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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 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.
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.
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
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...