# Intel Core i7-5820K Features Fewer PCI-Express Lanes After All



## btarunr (Aug 21, 2014)

It turns out that our older report suggesting that the most affordable of Intel's new Core i7 "Haswell-E" HEDT processors will feature a slimmer PCI-Express root complex, even if it gives you 6 cores at a [hopefully] sub-$400 price-point, holds true, after all. Intel's wacky approach to its latest HEDT processor lineup was confirmed by leaked manuals of Gigabyte's socket LGA2011-3 motherboards, based on the Intel X99 Express chipset. The manual confirms that while Intel's $500-$750 Core i7-5930K and >$1,000 Core i7-4960X offer bigger 40-lane PCI-Express Gen 3.0 root complexes; the Core i7-5820K features a narrower 28-lane one. This means that multi-GPU configurations on systems running the chip won't be too different from those on LGA1150 "Haswell" platforms.

On motherboards with, say, three PCI-Express 3.0 x16 slots, the i7-5930K and i7-5960X will let you run two slots at full x16 bandwidth, and a third slot at x8. On systems with the i7-5820K, the second slot won't go beyond x8, and the third one will cap out at x4. On boards with four slots, one of them will run out of bandwidth. The trade-off for this narrower PCI-Express interface is the fact that you're getting six "Haswell" cores, twelve logical CPUs enabled with HyperThreading, about 12 MB of L3 cache, and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface, at a price-point not too far off from the Core i7-4790K. So for enthusiasts with no more than two high-end graphics cards, the i7-5820K could provide an attractive gateway option to Intel's new HEDT platform. You can find the leaked manuals in this thread.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 21, 2014)

So, the obvious route to take is to pair the cheaper CPU with a PLX 8747 bridge chip equipped board. The lane extender option is already used on selected X79 boards so I can't see mobo makers missing out on the obvious marketing opportunity with X99.


----------



## shb- (Aug 21, 2014)

This could be wrong, but i think three x8 slots (24 lanes) should be fine for triple sli/cf. After all, pci-ex v3 provides double bandwidth per line comparing to pci-ex v2 we all used not so long ago. So basically pci-ex v3 x8 slot is the same as v2 x16 slot.


----------



## jchambers2586 (Aug 21, 2014)

I will never buy a E platform Intel screws these users over the worst.  Going to start using WS boards from ASUS if I need more PCIE lanes.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 21, 2014)

shb- said:


> This could be wrong, but i think three x8 slots (24 lanes) should be fine for triple sli/cf. After all, pci-ex v3 provides double bandwidth per line comparing to pci-ex v2 we all used not so long ago. So basically pci-ex v3 x8 slot is the same as v2 x16 slot.


The lane assignments would be OK for CrossfireX, but Nvidia require a minimum of 8 lanes per card for SLI. As the article states, the slot assignments are 1 @ x16, 1@ x8, 1 @ x4 , so the only way to circumvent the lane restriction for the 5820K- not just for triple cards but to remove limitations for I/O and storage options is to use lane extenders as many current enthusiast and workstation class boards do.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 21, 2014)

This is money milking again...

Monopoly remains monopoly....


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 21, 2014)

Slow clap for Intel....


We've discussed this ad nauseam with the socket 2011 offerings, Intel offers PCI-e lanes to make up for not having some features baked in.  Yet here, Intel has decided to eject extra lanes in favor of more cores at a comparable price.  I don't get it.

Intel sold the 3820 and 4820 as being part of an HEDT platform, with actual core counts mirroring high end mainstream offerings.  That wasn't great, but it gave you a reason to differentiate between an enthusiast platform and the mainstream.  Now Intel muddies the water with the bastard child somewhere between the two.  Extra processor cores are great, assuming you can use them.  If you need extra cores, you're running highly threaded applications.  A sizeable chunk of highly threaded applications can utilize GPUs to process data, so more PCI-e benefits them (in a multi-GPU setup).

The only reason I can see the 5820 existing is for VM servers.  A couple of extra cores chugging along would be a much needed boost to capacity.  Otherwise, Intel has carved out the expensive part of the HEDT platform, in order to offer cores that functionally will be on the die no matter what.  I can't see this as a good thing.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 21, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Slow clap for Intel....
> Yet here, Intel has decided to eject extra lanes in favor of more cores at a comparable price.  I don't get it.



I strongly believe all lanes are present there, just disabled for better yield. Maybe some unexpected errata.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 21, 2014)

5930K, 5960X on the posted Gigabyte boards:

P1: x16 (x8 when P4 is populated)
P2: x16
P3: x8
P4: x8 (when populated)


Now with the 5820, it turns out to be:

P1: x16 (x8 when P4 is populated)
P2: x8
P3: x4
P4: x8 (when popluated)


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Aug 21, 2014)

Doesn't seem like a big deal. That means that you can run up to triple card setups at x8/x8/x8, and have 4 lanes for storage and other uses. I'd much rather have the 2 extra cores compared to the i7-4820K than extra PCI-E lanes.


