The Offical - Who is buying a Haswell-E 5960X, 5930K or 5820K Thread

GMaxx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
310
Hey, will the X99 platform allow you to run 2 Intel raid setups on the 6 ports? I know that the other 4 ports will not allow any raid setups. Looking to migrate over my raid 0 of two ssds(boot drive) and raid 5 of four hard drives (storage) from X79 setup until my raid card arrives. Thanks.
 

Papaj

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
155
Right now I see little point in the 5820. I think you'd do better to go with a 4790k and some fast DDR3 RAM if your going to stick to a single graphics card.

Are you joking?
I think the opposite, completely.

Gotta agree with sblanti on this one, building a new system I'd go for the more feature rich platform and some future proofing of the processor and the new RAM spec. It'll cost more up front but you have a 6C/12T processor that is clock for clock ~7% faster with a pretty good likelihood of reaching into the range of an average 4790K overclock. If you can get it within 200 MHz they'll be the same performance benchmark/gaming wise with the added benefit of greatly increased video editing/rendering/encoding if Twitch streaming or YouTube videos are your thing on the side.

And as of the time of this posting did DDR3 prices go up again? Because I swear a 2800 kit of DDR3 wasn't as much as a 2800 kit of DDR4...maybe I'm imagining things though. Slower timings aside that's what upgrades are for and unless somebody is willing to wait around for Broadwell to hit mainstream (and probably hit up a new processor within 2-3 years and potentially a new MoBo to go with whatever comes after Skylake) going X99 seems like the better choice for system longevity without the the need to update platforms at awkward times. After all, Broadwell-E is confirmed to be on the 2011-3 socket and that's at least another year and a half away which would be a pretty decent trade off to just slap a really good Broadwell-E in the socket 1.5-2 years down the road and keep it for 4-5 years.
 

chrcoluk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,257
as I Said earlier unless you really strapped for cash and cannot afford new ram I would get the 5820 over the 4790k, with that said tho the motherboards are also pricey so I guess the cost gap isnt that small for the overall system, just the cpu.
 

Papaj

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
155
I just need more than a 10% CPU speed increase to spend money on another one. Motherboards tend to offer new features or overclocking improvements over their predecessors so again I'm much more likely to upgrade the motherboard and keep the CPU.

I see your point and its completely valid and understandable why you wouldn't wanna eat the cost of a new MoBo, new RAM, and a new CPU for the 5820K which is equivalent to what you have in your 3930K (it's basically been confirmed from numerous other reviews that the 5820K is equivalent to a 3960X which for all intents and purposes is a really well clocked 3930K). For those without the X79 already in a case though X99 looks to be a fantastic platform to get into the HEDT segment with.

Also, you could blow $1k on the CPU and get the 5960X :p and you'd see a 25-30% improvement over your 3930K - at least in content creation based workloads. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't do enough of it to justify the price for that entry into X99, don't need the new features, or you can't justify spending $1k on a CPU (I think a lot of people feel that same way). All perfectly acceptable arguments.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,908
I see your point and its completely valid and understandable why you wouldn't wanna eat the cost of a new MoBo, new RAM, and a new CPU for the 5820K which is equivalent to what you have in your 3930K (it's basically been confirmed from numerous other reviews that the 5820K is equivalent to a 3960X which for all intents and purposes is a really well clocked 3930K). For those without the X79 already in a case though X99 looks to be a fantastic platform to get into the HEDT segment with.

Also, you could blow $1k on the CPU and get the 5960X :p and you'd see a 25-30% improvement over your 3930K - at least in content creation based workloads. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't do enough of it to justify the price for that entry into X99, don't need the new features, or you can't justify spending $1k on a CPU (I think a lot of people feel that same way). All perfectly acceptable arguments.

Oh no, personally I'm going to get a 5960X and X99 along with the fastest RAM I can find at the time I place the order. I do tons of photo editing work, virtualization and gaming. On the gaming front every little bit helps when your pushing the resolutions I am with my surround setup. The platforms PCI-Express lanes are of great importance to me as I tend to run three or more cards.

