Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Intel Hardware

Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory 181

crookedvulture writes: Intel has updated its high-end desktop platform with a new CPU-and-chipset combo. The Haswell-E processor has up to eight cores, 20MB of cache, and 40 lanes of PCI Express 3.0. It also sports a quad-channel memory controller primed for next-gen DDR4 modules. The companion X99 chipset adds a boatload of I/O, including 10 SATA ports, native USB 3.0 support, and provisions for M.2 and SATA Express storage devices. Thanks to the extra CPU cores, performance is much improved in multithreaded applications. Legacy comparisons, which include dozens of CPUs dating back to 2011, provide some interesting context for just how fast the new Core i7-5960X really is. Intel had to dial back the chip's clock speeds to accommodate the extra cores, though, and that concession can translate to slower gaming performance than Haswell CPUs with fewer, faster cores. Haswell-E looks like a clear win for applications that can exploit its prodigious CPU horsepower and I/O bandwidth, but it's clearly not the best CPU for everything. Reviews also available from Hot Hardware, PC Perspective, AnandTech, Tom's Hardware, and HardOCP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory

Comments Filter:
  • *drool* (Score:5, Funny)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @02:45PM (#47786205) Homepage Journal


    'nuff said.

    I'm still clunking along on a P4 3.8 GHz. I'd love a new box that fast!

    • Why spend $2000 to update from a P4 though? For $350 or $400 a system can show your P$ to be a waste of electricity.

  • At least the one review I looked at said it was only $1K.
  • I recently (less than a year ago), bought an i7, four core, 8 thread machine. I use it a lot for chess analysis, and it is amazing how quickly it can get to a 24 ply deep analysis. Even with a slightly slower clock, 8 cores would be so much quicker.

    • I have a similar spec in a laptop workstation where I run cloud software in VMware workstation. For most people 24GB of RAM and a quad-core i7 is not going to make their wordprocessing or browsing any better, so for most people tablets are more convenient and useful.

      Cores matter in virtualization of course, but at the moment, the slowest component is the hard disk.

  • But does it run Linux?

  • just wait (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hypergreatthing ( 254983 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @02:54PM (#47786281)

    until next year. 14nm shrink should be a huge boost in both efficiency and performance.
    The x99 is an "enthusiast" platform and has pricing along those lines.
    DDR4 is also extremely new. Expect it to get faster/better timing specs as time progresses.

    • In computer technology, there is ALWAYS something new next year. Yes, there'll be a 14nm shrink next year (or maybe later this year)... but then just a year away will be a technology update, a new core design that is more capable, and of course they'll have more experience on the 14nm process and it'll be better... however only like a year after that 10nm will be online and that'll be more efficient.

      And so on and so forth.

      With computers, you buy what you need when you need it. Playing the "Oh something bett

  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @02:55PM (#47786293) Journal

    The 5820K is packing 6 cores and an unlocked multiplier for less than $400. If you don't absolutely need the full 8-core 5960X, then the 5820K is going to be a very powerful part at a reasonable price for the level of performance it delivers.

    • Yes but X99 and DDR4 blows any chance of doing Haswell-E on a budget. I need a new PC and is considering either 4790K or 5960X, the former is fine now while the latter is going all out on new tech which I hope will last longer. Eight cores crushes the mainstream chip in multithreading. Eight RAM slots in case I want to double up, of a type that will exist long and improve much. Plenty PCIe lanes. Slightly weak single threaded performance at stock but considerable overclocking potential. With 10% performance

      • by godefroi ( 52421 )

        In my experience, I'm seldom if ever CPU-capped, and if I am, what I'm doing it the sort of thing that 10% won't make a difference on. My advice, save your money. Buy all the RAM you'll want now (16GB, 32GB would be extravagant) before it becomes expensive.

        The few extra months you buy with the 5960X isn't going to make a difference in the long run.

        Of course, I don't know your particular application, nor do I know your particular financial situation. YMMV.

