OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i7 5820K Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£120PassMark benchmark result:9830N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA2011-3TDP (Thermal design power):140 W

Intel Core i7 5820K Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.3

▼Worse than 56% of processors

4.8

▼Worse than 62% of processors

9.1

★Better than 90% of processors

3.2
Gaming
Gaming
3.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
3.2
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
3.5
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
3.6
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
2.4
L3 cache
8.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
4.5
Video editing
Video editing
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
4.7
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
3.6
N. of physical cores
20.0%
6.6
CPU threads
15.0%
2.4
L3 cache

No image

No image

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 5820K

5.3

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.4

Show more

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

?

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

4.6

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

4.3

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

6.6

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

Power & Thermal

4.5

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

?

Configurable TDP

Show more

Intel Core i7 5820K vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 5820K better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

12 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
28
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
28 vs 16
Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
45.9% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2.5 MB/core
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
4 more CPU threads
CPU threads
12
▲ Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8
5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
6 x 3.3 GHz
▲ Better than 65% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
9.47x more popular
Intel Core i7 5820K is more popular than the average processor (9.47 vs 1).
9.47 vs 1

9.47x more popular
Intel Core i7 5820K is more popular than the average processor (9.47 vs 1).
9.47 vs 1
14.3% higher user score
User score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i7 5820K
the average processor
Intel Core i7 5820K has a higher user score than the average processor (9.14 vs 8.000).
9.14 vs 8

Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA2011-3
▲ Better than 60% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA2011-3 vs FP4).
LGA2011-3 vs FP4

Unlocked for overclocking
Unlocked multiplier
yes
▲ Better than 78% of models
This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
4 more CPU threads
CPU threads
12
▲ Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
12 vs 8
Higher base clock
CPU base clock speed
6 x 3.3 GHz
▲ Better than 65% of models
This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
6x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
12.9% higher multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
5,452
▲ Better than 53% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (5,452 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
5,452 vs 4,829

45.9% more L3 per core
L3 per core
2.5 MB/core
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
2.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
87.5% larger L3 cache
L3 cache
15 MB
▲ Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (15 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
15 MB vs 8 MB

12 more PCIe lanes
PCIe lane count
28
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <10 – >30
This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
28 vs 16
Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
48.5% higher memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
68 GB/s
▲ Better than 65% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (68 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
68 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s

5 °C higher TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
105 °C
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
105 °C vs 100 °C

Why is Intel Core i7 5820K worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

16.3% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
20.4% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1991
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1991 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,991 vs 2,500
3.11x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
140 W
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
140 W vs 45 W
2.33x higher boost power
Boost power (PL2)
140 W
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
140 W vs 60 W
19.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,181
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,181 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,181 vs 1,471
2.01x larger die size
Die size
356 mm²
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (356 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
356 mm² vs 177 mm²

6 years older release date
Release date
2014
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2014 vs 2020).
August 2014
2014 vs 2020
No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES vs AES, SHA
Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
▼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA

16.3% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
▼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
20.4% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1991
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1991 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,991 vs 2,500
19.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,181
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,181 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,181 vs 1,471
18.2% weaker multi-core performance
Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
2,284
▼ Worse than 57% of models
Market range: <702 – >10.8k
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,284 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
2,284 vs 2,791
7% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
9,830
▼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,830 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
9,830 vs 10,572.5

83.3% larger process node
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
22 nm vs 12 nm
2.01x larger die size
Die size
356 mm²
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (356 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
356 mm² vs 177 mm²
Less advanced microarchitecture
Microarchitecture codename
Haswell
▼ Worse than 69% of models
This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
Haswell vs Kaby Lake
50% less L2 per core
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
40% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
1.5 MB
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
Less advanced foundry
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
47.5% fewer transistors
N. of transistors
2.6 billion
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (2.6 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
2.6 billion vs 4.95 billion

27.3% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
Limited PCIe bifurcation
PCIe bifurcation modes
x16
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
2 fewer memory channels
Memory channels
4
★ Better than 93% of models
Market range: <1 – >6
This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
4 vs 2

No integrated graphics
Integrated graphics
no
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor does not include integrated graphics, the average processor does. 87.6% of processors include integrated graphics.

