Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Synthetic Benchmarks

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

Our first benchmark chart is busy, so I’ll make the analysis easy. Those black bars represent graphics performance, which Futuremark deliberately biases to the GPU. Since that doesn’t change, most of the results appear similar. The red bar reflects 3DMark’s overall score. It’s affected by graphics and the rest of the platform. Any scaling seen there corresponds to larger differences in the blue bar, measuring CPU-based physics calculations.

Despite facing clock rate deficits, Intel’s eight-core processors dominate. They’re followed by the six-core chips, though Intel’s Core i7-4790K operates at high enough of a frequency to almost overtake the Core i7-5820K.

The benchmark suite we use features several OpenCL-accelerated metrics. And one observation we’ll make several times in today’s story is that a fast, heavily-threaded host processor doesn’t necessarily guarantee great results in a task emphasizing the GPU. Intel’s Core i7-4790K only features four physical cores. Yet, a blistering-fast base frequency catapults it to the top of our chart. All three Haswell-E-based processors appear near each other, but behind the Core i7-4960X.

The Fritz chess benchmark is perhaps a better indicator of parallel processing potential. Both eight-core CPUs appear out in front of the rest of the field. Four hexa-core Core i7s follow, trailed by Intel’s Haswell-refresh Core i7-4790K.

In addition to the previous three system-level synthetics, we also ran SiSoftware Sandra to better characterize different parts of each product. The Cryptography and Memory Bandwidth tests are two of my favorites.

AES-NI support allows all of these CPUs to tackle the Encryption/Decryption benchmark as fast as the memory subsystem sends instructions. Not surprisingly, the DDR4-equipped Core i7s are fastest, joined by an eight-core Ivy Bridge-EP-based Xeon E5. The Hashing routine is less consistent…unless you know what you’re looking for. CPUs employing Intel’s Haswell architecture allow for 256-bit integer operations through AVX2, and that’s where the doubling of performance comes from.

A more direct measurement of memory bandwidth aligns with each CPU’s top officially-supported data rate. In the case of the Haswell-E-based processors, that’s DDR4-2133. Xeon E5 hangs in with plenty of fast DDR3-1866, which is shared by Core i7-4960X. Dropping to Core i7-3970X pushes you to DDR3-1600, while the Core i7-4790K is at an inherent disadvantage with half as many memory channels.

Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 7 comments.
  • 1 Hide
    wireframed , 29 August 2014 18:24
    Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag. The review was nice, though.

    Personally, the 3DS and After Effects benchmarks were of most interest, since they are what I spend most of the CPU time on. (3DS in particular, right now I'm logging dozens of CPU hours a day on 3DS alone). It's pretty clear that unless the platform costs of Haswell-E are much higher than IB-E, going with the old won't make sense. The 5930k beats the 4960X. which is at least 50% more expensive.

    I've been waiting forever for an upgrade to my i7 930 based workstation, and I didn't feel like jumping on an IB-E a couple months before a brand-new HEDT platform is released.

    I had hoped Haswell-E would be a bit more impressive, but OTOH, investing in a DDR4 platform now might be a good idea, given my workstations typically have 3-4 years in them. At the very least, a drop-in upgrade to Broadwell-E would be nice to have as an option.

    Now to see how big a pounding I'll take in Denmark for X99/DDR4/Haswell-E... :o 
  • 0 Hide
    haider95 , 30 August 2014 17:56
    sweepstakes only for US users?
  • 0 Hide
    Robi_g , 30 August 2014 22:06
    Text on the competition PC says EVGA motherboard, but the picture has an ASrock one.
  • -1 Hide
    Robi_g , 30 August 2014 22:06
    Text on the competition PC says EVGA motherboard, but the picture has an ASrock one.
  • -1 Hide
    Robi_g , 30 August 2014 22:07
    Text on the competition PC says EVGA motherboard, but the picture has an ASrock one.
  • -1 Hide
    BigBadBeef , 2 September 2014 05:45
    I am an enthusiast and even I say "NO" to this marketet prototype. I will not participate as Intel's guinea pig.
  • 0 Hide
    LePhuronn , 4 September 2014 14:59
    Although I agree with the logic behind the "smart choice" at the end of this article, in the real world the PCI-E lane count for gaming is a moot point. X99 is NOT a gaming platform. It is a workstation and productivity platform. Regardless of how much you hobble your CPU, you're still paying £300 for the motherboard and £400 for comparatively paultry amounts of RAM, so the price of overall Haswell-E adoption is very high.

    Therefore anybody who's going to load up on GPUs enough to worry about PCI-E lanes will have sufficient money to drop in a 5960X on principle. Anybody who's adopting X99 for productivity purposes will not skimp on core count and also go 5960X, especially considering they're likely to go at least 32GB RAM and therefore shelling out a lot of money. Those producing on CUDA cards may not even go X99 at all because 1150 Haswell has more than enough power to run the software. Folders and CUDA Miners similarly will want all GPUs running at full tilt so will likely invest in the 5960X to get all the PCI-E lanes.

    So really, the only "smart choice" is 5960X or don't go X99 at all.
React To This Article