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 21, 2014)

Not a deal breaker for dual-card runners. Barely a deal breaker for those who run 3 cards.
I'm totally ok with this, and if this is what needs to be dont to have a 6-core under 450$, than bring it on.


----------



## sumludus (Aug 21, 2014)

I remember an interview J.J. had on the WAN show a few months back where he talked about how ASUS R&D had put together some designs for an X79 Mini-ITX motherboard, but since he was discussing them openly it could be assumed that it would never see the light of day. However, now with a new X99 chipset to look forward to, and the entry chip having a cut down PCI lane allotment , we might be close to seeing an ITX HEDT. Since we haven't seen anything leaked about it yet, it almost certainly wouldn't be available at launch. But it might be something to keep an eye out for come CES, CeBIT, or even waiting as long as Computex.


----------



## techy1 (Aug 21, 2014)

not deal breaker for me either (I am gonna take mATX  anyway).. but CPU wise - is there any difference between i7-5820K and i7-5930K? if not - then it is no brainer - 90% of X99 users should take 5820k unless they are really gonna use triple GPU config. I know that 90% of PC users think something like this: "eventually - I might get triple GPU, so I need my system to be time proof....  more lines you say?  here, take my money!" , but lets face it - that "eventually" will never come.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 21, 2014)

So it was just confirmed now...Well this has made this chip all the more interesting because its market is going to have a wild card chip that fits a different niche area the previous X820/k models filled.  Its now a "budget" 6 core chip for people wanting more CPU power but only run 1-2 cards (Even though 3 is possible) which will now fill a different need for people.

I think more people would have preferred a 4 core 8 thread variant with the same PCIE lanes as the other top models, however what they essentially did is make an 1150 style chip with 6 cores for those running the standard gaming rig (Or workstation) who do not care. 

We will just have to see who bites on this chip, but I would have been more satisfied seeing another Quad core model than this chip.  But I am not the one who is targeted for this chip as I want the lanes and the 6 cores (Well I would love the 8 cores but w/e).


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Aug 21, 2014)

> The trade-off for this narrower PCI-Express interface is the fact that you're getting six "Haswell" cores, twelve logical CPUs enabled with HyperThreading, about 12 MB of L3 cache, and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface, at a price-point not too far off from the Core i7-4790K.




Excepting for the price premium of DDR4 and buying four modules minimum, of course.  That's a premium on top of the premium on the motherboard on top of the premium of the hexacore CPU over the mainstream high end CPU.

So really, the price point will be vastly different.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 21, 2014)

If it truly is a sub-$400 Hex-Core, I'm ok with the slimmed down PCI-E lanes.  It is still enough for x8/x8/x8.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 21, 2014)

This is utter "High End" garbage from Intel.

How is a upcoming 5820k/X99 combination any better than a current 4790k/Z97?

Throwing out the six/four core argument out the window.

It's going to be slower stock/oc cpu speed, limited to expensive DDR4 only, and more expensive by at least $100.00.

Intel is just killing their HEDT platform sales.


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 21, 2014)

^I'm so disagreeing with that my mind hurts.

5820K is a brilliant chip if it is what we think it is. 400$ 6-core, K-CPU (soldered lid). For me, it's better than 4790K in every way possible.

Intel is reviving their HEDT platform with a more affordable 6-core CPU. Yes, DDR4 prices will be high at launch, like every DDR before.

I wan't to see what enthusaist won't upgrade his 4790K Z97 to a 6-core chip 5820K + X99 for about 200$. Sure i would.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 21, 2014)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> ^I'm so disagreeing with that my mind hurts.
> 
> 5820K is a brilliant chip if it is what we think it is. 400$ 6-core, K-CPU (soldered lid). For me, it's better than 4790K in every way possible.
> 
> ...




You say HEDT is being revived by Intel, from being what?  Expensive?  New features being released before the mainstream platforms>? 

I don't think it is, at least for gaming enthusiasts.  The platform is many things for many users, but speed and overclocking isn't one of them.


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 21, 2014)

It's very simple. I want a 6-core overclockable CPU.
I don't want to pay 600$ for one, hence getting one for 400$ is good. "low-end" X99 would not be as expensive as X79 ones were.

You say many things about the platform (witch im preparing for a review atm) without having any experience with this CPU.
It has speed (both CPU and memory) and definitely overclocking. I don't know how you reached those conclusions.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 21, 2014)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> It's very simple. I want a 6-core overclockable CPU.
> I don't want to pay 600$ for one, hence getting one for 400$ is good. "low-end" X99 would not be as expensive as X79 ones were.
> 
> You say many things about the platform (witch im preparing for a review atm) without having any experience with this CPU.
> It has speed (both CPU and memory) and definitely overclocking. I don't know how you reached those conclusions.



