Intel Core i7-5960X Spotted In The Wild?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You'll need a translator to read this page but, according to a rough translation and the photos below, this is a 3GHz Intel Core i7-5960X with 8 cores and 20MB of L3 cache. Supposedly we will see these in retail at the end of this month.
 
Probably a $1k part, being a retail EE and all.

Not that they have the die area to spare, but having the Crystalwell cache (essentially 128MB L4) would put a nice bow on it. :)
 
That's it 3.00GHz, happy I went with Intel's Core i7 4790K even though I can't keep the temps down when it 4.5GHz. Serious though 3.00GHz, now I can see why AMD's 9590FX is at 220W to run 5.00GHz especially when Intel's Core i7 4790K draws about 240w @ 4.6GHz OC with VCore 1.275v.
 
PhoneyVirus said:
That's it 3.00GHz, happy I went with Intel's Core i7 4790K even though I can't keep the temps down when it 4.5GHz. Serious though 3.00GHz, now I can see why AMD's 9590FX is at 220W to run 5.00GHz especially when Intel's Core i7 4790K draws about 240w @ 4.6GHz OC with VCore 1.275v.
Click to expand...

4GHz (OC'd) x 8 cores = 32GHz. That seems awesome, to me! If there was ways to take advantage of that many cores....lol.
 
PhoneyVirus said:
That's it 3.00GHz, happy I went with Intel's Core i7 4790K even though I can't keep the temps down when it 4.5GHz. Serious though 3.00GHz, now I can see why AMD's 9590FX is at 220W to run 5.00GHz especially when Intel's Core i7 4790K draws about 240w @ 4.6GHz OC with VCore 1.275v.
Click to expand...

lol what are you talking about?.. 240W a 4790K??? that chip at that speed does not even break the 80W barrier at most 90W??.. my 3770k at 4.5ghz under prime95 just draws 80-85W...
 
JaiWebb said:
Yeah, the reality of the situation, math. Gotcha. ;)
Click to expand...

He means that simply adding up the clockspeeds of the cores like that is not a realistic description of how the CPU will perform. The vast majority of users would be better off with 4 cores at a higher per-core clock speed than an 8 core at lower speeds.
 
I would assume with some proper cooling. Not some crappy AIO cooler but a custom loop. The 8 core Haswell-E's I would assume will OC just like there little 4 core counterparts.

I would expect to get an 8 core to 4.5Ghz minimum just like I would expect to get a 4770k to 4.5Ghz minimum.
 
I will be upgrading sometime in November/December. I will be pleased if I could get 4ghz.
 
I hope the 6 core version will be able to provide me with the right balance between performance and cost for my next upgrade. Can't afford those EE premium prices :eek:
 
Supposedly in retail at the end of the month? I thought Haswell-E and X99 weren't launching until mid-Sept at the earliest. Oh well, doesn't change my timetable. I still need time to process reviews for a bunch of different CPU and mobo models, so I won't be building my new X99-based system until October, at the earliest. Plus I'm waiting for AMD/ATI and nVidia to launch new GPUs. Tonga or Maxwell? Whoever wins shall get my cash.
 
Yeah this is the $1k high-end part.
The $400-$600 parts will be 6core.

I don't have the link handy but there was post somewhere with a picture of the Haswell-E cooler: similar in shape as the current Intel retail, but the fins are more curved, taller and the core has more copper plus a heatpipe in the center.

I wonder if they are making a new stepping that fixes TSX, or if it stays broken until Broadwell or Skylake.

I'm tempted by the $400-ish 6-core version, but I have a hard time justifying the expense for the performance over a 4.4GHz 2600k.
 
$1000 for 3.0 GHz. Hahahahahaha

Good one, Intel!

Apparently, Indium solder costs $600 per processor.
 
DejaWiz said:
$1000 for 3.0 GHz. Hahahahahaha
Good one, Intel!
Click to expand...

1) Intel Extreme desktop CPU was always $1000.
2) They ask more for Xeons. The closest thing from Ivy Bridge Xeons is Xeon E5-2650 v2 for $1166 (8 core @ 2.6GHz) or Xeon E5-2667 v2 for $2057 (8 core @ 3.3GHz).

And maybe i am blind, but the pictures show an ES CPU, no ?
 
Well I am glad I waited now. Looks like this x58 will have to hold me over until Broadwell. It shouldn't be a problem since I can literally play any game out there completely maxed with tons of AA and AF.
 
Hornet said:
I hope the 6 core version will be able to provide me with the right balance between performance and cost for my next upgrade. Can't afford those EE premium prices :eek:
Click to expand...

I can :cool:

But I will still wait until Nov/Dec before I upgrade. The 8 core CPU is my dream CPU.
 
How will it compare with a 4-core i7 with hyperthreading at the same clock speed? Assuming it doesn't have one.
 
boomboy2k1 said:
How will it compare with a 4-core i7 with hyperthreading at the same clock speed? Assuming it doesn't have one.
Click to expand...

Hyperthreading gives less than 30% improvements even under ideal, highly-parallelizable conditions. So an 8-core no-HT chip running at the same frequency, with the same IPC, will far outperform a 4-core with HT in highly-parallel tasks.

It's academic anyway because the 8-core is definitely going to have HT.
 
MrGuvernment said:
lol

2014 called and wants developers to learn how to code for multiple cores...
Click to expand...

I'm running an "ancient" quad core that scarcely uses half it's cores. I don't want any more cores. I just want to be able to use ALL of the cores that I have!
 
ICOM said:
So you'll have 6 cores that do...nothing? CPU's :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe he edits or encodes multimedia, compiles large programs from source, runs virtual machines, participates in distributed computing, or all of the above. There's more to a high-end CPU than just gaming performance.
 
If you use any kind of 3D package for rendering stuff or work with video rendering/encoding, they scale almost linearly with more cores/cpus, so there are people who would love to have something like this. As faugusztin pointed out, even at a grand this would be notably cheaper than going the Xeon workstation route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top