About that i7-4820K

• Theory 1: 6-cores, 6-threads, 12 MB LLC, full 48-lane PCIe root complex
• Theory 2: 6-core, 12-threads, 12 MB LLC, narrower 32-lane PCIe root complex

btarunrAbout that i7-4820K

• Theory 1: 6-cores, 6-threads, 12 MB LLC, full 48-lane PCIe root complex
• Theory 2: 6-core, 12-threads, 12 MB LLC, narrower 32-lane PCIe root complex

So far, all Core i7 introduced has hyper threading, so theory 2 seems more plausible.

And i just brought a 4790K lol, I think ill wait till the end of the year to upgrade to X99 or until i get the itch.

btarunrAbout that i7-4820K

• Theory 1: 6-cores, 6-threads, 12 MB LLC, full 48-lane PCIe root complex
• Theory 2: 6-core, 12-threads, 12 MB LLC, narrower 32-lane PCIe root complex

shouldn't it be 5820k due to 4820k already existing in the ivy bridge-e lineup ? also i read some spec leaks before and they suggested the second scenario with less pcie lanes

btarunrAbout that i7-4820K

• Theory 1: 6-cores, 6-threads, 12 MB LLC, full 48-lane PCIe root complex
• Theory 2: 6-core, 12-threads, 12 MB LLC, narrower 32-lane PCIe root complex

Do you have more recent information that conflicts your previous reporting or are you speculating? You've reported in the past that it has 24 or 28 PCIe lanes:

btarunrIt begins with the Core i7-5820K. This is a six-core chip, and a welcome departure from Intel's sub-$400 HEDT chips being quad-core. Whether it supports HyperThreading, is not known. You still get 6 physical cores to plow through work. The chip also features a staggering 15 MB of L3 cache, clock speed of 3.30 GHz with a couple of notches of Turbo Boost, and a quad-channel DDR4 integrated memory controller. Oh, and there's the unlocked BClk multiplier. Sounds too good to be true for a sub-$400 chip? Here's the catch - its on-die PCI-Express Gen 3.0 root complex will have fewer lanes. It can spare just 16 + 8 lanes for discrete graphics cards. For boards with three long x16 slots, that would mean x16/NC/x8, or x8/x8/x8, with an additional x4 link.]

I'd like to see some reviews just to see what the performance will be

entropicshouldn't it be 5820k due to 4820k already existing in the ivy bridge-e lineup ? also i read some spec leaks before and they suggested the second scenario with less pcie lanes

Agreed is that a mistype. I thought the 4820k already exists.

It's 5820k, 12 threads at 3.3 Ghz and 28 lanes.

btarunrAbout that i7-5820K

• Theory 1: 6-cores, 6-threads, 12 MB LLC, full 48-lane PCIe root complex
• Theory 2: 6-core, 12-threads, 12 MB LLC, narrower 32-lane PCIe root complex

I suspect that neither will be then case. I find it really hard to believe from a design perspective that they'll have CPUs with differing numbers of PCI-E lanes. That starts leaving unused pins on the CPU and opens the question to how will motherboards handle these fewer lanes? It's kind of a waste. I think I would rather have a 4c/8t CPU with a full compliment of PCI-E lanes like I do now.

...and for the people who disagree with me, I'll be looking for a 4930k when people start upgrading. :p

Well that's a conundrum. Get Haswell-E for DDR4 or wait for Skylake that supports DDR4. 2x8 GiB is $180 in DDR3 and $215 in DDR4--not a huge difference. X99 is obviously going to cost a lot more than the mainstream equivalents though. $350-450 is a bit more than I'd want to spend on a processor but hopefully it is closer to $300 to make up for the higher platform cost.

Skylake supposedly having eDRAM on chip is a huge benefit though, not to mention the fact it is a power sipper. It's a long ways out though.

I guess it depends on how important DDR4 is to me (or anyone for that matter).


I don't think there are any chips on 2011 that don't have hyperthreading. That's 1150/1155/1156.

I'll take a 5930k, Asus X99 ROG, and 16gb DDR4 3200MHZ...........Okay thanks.

Anyone know the TDP on these chips. I'd expect them to be a little lower, but can see them staying at 130w.

RoelIt's 5820k, 12 threads at 3.3 Ghz and 28 lanes.

This, I don't know how or why the news item is wrong, but this is the correct information

RCoonThis, I don't know how or why the news item is wrong, but this is the correct information

I would be very interested in knowing how you know that this is the "correct information." :)

The TDP is 140 watts

AquinusI suspect that neither will be then case. I find it really hard to believe from a design perspective that they'll have CPUs with differing numbers of PCI-E lanes. That starts leaving unused pins on the CPU and opens the question to how will motherboards handle these fewer lanes? It's kind of a waste. I think I would rather have a 4c/8t CPU with a full compliment of PCI-E lanes like I do now.

