Intel Haswell-E (X-99 chipset) processors reviews.

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,045
Location
The Sticks
Great, I get something from this decade and all of a sudden it's irrelevant again...

DDR4 releasing as I finally get something with DDR3? Coincidence? I think not.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,534
ZERO reason to go X99 and Haswell-E unless you actually have apps that can use 8c/16t, and/or you need more than 32GB RAM and/or you need 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes for your insane quad-titan gaming box and/or you have plenty of money and/or you need an ePeen boost.

And/or you are <cough> DD <cough> and need the latest/greatest. ;-)
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
Woop-dee-do another 6-20% speed increase over previous equivalent models (unless you have very specific needs) and with that you have to replace the MB, RAM, and cooling system which effectively kills the upgrade market. Without a competitive AMD there just isn't the imperative for Intel to produce significant improvement.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,534
Woop-dee-do another 6-20% speed increase over previous equivalent models (unless you have very specific needs) and with that you have to replace the MB, RAM, and cooling system which effectively kills the upgrade market. Without a competitive AMD there just isn't the imperative for Intel to produce significant improvement.
This. Most definitely.

The new Intel "consumer" chipsets/CPUs are nice, but barely a real improvement in the last 3 years.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I have a 3770k on my main desktop. I've had it for a couple years now. I haven't kept the same main desktop for more than a year since I was sedrosken's age.
I have a perfect excuse to buy a ridiculous new setup next month and I'm still trying to decide if I actually want to bother.

If there's one good thing about Intel's current focus, it's that we may very well have Atom-powered cell phones with desktop-equivalent GPUs that can run all day on a charge. If AMD isn't credible competition and zillions of ARM CPUs are, we're still winning, at least in the short term, if Intel is pouring billions of dollars into making creating the same absolute parity that exists between desktops and notebooks.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
I know there are many reasons to suggest it isn't worth the premium but I'm definitely interested in the X99 to replace my current setup.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,268
Location
USA
So am I. This 980X is getting old, especially the mainboard RAM and SATA limitations. I see that the octocore CPU is rated much lower than the hexacore, but is that really a limitation if the OC is not that much different? How much better is that Hasbro-E at the same speed (assuming it will reach 4.2) compared to the 980X I have? Mainly I want the 64GB RAM and SATA 3.0, but the CPU needs to be somewhat faster and more USB 3.0 ports would be nice.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
So am I. This 980X is getting old, especially the mainboard RAM and SATA limitations. I see that the octocore CPU is rated much lower than the hexacore, but is that really a limitation if the OC is not that much different? How much better is that Hasbro-E at the same speed (assuming it will reach 4.2) compared to the 980X I have? Mainly I want the 64GB RAM and SATA 3.0, but the CPU needs to be somewhat faster and more USB 3.0 ports would be nice.
The AnandTech link that snowhiker posted answers this specific question. To quote the article: "From Nehalem, we have a total 28% raise in clock-for-clock performance." They used the 990X, not the 980X...so it'll be even more than 28% if you jump to Haswell-E. It's still difficult to say if it's worth it in your case. It'll depend on many factors of your usage. You would be able to get to 64GB (even 128GB), SATA 3.0, PCIe 3.0 (40 lanes), and many USB 3.0 ports. The down side is it'll cost you a fortune (>$800) to put 64GB DDR4 in the system. AnandTech got to 4.4GHz OC on their sample but they noted a decent increase in power consumption.
 

Bozo

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 12, 2002
Messages
4,390
Location
Twilight Zone
So am I. This 980X is getting old, especially the mainboard RAM and SATA limitations. I see that the octocore CPU is rated much lower than the hexacore, but is that really a limitation if the OC is not that much different? How much better is that Hasbro-E at the same speed (assuming it will reach 4.2) compared to the 980X I have? Mainly I want the 64GB RAM and SATA 3.0, but the CPU needs to be somewhat faster and more USB 3.0 ports would be nice.
Good one!

Hasbro is a toy company. :-D
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
Good one!

Hasbro is a toy company. :-D
It becomes challenging to answer his posts seriously or even at all when he does stuff intentionally like that. Haswell doesn't even autocorrect remotely easily to hasbro on android. You have to type out almost the full word of hasbro to get there...
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Unless you've used/had the word Hasbro in many of your e-mails/texts in the past and use a learning keyboard (Swype or similar).
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Compare a modest i3-4360 to an i7 920. Progress has definitely been made, even if the subjective experience isn't that different most of the time.

