Bookmark and Share


Intel Corp.’s next-generation high-end desktop microprocessor code-named Haswell-E promises to bring a number of “firsts” to the market: it will be the first chip to support DDR4 memory and it will be Intel’s first desktop chip with eight cores. Apparently, these two advantages are not the only good things about the new central processing units.

OCDrift web-site has published a picture of what is claimed to be Intel Core i7-5960X “Haswell-E” processor (the next-generation HEDT flagship) with removed heat-spreader. While the processor got irrecoverably damaged in the process of de-lidding, this allowed to make two important discoveries:

  • Unlike the regular Haswell, Haswell Refresh and even the latest Devil’s Canyon microprocessors, the next-generation Haswell-E uses solder instead of thermal interface material between the die and the integrated heat-spreader (IHS). Since the IHS is soldered to the die, thermal conductivity between the two is excellent, but the removal of the heat-spreader is risky to say at least.
  • The forthcoming Intel’s Core i7-5800- and 5900-series “Haswell-E” high-end desktop chips will be based on the code-named Haswell-EP silicon, which is designed for the next-generation Intel Xeon E5-series processors. As it can be seen on the damaged die, it contains twelve x86 cores, but the Core i7-5960X only has “only” eight cores activated.

Thanks to soldered HIS, it is logical to expect the new Haswell-E chips to have rather good overclocking potential. However, this is not cast in stone.

This is not the first time when Intel uses the Xeon-class silicon for its extreme desktop offerings. For example, the Core i7-3960X/4960X contain eight cores, but only have six cores activated. The problem with twelve-core silicon is that it was not designed for high clock-rates, which means that despite of fine thermal interface the potential to run such chip at extreme frequencies may not be that high. There is a hypothetical possibility for Intel to unlock additional cores on HEDT chips, in the future, but chances for that are pretty thin.

Intel Core i7-5960X processor will feature eight cores with the Hyper-Threading technology, 20MB L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory controller (2133MHz maximum frequency), 40 PCI Express 3.0 lanes and so on. Unfortunately, it is expected that default clock-rate of the chip will be only 3.0GHz, which means that in many cases it will be slower than existing six-core HEDT chips.

But while performance and overclocking potential of the new Core i7-5900-series chips remain to be seen, the new microprocessors will rely on a brand new platform that will be much more advanced compared to today’s platforms. Intel’s X99 chipset will support extremely advanced overclocking and tweaking capabilities, up to five devices in PCI Express 2.0/3.0 x8 mode (four graphics cards and one enthusiast-class solid-state drive in PCI Express card form-factor), ten Serial ATA-6Gb/s ports, up to six USB 3.0 ports (14 USB ports in total) and so on.

Intel plans to launch its Core i7 5000-series Extreme “Haswell-E” chips this September.

Intel did not comment on the new-story.

Tags: Intel, Haswell, Haswell-E, Core, Core i7, Core i7-5960X, Haswell-EP, Xeon, Wellsburg, LGA2011, LGA2011-3, 22nm, Intel X99, X99, DDR4


Comments currently: 27
Discussion started: 07/30/14 07:44:37 AM
Latest comment: 09/08/16 03:01:33 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


"This is not the fact time" should be "This is not the first time"
0 0 [Posted by: qubit  | Date: 07/30/14 07:44:37 AM]
- collapse thread

0 0 [Posted by: Anton  | Date: 07/30/14 12:13:59 PM]

Sure, why sell a fully functional desktop CPU at a reasonable price, if you can disable 1/3 or half of it and sell the fully functional server model at three or more times the price.

1 1 [Posted by: Harry Lloyd  | Date: 07/30/14 07:56:59 AM]
- collapse thread

It is called chip harvesting, and both AMD and Intel do it all the time. No wafer will have 100% yield. There will always be defective chips. They are tested then trickle down into different SKUs. They are not going to throw away partially functional chip.

