Like I said if you think it is that easy go ahead and make some.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Offical - Who is buying a Haswell-E 5960X, 5930K or 5820K Thread
- Thread starter SixFootDuo
- Start date
Like I said if you think it is that easy go ahead and make some.
2+ years is a long time, might as well upgrade now, I hope after Christmas prices drop some.
You seem to be strongly implying that it would have been difficult for Intel to do. What aspect of either unlocking the E5-2687W or not canceling the i7-3980X do you theorize would have been difficult for them?
DDR4 prices are really the only prices I'd expect to make any significant movement (other than the post launch dip as prices return to normal after so e retailers cease their gouging) and it probably won't be earth-shattering.
It's not really a thing of "difficulty to do" as much as it "financially asinine" and "lacking common business sense." There exist different market segments for a reason, so that products can be tailored to those varying segments and pricing can stay where it needs to be to sell the most product to those segments overall. Intel is essentially its own competition and if they wanted to they could have 2 markets, your "Pentium G3258" and your "super badass 16545C/134545T Xeon umpty-squat V-who gives a flying fuck" (sorry I'm not familiar with Xeon naming schemes or their hierarchy).
But, in doing so they cut out a huge amount of user base and thus a huge amount of sales and profits. Everybody would either have to be content with their dual core non-HT Pentium on the cheap or go drop a month or two of pay on just the super badass do-it-all Xeon processor. Guess how many people are going to do the latter if they don't really need to do so in order to get by in their daily computing life. The HEDT segment is basically a watered down server/compute/workstation segment that targets the guys who who seek more than what the mainstream can offer them, but need less than full-on enterprise levels of hardware at a price that fits between the two.
So back to the original point, why the hell would you kill your own product sales (since your only competitor AMD isn't even trying to do so) by releasing your best product to a market segment that, for the majority of situations, doesn't need it for only a slight premium when you can charge double that in the next segment up to guys who do need the performance and are willing to pay top dollar for it. Does it suck the enthusiast consumer can't get super badass unlocked Xeon with a C/T count of shitload/even more shitloads - yea, for a very small segment of users who would actually utilize that type of processing power. But those guys in that small sub-segment of the larger HEDT segment probably have enough money and reason to just dive into the server/compute/WS segment and pay the top dollar price to get that top dollar performance.
TLDR: You don't get Bugatti performance for Corvette pricing...not in the capitalist/monopolistic market we live in. Instead you get a range of performance and prices ranging from Camry, to Mustang, to Corvette, to Porsche, to Bugatti. It makes Intel more money and it makes more consumers happy because they are more likely to get exactly what they need at the right price - unfortunately some segments end up getting the shaft every now and then due to technological progress and demand.
There is no harm, financial or otherwise, to Intel that would occur by unlocking the top SKU of Xeons. Intel can continue to charge what they do for them. There are those who want much more than what the HEDT platform delivers and will happily pay whatever the price Intel wants to charge to get the product they want. The Xeon is great, top quality with tons of cores, but is fully locked. Intel unlocks the 1600 series of the Xeon with absolutely ZERO detriment to their business. Yet they steadfastly refuse to unlock the dual capable CPU, the class of Xeon that contains the best chips. Most machines which come with a Xeon 1600 are servers or workstations without the ability to overclock at all. They are ignorant to the fact that the CPU installed in them is fully unlocked. They don't care. The machine functions at stock speed for it's entire life, with no issue. The top SKU of dual capable Xeons could be unlocked with an equal lack of detriment for those who want to use them in a more enthusiast-oriented environment.
I don't want Bugatti performance for a Corvette price...I want Bugatti performance for the Bugatti price, not Camry performance for the Bugatti price, which is what the E5-2699V3 offers in single-threaded apps. What's being offered currently with the Xeon is the equivalent of a Bugatti that comes with a speed limiter of 55mph and a welded shut hood.