I'm probably going to pull the trigger on a Haswell-E desktop soon. Broadwell is supposedly coming any day now, but it's a mobile-only design that won't have a DDR4 controller anyway. I probably don't need 16 cores, but I don't feel like waiting for Skylake. If I'm building another machine that I'd like to keep for three years, it makes sense to at least move up to the new standard for RAM, even if the CPU being paired with it isn't that exciting.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Tempted to go 5930 over 5960 for the higher clock speed. As Merc said, that is too many cores for a single user workstation. The number of programs that can use them all efficiently is vanishingly small. Even those that show load on all cores typically have some single-threaded process that bottlenecks the whole thing.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,268
Location
USA
Tempted to go 5930 over 5960 for the higher clock speed. As Merc said, that is too many cores for a single user workstation. The number of programs that can use them all efficiently is vanishingly small. Even those that show load on all cores typically have some single-threaded process that bottlenecks the whole thing.
Is the octocore CPU more difficult to O/C even at moderate loads?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
I don't know, haven't done the research. But the reasoning behind under-clocking the octocore (keeping TDP down) becomes even more of a concern once you start to O/C.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I'm looking at a 5820k, an Asus (sigh) X99-A, 16GB of DDR4 and probably a Crucial 500GB SSD, if I want to go the enthusiast route.
I could also get an E5-2620v3 and a SuperMicro board for probably $150 more. There aren't a lot of good X99 options generally, but I probably won't use any of the server feature set. The Gigabyte X99 boards seem to be... not well liked. I'm moderately tempted to look at the MicroATX EVGA board, if only because I know Asus service blows. EVGA is an unknown quantity that I associate with enthusiast BS, but at least with current products, that appears to be tastefully restrained.

I have no idea what to do about a video card. I definitely don't need a dual slot $500 monster card any more.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
I've not read great reviews on many of the first revision X99 motherboards which is part of the reason why I'm waiting until later this year or early next year for second revisions of the boards to come out. I also didn't want to go with an Asus board for various reasons and most of the gigabyte boards didn't really sell it for me. Hopefully the next revisions will be out soon enough.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Thanks! Just bid the following:

Workstation 1:

Intel Core i7-5930k (6-Core, 3.5GHz, Turbo to 3.7GHz)
32GB DDR4 (8GBx4)
NVidia Quadro 6000 (6GB RAM)
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 512GB
Corsair Obsidian 550D Quiet Mid-Tower
ASUS X99-A Motherboard
Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Quiet CPU Cooler
Corsair Professional 860W Modular Digital Platinum PSU
LG CD/DVD/BD reader/writer
Windows 8.1 x64 Pro OEM
Office 2013 Home & Business
AutoCAD LT 2015
ESET NOD32 Antivirus

Workstation 2:

Intel Core i7-5820k (6-Core, 3.3GHz, Turbo to 3.6GHz)
32GB DDR4 (8GBx4)
NVidia Quadro K2000D (2GB RAM)
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 512GB
Corsair Obsidian 550D Quiet Mid-Tower
ASUS X99-A Motherboard
Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Quiet CPU Cooler
Corsair Professional 860W Modular Digital Platinum PSU
LG CD/DVD/BD reader/writer
Windows 8.1 x64 Pro OEM
Office 2013 Home & Business
AutoCAD LT 2015
ESET NOD32 Antivirus

Network:

Synology DiskStation 5-Bay NAS (DS1513+)
5x WD40EFRX 4TB Drives (RAID-10 w/hot spare)
Cisco Compact 24-Port Gigabit Switch (SG102-24-NA)
At the moment the total for hardware & software is $10,922.55 including shipping and tax. Not bad considering the crazy power involved.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
Just curious why the Samsung 840 pro vs the 850 pro? Should be a great pair of workstations.
 

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,045
Location
The Sticks
The price tag made my eyes bleed, but that's what you pay when you live on the bleeding edge. Not that that's a bad thing, mind. If you've got the money, by all means use it.

Those two guys don't look like they'd take any crap from anything. Crysis? Pfft, child's play.

We get Office 2013 ProPlus for installation on up to five computers at once through the school while we're students there. I've been telling people to bother me about it before they bother the IT guys about putting Office on their computers. I know it's the IT department's job and that's what they're paid for, but from what I see when I walk in there they're busy enough as it is. It's so luxurious, and the interface is wonderfully basic. I think I'm finally getting the hang of those Ribbon toolbars, though I honestly prefer the Office 2003 interface.

Back on topic, how long do you think it'll take for the price of one of these bad boys to come down to Earth? I'm betting they won't think of lowering the price until the next generation's out.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
The computers are for the most part within the realm of reason for a high end workstation, but dd specified $2200 worth of graphics cards and $2200 worth of AutoCAD licenses. If you wanted to move in to a 5820k, 16GB machine, you'd probably be looking at $1200 to get something bare-bones with a crappy graphics card. The 5820k will probably do 98% of what the 5930k will and an extra 16GB RAM only matters if you actually need an extra 16GB RAM. Presumably, dd's customer needs that extra 2%.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
A high end desktop is definitely a huge luxury item. Save your pennies for a decent monitor first and if you want a desktop, maybe look at Sky Lake, the mainstream desktop platform coming next year. You'll probably wind up with 90% of the computer for 50% of the cost. :)
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
$1200 doesn't look too bad, actually. Might just have to start saving my pennies.
You might be better-served by an Intel 4790K on a stable Z97 motherboard rather than move to neutered 5820k hex-core LGA2011-v3 platform. Even though the 4770K sports two less cores, it'll do most of everything you'll want. Even if you choose to run lots of VMs, you'll run out of memory before your CPU becomes the bottleneck. Put the savings into a GTX980 or nicer monitor and play all the games you ever want at high resolutions. Add a second GPU later down the road and run reasonable 4K games.

