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