Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises
By , Igor Wallossek

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.

Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article

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

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 164 comments.
Top Comments
  • 23 Hide
    CaptainTom , August 29, 2014 9:57 AM
    Yeah the real winner of a cpu here is definitely the 5820K. If I were building now, that is what I would use.
  • 18 Hide
    JamesSneed , August 29, 2014 9:26 AM
    Out of curiosity why were so many of the gaming tests only done at 2560x1440? Seems like you would be more GPU bound at this resolution. I'm not sure it really matters but I do like gaming at 1080p for the very high frame rates was curious if these would push frame rates higher. Otherwise nice review.
  • 13 Hide
    ohim , August 29, 2014 9:27 AM
    Quote:
    Affordable 8-cores from Intel are finally coming. Awesome.


    1000$ is affordable to you ? :) )

    Quote:
    Out of curiosity why were so many of the gaming tests only done at 2560x1440? Seems like you would be more GPU bound at this resolution. I'm not sure it really matters but I do like gaming at 1080p for the very high frame rates was curious if these would push frame rates higher. Otherwise nice review.



    Though you have a point here, the guy buying such CPUs most likely will game at above 1080p .. but this would have implied using 2 GPUs at least in the test.
Other Comments
  • -9 Hide
    dovah-chan , August 29, 2014 9:08 AM
    Oh boy here we go...
  • 0 Hide
    B4vB5 , August 29, 2014 9:23 AM
    Chris and Igor @ TomsHW,

    Bit disappointed to not see a comparison with the Xeon E5-1650v2(or 1660v2), as the 2600 is a bit overkill comparing prices. Some of us just need a workstation with ECC ram and not just a free-for-all(ie someone else is paying) Xeon 2600 fest.
  • 18 Hide
    JamesSneed , August 29, 2014 9:26 AM
    Out of curiosity why were so many of the gaming tests only done at 2560x1440? Seems like you would be more GPU bound at this resolution. I'm not sure it really matters but I do like gaming at 1080p for the very high frame rates was curious if these would push frame rates higher. Otherwise nice review.
  • 13 Hide
    ohim , August 29, 2014 9:27 AM
    Quote:
    Affordable 8-cores from Intel are finally coming. Awesome.


    1000$ is affordable to you ? :) )

    Quote:
    Out of curiosity why were so many of the gaming tests only done at 2560x1440? Seems like you would be more GPU bound at this resolution. I'm not sure it really matters but I do like gaming at 1080p for the very high frame rates was curious if these would push frame rates higher. Otherwise nice review.



    Though you have a point here, the guy buying such CPUs most likely will game at above 1080p .. but this would have implied using 2 GPUs at least in the test.
  • -1 Hide
    chiefpiggy , August 29, 2014 9:37 AM
    Why do they call these their "5th generation" of Intel core processors if they're refreshes of the Haswell processors? I get that they have revolutionary technology within but with the release of broadwell so soon I doubt that anyone would buy these processors..
  • -4 Hide
    envy14tpe , August 29, 2014 9:40 AM
    I need this system to play Minecraft. with that aside, Intel finally has made a jump in i7s value and performance.
  • 4 Hide
    therogerwilco , August 29, 2014 9:44 AM
    Meh, looks like I'll be keepin my uber delid'd oc'd 4770k a bit longer
  • 5 Hide
    srap , August 29, 2014 9:53 AM
    "Single-threaded software is so last decade, though."
    I have a hunch that we will never see anything like this in the comment sections of AMD reviews. Not sure why :D 
  • 23 Hide
    CaptainTom , August 29, 2014 9:57 AM
    Yeah the real winner of a cpu here is definitely the 5820K. If I were building now, that is what I would use.
  • 7 Hide
    ingtar33 , August 29, 2014 10:01 AM
    so that 8 core monster pretty much caps out around 4.3-4.5ghz... shame. if it was a little higher i might be inclined to open the pocket book for that.
  • 4 Hide
    mctylr , August 29, 2014 10:09 AM
    From page 14, last paragraph:
    Quote:
    As Intel’s first official eight-core processor, the top Haswell-E model


    Er, no. No it's not the first eight core processor. It is the first eight-core consumer or Core iN series processor though.