    • I was just looking at that one a few hours ago (need to replace my desktop ... Mozilla apps are pigs with high core-affinity).

      I decided against it because it has many fewer of the new instructions [] than the 4790K [], slower clock, and almost double the TDP (and I prefer quiet/low power).

      Obviously for highly parallel tasks that can fit nicely in the 5820K's bigger cache, it will win handily. I'd love to see an ffmpeg coding shoot-out, but I'm concerned that the 5820K's disabled PCIe lanes might hamper other sy

      • by fnj ( 64210 )

        ... the new instructions ...

        You mean like the TSX-NI [] instructions that can increase performance of certain highly threaded workloads up to 40%?

        Oh, so sorry. Intel spectacularly bit the big one on that rollout. Completely busted. So bad that the latest microcode update completely disables those instructions.

  • But will it run Crysis?

    • No you'll have to wait for the upgrade with the industrial cooling unit bolted on. Then you might get it usable.


    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      It runs Crysis flawlessly while I'm banging your mother, sister, and father.

      Your brother is too busy with my dog for me to do anything with him.

  • That is the problem with Apple's obsession with small and sexy. Of course if Apple updates the Pro this year all is good but given their history I would not bet on it.

  • Elephant in the room (Score:4, Informative)

    by cowwoc2001 ( 976892 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @03:44PM (#47786659)

    No one is talking about the elephant in the room: RAM prices are so high that you'd have to spend $700 to hit 64GB RAM (the max the board supports). That is just outrageous.

    These prices are going to lead to a severe drop in demand.

    • by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @04:04PM (#47786777)
      Why is that the elephant in the room? How many people need 64 gigs of RAM? 8 to 16 gigs is currently plenty for most applications. Yes, there are instances where more is needed, but these instances are rare. Usually people who need more than 16 gigs are requiring this for work-related reasons, where the $700 takes a different perspective.
      • Usually people who need more than 16 gigs are requiring this for work-related reasons, where the $700 takes a different perspective.

        $700 may not be much compared to labour, but it's still real money someone in the economy is going to pay.

        The "room" is where you have other computer hardware and electronics, and that keeps getting cheaper and faster all the time. That's why the price fixing of RAM is so obvious. I remember paying less per GB in the DDR2 days.

        Also, memory is supposed to be this relatively dumb part of machinery. As I'm speccing out a new home machine, I notice that the mobo will cost less than 8 GB of DDR3, which is t

        • I suspect you're right about price fixing. However, the fact that someone in the economy has to pay a large sum of real money is irrelevant in determining cost-benefit.

          Yes, it's real money. But so are labor costs. And, in theory, those labor costs represent [a portion of] the real value that person is adding to the economy. So anything that makes the employee able to add value more efficiently is overall good.

          In general, an employee would not be earning $200/hr on a $7,000 workstation if they weren't ad

    • by mestar ( 121800 )

      OMG, 64 GB of RAM for only $700. That is simply amazing, how cheap it is.

      • by cowwoc2001 ( 976892 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @04:55PM (#47787073)

        Two years ago it was half that price.

        Electronics prices are supposed to drop over time. When you compare current prices to 5 years ago there isn't much of a difference.

        • (citation needed)

          I have never seen RAM as cheap as it is now. When you can buy a 16GB ECC DIMM for less than $200, it is rather wonderful. Our researchers that use big amounts of memory are extremely happy with how much memory they can stuff in desktops and servers for a reasonably price.

          Now I'll admit, I don't have a chart of RAM prices, so I suppose I could be wrong, but then I've worked in IT for the last, oh, 20ish years on a continuous basis and spec'ing and buying hardware is a fairly common part of m

          • See [] and []

            • by Khyber ( 864651 )

              "RAM prices are so high that you'd have to spend $700 to hit 64GB RAM (the max the board supports). That is just outrageous."

              Except I'm finding 8GB RAM sticks of DDR3 for 40 bucks, So you obviously have no fucking clue how to price-shop.