As for price, this is not for mainstream user. If you buy this chip purely for gaming then you are doing it wrong.
0 1 [Posted by: trumpet-205  | Date: 08/01/14 02:48:11 PM]
Yes, but there will be no 12-core models for desktop. They will be selling those fully functional chips for servers at ludicrous prices, and the defective chips for desktop at very high prices. They may have been doing this for ages, but it does not mean that it is fine.
1 1 [Posted by: Harry Lloyd  | Date: 08/08/14 07:43:36 AM]
Ok, so how do you want it to work? Intel sells the same enterprise-grade chips to businesses for thousands of dollars and to individuals for a "more reasonable" price? Is Intel somehow obligated to provide you with chips that you don't feel like paying the correct price for?
0 0 [Posted by: lol123  | Date: 08/15/14 02:34:53 AM]
Illogical argument. These kind of chips were worth 300 to 400 dollars. That this has changed relatively recently says nothing to me.
By your logic, why Intel should sell xeons so expensive, since they are not much better than consumer cpus?

Additionally, "the enterprise" if you exclude some niche or billion dollar companies have far more modest demands than the gamer. In fact the average enterprise can be run smoothly only by pentiums and athlons. They put the sticker
"Professional" and they think they can fool somebody!
Seriously, I am not trolling you, if not anything else, consider only this; if it were not for the gamers you would not have gpgpu computing, the boosting of performance of supercomputers by gpus, the knights corner etc etc. In fact the computing needs of the average joe are much bigger and the determining factor for the future of computing. Before you discard my suggestions as crazy, just give them a thought
0 0 [Posted by: Prodromos Regalides  | Date: 08/19/14 08:22:03 PM]
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. "Enterprise" requirements are far more demanding than the average high end game is. We are talking about servers here. I run 25+ virtual servers off one host - that has 2x xeon processors in it.
This is just one scenario - consider VDI where you have have hundreds of virtual desktops running off a host. Xeons *are* better than consumer CPUs. A xeon in an enterprise environment requires all of the cores to be fully functional and can be in use 80% load 24/7 365 days a year. Don't talk about what you know nothing about - have you managed servers in an enterprise environment? No? Then don't talk about it
0 0 [Posted by: James Tuson  | Date: 08/25/14 10:59:47 PM]
I think it is entirely plausible that demand for Haswell-E will far outstrip the number of defective 12 core Xeons therefore there should be many perfectly good 12 core Xeon masquerading as an 8 core Haswell-E.

I appreciate even 'working' 12 cores would be disabled but how amazing would it be if some clever mobo manufacturer found a sneaky unlock for this chip, even if it was the good old fashioned way with a pencil tracing new connections on the PCB.
0 1 [Posted by: loadwick  | Date: 08/10/14 06:10:18 AM]
It's Chip harvesting, and everybody does do it, but its mostly R&D economics, the enterprise market, and its enterprise pricing is what produces the profits that pay for the research and development, at the economies of scale only the enterprise/wider market can provide. the gaming market can not provide the sales volume , and these CPUs would cost much more without an economy of scale, to justify these chip's design costs, it has always been thus! Intel's Xeon enterprise SKUs will be coming down in price, as more competition begins to arrive from the non IBM Power8 server CPUs that are scheduled to begin arriving in 2015. More competition in the server market, will cause prices to fall in the x86 based market across the board from enterprise to gaming, and even low end server grade Xeons may become affordable for the home user.
1 1 [Posted by: BigChiefRunAmok  | Date: 08/11/14 02:01:31 PM]
Others engaging in similarly shady practices does not make them acceptable. Selling processors with defective hardware disabled is one thing, but destroying good hardware for profit is wrong, no matter how you rationalize it. It may turn a quick profit, and induce sales when users outgrow their underpowered crippled hardware, but the costs are born by us all in terms of wasted resources and energy, and the pollution and environmental damage it is directly responsible for. Artificially limiting the lifetime of products should not be tolerated.

If some competition in the market can correct this, that would be great. Commodity server hardware with Power8 or ARMv8 would also be welcome while I'm waiting for my Mill.
0 1 [Posted by: x  | Date: 08/13/14 04:32:37 AM]

"up to six USB 3.0 ports (14 USB ports in total)"

Does that include USB 3.1?
0 0 [Posted by: ChiliBean  | Date: 07/30/14 09:20:30 AM]
- collapse thread

0 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 07/31/14 12:13:20 AM]
The chipset will not support 3.1 but some motherboards will:
0 0 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 07/31/14 10:09:46 AM]
Great. Thanks!
0 0 [Posted by: ChiliBean  | Date: 07/31/14 11:09:12 AM]

8 cores 16 treads, very nice, but i wonder...
...will AMD now look better cuz they have, lets say, 8 core CPU, on 4ghz and 125W TDP, and Intel has 8 cores on 3ghz with 140W TDP.
We know Intels cores are faster and there are 16 treads , but still.