Congrats on purchasing a six-core when it comes out.

But for gaming you may be losing fps by going that route.  The last two low end hedt processors 4820k/3820 have been weaker compared to the high end mainstream 4770k/3770k.  I don't see Intel reversing the trend especially with the 4790k just arriving recently.


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 21, 2014)

Not purchasing anything, i review hardware for a living. 

4 cores is 4 cores and 6 cores is 6 cores.


----------



## Maban (Aug 21, 2014)

Why do people insist on arguing about this sort of thing? Some people need HEDT, some don't. Some people need HEDT with 40 lanes. Some need HEDT with 28 or fewer lanes. Some people need ~4790K with a PEX8747. This is exactly why there is such a thing as market segments. To argue over every decision a company makes is rather childish.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 21, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Congrats on purchasing a six-core when it comes out.
> 
> But for gaming you may be losing fps by going that route.  The last two low end hedt processors 4820k/3820 have been weaker compared to the high end mainstream 4770k/3770k.  I don't see Intel reversing the trend especially with the 4790k just arriving recently.



Your logic is flawed. The 3820 came out before the 3770k and was a sandy chip. The 4820k is more analogous to the 3770k where the 3820 is better compared against the 2600k or 2700k. Generally speaking the 3820 performed as good or better than it's Sandy equivalent. The only real difference is that it didn't clock as high.

Either way, I still think I would have preferred a quad-core with it's PCI-E root complex intact. Most of the advantage skt2011 has over its mainstream counterparts is it's PCI-E lanes. 6 cores really isn't going to change your gaming experience, even more so when it's shown that as resolutions increase, the amount of CPU power to maintain the same frame rate is less because the GPUs are doing more. So if you're driving 4K displays or surround/eyefinity, I really would imagine that you want those PCI-E lanes. That's me though. I don't plan on divorcing skt2011 any time soon. I really don't think that (other than more cores,) upgrading would get me anything more than just getting a 4930k on the cheap from someone who is upgrading.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 21, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Congrats on purchasing a six-core when it comes out.
> 
> But for gaming you may be losing fps by going that route.  The last two low end hedt processors 4820k/3820 have been weaker compared to the high end mainstream 4770k/3770k.  I don't see Intel reversing the trend especially with the 4790k just arriving recently.


But that is because they were different architectures from the chips that had come out at that time.  The 3820 was Sandy-Bridge so even though the 3770K ivy-bridge was out it was on a slightly dated chip architecture and like that the 4820K was Ivy-Bridge while the 4770K was Haswell.  The 4820K is also a very good overclocker and was able to beat the 3770K mostly in the range of temps being stable (Plus I saw more chips hitting 4.8Ghz+ than on the 3770K).

The fact is this chip is for people gaming and using a workstation with things like video editing that benefit from the extra cores.  It will overclock about as well as Haswell does especially in temps range due to the soldered heatsink and has enough lanes for most peoples setups (2-3 GPU's).  Now I personally think the chip is going to be a different niche product this round than it was previously with the changes but its got another area its filling this round.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 21, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Your logic is flawed. The 3820 came out before the 3770k and was a sandy chip. The 4820k is more analogous to the 3770k where the 3820 is better compared against the 2600k or 2700k. Generally speaking the 3820 performed as good or better than it's Sandy equivalent. The only real difference is that it didn't clock as high.
> 
> Either way, I still think I would have preferred a quad-core with it's PCI-E root complex intact. Most of the advantage skt2011 has over its mainstream counterparts is it's PCI-E lanes. 6 cores really isn't going to change your gaming experience, even more so when it's shown that as resolutions increase, the amount of CPU power to maintain the same frame rate is less because the GPUs are doing more. So if you're driving 4K displays or surround/eyefinity, I really would imagine that you want those PCI-E lanes. That's me though. I don't plan on divorcing skt2011 any time soon. I really don't think that (other than more cores,) upgrading would get me anything more than just getting a 4930k on the cheap from someone who is upgrading.



I agree that hedt's advantage over the mainstream has always been extra pci-e lanes, but Intel creating a niche within the platform is baffling. 

Strictly for gaming and overclocking, the 5820k seems like it will be a dud.  I'd like to be pleasantly surprised but I see Intel shafting the hedt adopters.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 21, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> This is utter "High End" garbage from Intel.
> 
> How is a upcoming 5820k/X99 combination any better than a current 4790k/Z97?
> 
> ...



