Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Power, In Depth: Stock Clock Rates

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

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.

Display all 149 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