This amount isn’t negligible; we’re providing infrared measurements as well to drive that point home.

Power Measurement Platform
System
Intel Core i7-5960X
MSI X99 Gaming 7
16 GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4-2666 (4 x 4 GB)
Samsung 850 EVO 512 GB
Raijintek Water Cooling
be quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200 W
Microcool Banchetto 101
Method
No Contact Current Measurement at All Rails
Direct voltage measurement
IR real-time monitoring
Equipment
1 x HAMEG HMO 3054, 500 MHz four-channel oscilloscope with data logger
4 x HAMEG HZO50 current probe
4 x HAMEG HZ355 (10:1 probe, 500 MHz)
1 x HAMEG HMC 8012 DSO with data logger
1 x Optris PI450 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect

Infrared Measurements with the Optris PI450

Interestingly, we’ve identified a method to confirm what our sensors tell us in the form of the PI450 by Optris.

This piece of equipment is an infrared camera that was developed specifically for process monitoring. It supplies real-time thermal images at a rate of 80 Hz. The pictures are sent via USB to a separate system, where they can be recorded as video. The PI450’s thermal sensitivity is 40 mK, making it ideal for assessing small gradients.

In order to overclock our CPU even more aggressively, we’re using a new water cooling solution by Raijintek. Consequently, we’re not just interested in the CPU temperature, but also the water temperature, which stays constant after the heat-up phase.

Additionally, the Banchetto 101 allows us to switch the system to a vertical orientation with the use of two angled brackets. This way, we can shoot interesting videos of the back of the motherboard as well. For this, we speed up 20 minutes of HD video so that it completes in two minutes. We record the back of the CPU socket and the voltage regulators to document the heat generation and transmission.

Intel Core i7-5960X at 3.0 GHz with Turbo Boost

Core Voltage

The first experiment involves core voltage. Our measured average of 1.0 V is a bit higher than the motherboard's setting, but we're getting an average of 3.2 GHz from this eight-core processor, so there's hardly room for complaint.

Power Draw

Next, we compare the values measured through the voltage regulator's sensor to those measured at the motherboard's input (at the same time). This tells us how much power is lost to factors other than the Core i7 processor. These findings will come in useful later, since losses attributable to voltage regulation needs to be taken into consideration when deciding on an optimal system setup.

The eight-core CPU looks pretty good, demonstrating 15 W (19 W, given VRM losses) at idle and 93 W (106 W, considering the VRM) under load.

Power Consumption
Average, Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In19 W
122 W
106 W
CPU Package
15 W
96 W
93 W
VR Loss
4 W
26 W
13 W

Temperatures

Due in no small part to our liquid cooling system, idle temperatures are pleasantly low. The processor interface reading was 32 degrees Celsius, and the core temperature average 27 degrees. That was only five degrees above ambient.

Let’s take a look at the time-lapse video mentioned earlier.

Heating Up Intel Core i7 5960X 3.0 GHz - 2 MinutesTime Lapse x10 (20 Minutes Burn-In)

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
44 °C
41 °C
Package
27 °C
45 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 27 °C
31 °C

VR
34 °C
44 °C

Now, what happens when the CPU is overclocked, and how much can be saved by utilizing two cores less? Those questions are answering by varying our efforts to tune Intel's new flagship.

For an eight-core processor that runs stable at 3.2 GHz with all cores at full load, 93 W  (or 106 W with VR losses taken into account) isn't bad.

9. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 3.5 GHz

We begin with core voltage again, which climbs to an average of 1.066 V compared to the stock frequency. That's the motherboard's automatic response to elevated demands; we didn’t manually adjust the firmware's voltage setting.

Power Draw

We again compare the values from the VRM sensor to those measured in parallel at the motherboard input, calculating the losses.

An idle measurement of 18 W (that's 22 W, counting losses) and load reading of 108 W (or 121 W with losses added in) at 3.5 GHz is perfectly acceptable for a processor rated at 140 W.

Power Consumption
Average Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
22 W
141 W
121 W
CPU Package
18 W
110 W
108 W
VRM Loss
4 W
31 W
13 W

Temperatures

Naturally, our thermal readings are low at idle. Under load, they look like this:

Let’s take a look at the time-lapse video, too.