So you argument is, if we throw out what makes it better, it isn't better.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.</sarcasm>

The fact of the matter is, if you don't actually need 6 cores, there has been little reason at all to use 2011.  What did the inexpensive 2011 options offer before?  Well, not even extra cores, because anything sub-$400 was a quad-core.  The extra PCI-E lanes had almost no benefit to most HEDT users.  Sure, you can run dual-SLI/CF with x16/x16, but that has no performance advantage over x8/x8.  You can run triple-SLI/CF in x16/x16/x8, but again that has no real performance advantage over x8/x8/x8.  The real advantage of 2011(and 1366) is the extra cores.  If you aren't buying them for the extra processing power of the extra cores, then you are wasting your money.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 21, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> So you argument is, if we throw out what makes it better, it isn't better.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.</sarcasm>
> 
> The fact of the matter is, if you don't actually need 6 cores, there has been little reason at all to use 2011.  What did the inexpensive 2011 options offer before?  Well, not even extra cores, because anything sub-$400 was a quad-core.  The extra PCI-E lanes had almost no benefit to most HEDT users.  Sure, you can run dual-SLI/CF with x16/x16, but that has no performance advantage over x8/x8.  You can run triple-SLI/CF in x16/x16/x8, but again that has no real performance advantage over x8/x8/x8.  The real advantage of 2011(and 1366) is the extra cores.  If you aren't buying them for the extra processing power of the extra cores, then you are wasting your money.



My argument is that Intel is screwing the customer [on the x99 platform] who is on the fence between the top tier mainstream processor and the low tier hedt processor.   Intel's hedt isn't "high end" for gaming and overclocking anymore.  Who wants to pay more money for less lanes>?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 22, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> My argument is that Intel is screwing the customer [on the x99 platform] who is on the fence between the top tier mainstream processor and the low tier hedt processor.


Isn't that obvious? The previous 3820K/4820K pretty much gutted sales of the two SKU's (each) above them because there wasn't enough differentiation in feature set. Intel certainly knows market segmentation, so while it's sad, it shouldn't be anything less than expected.


Hilux SSRG said:


> Intel's hedt isn't "high end" for gaming and overclocking anymore.


That's been the case since HEDT lagged behind the mainstream platforms in architecture- hardly news, but then HEDT isn't primarily about gaming in any case (unless you count tri/quad graphics cards), it's about getting a balance between the mainstream feature set and workstation connectivity and features. I know of a couple of people who purchased X79 almost solely for the 64GB max memory support so they could run intensive software straight from RAMdisk - no doubt many other people paid a premium for the flexibility of the platform even with its downsides.


----------



## xenocide (Aug 22, 2014)

As long as it has at least 16 PCI-e lanes I'm fine with it.  A 6-Core CPU for ~$400 definitely intrigues me.  DDR4 prices will be ridiculous for the first few months, but the dust will clear.  I'm pretty adament about using single GPU setups sicne multi-GPU has always caused nothing but headaches so being able to have only one is a non-factor.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 22, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> My argument is that Intel is screwing the customer [on the x99 platform] who is on the fence between the top tier mainstream processor and the low tier hedt processor.   Intel's hedt isn't "high end" for gaming and overclocking anymore.  Who wants to pay more money for less lanes>?



There has always been a blurred line between the HEDT platform and the Performance platform.  As I said before, in previous generations, the budget processor in the HEDT platform was still a quad-core.  And the argument was generally that it offered almost nothing, performance wise, over the similarly priced(or cheaper) highest processor in the performance platform.  It offered extra PCI-E lanes, but those were largely useless.  You had Triple/Quad-Channel memory, but again that led to next to no performance gain when paired with the quad-core processor.

Oh, and pay attention slick, you aren't paying more for less lanes.  The 5820K still has significantly more lanes than the Performance platform.  In fact it is offering a 75% increase in the number of PCI-E lanes over standard Haswell.  So stop trying to be over dramatic.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 22, 2014)

The entry level Haswell-E Core i7 5820K with only 28 lanes still has more PCIe lanes then any main stream Haswell processor. 

So its a compromise with respect to 40 lanes but the entry level HEDT has always been a compromise in some way.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 22, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Oh, and pay attention slick, you aren't paying more for less lanes.  The 5820K still has significantly more lanes than the Performance platform.  In fact it is offering a 75% increase in the number of PCI-E lanes over standard Haswell.  So stop trying to be over dramatic.



Where did that math come from? The mainstream lineup has 20 PCI-E lanes and the 5820k is supposed to have 28. How is 20 going to 28 PCI-E lanes a 75% increase again? That's a 40% increase "slick".


----------



## springs113 (Aug 22, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Where did that math come from? The mainstream lineup has 20 PCI-E lanes and the 5820k is supposed to have 28. How is 20 going to 28 PCI-E lanes a 75% increase again? That's a 40% increase "slick".