There is no harm, financial or otherwise, to Intel that would occur by unlocking the top SKU of Xeons. Intel can continue to charge what they do for them. There are those who want much more than what the HEDT platform delivers and will happily pay whatever the price Intel wants to charge to get the product they want. The Xeon is great, top quality with tons of cores, but is fully locked. Intel unlocks the 1600 series of the Xeon with absolutely ZERO detriment to their business. Yet they steadfastly refuse to unlock the dual capable CPU, the class of Xeon that contains the best chips. Most machines which come with a Xeon 1600 are servers or workstations without the ability to overclock at all. They are ignorant to the fact that the CPU installed in them is fully unlocked. They don't care. The machine functions at stock speed for it's entire life, with no issue. The top SKU of dual capable Xeons could be unlocked with an equal lack of detriment for those who want to use them in a more enthusiast-oriented environment.
I don't want Bugatti performance for a Corvette price...I want Bugatti performance for the Bugatti price, not Camry performance for the Bugatti price, which is what the E5-2699V3 offers in single-threaded apps. What's being offered currently with the Xeon is the equivalent of a Bugatti that comes with a speed limiter of 55mph and a welded shut hood.
So now an Intel processor is a million dollar processor? You should just go with amd since you aren't so happy.
STrooperTK421
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 466
And just what makes you an expert on this? Where is your data to back this statement up?
Again, what makes you an expert on the subject? You have to look at who these CPU's are aimed at. Mission critical corporate / government environments where dicking around with the clock frequencies to squeeze extra speed out of the CPU's could be disastrous should there be a failure. Not to mention that overclocking causes power requirements to go up...for one PC that's not much of an issue...now try that shit a few thousand systems and lets see how that jacks the utility costs up (don't forget about cooling!)
I don't want Bugatti performance for a Corvette price...I want Bugatti performance for the Bugatti price, not Camry performance for the Bugatti price, which is what the E5-2699V3 offers in single-threaded apps. What's being offered currently with the Xeon is the equivalent of a Bugatti that comes with a speed limiter of 55mph and a welded shut hood.
That CPU is designed for large commercial scale workloads, not pissant single thread desktop applications...Intel doesn't give a fuck about you and what YOU want...they have whole highly educated teams of people that figure out what products need to be aimed at what sectors of the market to maximize income versus R & D and other expenses, and the bleating of one chump on a PC enthusiast board is of no concern of theirs. Look, we all saw Kyle throw a hint in your direction earlier in another thread that you decided to shit up with your "wisdom"...please, just stop.
EDIT: I accidentally a word.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
I was planning on putting together a future build consisting of 4930K/Asus X79 Deluxe combo. HOWEVER, the more news that comes out on the Asus X99 Deluxe/ROG boards, the more I want to wait.
i7-4930K/Asus X79 Deluxe
V.S.
i7-5930K/Asus X99 Deluxe/ROG
What would you do?
Usage includes 3 4k monitor gaming, photo/video editing, oculus, 3D rendering, and multi-window multi-tabbed picture and/or video pr0n goodness.
That's exactly my dilemma, except I already have the X79 platform so I'd only have to pay for the CPU if i go that way. That's a huge price difference. And there is no way I can afford the 5960X for 8 cores to offset the balance.
I'm rooting for you! Please post back with your results. I'm curious to see how Maya3D performs with Haswell-E.
Also, this may be a stupid question, but can that program take advantage of OpenCL GPU cores? Like the Radeon R9 290x for example? I believe that card has around 5 teraflops of processing power.
Speaking of flops -- I wonder how close the 8 core Haswell-E processor will come to 1 teraflop. I'd like to see that barrier broken by a desktop CPU sometime before 2020 hopefully.
There is no harm, financial or otherwise, to Intel that would occur by unlocking the top SKU of Xeons. Intel can continue to charge what they do for them. There are those who want much more than what the HEDT platform delivers and will happily pay whatever the price Intel wants to charge to get the product they want. The Xeon is great, top quality with tons of cores, but is fully locked. Intel unlocks the 1600 series of the Xeon with absolutely ZERO detriment to their business. Yet they steadfastly refuse to unlock the dual capable CPU, the class of Xeon that contains the best chips. Most machines which come with a Xeon 1600 are servers or workstations without the ability to overclock at all. They are ignorant to the fact that the CPU installed in them is fully unlocked. They don't care. The machine functions at stock speed for it's entire life, with no issue. The top SKU of dual capable Xeons could be unlocked with an equal lack of detriment for those who want to use them in a more enthusiast-oriented environment.
I don't want Bugatti performance for a Corvette price...I want Bugatti performance for the Bugatti price, not Camry performance for the Bugatti price, which is what the E5-2699V3 offers in single-threaded apps. What's being offered currently with the Xeon is the equivalent of a Bugatti that comes with a speed limiter of 55mph and a welded shut hood.
Clearly you have multiple areas of malcontent for Intel because it originally sounded like you were upset about them not handing over an 8 core unlocked SB-E (aka unlocked Xeon with faster clocks) 3 years ago. Yet, now you just want Xeons to be unlocked whatever the price cost may be for what I can only assume to be bragging rights about how many cores/threads your rig can fit inside of it - since there is absolutely nothing (practical at least to even your above average enthusiast) outside of the supercomputing or enterprise sectors that a non-Xeon can't handle just as well as a Xeon...unlocked or not.
And yes, unlocking the Xeons does create detriment to their business because enterprises will now buy the lower end parts and make them perform as well as the part that costs double that with no real risk to the buyer's system functionality - and when you're buying dozens or hundreds or thousands of those parts that is a huge cost savings to the business and a loss for Intel. Not only that, but it also screws up their mainstream Core series lineups as now people go buy low end server Xeons, crank the juice on them, and get a cheaper, better performing part that the mainstream tech savvy user will go for any day of the week with the added benefits of having enterprise exclusive hardware support.
It's the same story as to why Intel hasn't unlocked a Core i3...it would eliminate their Core i5 lineup almost entirely. Why do that and cost your company potential millions? It all goes back to market segmentation and this is where STrooper hits the nail on the head - your E5-2699V3 is not meant to be doing pissant single threaded or even quad threaded apps or some lame ass 5-15 minute benchmarks. It's meant to be run 24/7 at 100% load doing a plethora of tasks simultaneously which are not individually time dependent but rather failure intolerable with a long lifespan requirement due to the cost and manhours of upgrading an entire building of hardware.
Back to the car analogy again, why do you need Bugatti performance if you aren't going to the racetrack everyday? Why doesn't the Bugatti have excellent gas mileage because its still a car capable of commuter travel - because it's not built for that purpose, but a Camry is. Or you can be like me, buy that Boss 302 or Corvette to get that oomph around town/on the roads and flex the good ol' cock 'n balls with some mild gas efficiency - don't go getting the Bugatti for the absolutely unnecessary 0-60mph in < 2.5 seconds and then complain that you spend $100 a week commuting to work and back because you can only get 8-10mpg.
Different products have different appropriate usage scenarios - and unlocked Xeons serve no purpose other than to cost Intel profits or open up another niche segment that is better served by other means.
At any rate, after seeing all the hub-bub and the results of the X99 and 5690X I have officially decided on getting one that will hopefully fulfill my needs for several generations...just like the 1366 x58 guys and the Gulftown i7-920 guys have enjoyed. Now it's the waiting game for the Mobo reviews and the RAM prices/quality to adjust.
the 2015 version "Unofficially" support it, that is what my Autodesk rep said to me late last year. They only support the professional cards, but my cards def render stuff since Windows treats the 295x2 as two separate cards.
Crossfire support has been there for the pro cards for a few years. (I have only been working with Maya3D for 3 years now.) Our school added it into the student education rotation for design/tech arts. The class has morphed into an after school club as well that I am a mentor in. (I am a it/tech director for a private school here in the PacNW) We have some of the dildo macpros with the 12 core CPU and one of the ATI Pro cards. We also have a few older windows vista machines with maya3d 2010 on them (software donated to us by Autodesk) that have the 7790's on them in Crossfire and they render perfectly.
The cards work great in After Effects. It only cost me $400 out of pocket to upgrade to my trifire setup. However, I think the 4770k holds me back in the graphics department as a small bottleneck, so the 5960k upgrade should be great since the Pcie slots will have the full 40 lanes.
I get the motherboard tomorrow, but won't have a chance to put it together until Monday.