Intel had 2011 platform with 6 core CPU-s on 140W TDP i dont understand how they didnt make this better by now.
0 0 [Posted by: kingpin  | Date: 08/07/14 09:45:52 AM]
- collapse thread

> Intel had 2011 platform with 6 core CPU-s on 140W TDP i dont understand how they didnt make this better by now

contradicts this:

> We know Intels cores are faster

They haven't "made this better" because adding cores would just be a costly marketing gimmick. As you just pointed out, Intel cores are faster. How much faster you ask? Take a look at
Here's a comparison for you: AMD FX-9590 is 8 cores/16 threads and an Intel core i7-4790 is 4 cores/8 threads. On benchmarks which actually utilize all of AMD's cores, the AMD chip is 0.66% faster than the Intel chip. The fact is though, in real world scenarios the 4790 will outperform the AMD chip because 99% of desktop programs these days are not designed to take advantage of a processor with 16 threads. An Intel core is literally twice as fast as an AMD core and it operates on 40% of its power. If we look at pricing, the AMD FX-9590's retail price is $330. The Intel i7-4790's retail price is $315...

There is literally 0 reason to buy a high end AMD chip over an Intel chip.
0 0 [Posted by: migit128  | Date: 08/12/14 04:50:44 AM]
Amd fx x8 is 8 treads not 16 and intel i7 is also 8 treads so they are same there.
cpubenchmark site is crap, they are benchmarks and i stopped watching benchmarks in year 2003.
I never click not even in xbitlabs on "general performance" results.

In this article was Intel core chip with 8 cores , 16 treads , working at ONLY 3 ghz, with a TDP of 140 watts. Its not i5 working on 3.5/3.6ghz unlocked with POTENCIAL its not i7 on 3.5ghz thats unlocked, its 3.0 ghz.
This Intels CPU is burning a lot and AMD with 8 cores on 4 GHZ with tdp of 125w now loks better in comparison.

In Europe in my country fx 9590 and i7 4790 have the same price and i7 "k" version is much more expensive.

I would never buy Intel cuz i can buy AMD, and i would never buy cpu-s in this price range, fx 8350 would be as high as i would go and in the price range Intel i5 with 4 cores and 4 treads on 3.2 ghz dosent look that attractive.

:D and i dont know why im writing this cuz you love Intel and nobody will read this anyway. XD
0 0 [Posted by: kingpin  | Date: 08/13/14 08:36:51 AM]
No consumer AMD chip has 16 threads.

You're talking mad shit here dude.
0 0 [Posted by: Tyson Merten  | Date: 08/10/15 11:16:53 PM]
AMD 8cores don't have 8 full cores. 8 cores, 4 GPU units = Quad Core with AMAD Hyperthreading.
0 0 [Posted by: Tyson Merten  | Date: 08/10/15 11:15:19 PM]

So many things wrong here. The tag line for this article doesn't seem to match the contents, especially with regard to the over-locking potential. There is no method for unlocking cores that Intel has disabled on their chips. The possibility isn't hypothetical - the chances are zero. Finally this is almost certainly NOT a Haswell-E part. Intel makes server chips with fewer cores that would be ideal candidates for producing Haswell-E parts for the high-end desktop. Why would they use these giant 12 core parts with a dual ring bus for this? It doesn't make any sense and it's not economical when they have single ring bus 10 core parts available to them.
0 0 [Posted by: TEAMSWITCHER  | Date: 08/09/14 09:45:08 AM]


Add your Comment

Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

10:48 pm | LG’s Unique Ultra-Wide Curved 34” Display Finally Hits the Market. LG 34UC97 Available in the U.S. and the U.K.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

12:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

4:22 am | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

1:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

10:41 am | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture