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

by
181 Comments

Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 3.5 GHz

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.

Loading...

Previous Next
Summary
  1. Three New CPUs For Enthusiasts
  2. X99, LGA 2011-3 and DDR4: Get Ready For A Big Upgrade
  3. How We Tested Core i7-5960X, -5930K, And -5820K
  4. Synthetic Benchmarks
  5. Real-World Benchmarks
  6. Battlefield 4, Grid 2, And Metro: Last Light
  7. Star Swarm, Thief, Tomb Raider, And WoW
  8. Power, In Depth: Stock Clock Rates
  9. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 3.5 GHz
  10. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4 GHz
  11. Power, In Depth: Eight and Six Cores at 4.5 GHz
  12. Power, In Depth: CPU Health at 4.8 GHz
  13. Measuring DDR4 Power Consumption
  14. Power Consumption Through Our Benchmark Suite
  15. Intel Keeps Enthusiasts On Its Most Modern Design With Haswell-E
About the author
Chris Angelini & Igor Wallossek

Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.

Read more
This thread is closed for comments
181 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • dovah-chan
    Oh boy here we go...
  • Merry_Blind
    Affordable 8-cores from Intel are finally coming. Awesome.
  • B4vB5
    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.
  • JamesSneed
    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.
  • ohim
    1708933 said:
    Affordable 8-cores from Intel are finally coming. Awesome.


    1000$ is affordable to you ? :))

    87433 said:
    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.
  • chiefpiggy
    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..
  • envy14tpe
    I need this system to play Minecraft. with that aside, Intel finally has made a jump in i7s value and performance.
  • therogerwilco
    Meh, looks like I'll be keepin my uber delid'd oc'd 4770k a bit longer
  • srap
    "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
  • CaptainTom
    Yeah the real winner of a cpu here is definitely the 5820K. If I were building now, that is what I would use.
  • ingtar33
    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.
  • mctylr
    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.
  • DoDidDont
    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.
  • dgingeri
    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.
  • dovah-chan
    134065 said:
    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.
  • pierrerock
    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
  • dragonsqrrl
    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.
  • maroon1
    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
  • Pavel Pokidaylo
    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.
  • Champion_hero
    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...
  • dovah-chan
    Quote:
    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


    Well when you have a TDP of 15W on a mobile device that's a big deal.
  • Champion_hero
    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?
    How do these chips compare to the best i5s out there?

    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...
  • xgamer1500
    I sure hope AMD steps it up. If they don't we'll be buying $1000 celerons
  • xaephod
    Wish they would throw in an I-5-2500K in there just to show how the cpu has evolved.
Display more comments
Most Popular
  1. AMD A10-7800 APU Review: Kaveri Hits the Efficiency Sweet Spot
  2. Report: Haswell-E, X99, DDR4 to Arrive August 29
  3. Introducing Intel's 14nm Node and the Broadwell Processor
The Latest On Tom's Hardware
Edition
Subscribe to our newsletter
Company
Resources
Other Purch sites
  • © 2019 Purch All Rights Reserved.