I highly doubt Intel gives much of a fuck about any of us, and are likely offering this 8-core now not out of any desire to be benevolent, but because of increasing difficulty in selling 8-cores as Xeons. That being said, name-calling is not required here and I think we can maintain a civil discussion without it. Let's not make this personal. What you're considering to be "bleating" is pronounced frustration with the progressively decelerating progress being made in the field of high-end PC processors. This is evidenced by the continual diet of 6-cores that Intel has proffered for the last three years and the seeming acceptance many folks seem to have regarding it and the awe in which this 8-core is being viewed with. I truly hope folks are happy with it, as I fear we are unlikely to see further advancement in consumer core count prior to the end of the decade.
What I'm saying is that it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten about the last three years and now sit spellbound at the i7-5960X. They seem to consider it the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel when in fact we should be seeing 10-core i7s by now (at say a premium $1499 price point). An unlocked 8-core could have been made available easily by either unlocking the E5-2687W or by offering the i7-3980X the premium price of $1499, but due to Intel's desire to retard progress as much as possible, we are only now seeing an 8-core i7. I fear that this trend of slowing progress will only get worse...I doubt we'll see further advancement in consumer core count until the end of the decade (and maybe not even then). If you're content with that, then I'm happy for you. But as enthusiasts, we should be seeking and arguing for the steady advancement of computational ability, not applauding when this progress is slowed to a glacial pace.
I'm arguing for the unlocking of the top SKU Xeon. An unlocked top SKU Xeon wouldn't matter to enterprise systems as they completely lack the ability to overclock. Enterprise systems containing such a chip would therefore be completely unaffected by a CPU's unlocked nature. However, to certain market segments, those that require maximum performance at all costs, such as video editors, high frequency traders, graphics designers and the like, such a CPU would mean a great deal and could do double duty serving those segments.
Sure, and they'll perform this task well. But for the small percentage of users that want to use them to obtain the maximum performance such a CPU could offer if unlocked (and installed in an appropriate system), they could perform like no other CPU. Why not have a CPU that could offer the best of both worlds...unrivaled multi-threaded performance as well as very competitive single threaded performance??
Very few Bugatti owners go to the track everyday. Should they surrender their cars to the junkyard because they aren't racing them and therefore don't technically need them? Owners of such a vehicle also don't complain about mileage...they know it's going to be bad, just like an owner of an unlocked Xeon would be unlikely to complain about power consumption. The Bugatti can do it all...basic commuting as well as providing world class performance when required...why not strive for the computational equivalent? If we don't strive to obtain the computational equivalent, we'll never obtain it, which is why I'm advocating strongly for such a product from Intel. Sure not everyone would be able to afford it, but not everyone can afford a Bugatti either. However, such a caliber of product as a Bugatti presents a benchmark for all other products to aspire to, and encourages progress of those products, which benefits everyone using them.
Again, unlocking the top SKU of Xeon as I'm advocating wouldn't cost Intel the slightest profit...quite the contrary. Such a halo product would have the above mentioned benefits, as well as serving a segment of the above-mentioned market that, while small, has the means to spend a great deal on all of Intel's products, not just CPUs.
I've said my piece and explained my position quite clearly. I don't plan to discuss this further, as I'm raining on the i7-5960X's parade and those who are excited about the i7-5960X and spending a fair bit of their disposible income on this chip don't want to hear anything but praise and happy comments regarding their new CPU. Those who do buy the i7-5960X, I'm sure will enjoy it, and indeed I hope they do, as it'll likely be some time before a CPU with a higher core count is offered to the consumer. Personally, I was hoping to build a system based on unlocked 18-cores, but since they're now proven to be locked, it forces me to maintain the segregation of my workloads and makes this new unlocked 8-core unnecessary for the single-threaded workloads I have. I could purchase a pair of the E5-2699 V3s to accelerate my multi-threaded workloads and they would excel at that, but to pay $4k/CPU for a locked chip that has an all core turbo of a mere 2.8GHz leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,000
Intel has no competition. We have bribery and out own mentality to thank for that. For this reason, intel wakes up every morning and decides how much money it will make. By locking top level Xeons, they maximise the level of 'upgrade' sales they make every generation. They don't want past products competing with current ones. AMD is selling 220w CPUs, Intel could easily release an unlocked 16 core CPU with that thermal headroom.