It all depends on your wants/needs but I feel like anyone who wants to move into an X99 should at least go for the increased PCIe lanes (40 vs 28) of a 5930X or 5960X to make use of more GPUs or other adapters that use higher bandwidth. If you're building a really high-end workstation the price difference between a 5820K and a 5930X is mostly insignificant ($389.99 vs $569.99 @ newegg) given you can run multiple high-end workstation GPUs without having any PCIe limitations.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
Just curious why the Samsung 840 pro vs the 850 pro? Should be a great pair of workstations.
Parts from stock. Shouldn't make that much of a difference.

They ended up dropping "Workstation 2" on my recommendation, just putting the SSD in their existing machine and installing the new software to see if that is enough performance. Added a bunch of UPS for everything at their request, ended up around $9k.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
It all depends on your wants/needs but I feel like anyone who wants to move into an X99 should at least go for the increased PCIe lanes (40 vs 28)
I've never run a dual GPU setup for longer than it took to troubleshoot something, but double memory bandwidth is a good enough reason to pay the DDR4 premium over a comparable LGA1150 setup. Since I'm not folding and I don't need 4k@60Hz@120fps28xAA (and neither do the shitty console ports we'll be getting until 2019), I suspect any random $200 video card will probably be good enough to suit my needs for another three years. I don't want to wait an entire year for Skylake, and that's the next time we're going to see anything interesting happen in the world of desktop CPUs.
 

sedrosken

Allergic to Sunlight
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1,045
Location
The Sticks
Personally I don't see myself becoming a graphics snob. I worry more about running the game to begin with. I do however want to be able to use my computer and have it be relevant for more than four years after I purchase it. Sadly it seems that the only way to accomplish that is to go with flagship parts.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I think that as long as you have a mainstream CPU rather than one of the cut-down budget models, you're probably good for five+ years. A first-generation i3 is still completely viable today, for example.
 

Santilli

Hairy Aussie
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,077
Good stuff on memory DDR4:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1837908/ddr3-ddr4.html

Merc: from the above article, it doesn't seem that DDR 4 is anywhere near doubling band width, yet.

Any reason to go with some of the super fast DDR3 offerings?

Is there anyway to quantify 1600 vs. 2400 mhz DDR3?

I noticed the 5930K nearly triples cpu performance over my 940, but at the same power requirements.

Wonder if something like a 4770k, that uses half the energy, at around 70, vs. 140, but is twice as fast as the 940, would be a better option?

For DD's workstation I get the advantages of the new platform for the graphics stuff.

It appears that the initial offering of DDR4 memory will be slower latency wise, and not that much of an increase bandwidth wise, until
the companies start making faster DRAM.


At this point, it might be the perfect time to put together a i7 DDR3 machine, for cheap.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,097
Location
USA
Check out what Linus says on RAM speed. See video below.

I would aim for the 4790K vs the 4770K if you're going to build a system on socket 1150. You mine as well take advantage of Intel's revised TIM (Devil's Canyon) and additional internal capacitors over previous CPUs along with a slight bump in speed. It's not revolutionary or dramatically better but it could help. If you have a microcenter near you, you can usually get a good deal on the CPU at a much lower price than anywhere else for in-store only visits.

[video=youtube_share;dWgzA2C61z4]http://youtu.be/dWgzA2C61z4[/video]
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,534
Just curious why the Samsung 840 pro vs the 850 pro? Should be a great pair of workstations.
I instantly thought the same thing. The 850 is a bit faster but for business/professional use I would trust the more mature firmware of the 840 over the 850. I would have spec'd the 1TB drive though.

A high end desktop is definitely a huge luxury item. Save your pennies for a decent monitor first and if you want a desktop, maybe look at Sky Lake, the mainstream desktop platform coming next year. You'll probably wind up with 90% of the computer for 50% of the cost. :)
This. Although two things. 1) The "wait next year to get 90% for 50% cost" is a good idea, just don't do that MULTIPLE years in a row. I did that and missed out on a bunch of stuff and had a "crappy" computer for years. 2) The 3-4 months of "supper giddy," "ePeen," and "excitement," of dropping $1078 on a video card should be experienced once in your life, especially if you have never really had anything "super nice" in your life.

You might be better-served by an Intel 4790K on a stable Z97 motherboard rather than move to neutered 5820k hex-core LGA2011-v3 platform. Even though the 4770K sports two less cores, it'll do most of everything you'll want. Even if you choose to run lots of VMs, you'll run out of memory before your CPU becomes the bottleneck. Put the savings into a GTX980 or nicer monitor and play all the games you ever want at high resolutions. Add a second GPU later down the road and run reasonable 4K games.
Again this. Unless your software absolutely needs more than 32 GB RAM, and/or effectively uses more than 8 threads and/or you'll be running more than two high-end video cards you don't need X99 and would be better served by a 4790K.
 
Top