-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel Haswell-E (i7 5960X, i7 5930K and i7 5820K) info leaked.
- Thread starter Green Biker Dude
- Start date
LordOfChaos
Member
Pentium Extreme Edition Redux? Broadwell or bust at this point, spending that much on a Haswell at this point is folly.
Why?
That's just silly. How long do you think you'll have to wait until you can get an Enthusiast-class Broadwell chip?
This time around, at least the successor architecture is not out yet.
Top end performance with soldered heat transfer: these are desirable chips.
thehypocrite
Member
$999?
Lol. Intel is never getting my money. Corrupt company.
Lol. Intel is never getting my money. Corrupt company.
Future PhaZe
Member
going to wait to see how the overclocks with air on the 5820k go
That's been the price of their Extreme Edition proc on the enthusiast platform since this division between sockets started.
Bummer that you'd avoid all purchases from a company based on that one thing
Zombie James
Banned
And this is Crysis 3, which can use 4 or more threads on a CPU efficiently.
Looks like two threads to me. The G3258 is a dual-core CPU.
Damerman
Member
I can't wait to buy one in 2-3 years
lol best paradox ever.
I've been complaining about it for a while, I guess once more can't hurt. The 5820K's butchered PCI lanes suck horribly and I wouldn't touch current DDR4 products even at the same prices as DDR3. The timings are terrible. Will hold off upgrading my 3770K until Skylake/Skylake-E/Cannnonlake; I need faster cores, not just more of them.
Well, take a look at the 8350 vs 2500K. The 8350 gets absolutely trounced in anything that uses 3 or fewer threads by the 2500K. Heck, the 8350 gets trounced by the 920/750 in anything that uses 3 or fewer threads.
The point is that IPC is so ridiculously high on current CPUs (Intel much more so than AMD), that thread utilization just has not yet had any significant impact on performance once you get to a certain level.
thehypocrite
Member
That's not why they're corrupt. Check the ruling of the European Union competition authority.That's been the price of their Extreme Edition proc on the enthusiast platform since this division between sockets started.
Bummer that you'd avoid all purchases from a company based on that one thing
Most benchmarks and recommendations are based on FPS/Action games, but I am much more interested in next-gen RTS games a la the StarSwarm demo.
It seems like there is almost no data on these types of games. I would assume complex simulations and RTS games would be more CPU-bound though, no?
I would happily spend 1K on a CPU if I thought it would help me play RTS with 5K+ distinct units on the screen like in the StarSwarm demo.
It seems like there is almost no data on these types of games. I would assume complex simulations and RTS games would be more CPU-bound though, no?
I would happily spend 1K on a CPU if I thought it would help me play RTS with 5K+ distinct units on the screen like in the StarSwarm demo.
Unless there is a demo mode (Starcraft), it's really really really hard to benchmark RTS games due to the fact that there's a lot of factors outside the control of the person running the benchmark.
Like what?
It shouldnt be too hard to draw up two similar situations. Benchmarks should never be taken with 100% certainty anyways, so any minor differences in variables shouldnt detract from an overall 'trend' in performance between different configurations.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
These are badass. I'm jumping in.
Dawn of War II had one so I know it's possible to set a benchmark for an RTS game. For example, I have a 780, and I would think at some point some RTS games might be better served by me upgrading my CPU rather than my GPU. But it's pretty hard to find any data to support that, so it's mostly conjecture on my part.
They can be as corrupt as they want as long as they keep kicking AMD's ass.
Going from AMD to Intel has been of the best hardware decision I ever made.
Most RTS games require a build up to get to a certain point.
Play the same map 100 times, and due to AI, there will be a huge number of different outcomes.
I'd imagine you'd also want to test it when there's some fairly intense action going on in the game to get a real idea of performance, and again, to make sure you get to a fairly similar spot in the game 15+ minutes in means the typical 3-6 repeat per "run" could take 2+ hours. By the time that you run the different systems, you're looking at a ridiculous time investment with no guarantee of any consistency.
Play the same map 100 times, and due to AI, there will be a huge number of different outcomes.
I'd imagine you'd also want to test it when there's some fairly intense action going on in the game to get a real idea of performance, and again, to make sure you get to a fairly similar spot in the game 15+ minutes in means the typical 3-6 repeat per "run" could take 2+ hours. By the time that you run the different systems, you're looking at a ridiculous time investment with no guarantee of any consistency.