Why, though? They sell CPUs by the truckload. Unlocking them would only mean that certain individuals would wait longer between upgrades!
Also, by improving their products as little as possible, they prolong the profitability of a given performance level. Sure, they could really squeeze a much larger IPC improvement per generation instead of the measly 5% we've been seeing. But why? If they improved it by 10%, then they lost that potential year's worth of profitability!
Ten years ago, AMD slowly dropped off the map in the high-end CPU market by Intel's own doing. Since then the CPU improvements have shrank, and shrank. But, about five years ago ARM CPUs made a big appearance with their high efficiency and low power usage. Since then? Intel has put ALL of it's R&D into efficiency. See how competition changes things?
Why, though? They sell CPUs by the truckload. Unlocking them would only mean that certain individuals would wait longer between upgrades!
Also, by improving their products as little as possible, they prolong the profitability of a given performance level. Sure, they could really squeeze a much larger IPC improvement per generation instead of the measly 5% we've been seeing. But why? If they improved it by 10%, then they lost that potential year's worth of profitability!
Ten years ago, AMD slowly dropped off the map in the high-end CPU market by Intel's own doing. Since then the CPU improvements have shrank, and shrank. But, about five years ago ARM CPUs made a big appearance with their high efficiency and low power usage. Since then? Intel has put ALL of it's R&D into efficiency. See how competition changes things?
One could make the same argument for i7 CPUs. But the improvements of the next product cycle's chips, combined with better technology, a smaller process, more cache, more cores, socket compatibility (or a combination of one or more of the above) would still make subsequent products attractive upgrades to many users. I'd argue that the incremental upgrades we've seen this decade so far are still discouraging upgraders (consider how many people skipped Ivy-E). Also, when one considers how few of the top SKU of Xeon would actually be overclocked (and how hungry the folks who'd overclock this SKU are for performance), the impact you describe should be very close to non-existant.
the prices I seen quoted make the 4970k look bad value compared to the 5820k. Although I know with the 5820k new ram is needed, but still.
Basically if it were me who had the spare cash and motivation to get haswell-e I would either buy the 5820k or 5960x, I wouldnt buy the 5930k, as I think the premium of 2 extra cores isnt worth an extra 250usd, even tho the top chip is a grand, it at least has more of a gap to a i7 chip with double the cores.
Does the extra l3 cache make much difference? When I dropped from 8meg cache on my i5 750 to 6meg cache on my 4670k it hasnt seemed to do any harm, my 4670k is way faster than my 750.
Basically if it were me who had the spare cash and motivation to get haswell-e I would either buy the 5820k or 5960x, I wouldnt buy the 5930k, as I think the premium of 2 extra cores isnt worth an extra 250usd, even tho the top chip is a grand, it at least has more of a gap to a i7 chip with double the cores.
Does the extra l3 cache make much difference? When I dropped from 8meg cache on my i5 750 to 6meg cache on my 4670k it hasnt seemed to do any harm, my 4670k is way faster than my 750.
Extra cache helps when the processor is heavily multitasking. It gives more space to manage data, it doesn't add more speed necessarily, but it can add a few % of performance under heavy load, depending on what the workload is.
I agree, the 5930k seems pointless. Those that need the PCI-E lanes probably need the extra cores of the 5960x anyway. The 5820k is a great deal - looks like 6-core is becoming mainstream.
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Extra cache helps when the processor is heavily multitasking. It gives more space to manage data, it doesn't add more speed necessarily, but it can add a few % of performance under heavy load, depending on what the workload is.
I agree, the 5930k seems pointless. Those that need the PCI-E lanes probably need the extra cores of the 5960x anyway. The 5820k is a great deal - looks like 6-core is becoming mainstream.
5820 Is good for people that don't SLI or that change.CPU often.
for people like me that change CPU every three years and SLI is not the best deal.
On 2016 we probably see the first cards saturating PCI exp 3 8x and 5820 is not able to SLI at 16x/16x
Keep in mind that PCI exp lanes will became more and more useful thanks to the ssds. So, I want 40lanes.
