
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.
- 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
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...
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.