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
3.11x higher base power
Base power (PL1)
140 W
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
140 W vs 45 W
2.33x higher boost power
Boost power (PL2)
140 W
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
140 W vs 60 W
3.11x higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
140 W
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (140 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
140 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

techpowerup.com

16/03/2015

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5960X vs i7-5930K vs i7-5820K Review

This TechPowerUp review analyzes the Haswell-E platform, comparing the 8-core i7-5960X against 6-core models (i7-5930K, i7-5820K) on the X99 chipset with DDR4. While the 5960X offers top-tier 8-core performance, the 5820K serves as a high-value, overclockable alternative, with differences in PCIe lane counts (40 vs. 28) separating the premium and budget options. Performance testing reveals massive gains in workstation tasks like rendering, though gaming benefits are minimal, and high power consumption under load is noted. Pros include exceptional multi-threaded speed and platform longevity, while cons involve high heat output and limited PCIe lanes on lower-tier models.

overclock3d.net

29/10/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7 5820K Review

The Overclock3D review describes the Intel Core i7-5820K as a mixed-bag processor that struggles to justify itself at stock speeds, often underperforming compared to the cheaper, higher-clocked i7-4790K. While it brings six hyperthreaded cores and DDR4 support to a more affordable X99 price point, its "out of the box" performance is underwhelming, and the 28 PCIe lanes are only suitable for single-GPU users. Despite these issues, the chip shines in heavily multi-threaded tasks, particularly when overclocked to bridge the performance gap with higher-tier models. Key, however, was a "frustrating" overclocking experience where reviewers struggled to achieve stable high-speed memory support, often forcing a compromise between CPU and RAM speeds. Despite receiving an OC3D Silver Award for its value proposition in video rendering and multi-tasking, the review concludes it is hard to recommend for average users.

bit-tech.net

03/09/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K Review

The Bit-tech review of the Intel Core i7-5930K and i7-5820K highlights significant performance gains over previous generations,, driven by 6-core architecture, quad-channel DDR4 memory, and the X99 chipset. Pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance, with the i7-5930K showing up to 41% faster rendering speeds when overclocked, alongside improved platform features. Cons involve high total system costs due to required DDR4 memory and 140W TDPs that necessitate robust cooling, with the i7-5820K restricted to 28 PCIe lanes compared to the 5930K's 40. Ultimately, the review deems the i7-5820K the better value for gamers, while the i7-5930K is recommended only for those specifically needing the extra PCIe lanes.

tomshardware.com

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K And -5820K CPU Review

The Tom's Hardware review highlights the Intel Core i7-5960X as a landmark 22nm Haswell-E processor, representing Intel's first eight-core consumer desktop CPU, featuring 16 threads, 20MB L3 cache, and a shift to the X99 chipset with quad-channel DDR4 memory. While offering immense multi-threaded performance (up to 79% faster in optimized tasks) and 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, the platform requires expensive LGA 2011-3 motherboards and DDR4 memory. Despite high power consumption when overclocked to 4.5GHz, the chip is efficient at stock speeds, though its 3.0GHz base clock is lower than previous Extreme Edition chips, and its high $1,050 price point makes it overkill for most users.

anandtech.com

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

CPU Benchmarks - The Intel Haswell-E CPU Review: Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K, i7-5820K Tested

AnandTech's review of Intel's Haswell-E lineup highlights the Core i7-5960X as the first consumer 8-core processor, offering immense multi-threaded performance for rendering and video encoding, alongside the 6-core i7-5930K and i7-5820K. Key advantages include the X99 platform's support for DDR4 memory and up to 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, ideal for high-end, multi-GPU configurations. However, the 5960X's lower base clock (3.0GHz) can result in poorer gaming performance compared to higher-clocked quad-core chips, and the high cost of the CPU, X99 motherboard, and DDR4 memory represents a significant investment. For value-conscious users, the i7-5820K is highlighted as the standout choice for its six cores at a lower price point, despite having only 28 PCIe lanes. Conversely, the i7-5930K is viewed as a less appealing middle-ground, offering 40 lanes but lacking a substantial performance advantage over the 5820K in most scenarios. Ultimately, the review concludes that Haswell-E is an excellent, yet expensive, workstation-level platform that is often overkill for pure gaming applications.