Definitely right it's not a 75% increase, that would be 35 and not 28.  I am definitely  intrigued by this platform and this processor as I am probably going back to MSI and this processor.  With either 2 new 290s/xs or another 780 or 2 880s.  I could go higher but I think this is enough for me.  I am just entering back into editing foray.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 22, 2014)

The entry level Haswell-E Core i7 5820K with only 28 lanes still has more PCIe lanes then any main stream Haswell processor. 

So its a compromise with respect to 40 lanes but the entry level HEDT has always been a compromise in some way.


----------



## vega22 (Aug 22, 2014)

i love you guys 

all bitching over which way intel is really fucking us all :lol:

it matters not, we still get fucked!


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 22, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> i love you guys
> 
> all bitching over which way intel is really fucking us all :lol:
> 
> it matters not, we still get fucked!


Does that mean that either of you don't feel the money you spent on your computer was worth it? I don't know about everyone else, but I'm still perfectly content with my 3820 and I definitely don't feel my money was wasted or that I was screwed in the process. Overall progress might be screwed, but I don't think my purchase from several years ago was.


----------



## Maban (Aug 22, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Where did that math come from? The mainstream lineup has 20 PCI-E lanes and the 5820k is supposed to have 28. How is 20 going to 28 PCI-E lanes a 75% increase again? That's a 40% increase "slick".


Only the Xeon 1150/1155 processors have access to the full 20 lanes. Consumer 1150/1155 processors have only 16. So 16 to 28 is a 75% increase.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 22, 2014)

Its an interesting decision in the end but it will of course come down to the price.  With what I have heard/guessed if it stays sub 400 its going to be an excellent deal for a 6 core processor considering the fact the Quad i7 is > 300 along with the more robust features even with the slightly gimped PCIE lanes (Over the general E series chips).

In the end personally I would prefer the Quad variant with all the lanes if I was choosing this chip.  But I can definitely see where they are placing this chip and it makes alot of sense in all honesty.

I will still be on the middle ground one in the end (The 5930K, but thats because I want it all).


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 22, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Where did that math come from? The mainstream lineup has 20 PCI-E lanes and the 5820k is supposed to have 28. How is 20 going to 28 PCI-E lanes a 75% increase again? That's a 40% increase "slick".



That math came from actually knowing what I was talking about.  Performance desktop haswells only have 16 lanes.

28-16=12
12/16=.75

That's a 75% increase.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Aug 22, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> There has always been a blurred line between the HEDT platform and the Performance platform.  As I said before, in previous generations, the budget processor in the HEDT platform was still a quad-core.  And the argument was generally that it offered almost nothing, performance wise, over the similarly priced(or cheaper) highest processor in the performance platform.  It offered extra PCI-E lanes, but those were largely useless.  You had Triple/Quad-Channel memory, but again that led to next to no performance gain when paired with the quad-core processor.
> 
> Oh, and pay attention slick, you aren't paying more for less lanes.  The 5820K still has significantly more lanes than the Performance platform.  In fact it is offering a 75% increase in the number of PCI-E lanes over standard Haswell.  So stop trying to be over dramatic.



Pay attention buckaroo, the upcoming HEDT platform has 28 lanes for 5820k and 40 lanes for 5930k and 5960x.

x58 - 36 pci-e lanes
x79 - 40 pci-e lanes
x99 - 28 pci-e lanes or 40 pci-e lanes

Getting charged more for less lanes [on the entry level] and a presumably low clocked six-core sucks plain and simple.  Can't wait to see if Skylake brings a six-core to the mainstream, it won't arrive for desktop Broadwell.


----------



## Maban (Aug 22, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Pay attention buckaroo, the upcoming HEDT platform has 28 lanes for 5820k and 40 lanes for 5930k and 5960x.
> 
> x58 - 36 pci-e lanes
> x79 - 40 pci-e lanes
> ...


I don't understand. Getting charged more for less? First of all the prices haven't even been announced yet. Second, what's less that you are being charged more for? Haswell-E appears to have more of everything over Haswell, save for USB3 (4 native vs 6 native IIRC).


----------



## Octavean (Aug 22, 2014)

When the Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3820 was released and became officially available via retail it was about ~$300 USD.  I therefore have some expectation that the entry level Haswell-E 6 core 12 thread option should be around the same quasi ~$300 USD,...especially so from Microcenter and the like.

I think most people who seriously take issue with the decisions that Intel has made here with the HEDT line never actually bought into the Sandy Bridge-E / Ivy Bridge-E LGA2011 platform and aren't actually candidates for such a platform to begin with.

I'll also point out though that there is room to recant. Intel can refresh the platform later with a full 40 PCIe lane part with 4 cores 8 threads at the same price. 