For the masses I don't think that the 5820K is all that compelling from a gaming standpoint. The PCIe lanes aren't a big deal over Z97 and the CPU won't give you more performance in games. The platform will be much more expensive with little benefit today or in the immediate future. That's my point. When other usages besides gaming are factored in then I can see the 5820K coming into it's own. The argument of the platform being more feature rich is a bit of an overstatement. Technically the X99 doesn't really offer anything above Z97 in terms of technology aside from DDR4. It simply offers more of everything that Z97 supports. The only future proofing you get with X99 over Z97 is DDR4.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
... It simply offers more of everything that Z97 supports. The only future proofing you get with X99 over Z97 is DDR4.

Well that's kind of the point to X99 I guess, maximize your I/O, if that is important to you.

If all you do is gaming there isn't much need for the X99 platform in general. The increased PCIe lanes will be of benefit to the single card, multi GPU users and not much else.
 

Recipe7

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
453
I have a choice to make.

Either upgrade my 1366 @4.2, patriot 12gb @1600, and gigabyte x58-ud3r to 5920k, corsair 16gb @2600, and asus x99 deluxe

or

upgrade my Asus VG278HE (144hz, 27inch, 1080p) to Asus Rog Swift (144hz, 27 inch, 1440p, gsync)

I find the x99 to be a worthy upgrade from my x58 setup, but it is stable at 4.2 and still runs fine. SATA3, usb3, and PCI-e 3.0 would be neat, but it isn't a priority.


What would you guys do?
 

Papaj

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
155
If all you do is gaming there isn't much need for the X99 platform in general.

For the masses I don't think that the 5820K is all that compelling from a gaming standpoint.

I'm in agreement with these statements. If all you do is game and don't stream or do any video work then the 5820K and the X99 platform really doesn't give you anything but ghetto 6C/12T bragging rights over your friend's quad core and DDR4 over the Z87 as you pointed out. But it's not a totally out of place chip compared to its brethren before it which were still quad core during a time when X79 had less SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 ports (natively) than the Z68 and Z77 chipsets did. Its definitely in an interesting spot that's for sure, and I think its more of an entry level chip for those who want a 6 core but wanna save a couple extra bills just in case they don't like it - and if they do, put those extra bills towards a beefier Broadwell-E chip down the road (or a badass 880...whenever those decide to show up).

But yea, I couldn't agree more, if all you do is game then nothing about the HEDT should excite you because its wasted $$ in today's current market of games...one day we'll get heavily threaded games...maybe.

I have a choice to make.

Either upgrade my 1366 @4.2, patriot 12gb @1600, and gigabyte x58-ud3r to 5920k, corsair 16gb @2600, and asus x99 deluxe

or

upgrade my Asus VG278HE (144hz, 27inch, 1080p) to Asus Rog Swift (144hz, 27 inch, 1440p, gsync)

I find the x99 to be a worthy upgrade from my x58 setup, but it is stable at 4.2 and still runs fine. SATA3, usb3, and PCI-e 3.0 would be neat, but it isn't a priority.


What would you guys do?

Are you happy with your current monitor? Do you wanna take the step up to 1440p or is 1080p just fine for the near future? What games do you frequent with your current setup? Do you intend to play a lot of upcoming games and how much eye candy do you like to stare at? If yes and shitloads of eye candy, do you have money to upgrade the GPU if you get the ROG Swift? I could tell you what I would do but I also don't play a lot of FPS games, can't tell difference between 60 and 120+Hz very well (and even if I could I'm not brainwashed enough to believe that extra half frame of quicker refresh I'm getting at 120Hz over 60Hz is going to actually be something my body can physically respond to in an advantageous way), and I love the color reproduction and viewing angles of IPS and puke at the thought of going back to a TN panel. Throw me a bone here.
 