tomshardware.com

07/05/2015

Summary of the review

MSI X99S SLI Plus Motherboard Review

The Tom's Hardware review highlights the MSI X99S SLI Plus as a high-value LGA 2011-v3 motherboard offering premium features, such as three-way SLI support and a PCIe 3.0 M.2 slot, at a budget-friendly price point. It is noted for superior memory stability beyond DDR4-3200, though CPU overclocking fell slightly short of higher-end alternatives, achieving 4.4GHz. Minor compromises include an older ALC892 audio codec and tight spacing for 4-way GPU setups, yet the board is praised for its robust performance-per-dollar, particularly for users seeking a sleek, all-black aesthetic without the high-end price tag. Copy

bit-tech.net

03/09/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5930K and Core i7-5820K Review

The Bit-tech review highlights the Intel Core i7-5930K and i7-5820K as powerful six-core, 12-thread Haswell-E processors offering significant performance gains in multi-threaded tasks, with the 5930K providing 40 PCIe lanes for multi-GPU setups, while the 5820K features 28 lanes, serving as a more cost-effective option. Both chips excel in rendering and media encoding, boasting substantial performance leads over mainstream alternatives, especially when overclocked, though performance differences are negligible in single-GPU gaming scenarios. Key pros include high multi-threaded performance and easy overclocking, countered by high platform costs for X99 motherboards and DDR4 RAM, along with PCIe lane limitations on the 5820K. For more details, visit bit-tech.net. Copy

chip.de

12/01/2015

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5820K (Desktop Processor) Review

The Intel Core i7-5820K is a 6-core Haswell-E processor for the LGA 2011-v3 socket, offering high-end performance for the X99 platform at a more accessible price point than its 8-core counterparts. It excels in multi-threaded tasks, content creation, and heavy multitasking, benefiting from 12 threads and DDR4 quad-channel memory support. Key advantages include exceptional raw processing power, high overclocking potential, and 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes for multi-GPU setups. However, the processor lacks integrated graphics, requires an expensive X99 motherboard and DDR4 RAM, and has a high TDP that demands strong aftermarket cooling. The processor, featuring a soldered heatspreader, provides significant bandwidth improvements but the lower 28 PCIe lane count, compared to the 5930K/5960X, may limit extreme workstation configurations. Detailed test results are available at CHIP.de.

pcgameshardware.de

30/08/2014

Summary of the review

Haswell Extreme: Intel Core i7-5960X and i7-5820K (ES) Review

The PC Games Hardware review highlights the Core i7-5960X as a groundbreaking eight-core flagship, offering superior performance in heavily threaded professional applications (32–69% faster than previous-gen) and robust multi-GPU support via 40 PCIe lanes. While featuring advanced X99 platform support for DDR4 memory, the processor carries high entry costs, requires a 140W TDP cooling solution, and offers limited gaming advantages over cheaper, higher-clocked quad-core options. The review identifies the six-core i7-5820K as the "sweet spot" for enthusiasts, offering excellent value and performance for the high-end desktop platform.

computerbase.de

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

Core i7-5820K and 5960X Review: Intel Haswell-E with Six and Eight Cores

The ComputerBase review of Intel's "Haswell-E" platform highlights a significant leap in high-end computing, introducing the 8-core i7-5960X and 6-core i7-5820K, which provide substantial multi-threaded performance boosts up to 40% in optimized applications. While the i7-5960X excels in workstation tasks, a key drawback is that lower clock speeds can result in lower performance compared to cheaper quad-core chips in gaming or single-threaded workloads. The platform brings DDR4 memory support and the new X99 chipset, offering improved bandwidth, efficiency, and connectivity options. However, adoption requires high investment due to the necessity of new LGA2011-v3 motherboards and costly DDR4 RAM, with the cheaper i7-5820K limited by fewer PCIe lanes. Overclocking is assisted by high-quality solder (indium) between the die and heat spreader, providing better thermal performance than standard paste. Despite this, Haswell-E chips have relatively limited overclocking headroom, often stalling around 4.2–4.4 GHz, and show high power consumption under load.

clubic.com

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

Core i7 5960X review: Testing the new 8-core €1000 powerhouse (including the 5820K)