PCI-E lane saturation has not happened in previous generations before a new standard is out. By the time it happens with PCI-E gen 3, gen 4 mobos will be out and our x99 systems will be long in the tooth.
Nobody can deny it's been stale, but that is exactly why Haswell-E looks attractive and is actually worth something. Its more cores, the same price, and the feature set is actually in line or ahead of the mainstream chipsets for the first time in years. But, nobody (or very few at best) is going to buy that thing in all its 10C glory at $1500. You're into Xeon territory at that point and unlocked or not, the Xeon is going to be what you should want if your workloads are that demanding and critical - preferably unlocked because critical workloads are just that....critical...you don't want failures or to have to be tweaking things or worrying about "when is this chip going to die on me because I'm throwing volts at it."
Sacrifices man, you're dealing with BIOS changes and changes the rules of engagement for the processors with regards to how it handles turbo-boost based on thread count utilization. Sure, Z87/97 have that thru software but its back again to purpose of use for the market segment. Which brings me again to this:
Why the bloody hell would you go blow $1k on a CPU for single threaded workloads...go spend $330 for a 4790K, or even $220 for a 4690K, or hell it's single threaded so go get a Pentium G3258 for $70 and clock the ever living shit out of them for that work. I get that working across multiple machines sucks, but segregation is better in some cases. You don't put electricians and mechanics in the same shop and have them try to do each others work when resources are scarce, you build up two separate shops despite the inconvenience for better quality and performance. Plus, multiple machines requiring access/data transfer is exactly why NAS exists and it looks like your sig has a pretty damn good one to alleviate that multiple workstation issue.
Because it's not fiscally intelligent to do so. Joe Blow isn't going to buy it no matter how much he loves wrecking kids at the track and Dr. Moneybags has enough money to not care about the all-in-one package and will have the Bugatti in the garage and be driving a Lexus or Jaguar to work without blinking an eye.
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
5820 is not able to 16x/16x
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
Do you plan on running two dual gpu cards, 3 way, or 4 way? The difference between x16/x16 and x8/x8 sli or crossfire is essentially zero (from experience). Remember this is pcie 3.0 not 2.0.
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
It depends on how quickly you want to begin building. Ram prices might drop in the next couple of weeks, but only expect it to be by a small margin.
Maybe a shop like newegg has a promo at some point.
Maybe a shop like newegg has a promo at some point.
I'm not in a hurry , but itching to overclock 5820K . Hope just like you said, price drop a little or more ram come out with tight timing
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
Is there any reviews that focus on ram ?
I would like to know what is the best buy for 5930k.
2100MHz, 2400MHz, 3000MHz or what?
I preferably don't like to over clock the bus so if I can go down to 2100mhz I will be glad.
I would like to know what is the best buy for 5930k.
2100MHz, 2400MHz, 3000MHz or what?
I preferably don't like to over clock the bus so if I can go down to 2100mhz I will be glad.
Sure and I agree that Haswell-E is a welcome (albeit long overdue) improvement in the HEDT platform. X99 finally brings respectibility to the platform again. For the most part, it's not the processor or the platform that I take an issue with (aside from the DMI interface), it's the very belated nature of its arrival.
It would be nice to have the option, though. Intel has done an Extreme chip at that price point before, the QX9775, so there is precedent for a chip at that price point. They will sell fewer of them than the $1k Extreme sure, but they'd still sell a decent number of them.
Folks that are using the Xeon for critical workloads should absolutely maintain a stock speed, and in 99.9% of cases they wouldn't be able to exploit an unlocked multiplier anyway, as their server BIOS would lack any options whatsoever. People who would overclock the chip (for non-critical purposes) are highly unlikely to push the chip to the ragged edge of stability or throw high voltages at it, instead merely exploiting the bountiful headroom in the chips with perhaps a slight voltage bump (<1.3V in this case as long as thermals are OK). Most CPUs that would end up overclocked would likely be purchased as part of a verified and validated system from a boutique builder like BOXX or Boston, overclocked, but very conservatively with a well-designed and reliable water cooling system.
