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

[Hilux SSRG]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i love you guys

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

it matters not, we still get fucked!

 

[Aquinus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

Subb'd. ROFL.

 

[Octavean]

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.

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]

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.

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.