              Oh, you use /g/ recommended sourcing. No fucking wonder, you retard. Go to
              You're probably the same idiot that shills for logicalincrements.

              • Oh, you use /g/ recommended sourcing. No fucking wonder, you retard. Go to

                Why, so they can buy some shitty off-brand memory with an ass warranty?

                • by Khyber ( 864651 )

                  Shitty? I've got a 486DX4 laptop using memory I got from in 1996.

                  And it's still working.

                  All of my memory bought from Pricewatch has worked fine and is still working to this day.

    • The price will probably go down once manufacturing spins up and yields are better. I remember reading on /. that manufacturers over provisioned manufacturing for DDR3. They will probably be more conservative with DDR4 at least in the beginning. Wait a couple months until the market stabilizes.
    • Have you looked at RAM prices? 32GB of DDR3 RAM is about $300-400 for a 4x8GB set, depending on speed and company. So $600-800 for 64GB. Ok well how about server memory, since you can get servers with 6TB of RAM if you like (really, check HP or Dell). For a 16GB DIMM, which is the largest you can get before the price per GB skyrockets, it is about $160-200. fo $640-800 for 64GB.

      So hmmm, looks like DDR4 is right in what other ram costs, plus a bit of a premium since it is brand new tech. What a shock! Who wo

  • For 'how many lanes of NSA Bulldozer 7.0" (is that the latest?) we'll just have to wait for the next Vanunu or Snowden.

  • As a gamer, I have been on a 3 year PC build cycle since 1992. Every three years (more or less), I build a new PC. Since 2008, I've only upgraded once and my current build (now 2 years old, a 2500k overclocked to 4.4 Ghz) feels pretty darnn fast still. It's weird because 15 years ago, I'd be itching for new hardware with a 2 year old system. Since my Core2 Duo build in 2008, I haven't really seen any noticeable performance jumps other than the move to SSDs and the bigger IPS panels. My old Core 2 system, w
    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      please check out StarCItizen. if it's to your taste... you will upgrade

    • I dunno. It just thinks like the rate of change has slowed down a lot over the last decade. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

      10+ years ago, performance was more than doubling every two years through a combination of higher clocks, die shrinks, extra transistors, fundamental breakthroughs in logic circuit designs, etc. Right now, mainstream CPUs are only ~60% faster than mainstream CPUs from four years ago because clocks are stuck near the 4GHz mark, die shrinks are becoming much slower in coming, nearly all fundamental breakthroughs have been discovered and modern hardware is already more powerful than what most people can be bot

    • by drkim ( 1559875 )

      Maybe the fact that most kids these days only play on consoles?

      I think you're right about this one.

      Back 'in the day' the game software got more sophisticated almost with each game released. Home consoles were fairly primitive. For the game or pro computer consumer there was a constant pressure to build a machine that could keep up with the latest software.

      I think there are several factors which contributed to the stagnation of the hardware upgrade cycle.

      1. More game developers now are using middleware to develop their product; instead of writing fresh and improved code

  • by Sir_Sri ( 199544 ) on Friday August 29, 2014 @07:07PM (#47787745)

    Interesting essentially how little benefit they get.

    The X99 mobo and platform is nice, I like a lot of what they're doing there, and all of the system components matter a lot to user experience. But unless you have a very specific requirement any user would be just as well served with a quad core or a octa core, if not better served with the devil's canyon quad core given the single threaded performance. That's probably a bad place for intel to be positioning these, as the target audience for these processors is looking for blazing fast and lots of cores. And it only delivers one of the two.

    I think if I was buying a system this week or next (which... I am) I'd be a bit disappointed that I can't put a devil's canyon quad core on an X99 mobo, and then upgrade the CPU later if they manage to refresh the E series into something more attractive.

  • for non-multithreaded games?

    • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      Yes. Whenever people talk about "games" you know that's really just a secret code word for Dwarf Fortress.

  • So I'm only going to have the ability to use two GPUs in SLI?

    Nope. Fuck that.

The absent ones are always at fault.