Last edited:

GibsonEX

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
680
I see that many are recommending 4790k over 5820k on various forums. To me as an i7 920 owner that doesn't make no sense at all. Again, if you're coming from Sandy or Ivy clocked at 4.5+ Ghz i can understand that, but why would anybody with older platform upgrade their old quadcore with another quadcore. Just going by IPC alone 5820k is at stock speeds faster than 920 at 4.0+ and plus overclock however small or big that might be, and you gain 2 extra physical cores + 2 threads, even if you don't need them or use them today. The way the things are going, you will eventually, even if you're only gaming. The cost difference between Haswell and -E is not that big, but that's just me.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,908
I see that many are recommending 4790k over 5820k on various forums. To me as an i7 920 owner that doesn't make no sense at all. Again, if you're coming from Sandy or Ivy clocked at 4.5+ Ghz i can understand that, but why would anybody with older platform upgrade their old quadcore with another quadcore. Just going by IPC alone 5820k is at stock speeds faster than 920 at 4.0+ and plus overclock however small or big that might be, and you gain 2 extra physical cores + 2 threads, even if you don't need them or use them today. The way the things are going, you will eventually, even if you're only gaming. The cost difference between Haswell and -E is not that big, but that's just me.

It depends on your budget, where your coming from and what you are doing with the machine. And the cost difference in the platforms isn't insignificant. The CPU itself is similarly priced comparing the 5820K and the 4790K, but the motherboards and RAM are another story entirely. And we've had more than 4 cores for years and software still hasn't really caught up with what we have now. For the average person clock speed is still king right now assuming you've got at least four cores. I don't know if normal software will become parallel enough in the next 2 or 3 years to make those extra 2 cores and 4 threads mean anything for the average user.
 

chrcoluk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,257
my heaviest everyday app is web browsing.

Firefox although multithreaded still only utilises one core, although the plugin container is now a seperate process so e.g. if you using flash in firefox you can use 2 cores.

IE is multi process as well as chrome, but using IE I dont usually stress more than 2 cores and after locking the browser down so javascript is default off it rarely even maxes out 1 core.

Games seem light on the cpu, I havent seen any stress my 4 cores (4670k), and that leaves encoding videos, this I occasionally do but not regurly.

It seems for desktop user's video editing type stuff is the only thing that is core/thread hungry so I even think 4790k is overkill for the average user and the i5 variant is more suited, but people have fell into the htt hype.

A 8ghz 4 core would excite me much more than a 8 core 4ghz.
 

ToddW2

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,018
my heaviest everyday app is web browsing.

Firefox although multithreaded still only utilises one core, although the plugin container is now a seperate process so e.g. if you using flash in firefox you can use 2 cores.

IE is multi process as well as chrome, but using IE I dont usually stress more than 2 cores and after locking the browser down so javascript is default off it rarely even maxes out 1 core.

Games seem light on the cpu, I havent seen any stress my 4 cores (4670k), and that leaves encoding videos, this I occasionally do but not regurly.

It seems for desktop user's video editing type stuff is the only thing that is core/thread hungry so I even think 4790k is overkill for the average user and the i5 variant is more suited, but people have fell into the htt hype.

A 8ghz 4 core would excite me much more than a 8 core 4ghz.


Yes please :D
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
Any truth to the rumour that they will be coming out with a 12 core next year?

I HIGHLY doubt it. We probably won't see an unlocked 12-core until sometime in the next decade (I'm being quite serious). We could be beyond silicon and conventional processors at that point and into some futuristic processor or some alternate processor design, so never is actually a possible answer to that question. We might see an unlocked 10-core sometime around 2018 (if the current timeline for core count increases to consumer CPUs remains the same), but I doubt it'll be before then.:(

We're going to be on 8-cores for a LONG time to come...they'll just slowly perpetuate to lower SKUs on the HEDT platform.
 

Matthew Kane

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
4,233
I'm think "next decade" is being a little far fetched. There are already 10 core Xeon's floating about, Xeon counterparts are always ahead of consumer/enthusiast parts with extra 2 cores so maybe while there won't be a consumer/enthusiast 12c 2011-3 anytime soon (either constrained by current silicon fab and possibly costs), a Xeon equivalent is most likely probable by end of this year or next year.

EDIT: I guess I'm a bit behind with the 10core thing, http://techreport.com/news/26056/intel-releases-15-core-xeon-e7-v2-processor.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
I'm think "next decade" is being a little far fetched. There are already 10 core Xeon's floating about, Xeon counterparts are always ahead of consumer/enthusiast parts with extra 2 cores so maybe while there won't be a consumer/enthusiast 12c 2011-3 anytime soon (either constrained by current silicon fab and possibly costs), a Xeon equivalent is most likely probable by end of this year or next year.