Some people would probably still complain about that one too though.

As I said before the entry level HEDT option is and always has been a compromise.  The mid range is a different kind of compromise as well because the previouse mid level options all had the same number of cores / threads as the extreme option.  The extreme option is more or less a no compromise option ( other then compromising on paying top dollar).

Also no one is forcing you to buy a quad channel DDR4 $$$ kit with Haswell-E.  If I buy into the platform I'll probably only buy a single 4GB or 8GB 2133 DDR4 DIMM to start off with while I phase in the system. I'll buy more RAM later as needed or due to declining prices

I probably paid something like ~$40 or ~$50 for my first DDR3 DIMM which I had before the release of the first Core i7 platform.  I used that RAM initially with a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (not expecting any performance gains over DDR2) and then I used the same DIMM later with a Core i7 920 system (when released).  Since the RAM is still in use I still consider it money well spent.


----------



## TheHunter (Aug 22, 2014)

4.6ghz will be the limit for sure, and you know how Haswell acts at 4.4 -4.6ghz.. I'll just stick with my 4770k its as fast as DC clock for clock, if not faster most of the time cause of higher cache and tighter faster ram.


Imo Skylake-e 8core  for mainstream 5820K price or bust - what with X179? chipset 

Z170 is for LGA1151
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 22, 2014)

I'm looking at this from a realistic perspective, because that's all I've got.  From that perspective, there are three things to consider.

1) Most games use significantly less than 4 cores effectively.  That's if they even use multiple cores well when they are doing threaded loads.
2) Most games aren't CPU bound once you get to higher resolutions.  Gamers aren't pushing for huge leaps in computational accuracy, they're pushing for huge leaps in graphics hardware to sate 4K monitors.
3) Haswell-e is functionally supposed to be an enthusiast level platform.  Enthusiasts aren't all gamers, and the converse is true.  

Based upon this logic, SB-e and IB-E are successes.  They took their mainstream offerings, and added more of everything.  If I needed a RAID card, I could pop one in.  If I needed to pump out audio I had plenty of extra PCI-e lanes to do it.  What I wanted from my computer was everything, and I could do it.  It sucked that that functionality wasn't built-in, but when I wanted something I didn't have to compromise anything. 

SB, IB, and Haswell mainstream boards fit their niche as well too.  I might not have all the flexibility an enthusiast demands (and pays for), but I can do one task very well.  


In steps Haswell-e's base offering.  This is a bastardization.  You've got less flexibility than the other Haswell-e options.  What you receive in trade is more cores.  I don't get it.  More cores don't help the majority of games, if they did socket 2011 would have been used by more gamers.  More cores do help compiling and video editing, but after you get two GPUs, a decent NIC, and a couple of other expansion cards (audio and USB3 or firewire), you're out of room.  You can't fit a second NIC (think rendering farm), a RAID controller, and this is assuming that your GPU doesn't cover one or more of the PCI-e slots (unlikely at best with a double wide GPU).


You've given up a truly flexible rig for something with useless cores.  That is why I think the 5820 is a poorly aimed CPU.  You can argue semantics about how games are going to be threaded better soon, but Haswell is already having its threaded instruction sets pruned down.  I guess show stopping known glitches will do that.  Call me cynical and judgmental, but Intel seems to be polishing a turd here.  Whatever bad mouthing there is for SB-e and IB-e, they were targeted at their niches well.  

The 5820k is aiming at being a better overall platform than the 4790k (more cores, more PCI-e, and a bunch of new features).  Intel won't cannibalize their 4790k sales, so the 5820k isn't going to be coming in at the $300 price point.  Intel isn't that kind of stupid.  I'm waiting for Intel to say the price point here is about $400-500.  That means you've got the 4790 at $300, the 5820 and $400-500, and the 5930 at $600.  Intel is going to differentiate the mainstream offerings from the enthusiast platform, and justify it with more cores.  It's not putting forward the effort to make the differentiation between products better, it's making more shades of grey out of a relatively poorly defined black and white spectra which continues to shrink every generation.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 23, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm looking at this from a realistic perspective, because that's all I've got.  From that perspective, there are three things to consider.
> 
> 1) Most games use significantly less than 4 cores effectively.  That's if they even use multiple cores well when they are doing threaded loads.
> 2) Most games aren't CPU bound once you get to higher resolutions.  Gamers aren't pushing for huge leaps in computational accuracy, they're pushing for huge leaps in graphics hardware to sate 4K monitors.
> ...



You make some very good points,......

However, I kind of consider the 4790k a little like the 2700k.  A little tardy to the part and not very relevant with respect to its predecessor the 2600k.


Pricing and positioning will be known soon enough but history is the best indication of the future IMO which suggests ~$300. However, you very well could be right and ~$400+ could be more accurate.