...and for the people who disagree with me, I'll be looking for a 4930k when people start upgrading. :p

I was under the impression that the specs were already confirmed for the base model being 6 core 12 thread with reduced PCIE lanes. But I had not payed much attention personally to that one because the middle ground was always my objective.

I agree though if that is the confirmed specs, I would rather see a 4 core 8 thread with the extra lanes than a 6 core 12 thread with the reduced lanes as one of the big reasons for the platform is the extra PCIE lanes in general.

Either way I cannot wait for this date as ill probably be ordering that day. Though its going to come down to the motherboard selection available because there are 2 particular motherboards I have had an interest in from the beginning. I hope one or both are there on day one but i'm not holding my breath so I may end up waiting a bit.

The Core base frequency was supposedly:

Core i7 5960X 3.0Ghz

Core i7 5930K 3.5Ghz

Core i7 5820K 3.3GHz

I'd really like to see the benchmarks on this. 3.0Ghz if correct seems a little low and I have to wonder if this was done due to the 8 cores requiring it.

Normally I would go for the 5930K but I like the specs on the 5820K if correct. 28 PCIe lanes is still more then you would get on a typical consumer level platform so while not as ideal as 40 lanes its still better.

OctaveanThe Core base frequency was supposedly:

Core i7 5960X 3.0Ghz

Core i7 5930K 3.5Ghz

Core i7 5820K 3.3GHz

I'd really like to see the benchmarks on this. 3.0Ghz if correct seems a little low and I have to wonder if this was done due to the 8 cores requiring it.

Normally I would go for the 5930K but I like the specs on the 5820K if correct. 28 PCIe lanes is still more then you would get on a typical consumer level platform so while not as ideal as 40 lanes its still better.

If the core clocks are that low for the higher model you can bet its because of the mix of Power Consumption, Heat Dissipation, and such with the extra 2 cores available. Normally that is not going to matter as since they are unlocked I would just hope for a 4.5ghz area for that chip or any in the platform.

FordGT90ConceptI don't think there are any chips on 2011 that don't have hyperthreading. That's 1150/1155/1156.

If you're talking about consumer CPU, sure. There are Xeons on skt2011 with 4 cores and no hyper threading though like the Xeon E5 2603 (and v2).

It's also important to note that there is the Xeon E5-4627 V2 that has 8 cores without hyper-threading as well, but these are Xeons.

I stand corrected. The Core lineup on LGA 1366 and 2011 has always had hyperthreading though. Those Xeons are targeting really, really budget servers--likely for running lots of PCI express cards for a database.

Wow the release date is a lot sooner then I thought... But Ima wait for the Skylake CPU's whenever they're coming out....

FordGT90ConceptI stand corrected. The Core lineup on LGA 1366 and 2011 has always had hyperthreading though. Those Xeons are targeting really, really budget servers--likely for running lots of PCI express cards for a database.

For the 4c parts yeah, I totally agree. The 4627 V2 is a special animal because unlike most skt2011 E5 Xeons, this one has 2 QPI links instead of one which opens the realm of quad-CPU configurations. It's also clocked pretty high considering 3.3Ghz base and 3.6Ghz boost on an 8c part.

I probably won't buy into the platform until mid to late October.

I'm guessing Microcenter will have the Core i7 5820K for a lower then typical price found elsewhere as they so often do with other such processors.

o_O


:fear:

AquinusI would be very interested in knowing how you know that this is the "correct information." :)

CPU Worlddon't usually post spurious processor information, and I'm pretty sure that Intel's product granularity calls for the 6C/12T 5820K to be natively 28 lanes ( 1 @ x16, 1@ x8, 1@ x4).

EzioAsSo far, all Core i7 introduced has hyper threading, so theory 2 seems more plausible.

1 of many significant differences between i5 and i7 is Hyper-threading. If you take out HT, an i7 wouldn't be much different from an i5 except for the additional cores, tdp, cache size, and clock-first derivatives. I'm simply saying if you have two cores with the same specs, but you gave HT to one of the two cores, the core with the HT would be called an i7 in Intel's eyes.

@ the threads in general,

i7 5960x would be a nice upgrade, but it's not worth it. Comparing it to what I have (i7 4960x Ivy-Bridge Extreme), you'd get two extra cores, 4 extra threads, and core clocks that still focus on single-thread performance instead of multi-thread performance, isn't worth it for my line of expertise. Two extra cores would help drop render times for Krakatoa and other CPU intensive software, but with a 3.00 GHz stock clock, probably looking at 4.0 Ghz OC at best (a little to generous) with massive temperature buildups, less support for PCIe lanes, and the possibility that DDR4 may have some kinks off the bat, I feel inclined to wait for the 2015 refresh or successor. Asking another $1,000+ price tag with an improved version coming out 3 months after (around Christmas time) isn't worth it. This reminds me of i7 3990k where if you had a good binned CPU, you can get nicely OC performance, but it didn't have stable 2500Mhz + mem frequencies and less than full support for PCIe 3.0. Like Pascual for NVidia, I'd rather wait to see what appears around New Years.