EDIT: I guess I'm a bit behind with the 10core thing, http://techreport.com/news/26056/intel-releases-15-core-xeon-e7-v2-processor.

Yes, there are 10-core Xeons...but don't expect to see an i7 version of this chip anytime soon. The only hope to see such a chip for the desktop in the next year or so would be if Intel decides to make a 10-core version for the E5-1600 series...;)

It's not too far fetched if you extrapolate the interval between core count increases...moving from 4 to 6 cores (for Extreme chips) took 13 quarters, or just a bit over 3 years (QX6700 to i7-980X). The time to go from 6 to 8 cores has been 18 quarters, or about 4.5 years. If Intel's timeline sticks to the same increasing interval, we're looking at around 24 quarters for the next increase. Even if Intel reverts to the previously mentioned 3 year interval (which they have absolutely no reason to do), that would put the next core count increase in Q3'17, which makes the likelihood of a 12-core i7 in this decade exceedingly remote (while technologically they could do it tomorrow if they chose to). If they take the full 6 years to increase core counts (that the pattern suggests), it would put a 10-core i7 up for release in Q3'20.
 
Last edited:

Term-X

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
2,412
I'm gonna hold out with my i7 950 for awhile longer. Right now, the software for my uses doesn't quite match up with the hardware side of things. So while it doesn't necessary mean that this processor is useless for my needs (I'd probably see some nice gains even for my gaming), it just isn't significant enough to warrant the cost.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
One thing I do find interesting though...Intel's Ivy Bridge-EP 10-core die size from last year was 341mm2. Haswell-E (8-core) this year is 355mm2. This difference is even more acute when considering the fact that Ivy Bridge-EP 10 has 25MB of cache vs Haswell-E's 20MB. It's costing Intel more in die size this year to give us an unlocked 8-core than it would have last year to give us an unlocked 10-core (or even an unlocked 8-core based on this die). No wonder they're ditching FIVR...;)

The reason why we're seeing an unlocked 8-core now is probably due to a combination of better yields due to a more mature 22nm process and reduced demand for 8-core Xeons, since 8-core E5 Xeons have been available for about 2.5 years already. This combined with the availability of Xeons with much higher core counts has decreased demand for the lowly 8-core. The combination of increased yields and reduced demand for 8-core Xeons (compared to where demand once was) has left Intel with an excess of viable, 8-core dies that need to be disposed of.

Enter the i7-5960X...;)
 

iLLuSioN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
228
Any idea on the % of performance increase I would see on an upgrade from the system in my sig? Is 200% hoping for too much?
 

iLLuSioN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
228
That depends a great deal on the type of workload and how threaded it is...;)

This system is used mostly for programming, lots of compiling / open windows, etc. I also game with it so a boost to either would be nice.
 

iLLuSioN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
228

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,280
I pulled the trigger on a 5960X. Hopefully it will be worth both the money and the wait (my current rig is oooold).
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
I pulled the trigger on a 5960X. Hopefully it will be worth both the money and the wait (my current rig is oooold).

Holy crap man, if you are truly jumping from a 4Ghz Core2Duo to that 8 core monster, you are going to be spoiled rotten, as long as you didn't cheapen out and skip getting some kind of SSD)..Stock clocks will blow you away, once you OC it...;)
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
Hard to say some projects take only a few seconds to compile, some take minutes and longer. The biggest one I have is a cross platform compile for 4 architectures that takes around 10 minutes. I know my IDE supports multithreaded compiling: http://blog.jetbrains.com/idea/2012/12/intellij-idea-12-compiler-twice-as-fast/ but other then that it is hard to find benchmarks.

You may see some advantages to upgrading but I'm not sure if it will be worth the costs.

