Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises
-
Page 1:Three New CPUs For Enthusiasts
-
Page 2:X99, LGA 2011-3 and DDR4: Get Ready For A Big Upgrade
-
Page 3:How We Tested Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K
-
Page 4:Synthetic Benchmarks
-
Page 5:Real-World Benchmarks
-
Page 6:Battlefield 4, Grid 2, And Metro: Last Light
-
Page 7:Star Swarm, Thief, Tomb Raider, And WoW
-
Page 8:Power, In Depth: Stock Clock Rates
-
Page 9:Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 3.5 GHz
-
Page 10:Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4 GHz
-
Page 11:Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4.5 GHz
-
Page 12:Power, In Depth: CPU Health at 4.8 GHz
-
Page 13:Measuring DDR4 Power Consumption
-
Page 14:Power Consumption Through Our Benchmark Suite
-
Page 15:Intel Keeps Enthusiasts On Its Most Modern Design With Haswell-E
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.
| 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.
- Three New CPUs For Enthusiasts
- X99, LGA 2011-3 and DDR4: Get Ready For A Big Upgrade
- How We Tested Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K
- Synthetic Benchmarks
- Real-World Benchmarks
- Battlefield 4, Grid 2, And Metro: Last Light
- Star Swarm, Thief, Tomb Raider, And WoW
- Power, In Depth: Stock Clock Rates
- Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 3.5 GHz
- Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4 GHz
- Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4.5 GHz
- Power, In Depth: CPU Health at 4.8 GHz
- Measuring DDR4 Power Consumption
- Power Consumption Through Our Benchmark Suite
- Intel Keeps Enthusiasts On Its Most Modern Design With Haswell-E
1000$ is affordable to you ?
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.
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.
1000$ is affordable to you ?
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.
I have a hunch that we will never see anything like this in the comment sections of AMD reviews. Not sure why
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.
I was wondering how often you writers read the comments? Just wondering.
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.
THe improvement in multi-threaded workloads are good. It is the biggest improvement per generation we have seen since gulftown
I'm running a 780 ti and Gskill Ripjaw 1600 RAM.
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...