The chip would function without incident in it's OEM server, and only when installed in an appropriate system would it's unlocked nature be usable. The E5-1600s work just fine in a server or workstation environment, even though they're fully unlocked. Only when they're used in an enthusiast motherboard are their abilities apparent and usable.
I worded that poorly...I should have said mixed workloads that don't scale to a large amount of cores. My Gamer system provides excellent single-threaded performance, while still being able to do some multi-threaded work if needed (but it's not a multi-threaded monster). An unlocked, top SKU Xeon likely wouldn't be able to fully match the single threaded abilities of my Gamer system, but the delta would be dramatically reduced. Having the convenience of being able to tackle any workload would be worth the money to me, a small compromise that is far outweighed by an 18-cores multi-threaded prowess. The mainstream Z97 platform's lack of PCI-E lanes is a major restriction and is not suitable. One might be fun to build as a hobby system for something to do, though...I have a couple NCASE M1s stashed in case I get the urge to build something of that nature. In any event, a modest clock speed increase on an unlocked top SKU Xeon will not only increase single and lightly threaded performance, but will cause the performance of heavy multi-threaded workloads to skyrocket as well and turn the CPU into the semiconductor equivalent of Godzilla...
What is fiscally prudent to one may not be so to another. For folks who have the need for such a processor and the means to acquire it, the cost is irrelevant as long as it meets their needs. Being able to save time on a particular job may in fact easily pay for the CPUs in some cases and for other users like day traders, the CPUs would pay for themselves in short order with the advantage they would provide. For the ultra high-end user with ample disposible income who purchases one of these chips for fun, being able to throw everything possible at it and have the CPU shrug it off with no hesitation whatsoever would make for a very pleasurable computing experience and enhance greatly their enjoyment of their hobby.
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
I agree, the ripjaws design is quite too kiddy for my taste.
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
I think I will upgrade next year when ram prices fall and the kinks are weeded out. I most likely won't see any difference since gaming is the most stress I put on the computer. I just have the itch.
It will also be interesting to see how cheap the 16gb modules will be at first and how low they will go.
It will also be interesting to see how cheap the 16gb modules will be at first and how low they will go.
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
can't understood why Corsair doesn't released the Vengeance kit yet
I redo things in my pc about once a year. So, I'm about to rearrange things again in my pc and was originally going to skip this iteration but I kind of caught the upgrade bug.
I've seen everyone keep saying if you run sli dual gpu cards then the 28 lanes might not be enough. I'm running an Asus Rampage IV extreme with 3930k and 2 gtx690s. Thus, would I see a noticeable drop with the 28 lanes? I'm using two dell 30 inch monitors.
I really don't game much anymore but was considering the X99 platform because I've got heavily into audio stuff again and wanted a Gigabyte mobo for its DAC Up and USB features.
I got a MC near me so I can just drive over to pick things up but was sort of on the fence between a 5820k and 5930k. Any thoughts and advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
sblantipodi
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3,765
If you are used to SLI double GPU cards, go for 40lanes.
If you change CPU every year, I think that 28 lanes are enough to quad SLI current cards but who can say it for 2016 cards?
But if you save The money for quad SLI, why save 200$ on the CPU?
tonyftw
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
It's enough, but I would want as much bandwidth as possible feeding those two cards. Assuming you plan on keeping the 690's and have pcie 3.0 enabled.
You know they were offering 40$ off a mobo/cpu bundle, right?
Thanks guys! I'm on the fence about upgrading. I've got a new DAC coming so I wanted to also optimize my pc for audio. However, right now I don't really bench anymore or play as many games due to work. My pc is mainly for work and listening to music. So, if not for the fact that I needed to rearrange my pc to add drives and install a new raid setup then I would probably just leave things be. My 3930k is humming along at 4.5 GHz. However, Haswell-e looks really interesting just for old times sake. It's always the old argument of want vs need.
Yes, they had Asus Deluxe which comes to 400 after taxes, i can order that any day online for the same price, and Gigabyte UD4 they jacked up to 300 after tax, that one was $260 online without taxes today, so pretty much CPU was only real deal in this store. GA Gaming i didn't even asked about after i saw the other prices.
Oh, there is an ASRock board for 199 out, though.