The advantages you might have fun with, especially if you are working with cross platforms is the availability to more RAM.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,211
If I get the job I'm hoping for, I'll give myself a 5960x for Xmas.
Reasons:
hardware is my hobby
8 is a good luck number for Chinese
would get me into water cooling
Epeen

Mind you, what I really would love for Xmas would be a15+ core x99 cpu
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,262
I've found comparisons between the 5930K and 4930K and it doesn't look good. In most CPU tests they perform almost equally. It seems I'll be passing on X99 after all. It's just not worth it to switch platforms for miniscule advantages here and there.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,110
I wish I had a good reason to get an 8 core chip. But ever since I started coding using CUDA, the more CPU cores thing kind of went out the window for me and I'm more interested in the fastest DP enabled GPU(s) I can own. 8 cores on HW-E would still be slower than one Titan for my codes.

I need to figure out how to monetize more cores to justify a 5960X. Someone start throwing me some ideas. :p
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,588
I have bought the 5930k to upgrade my sandy bridge quad core 2600.
I am waiting the shipment but I am regretting about my choose.

Probably I will see no performance gain at all.
I doubt that gaming will benefit of haswell-e over sandy bridge mainstream.

The great reason that convinced me to buy a new platform is because my gtx580 SLI isn't enough for pushing all titles at good frame rate, new cards is needed and I don't want to put new cards on a PCI express 2.0 8x/8x lanes.

Hope that I made the right choice.
 

Zomoa

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
242
I have bought the 5930k to upgrade my sandy bridge quad core 2600.
I am waiting the shipment but I am regretting about my choose.

Probably I will see no performance gain at all.
I doubt that gaming will benefit of haswell-e over sandy bridge mainstream.

The great reason that convinced me to buy a new platform is because my gtx580 SLI isn't enough for pushing all titles at good frame rate, new cards is needed and I don't want to put new cards on a PCI express 2.0 8x/8x lanes.

Hope that I made the right choice.

If your 2600k is pushed to it's maximum, it will have about the same IPC as haswell-E pushed to it's maximum. Unfortunately you will not see a performance increase in most games aside from the heavily multithreaded friendly (battlefield, ARMA).

If I wanted a 6-core platform i'd go with the 5820k and save some money. 8x/8x PCI-E 3.0 lanes won't be bottlenecking anything any time soon, and it's price is stellar. Perhaps drop in a Broadwell chip later on if I feel the need and they have a cheapish 8-core option then.

Think you need to be running 3 or more GPUs for the 5930k to out-perform the 5820k, and even then the difference will be a couple % at most.

Personally, I'd be too damn lazy to return the 5930k for the 5820k anyway so I'm not gonna suggest you do it. :eek: But that would free up a couple hundred $$ for you to spend on GPUs instead...
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,588
If your 2600k is pushed to it's maximum, it will have about the same IPC as haswell-E pushed to it's maximum. Unfortunately you will not see a performance increase in most games aside from the heavily multithreaded friendly (battlefield, ARMA).

If I wanted a 6-core platform i'd go with the 5820k and save some money. 8x/8x PCI-E 3.0 lanes won't be bottlenecking anything any time soon, and it's price is stellar. Perhaps drop in a Broadwell chip later on if I feel the need and they have a cheapish 8-core option then.

Think you need to be running 3 or more GPUs for the 5930k to out-perform the 5820k, and even then the difference will be a couple % at most.

Personally, I'd be too damn lazy to return the 5930k for the 5820k anyway so I'm not gonna suggest you do it. :eek: But that would free up a couple hundred $$ for you to spend on GPUs instead...

I have a 2600 not a 2600K so my OC is limited to 3.9GHz when all cores are used.
I'm not regretting that I bought a 5930K instead of a 5820K, I'm regretting the fact that I changed my sandy bridge platform.
Thinking twice on it, there is nothing that sandy bridge can't do well now apart productivity.
 

Zomoa

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
242
I have a 2600 not a 2600K so my OC is limited to 3.9GHz when all cores are used.
I'm not regretting that I bought a 5930K instead of a 5820K, I'm regretting the fact that I changed my sandy bridge platform.
Thinking twice on it, there is nothing that sandy bridge can't do well now apart productivity.