The Xbitlabs review covers the Haswell-E lineup, focusing on the Core i7-5960X as Intel's first 8-core consumer CPU. Pros include exceptional multi-threaded performance (up to 40% faster) and DDR4 support, while high CPU costs and expensive DDR4 memory act as cons. The i7-5820K is highlighted as the value choice, offering six cores and overclocking capability, though with fewer PCIe lanes (28). While dominating productivity tasks, the platform offers limited gaming gains over quad-cores and consumes high power with 4.2–4.3 GHz overclocking limits. XbitLabs

hardware.fr

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Haswell-E, LGA 2011-v3 and DDR4: Core i7-5960X, 5930K and 5820K

The Hardware.fr review of Intel’s Haswell-E platform highlights the 8-core Core i7-5960X and 6-core i7-5930K/5820K as the first consumer desktop processors on the X99 platform, introducing quad-channel DDR4 memory. A major advantage is unrivaled performance for heavily threaded applications, such as 3D rendering and 4K video editing, though this requires high-investment, new hardware. The i7-5930K maintains 40 PCIe lanes for multi-GPU setups, while the i7-5820K is identified as a cost-effective choice despite having only 28 PCIe lanes, with all models supporting full overclocking. A significant disadvantage is the high total platform cost due to the mandatory X99 motherboard and pricey DDR4 memory. Under load, the 140W TDP creates substantial heat, particularly when overclocking the 8-core flagship. Additionally, for gaming-only, the performance gains are minimal compared to cheaper, higher-clocked quad-core alternatives, positioning this platform as a solution for professionals and enthusiasts, rather than gamers. For a detailed review, see the Hardware.fr review (note: provided in the query context, though not listed in citations).

conseil-config.com

23/11/2020

Summary of the review

Hexacores - From the Core i7-5820K to the Ryzen 5 5600X

Conseil Config compares the Intel Core i7-5820K (2014) and AMD Ryzen 5 5600X (2020), highlighting a massive, generational IPC leap where the Zen 3 architecture dominates. The Ryzen 5 5600X provides 60-70% higher performance than the i7-5820K, boasting superior 65W power efficiency, higher clock speeds, and reduced latency for superior gaming performance. While the i7-5820K offers better value for budget, legacy, and multi-GPU usage, it struggles with higher power consumption and lower single-core performance compared to the modern standard set by the 5600X. Copy

overclocking.com

04/06/2015

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5820K overclocked to 4.6 GHz: What's the performance?

The Intel Core i7-5820K review at Overclocking.com highlights the processor as a 6-core/12-thread "Extreme" entry-level CPU for the X99 platform, offering superior multi-threaded performance in rendering and video editing. A notable con is its lower stock clock speed compared to the i7-4790K, which can make it feel underwhelming in single-threaded tasks and gaming at factory settings. The review emphasizes high overclocking potential, with the chip capable of reaching 4.3 GHz to 4.6 GHz with sufficient cooling, significantly boosting productivity and gaming benchmarks. However, overclocking requires navigating a "mixed bag" of balancing CPU speed with, at the time, early, sometimes unstable DDR4 memory support. Platform advantages include quad-channel memory and 28 PCIe lanes, though the X99 ecosystem is noted for expensive motherboards and DDR4 memory costs. Additionally, the processor is power-hungry, demanding high-end cooling due to substantial heat output under load. Copy

tomshardware.fr

29/08/2014

Summary of the review

Haswell-E is finally here: Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K and i7-5820K review

The Tom's Hardware review of Intel’s Haswell-E platform introduces the first 8-core desktop consumer CPU, featuring the Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K, and i7-5820K alongside the X99 chipset, DDR4 support, and up to 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. While the 8-core i7-5960X dominates in heavy multi-threaded workloads like 3D rendering and video editing, the i7-5820K is highlighted for its excellent price-to-performance ratio, making it a compelling option for high-end builds. Despite these gains, the 8-core flagship suffers from lower clock speeds impacting single-threaded performance, and the i7-5820K is restricted to 28 PCIe lanes, with the entire platform requiring expensive DDR4 memory and specialized cooling. Tom’ Copy

cowcotland.com

14/10/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5820K Processor Review