Heating Up Intel Core i7 5960X 3.5 GHz - 2 MinutesTime Lapse x10 (20 Minutes Burn-In)

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
53 °C
45 °C
Package
29 °C
46 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 27 °C
32 °C

VRM
34 °C
47 °C

Six Cores At 3.5 GHz

Since our Core i7-5930K was in California with Chris, Igor deactivated two cores on his -5960X and adjusted his maximum Turbo Boost frequency to match the second-fastest Haswell-E processor. The CPUs are practically identical apart from the somewhat smaller cache, so the results should be comparable.

Core Voltage

A 1.072 V core voltage is a bit higher than before due to the higher Turbo Boost clock rate.

Power Draw

Once again, the values from the VR sensor are compared to those measured in parallel at the motherboard input, and the losses are calculated.

A reading of 16 W (with voltage regulator losses, 20 W) at idle and 84 W (with VR losses, 94 W) under load, the six-core adaptation uses a bit less power.

Power Consumption
Average, Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
20 W
113 W
94 W
CPU Package
16 W
86 W
84 W
VRM Loss
4 W
27 W
10 W

Temperatures

Our thermal measurements under load yield the following chart:

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
48 °C
43 °C
Package
28 °C
43 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 27 °C
31 °C

VRM
33 °C
44 °C

At 3.5 GHz, both CPUs (but especially the six-core configuration) give us a good impression of an architecture we might not have expected to fare as well. Haswell-E is emerging as a solid foundation for a gaming machine that can be cooled well using air or liquid.

10. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4 GHz

Core Voltage

Overclocked to 4 GHz, our Core i7-5960X's core voltage is now 1.110 V. This time around we're optimizing it manually to minimize power consumption and temperature.

Power Draw

The following chart contrasts the VRM's measurement with our reading at the EPS connector, in addition to power losses due to the voltage regulation circuit.

A reading of 18 W at idle is identical to what we just saw at 3.5 GHz. However, the increase to 124 W under load shows that the eight-core configuration running at 4 GHz is starting to pull quite a bit more power from the wall.

Still, these figures are within reason considering the performance you get in return.

Power Consumption
Average Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
22 W
165 W
146 W
CPU Package
18 W
128 W
124 W
VRM Loss
4 W
43 W
23 W

Temperatures

The temperatures at idle don't increase. And as clock rate goes up, the difference between each core's minimum and maximum temperature becomes more pronounced, too.

It’s time for a look at the time-lapse video.

Heating Up Intel Core i7 5960X 4.0 GHz - 2 MinutesTime Lapse x10 (20 Minutes Burn-In)

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
57 °C
48 °C
Package
29 °C
48 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 27 °C
32 °C

VRM
34 °C
47 °C

Six Cores At 4 GHz

Again, we want to try the same thing using six cores to estimate how the Core i7-5930K or -3820K might behave.

Core Voltage

Registering 1.100 V, there’s barely any difference in CPU core voltage between the six- and eight-core models.

Power Draw

Disabling two cores yields a reduction in power consumption to 17 W at idle (21 W if you count the VR) and 101 W under load. That's notably less than the eight-core configuration.

Power Consumption
Average, Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
21 W
137 W
115 W
CPU Package
17 W
105 W
101 W
VRM Loss
4 W
32 W
14 W

Temperatures

Here are the temperatures under load:

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
53 °C
46 °C
Package
28 °C
44 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 27 °C
31 °C

VRM
34 °C
45 °C

Our eight- and six-core setups increase about 20 W when we overclock to 4 GHz. It's easy to see that we're operating Haswell-E above its sweet spot. Nevertheless, you should be able to hit a stable overclock at comparable performance levels using a big heat sink. Just be sure you have a high-end cooler and a chassis with good airflow.

11. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4.5 GHz

Core Voltage

A measured average voltage of 1.319 V (with the UEFI set to just 1.195 V) shows that you can’t hold back if you want to push Haswell-E a gigahertz beyond its default peak frequency. Expect some extreme power consumption and temperature numbers.

Power Draw

The following graph shows the contrast between what we read from the voltage regulator and EPS connector, making it easy to calculate losses in the process.

At idle, power use is minimal. A 19 W result is ever-so-slightly higher than our reading at 4 GHz. But a 70 W jump under load for an additional 500 MHz tells us we can't expect much more from the Core i7-5960X on water cooling, particularly since the VR-based losses have doubled.

Power Consumption
Average Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
24 W
280 W
240 W
CPU Package
19 W
195 W
192 W
VRM Loss
5 W
85 W
48 W

Temperatures

The temperatures at idle are still nice and low. However, those big fluctuations under load are clear indications that power delivery is becoming more erratic, and throttling is starting to become an issue. For brief periods, our Core i7-5960X cannot sustain 4.5 GHz. It jumps between 4.3 and 4.5 GHz, rather than sacrificing stability.

Here’s the time-lapse video:

Heating Up Intel Core i7 5960X 4.5 GHz - 2 MinutesTime Lapse x10 (20 Minutes Burn-In)

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
87 °C
75 °C
Package
29 °C
66 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 28 °C
38 °C

VRM
34 °C
67 °C

Six Cores At 4.5 GHz

Core Voltage

Does cutting a couple of cores from the equation help bring power back under control? An average core voltage of 1.319 V is just as aggressive, surprisingly enough. Try dialing in something more conservative in the BIOS, though, and you lose stability with this particular sample.

Power Draw

At idle, there's not much difference from the six-core and 4 GHz setting. But a 50 W jump under load (60 W with losses added in) is almost as bad as what we saw from eight cores. You'll have to decide if that's worthwhile for an extra 500 MHz.

Power Consumption
Average, Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
21 W
214 W
175 W
CPU Package
17 W
154 W
150 W
VRM Loss
4 W
60 W
25 W

Temperatures

Switching off two cores frees up enough thermal headroom to drop maximum temperatures under load by quite a bit. But that doesn't mean you can get away with a cheap air cooler, either. Liquid cooling is the way to go for its ability to quickly draw heat away from the spreader and exhaust that energy out of your chassis by blowing through a big radiator.

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
27 °C
82 °C
68 °C
Package
29 °C
55 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 28 °C
36 °C

VRM
34 °C
54 °C

Quick escalation in our power consumption measurements push cooling into the spotlight. We're able to keep a six-core processor running well, but eight cores is pushing it. In spite of the relatively low water temperature, Intel's Core i7-5960X gets so hot that it starts throttling.

12. Power, In Depth: CPU Health at 4.8 GHz

The previous page was a red flag warning us that our processor didn't have much headroom left. And yet, we pushing on, shooting for 4.8 GHz across all eight cores. Because this meant hitting 1.4 V and risking the health of our CPU, we didn't bother repeating the experiment using six cores. In a real gaming machine, you probably won't want to spend much time up where we're operating.

Core Voltage

An average of 1.38 V is the end of the line. And even then, there's a chance we might kill our Core i7-5960X inadvertently.

Power Draw

The voltage regulators struggle to keep pace. We see extreme fluctuations for the first time as our CPU hits its wall often. Throttling under load just can't be helped.

Even at idle, the high voltage leaves its mark.

Power consumption doesn't increase much at this point, mostly because the Core i7 throttles almost continuously at 10 to 12 percent. This is as far as you go with water cooling. Did you ever think you'd see an Intel processor chewing up 206 W on its own (or 250 W from the voltage regulator)? Now you have.

Power Consumption
Average, Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load
CPU 12 V In
27 W
302 W
250 W
CPU Package
21 W
218 W
206 W
VRM Loss
6 W
84 W
44 W

Temperatures

Thermals are through the roof. A water temperature reading of 38 degrees Celsius is staggering in its own right, and there's no way to get it lower, even with the cooler's fans manually set to their highest speed. The core temperature is visibly capped at 88 degrees Celsius, meaning there's a lot of throttling going on.

Let’s take one more look at the time-lapse video, which shows (for the first time) the CPU heating up faster than the voltage regulation circuitry underneath it.

Heating Up Intel Core i7 5960X 4.8 GHz - 2 MinutesTime Lapse x10 (20 Minutes Burn-In)

Temperature T
Idle
Maximum, 100% Load
Average, 100% Load (Heated Up)
Core
28 °C
88 °C
78 °C
Package
29 °C
68 °C

Water (In / Out)
24 °C / 28 °C
38 °C

VRM
34 °C
69 °C

A Comparison of Frequency, Temperature, and Power Consumption

Our findings are summarized in the graph below, which primarily shows one thing: overclocking Intel's Core i7-5960X up to 4 GHz isn’t a problem. Between 4 and 4.5 GHz, power consumption and thermals rise much faster though. The top of that range (and the voltages required to achieve stability) represents the highest you can hope to go on air or water without worrying about your CPU. And even then, I wouldn't be so aggressive with a processor I wanted to last.

The absolute end of the line is 4.8 GHz, where the -5960X goes into self-preservation mode.

13. Measuring DDR4 Power Consumption

DDR4-2133: 32 GB Crucial Value RAM

Let's kick this off with DDR4's lowest data rate, 2133 MT/s, with no overclock whatsoever applied. There are no heat spreaders on our Crucial modules. Voltage is set at 1.2 V, representing significant savings compared to DDR3 and even DDR3L.Ideally, that'll translate into less heat and lower power consumption.

At idle, we measure 32 degrees Celsius at the hottest point. Not bad.

Under load, the temperatures hover around 37 degrees Celsius, which is decent as well.

Power Consumption: Crucial DDR4-2133
32 GB (Four Modules)
11.85 W
16 GB (Two Modules)
5.94 W
8 GB (One Module)
2.98 W
4 GB (Rated)
1.49 W

DDR4-2666: 16 GB G.Skill Ripjaws

A higher clock rate and red heat spreaders are added to G.Skill's take on DDR4, but the modules are still rated for 1.2 V. How do those changes affect temperatures and power consumption?

At idle, we measure approximately 28 degrees Celsius after 20 minutes. Despite a more aggressive data rate, that's a reduction of four degrees!

Under load, the temperature we measure lands around 33 degrees. Again, that's about four degrees Celsius less.

Power Consumption: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR4-2666
16 GB (Four Modules)
6.14 W
8 GB (Two Modules)
3.06 W
4 GB (One Module)
1.52 W

DDR4-2800: 16 GB Corsair Vengeance

The data rate increases again, and the heat spreader is now black. Still, Corsair maintains the standard's 1.2 V setting. Unfortunately, the XMP profile for the kit's peak performance level changes the BCLK setting from 100 to 131 MHz, which directly affects the processor's frequency as well.

We measure approximately 28 degrees Celsius at idle after 20 minutes, which is the same four-degree improvement over Crucial's baseline.

The temperature remains at approximately 32 degrees Celsius under load, which represents another slight reduction (despite the highest data rate in our test).

The power consumption we measure from Corsair's DDR4-2800 kit is slightly less than the 2666 MT/s modules as well. In reality, there's basically no difference between the two kits.

Power Consumption: Corsair Vengeance DDR4-2800
16 GB (Four Modules)
6.09 W
8 GB (Two Modules)
3.03 W
4 GB (One Module)
1.51 W

DDR4 memory offers significantly-reduced power consumption, even at higher data rates. Depending on the kit you end up buying, consumption is down between 25 to 40 percent compared to DDR3.

14. Power Consumption Through Our Benchmark Suite

Now, how does a Haswell-E-based platform's power use compare? All of the benchmarks in our review (aside from the games) are automated, allowing us to track consumption over time as each one starts up, runs, finishes, and hands control over to the next. We can calculate how long it takes to execute the entire suite, average power consumption during the log, and total power consumed in watt-hours.

Intel’s Core i7-3970X broke the LGA 2011 mold by pushing up into the 150 W specification range. At several points during our run, it towers over two other generations of Core i7 flagships. You can see that the fastest Ivy Bridge-E model cut consumption quite a bit.

Meanwhile, Haswell-E trades blows with its predecessor in the power department, but definitely finishes its work fastest.

The Core i7-4790K is clearly a lower-power part, though you pay a small performance penalty for those savings.

Of the ultra-high-end CPUs spanning three generations, Core i7-5960X averages the lowest power use (just barely). Core i7-4790K fares best. However, we expected it to boast even more of an advantage, since the chip’s TDP is 52 W under Haswell-E.

The last processor I ran this analysis on was Intel’s Pentium G3258, which took almost three hours to work its way through our suite. All four of these chips finish in half the time. Core i7-5960X earns the distinction of being the fastest, despite a 3 GHz base clock rate.

When you multiply average power consumption and performance (determined by the time taken to finish our benchmark suite), Intel’s Core i7-4790K surfaces as the winner. Really, this comes as no surprise. The quad-core model is quick, and its conservative thermal ceiling helps keep a lid on average draw.

Flagship-class products commonly sacrifice niceties like value and efficiency. Enthusiasts operating at that end of spectrum demand all-out speed, which is what Core i7-5960X delivers. As Intel’s first official eight-core processor, the top Haswell-E model pares back clock rate in order to duck under 140 W. We've already seen that there’s still plenty of headroom for overclocking though, if you’re willing to top the CPU with a serious cooler. Left in its stock form, the Core i7-5960X beats the -4960X and -3970X by finishing our benchmarks faster at lower average power consumption.

15. Intel Keeps Enthusiasts On Its Most Modern Design With Haswell-E

The Ivy Bridge-E launch (almost exactly one year ago) was disappointing for a number of reasons. Not only did the Core i7-4960X offer little beyond what we were already getting from -3970X, but it had the gall to surface three months after Intel started selling its Haswell-based Core i7-4770K. Adding insult to injury was the already-old X79 Express chipset, outclassed in almost every way by the mainstream Z87 platform.

Simply put, power users have a hard time accepting last-generation’s technology as new when there’s already something shinier to anticipate.

Intel is already buzzing about Broadwell. But it’s technically taking the wraps off of Haswell-E while Haswell is still relevant. The distinction may seem trivial, but I guarantee that enthusiasts care. And although X99 Express doesn’t introduce any groundbreaking functionality, it at least integrates thorough USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s support.

That may sound like a tepid assessment of Haswell-E, but the truth is I’m giddy to have my hands on real high-end hardware again. Imagine a mixing bowl. Sift the idea of Intel’s first desktop-oriented eight-core CPU based on its most modern architecture. Add a new memory technology. An updated chipset. Solder-based thermal interface material improving your chances of a solid overclock. And sprinkle in LGA 2011-3, which we’re told will support Intel’s next-gen high-end desktop chip. Folded all together, those ingredients are actually quite tasty.

My impression of the three Haswell-E-based models isn’t completely uniform, though.

While eight Haswell cores are envy-inducing, thousand-dollar processors are reality for a fortunate few. The silver lining is that, previously, a Xeon E5-2687W v2—Ivy Bridge-based with eight cores—would have cost you $2000. Now you can get similar performance with an unlocked multiplier for half as much money. Power users able to exploit what a Core i7-5960X offers will certainly enjoy its exclusivity as they plow through taxing workloads.

But the -5960X wouldn’t be my first choice for a gaming-oriented system anyway. Its core count typically doesn’t benefit 3D frame rates, while lower base and Turbo Boost frequencies are sometimes felt as lower performance and greater frame time variance. Plus, there’s the whole price tag issue. That’s why I often look to Intel’s second-best solution as favorites. The Core i7-3930K and -4930K held onto their six cores and sold for a lot less money. I liked them a lot.

This time around, Intel’s stack is organized differently. Stepping down to the -5930K means losing two cores right off the bat. There is no intermediate eight-core option. So, if the rest of the Haswell-E line-up consists of six-core CPUs, why not drop another notch to the Core i7-5820K? Some enthusiasts will thumb their noses at Intel for cutting 12 lanes of third-gen PCI Express from its 40-lane controller, but as differentiators go, that one’s pretty tame. Twenty-eight lanes gives you room to run one 16-lane graphics card, two in x8-mode with plenty of connectivity left over, or even three cards on x8 links. And for $50 more than a Core i7-4790K, you get six cores, 15 MB of shared L3 cache, a bit of insulation against the future, four channels of DDR4, and ample PCIe. This time around, I’m going with the Core i7-5820K as my smart choice.

For a chance at winning your own Core i7-5820K-based PC, please click this link to enter our CyberPower PC/Tom's Hardware sweepstakes. The system's specs are as follows:

You may enter the sweepstakes only one time. If you enter more than once, duplicate entries will be deleted. Entries from contest entry sites will be deleted.

The Sweepstakes opens on August 29, 2014 9:00 AM PDT and closes September 12, 2014 9:00 AM PDT.

One winner will be chosen randomly; the prize will be one (1) CyberPowerPC Black Pearl system, as configured below; approximate retail value: $3000.00.

  • Intel Core i7-5820K Six-Core Processor
  • EVGA X99 ATX Motherboard  
  • EVGA Superclocked Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 3 GB GDDR5
  • EVGA 750 W 80 PLUS-Certified Ultra Quiet Power Supply
  • Asetek 570 LXL 240 mm Liquid Cooling Extreme Performance CPU Cooler
  • 2 TB (2 TB x 1) SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive with 64 MB Cache (7200 RPM)
  • 256 GB Intel 730 Series SATA 6Gb/s SSD
  • 16 GB (4 GB x 4) DDR4-2133 Quad-Channel Memory
  • NZXT H440 Black and Red Case
  • Microsoft Windows 8.1 (64-bit Edition) + Office 365 FREE 30 Days Trial

DUE TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, THIS SWEEPSTAKES IS LIMITED TO LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE USA (EXCLUDING RI) AND 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL ONLY BE USED TO QUALIFY AND CONTACT THE WINNER.