Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Real-World Benchmarks

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

Content Creation

To be sure, Haswell-E is all about heavy lifting in content creation applications.

The flagship Core i7-5960X takes second place in our 3ds Max tests, but only because Intel’s Xeon E5-2687W v2 is an eight-core behemoth with a 3.4 GHz base frequency and 4 GHz peak clock rate. That processor sells for £1500—twice the -5960X. Shedding a couple of cores knocks the -5930K into third place, while the -5820K succumbs to Intel’s Core i7-4960X.

Next to all of that heavy metal, a £250 Core i7-4790K looks pretty darned good. There will be those times when a six-core -5820K for a few pounds more is even better, though.

Blender also rewards high core counts. Both eight-core models excel, and Core i7-5960X comes out on top (just barely) thanks to Haswell’s advantages over Ivy Bridge. The two six-core implementations of Haswell-E snag third and fourth place, employing architectural improvements to outpace Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E. The four-core Haswell design can’t keep up.

Sony’s video editing software gets some boost from our GeForce GTX Titan. And as promised on the previous page, folding OpenCL acceleration into the equation throws off our expectations. The outcome falls within a five-second range, but Haswell-E doesn’t start showing up until third place. More than anything, this tells us we’re limited by our GeForce GTX Titan. It’d take a much slower host processor to hurt the render time.

Adobe CC

The scaling in Premiere Pro isn’t as severe as, say, Blender. But the Xeon, with its eight cores and aggressive clock rate, still scores a first-place finish. Our other eight-core chip appears in fourth place, presumably due to its slower 3 GHz base frequency. Stepping up to the -5930K’s 3.5 GHz floor is enough for second place.

After Effects enjoys the Xeon’s tuned frequency, first, and Haswell-E’s efficient architecture, second. The other six-core CPUs pile in ahead of Core i7-4790K, corroborating evidence that this benchmark does benefit from parallelization.

As you no doubt already know, our Photoshop workload consists of two distinct metrics: one that uses well-threaded filters to tax host processors, and another laced with OpenCL acceleration. The former, in red, demonstrates the benefit of eight-core processors versus six-core models compared to a lone quad-core example. The latter is all over the place. The fact that Core i7-4790K is way in front suggests a few fast cores can feed Nvidia’s GeForce GTX Titan more effectively than wider CPUs operating at lower frequencies.

Productivity and Media Encoding

LAME and iTunes are our two single-threaded tests; both pummel the big eight-core -5960X for its relatively modest peak Turbo Boost bin. Core i7-5930K stretches up to 3.7 GHz, which is good enough for middle-of-the-pack finishes. But the Core i7-4790K hitting 4.4 GHz cannot be matched. Single-threaded software is so last decade, though.

Shifting gears to TotalCode Studio reminds us that the eight-core chips excel under the right conditions. And if you’re in the market for a £800 CPU, the applications important to you are probably the sort able to benefit from lots of cores…

…like Visual Studio, for example. Haswell-E takes three of the top four positions, interrupted only by the eight-core Xeon built on an Ivy Bridge foundation. If you’re compiling big projects, paying extra for a Core i7-5820K over a Core i7-4790K could save you enough time to justify the premium.

FineReader similarly shows off what an eight-core chip is capable of. The six-core models clump up together, while four cores don’t show as well in our OCR-based test.

HandBrake rounds out a collection of benchmarks capable of utilizing whatever processing resources you offer. The £800 Core i7-5960X matches the £1500 Xeon, both with eight cores. Haswell’s IPC-oriented advancements help carve out a victory over Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E at six cores. And the Core i7-4790K hangs in there thanks to the same modern architecture and a 4 GHz base clock rate.

Compression

Sorting by our CPU test, WinZip tells a similar story as most of the benchmarks preceding it: eight cores are fastest in a parallelized workload, six cores are also swell, and four execution cores appear quite mainstream.

WinRAR isn’t as damning. Its limited optimizations are more inclined to favor the Core i7-4790K’s high clock rate.

Meanwhile, 7-Zip breaks the tie. More so than we might have guessed at the outset of today’s review, a lower-clocked eight-core processor can flex its muscle in a collection of common software. You don’t necessarily need a specially-written engineering or financial analysis title to realize big gains.

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