I don't see it as a deal breaker either way but ~$400+ is close to the ~$500 I spent on my Core i7 3930K.  Going up to ~$400+ on the entry level suggest going up on the other two offerings in the lineup as we'll.

It's a crowded market and intel is only competing with themselves. 

There was a reason the 3820 and 4820k were priced at ~$300 USD and I don't see what has changed in with respect to the 5820k.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 23, 2014)

Octavean said:


> You make some very good points,......
> 
> However, I kind of consider the 4790k a little like the 2700k.  A little tardy to the part and not very relevant with respect to its predecessor the 2600k.
> 
> ...




Allow me a counter to you point.  In both of these cases Intel had moved the balls around to make sure they did not compete with themselves.  

SB-e came to the party very late, and the 3820 was a locked chip.  You had an unlocked chip competing with a locked one.  The feature set distinction was clear.  At price point $300 you got either a locked or unlocked quad core.  If you settled with the locked chip you got a boat load of PCI-e.  The markets were very clear, and the similar price point wasn't a deal breaker.

IB versus SB-e only increased the divide.  That $300 still bought flexibility, or more speed.

IB versus IB-e is a repeat of SB versus BS-e, as Haswell versus IB-e is basically the same as SB-e versus IB.

Now welcome to Haswell.  The differentiation is an unproven DDR, less PCI-e lanes than other Haswell-e offerings, but a couple of extra cores.  Exactly how does that makes sense to put in place versus a similarly priced Haswell chip?  


I'd put money on the assertion that if Broadwell released on time there'd be no discussion on this front.  A 10% increase in IPC would have been enough improvement for Intel to have a 4 core Broadwell versus a 4 core Haswell-e.  Instead, Broadwell development has stagnated and produced a true loggerhead.  The enthusiast platform has caught up to the mainstream, so it isn't a previous architecture competing with a new one.  Direct competition and Intel have been out of sync for nearly three years, so Intel is differentiating products by compromising features.  They design two high end chips, disable chunks to make a range of products, and strategically try not to let the MSRPs overlap.  Great for business, chip yield, and binning.  Poor for consumers.  

I'll put it a simpler way.  You've got $500 for a system.  Would you pay for six cores and new features, or four of the same cores and less features.  This is why Intel would be peeing on their own feet if a 5820k was priced the same as a 4790k.  It doesn't take a genius to see that, and Intel isn't a company of idiots.  They'll artificially segment the market before competing with themselves.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2014)

Loving this discussion, oh so pertinent to what I'm working on right now. 

Subb'd. ROFL.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 23, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Allow me a counter to you point.  In both of these cases Intel had moved the balls around to make sure they did not compete with themselves.
> 
> SB-e came to the party very late, and the 3820 was a locked chip.  You had an unlocked chip competing with a locked one.  The feature set distinction was clear.  At price point $300 you got either a locked or unlocked quad core.  If you settled with the locked chip you got a boat load of PCI-e.  The markets were very clear, and the similar price point wasn't a deal breaker.
> 
> ...



That is definitely one way of looking at it.  However, another way of looking at is  as follows:

The entry level quad core Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3820 was locked (or partially locked as some have referred to it) and its successor the entry level quad core Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 4820K was unlocked and deserving of the "k" designation. Finally the 6 core Haswell-E 5820K will presumably also be deserving of the "k" nomenclature.

Each entry level part had a slightly different approach and could just as easily been the result of experimentation and uncertainty.

The Core i7 3820 was delayed and thus not released with the 3930K / 3960X.  It also had a slightly different core design but my initial impression was that Intel was trying to decide how to best gimp the ~$300 product.


As for competing with ones self, if there is no competition from another company in this segment of the market then Intel is indeed competing with themselves.  Beyond that point, the market is IMO a bit crowded and it's crowded with Intel parts.  Perhaps Intel will discontinue some additional processors or sort it out some other way.  Or perhaps they will simply allow some overlap in pricing, we will see but it only really matters to those willing to pony up for it,....to all else it's purely academic.

Also one small point, even if there were some overlap with the same pricing for two or more chips, the X99 / LGA2011-3 platform would likely still be more expensive based on X99 motherboard pricing and DDR4 RAM pricing.  Given this likely eventuality perhaps price overlap on two or more different processors is a bit more forgivable from Intel's perspective.

Again we will see soon enough,...


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 23, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Pay attention buckaroo, the upcoming HEDT platform has 28 lanes for 5820k and 40 lanes for 5930k and 5960x.
> 
> x58 - 36 pci-e lanes
> x79 - 40 pci-e lanes
> ...