Prophet Steve
Member
Yeah, I just mean that I doubt optimizations for these amount of cores will be common. I get that you get both, and of course it will be beneficial, but I don't think it will be necessary for good performance and that things will rather remain at the status quo for some time with most titles. Very high profile games might be different, but I doubt it
This has use cases for people that require a lot higher framerates. But if you are going to be gaming at 60 FPS you are likely wasting money. Future proofing sounds kind of bollocks too as you'll probably save money if you just buy a CPU like that when you need it.
For most people this pretty much is a waste of money. Not even bad value for what you get, but just barely any benefit.
The resolution won't make a difference. But the 90Hz requirement may be something for which you could use a beefy CPU like this.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I think sticking with the 4770K will suit me just fine, though I don't know much on if there's any real benefit to going from 4 cores to 6 and all this other stuff as an amateur.
Definitely not going to touch the 8-core. Don't need to blow $3500 on a computer+desk right now.
Edit: I do not own a 4770K or a rig for that matter, but have been in the process of nailing down the logistics to get it together.
Definitely not going to touch the 8-core. Don't need to blow $3500 on a computer+desk right now.
Edit: I do not own a 4770K or a rig for that matter, but have been in the process of nailing down the logistics to get it together.
Well resolution matters because it still ultimately eats into my performance potential.
If I become GPU limited in a certain game, its better to just be GPU limited than be both GPU and CPU limited.
Bottlenecks don't work quite like that. They can exist on multiple parts at the same time, with different things in the game eating into the bottom line for various reasons. It's really engine dependent for the most part.
I do get what you're saying though. For high refresh rate gaming I absolutely 100% without a doubt recommend a high clocked processor. It's just that, in terms of what we've seen from engines in the past, and what we've been seeing so far, it doesn't seem likely that more cores is going to have any positive affect on gameplay compared to something like a 4790K which comes 4.4 GHz out of the box.
In terms of games that are currently out, there's no question that in the end it's all about high IPC. The Intel G3258 doing as well as it is on Cryengine is a testament to that.
Something that I didn't quite think about until now, is that UE4 is n-threaded. There is a UE4 benchmark available. Perhaps that'd be a great place to test this sort of thing. Could do a 4770K with HT disabled and at various speeds to see how it goes.
All that being said, if the 5820K kind of setup isn't that much more out of reach than a 4790K, then I will be the last one to disagree with that kind of purchase. Especially since I'll be doing it myself.
I probably worded that badly. I meant like in a hypothetical situation where I know I can get 90fps with my fancy CPU at 1080p, but going to 1440p might drop me to 60-70fps or whatever. But at least I know that 90fps is possible and I'm not CPU limited.
Yea, the price is what's making it really tempting.All that being said, if the 5820K kind of setup isn't that much more out of reach than a 4790K, then I will be the last one to disagree with that kind of purchase. Especially since I'll be doing it myself.
I probably wouldn't do it for a while and maybe it'll be Broadwell-E time by the time I get around to wanting do it, but I'm just glad to see they are becoming reasonable in price in the event I do think I want it.
Extremely excited to be putting together a new system on X99 with the 5930k. I only wish that Nvidia had their new cards ready at the same time - though it appears they'll be close behind. Going to take full advantage of those 40 lanes with SLI and a PCI-e SSD.
The upgrade will be glorious!
Currently running on AM2 with a 440 Rana and a 6970.
The upgrade will be glorious!
Mr. Wonderful
Member
That's what Intel keeps telling us, at least.
Really, if TSMC having 16nm ready this Spring for Apple is true, the ARM processors catching up might force them, at least on the low end.
This is now out in Australia.
Also some leaked benchmarks:
http://www.coolaler.com/showthread.php/318306-Haswell-E-%E6%B8%AC%E8%A9%A6%E6%90%B6%E5%85%88%E7%9C%8B-Gigabyte-X99-Gaming-G1-Wifi-5960X
Also some leaked benchmarks:
http://www.coolaler.com/showthread.php/318306-Haswell-E-%E6%B8%AC%E8%A9%A6%E6%90%B6%E5%85%88%E7%9C%8B-Gigabyte-X99-Gaming-G1-Wifi-5960X
I like the x5650 in that benchmark ; p
demosthenes
Member
What's that? I'm fine with being slightly behind cutting edge.
Shouldn't be an issue with SC2 arcade modding I dontt think, any bloke can whip up a low-startup consistent high-actor map.