Ah, okay. Well, if you put your 5930k @ 4.2-4.4ghz or so, you'll notice a bump in performance across the board from what you have now. It'll be slight, but the performance benefit will be there, especially in heavy load situations. As far as gaming goes, you'll notice more stable, higher minimum FPS moreso than a higher average/maximum FPS. This is especially true in multi-GPU situations - even so, the difference we're talking about in modern games is probably not noticeable to most. But the difference IS there - it's not like the platform will provide no upgrade at all. Any scene involving massive amounts of characters, particles, and/or physics benefits greatly from a stronger processor. You know these events when they happen - 10 nades exploding on you at once in battlefield, or 100 dudes hitting a raid target in an MMO. They arn't typical gaming experiences, but these extreme load situations do happen from time to time.

If you don't do many CPU intensive tasks, the x99 platform is probably not a wise use of money, though. If you're regretting the purchase...return it before you open anything and don't look back. That's serious $$ you can use elsewhere. :)

My 5960x arrives today. I do a ton of encoding work personally, so the platform will pay for itself quickly. I couldn't imagine spending this amount of money on a PC if I didn't know FOR SURE it's going to blow what i currently have out of the water. When you're dropping this kind of $$, you have to really want it and/or have a good use for it, or it'll just feel like wasted money.

The CPU is the heart of the PC. One of the stupidest decisions I made is deciding to "upgrade" from an i7 970 hex-core to a 3770k quad. Sure, the IPC is quite higher and I get a bit better gaming-only performance, but the lack of cores really impacts performance when even a moderate multitasking load is on the processor. I should have stuck with the 970 system, getting back to a true multitasking beast is going to be a breath of fresh air for what I do with my PC. More cores is never a bad idea unless you can't afford it.

Just my 2c. :)
 
Last edited:

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,211
Sure you can turbo charge a four banger, but once you feel the power of an American muscle 8, there is no going back.
 

sblantipodi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
3,588
Ah, okay. Well, if you put your 5930k @ 4.2-4.4ghz or so, you'll notice a bump in performance across the board from what you have now. It'll be slight, but the performance benefit will be there, especially in heavy load situations. As far as gaming goes, you'll notice more stable, higher minimum FPS moreso than a higher average/maximum FPS. This is especially true in multi-GPU situations - even so, the difference we're talking about in modern games is probably not noticeable to most. But the difference IS there - it's not like the platform will provide no upgrade at all. Any scene involving massive amounts of characters, particles, and/or physics benefits greatly from a stronger processor. You know these events when they happen - 10 nades exploding on you at once in battlefield, or 100 dudes hitting a raid target in an MMO. They arn't typical gaming experiences, but these extreme load situations do happen from time to time.

If you don't do many CPU intensive tasks, the x99 platform is probably not a wise use of money, though. If you're regretting the purchase...return it before you open anything and don't look back. That's serious $$ you can use elsewhere. :)

My 5960x arrives today. I do a ton of encoding work personally, so the platform will pay for itself quickly. I couldn't imagine spending this amount of money on a PC if I didn't know FOR SURE it's going to blow what i currently have out of the water. When you're dropping this kind of $$, you have to really want it and/or have a good use for it, or it'll just feel like wasted money.

The CPU is the heart of the PC. One of the stupidest decisions I made is deciding to "upgrade" from an i7 970 hex-core to a 3770k quad. Sure, the IPC is quite higher and I get a bit better gaming-only performance, but the lack of cores really impacts performance when even a moderate multitasking load is on the processor. I should have stuck with the 970 system, getting back to a true multitasking beast is going to be a breath of fresh air for what I do with my PC. More cores is never a bad idea unless you can't afford it.

Just my 2c. :)

thanks for the explanation.
the problem is that there is not many battlefield, from now to 2015, the only demanding games we have are Unity, Batman, The Division.
Three games for a new platform is not a good choice.
 

GibsonEX

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
680
If you don't do many CPU intensive tasks, the x99 platform is probably not a wise use of money, though. If you're regretting the purchase...return it before you open anything and don't look back. That's serious $$ you can use elsewhere. :)

I feel this way right now. Good thing i didn't open the box, i was still wrecking my brain what mobo to get, but the more i think about it, the more i realize that cost difference between Z97 and x99 could almost net me one extra GPU for SLI. Hell, i started thinking about flashing my BIOS to support SLI, and not upgrade at all, but i'm pretty sure my CPU would be a bottleneck for the upcoming Maxwell cards though. But, damn it's nice to have latest technology :D
 
Top