The Intel Core i7-5820K review by Cowcotland highlights this Haswell-E processor as a significant, more accessible enthusiast option, bringing six physical cores and Hyper-Threading to the X99/LGA 2011-v3 platform with support for quad-channel DDR4 memory. It delivers excellent production performance in HD encoding and 3D rendering, nearly matching higher-tier models in these tasks. While gaming performance remains consistent with high-end i7s, the unlocked multiplier allows for impressive overclocking, achieving 4.58 GHz in testing to close the gap with faster models. Key advantages include its high core count at a competitive price point, offering superior value for production-heavy workloads. However, the chip is restricted to 28 PCIe lanes, which may limit maximum multi-GPU configurations compared to the 40 lanes found on higher-end Haswell-E processors. Additionally, the platform entails high total system costs due to required DDR4 memory and X99 motherboards, alongside elevated power consumption. Copy

profesionalreview.com

11/03/2016

Summary of the review

Core i7 6700K vs Core i7 5820K vs Core i7 5960X in gaming

According to Profesional Review, the Core i7-6700K (Skylake) emerges as the top performer for pure gaming, offering superior frame rates and a more accessible Z170 platform, though it is limited by a 4-core/8-thread configuration. While the 6-core i7-5820K offers a great price-to-performance ratio for a workstation, it, along with the 8-core i7-5960X, often shows slightly lower gaming performance and higher platform costs (X99) compared to the 6700K. Ultimately, the review concludes the 6700K is superior for gaming, whereas the X99 processors are better suited for heavy multi-threaded productivity tasks. Copy

profesionalreview.com

07/09/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5820K Review

The Intel Core i7-5820K, based on the Haswell-E architecture, was launched as an accessible six-core, 12-thread enthusiast processor utilizing the LGA 2011-v3 socket and quad-channel DDR4 memory. It excels in heavily multi-threaded workloads, such as rendering and file compression, and is highly regarded for its significant overclocking potential, often reaching 4.3 GHz to 4.7 GHz. Key constraints include a limited 28 PCIe lane configuration compared to higher-tier models and high platform costs for X99 motherboards. Copy

tomshw.it

01/09/2014

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-5960X, 5930K, and 5820K CPU Review

The Intel Haswell-E review highlights the Core i7-5960X, i7-5930K, and i7-5820K as major performance advancements, introducing 8-core processing and DDR4 memory to the desktop market. The flagship 8-core i7-5960X delivers exceptional multi-threaded performance, though at a high cost and lower base clocks that limit its gaming advantage. The i7-5820K is identified as a high-value, 6-core alternative, while the i7-5930K offers expanded PCIe lanes. Key pros include unparalleled rendering performance and full overclocking support on the X99 platform, countered by high entry costs, increased heat, and power consumption. For the full, in-depth review, visit Tom's Hardware.

Third-party reviews

Based on 639 buyer reviews from online shops.

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i7 5820K

Excellent value for a 6-core/12-thread enthusiast CPU compared to more expensive HEDT models like the 5930K or 5960X
Strong multi-core performance for intensive tasks like video editing, 3D rendering, and file archiving
Supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, providing high memory bandwidth
Offers 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes, which is significantly more than standard consumer chips, allowing for better multi-GPU support and NVMe storage
The CPU die is soldered, which typically results in better thermal transfer and lower temperatures under load compared to newer 'thermal paste' designs
Highly overclockable, with many users easily reaching speeds of 4.4 GHz to 4.5 GHz on all cores

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 5820K

High power consumption, especially when overclocked, with some users reporting draws up to 175W
Generates significant heat, requiring a robust aftermarket cooling solution as it does not include a stock cooler
Lower single-core performance compared to newer architectures, which can lead to bottlenecks in modern high-refresh-rate gaming
Has fewer PCIe lanes (28) than its higher-end sibling, the 5930K (40), which can limit quad-SLI configurations
Lacks integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated GPU even for basic display output
Older architecture (Haswell-E) means it is not officially supported by newer operating systems like Windows 11 without workarounds

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-5820K is a high-end desktop processor from the Haswell-E family, featuring 6 cores, 12 threads, and a 140W TDP on the LGA 2011-v3 socket. It operates at a 3.3 GHz base frequency with a 3.6 GHz turbo boost and includes 15 MB of Intel Smart Cache while supporting quad-channel DDR4-2133 memory. Main pros include its significant multi-threaded performance for productivity tasks like video rendering, excellent overclocking potential reaching 4.5 GHz or higher, and 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes for multi-GPU setups. However, it lacks integrated graphics, suffers from high power consumption, and is officially incompatible with modern operating systems like Windows 11.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 8500G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7600

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 5700

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Processors

Intel Core i3 14100

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 5 225

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i7 5820K with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 5820K and other processors

No results found