    I also don't know of any unofficial 8-core processors either.
  • 4 Hide
    DoDidDont , August 29, 2014 10:14 AM
    Great news for people wanting to speed up their single socket systems in apps like Mental Ray, v-ray etc. I understand why Tom’s compared these new processors with the E5-2687w v2 in this review, but anyone splashing the cash on an E5-2687w v2 is going to buy two in a dual socket set-up making the system twice as fast as the top end 5960x in the majority of these benchmarks. It would be a waste of cash just buying one for a single socket system and not taking advantage of the QPI. For business users needing to produces multiple HQ images a day to meet deadlines I would still choose the Xeon’s over the I7. The Xeon’s pay for themselves within a few months. Waiting 48 hours for a batch of animation frames to render instead of 96 hours make a lot of difference.
  • 0 Hide
    dgingeri , August 29, 2014 10:18 AM
    Not really any significant CPU change from the SB-E or IB-E. The big changes come from the platform, and the x99 has the same interface as the x79. Technically, the x99 could support a SB-E processor, if Intel would let it. Again, I'm held back from making a change because Intel decided to force a CPU upgrade to make a technology upgrade cost $1500 instead of only about $400. I'll have to stick with my x79 for a while longer. It is just not worth the cost.
  • 1 Hide
    dovah-chan , August 29, 2014 10:19 AM
    Quote:
    Were you disappointed by last year's Ivy Bridge-E launch? Core i7-5960X, -5930K, and -5820K promise more excitement, sporting up to eight cores, DDR4 memory, a new X99 chipset, and an LGA 2011-3 interface. Should you jump to upgrade, though?

    Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises : Read more


    I was wondering how often you writers read the comments? Just wondering.
  • 5 Hide
    pierrerock , August 29, 2014 10:31 AM

    Gee. DDR4 save about 5 W with 4 modules. And i was worried of pwer consumption when i overclocked my FX 8350 at 4.7 GHz :o 
  • 5 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , August 29, 2014 10:39 AM
    Quote:
    Yeah the real winner of a cpu here is definitely the 5820K. If I were building now, that is what I would use.

    Ya, the 5820K really stands out, especially in comparison to Intel's previous lowest SKU processors on X79. For the first time the x820 actually looks like a great option to go with. It's the same as a 3960X in clock speed and core count, except it's Haswell which seems to result in a 10-15% performance boost, and it's over $600 cheaper. The only drawback might be if you have a lot of high bandwidth PCIe cards, but I doubt that'll be an issue for most enthusiasts.

    And omg that price:
    http://www.microcenter.com/product/437203/Intel_Core_i7-5820k_33_GHz_LGA_2011_V3_Tray_Processor

    ... I love Microcenter.
  • 2 Hide
    maroon1 , August 29, 2014 10:41 AM
    Quote:
    Not really any significant CPU change from the SB-E or IB-E. .


    THe improvement in multi-threaded workloads are good. It is the biggest improvement per generation we have seen since gulftown
  • 0 Hide
    Pavel Pokidaylo , August 29, 2014 10:45 AM
    Um I'm a total noob. Can someone tell me approximately how much of an increase in performance I'd see using any of these over my i5 4670k? My CPU is not overclocked.
    I'm running a 780 ti and Gskill Ripjaw 1600 RAM.
  • 1 Hide
    Champion_hero , August 29, 2014 10:46 AM
    Hmm so for gaming, we're looking at either the 5820 or 4690..

    How would the cost of said systems compare, assuming we could create them as equal as possible? Would the performance benefits of the 5820 justify the additional cost?

    I'm still running on my old x58 i7 920, but it's starting to BSOD on CPU intensive games (although I suspect its my mobo that's the issue)...

    I wanted to build a new system this year, but don't want to make the same mistake I did with the x58 and be left with something that simply can't be upgraded after a year or so. At the same time, I don't want to buy into old tech if that too won't last..

    I have had a good run with my x58 mind, but am wary Intel may do what they did with my Gen 1 i7, and change something fundamental with the platform/DDR4 to mean I'll be 'stuck' with whatever I buy now...
Display more comments
React To This Article