Last time I checked, a 6-core processor on x58 or x79 was always near $1000, at the very least over $500.  So if you really want to compare those platforms, you still are getting way more for way less.  Because, as I pointed out already and you ignored, the extra PCI-E lanes mean pretty much nothing to people actually looking at the HEDT platform.  And motherboard manufacturers can always, very easily, add more lanes if they want using PLX chips. And you better believe there will be motherboards that do this for people that, for whatever reason, really want all those PCI-E lanes.  What they can't do is add 2 extra cores to the CPU.  So, again, an inexpensive 6-core CPU with fewer PCI-E lanes makes a heck of a lot more sense and will be a heck of a lot more useful to the people buying this platform.

As for clock speeds, it doesn't really matter, it is a K processor.  If you don't like the clock speeds, change them.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 23, 2014)

Octavean said:


> That is definitely one way of looking at it.  However, another way of looking at is  as follows:
> 
> The entry level quad core Sandy Bridge-E Core i7 3820 was locked (or partially locked as some have referred to it) and its successor the entry level quad core Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 4820K was unlocked and deserving of the "k" designation. Finally the 6 core Haswell-E 5820K will presumably also be deserving of the "k" nomenclature.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  All of your points are fair and valid.  What I keep coming back to is that Intel is run by intelligent people.  We both seem to be making that assumption.

Going by that assumption, you've still got to explain the 4820.  The 3820 coming later to the party is a reasonable point to bring up.  Intel deciding how best to gimp an already gimped chip (having two cores lasered off is gimped in my book) is nothing new for this industry.

I concede that this would be the logical point for a paradigm shift in what entry level enthusiast chips offer.  Intel is switching up a bunch of what they are doing, so one more switch shouldn't matter too much.  My problem then becomes Broadwell.


Let's say it's 6 months down the line.  Broadwell on the mainstream platform launches.  If the 5820 is still around and unlocked there are only two possibilities.  The 5770 (or whatever they call the high-end mainstream offering) starts to compete with the 5820.  Yes there is a generational gap, but most people will overlook a 10% increase in IPC for 50% more cores and more PCI-e.

So tell me, Intel is competing with a superior platform against their own less superior platform.  The only way that could fly is if the 5770 were also 6 core, and even then it'd be a question of same price, but better features on the enthusiast platform.

Do you see how an unlocked entry level enthusiast platform price competing with the mainstream high end offering screws everything up that Intel has built over the past four years?  Why would anyone at Intel believe this is a rational decision?


This is why I'm reasonably certain that entry level 2011-3 options aren't going to hit the $300 option.  Spin it however you must, but they aren't going to scalp sales of their high end mainstream options in order to sell entry level enthusiast platforms.  They've proven that they'll take the hit on delivered performance, in order to make sure they don't have to compete with themselves.  Why would they sacrifice even more sales in the future?



I can see one situation in which I am wrong.  They could pursue this pricing if 80% of their chips were binned with a slightly defective PCI-e root complex.  Sell off all the defective units at competing prices, to prevent chip loss.  They could do this while refining the process for better yields, and slowly phase out the 5820 as production no longer had problems with producing the large PCI-e root complex.

Of course, this assumption is based upon Haswell and Broadwell being a particularly bad turning point for the process of CPU development.  The point at which we'll see an even more dramatic slow-down of performance gains per generation than we already have.   Moore's law is great, but we're a bit behind on it.  I guess Moore didn't really factor in the eventual issues of quantum physics...


On that note, I'm done.  This debate is fun and all, but we'll see exactly what Intel has decided upon soon enough.  To that end, you've got the last words in the discussion.


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 24, 2014)

400$ confirmed btw for the 5820K, a store has started pre-selling here.


----------



## vega22 (Aug 30, 2014)

Aquinus said:


> Does that mean that either of you don't feel the money you spent on your computer was worth it? I don't know about everyone else, but I'm still perfectly content with my 3820 and I definitely don't feel my money was wasted or that I was screwed in the process. Overall progress might be screwed, but I don't think my purchase from several years ago was.



i think all 3 of my latest systems are worth the money dude. that being said my current system cost less than one of these 8 core chips  if it was back on air cooling...ok it might only have half the cpu power. but a cpu sat in a box aint doing nothing anyway...


----------



## Dan848 (Apr 9, 2015)

Hilux SSRG said:


> You say HEDT is being revived by Intel, from being what?  Expensive?  New features being released before the mainstream platforms>?
> 
> I don't think it is, at least for gaming enthusiasts.  The platform is many things for many users, but speed and overclocking isn't one of them.



And, $200 dollars is incorrect, he will have to purchase a new motherboard and CPU at the very least if he opts for the 4790K [and will reuse his DDR-3 RAM if that is what he has], and if he has an OEM version of Windows he will have to purchase a new copy of that as well.  A very good CPU 12 phase motherboard alone will cost ~ $250 for X97.


----------

