Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › [Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside] - Page 48

Poll Results: Was my review helpful?

 
  • 95% (241)
    Yes
  • 4% (12)
    No
253 Total Votes  
post #471 of 7890
Thread Starter 
Quote:
-trailrunnerx-
Any insight if I should run a 2:8 memory multi and tight timings on my ram @14xx MHz or 2:10 multi on the ram with looser timings at 17xx MHz? I'm probably not 100% done tweaking as I think I can do 4.2 stable with a bit of fine tuning

Personally I would run 14xx with tighter ram timings. If you can run 17xx with no stability issues that wouldn't hurt either, but I always prefer tighter RAM timings due to the types of programs I use.

Quote:
-notyettoday-
This thread single handedly got me into 1366/xeon combos I started with a maximus iv gene and got a w3520 to 4ghz stable, and I just got my hands on a BNIB P6TD Deluxe for $ 30! so for 60 I'm up and runnin

Nice and thanks for reading. I'm glad you were able to find some good deals. I really need to get around and posting that X58-Xeon Official Club topic. I'll try to post it this weekend.

Quote:
-RX7-2nr-
For like the 35th time, I'm talking about single core performance.

Which is why I compared the SINGLE CORE SCORES as well. You clearly didn't post my single core results and went straight to what you wanted to talk about. - http://tinyurl.com/lsryjry - Now that's the entire post along with the Single Core results. I also understand that you are speaking solely about single core score and I'd rather give up a little single core [3% literally] score for a lot more overall performance any day of the week as I pointed out in my last post.

Quote:
-RX7-2nr-
You've already listed plenty of benches showing that a 4.8 ghz 12 thread processor gets really high scores in synthetic benchmarks that use all available CPU resources. Yes, we know that. Unfortunately not many programs are going to use your CPU to it's full capability like cinebench will, hence the importance of it's single core performance and the reason why I have been researching it. The overwhelming majority of programs still only use 4 or fewer threads....not 12. In this situation, remember this is the overwhelming majority of the time, your extra 8 threads will make no difference. When you are relying on 4 threads, the individual performance really matters. When you are relying on 12, not so much because the same work is spread over more workers.

If the Hexa-core won't use all of the cores then why are you looking to buy a Xeon then? Have you used my computer while I was at work or something, because I'm definitely utilizing all of my cores for the high end [CPU heavy] programs that I'm using. I use my PC for a lot of reasons and money making is involved so I really need to be efficient. I need to get certain files processed quicker and render different types of files as they are requested. Sometimes I have to use high end programs at the same time due to deadlines. I really have to multitask a lot. The Hexa core allows me to do this with no issues. These are a few reasons I looked into upgrading to X79 Hexa-core. Instead of upgrading I noticed some decently priced Hexa-cores on the X58 platform.

The other reason was high end GAMING. The extra cores definitely helps the GPU to process way more information than a 8MB-Quad Core ever could. I've used the Quad for many years and certain high end games such as Crysis 3 100% maxed @ 1080p LITERALLY kicked the Quad core ass period, even with 2 GTX 670s stock or overclocked. Then Tomb Raider@1600p 100% Maxed finally put the nail in the coffin. I struggled to hit maintain a constant 30-35fps [usually a micro stuttered 25fps] in Tomb Raider maxed.. Struggling at 1080p [Crysis 3] is not a good thing when you want to play @ 1400p or 1600p. Those were my wake up calls to let me know that my X58-Quad core was outdated for high end gaming. Installed the Xeon L5639 and I averaged 50fps in Crysis 3 and 68fps @ 1600p in Tomb Raider. Not to mention 20ms and 14ms frame times respectfully allowing for an extremely nice gameplay experience with no input lag. I don't even want to think about the frame times the crazy micro stutter Quad Core was putting up.

Just to let you know I'm not relying on anything and I got your point so please understand my point. I already know what you have been saying since your first post regarding single core performance and I've already addressed it with my comment above. Losing a measly 3% for a much better overall performance gain for the programs "I use" and especially for gaming is worth it. If you find one for cheap then you are simply getting a good ass deal smile.gif so why not upgrade for little to nothing, but you seem to not understand that from my post.
Quote:
-RX7-2nr-
You are acting as if the fact that these CPUs score so high in benchmarks that utilize all 12 threads, that their lightly threaded performance doesn't matter. That's like saying that a Formula 1 race car is perfect for driving around the city and going to work because it goes really fast on a racetrack. I'm not trying to prove the 920 is better, I know it's not. I'm trying to show you that running a heavily threaded benchmark and declaring "My CPU is xx% faster" doesn't really make any sense in real world applications. How many games do you think are using 12 threads? You're looking at one side of a two sided coin.

I'm not acting any type of way and I'm not declaring anything. I posted my results so take them however you want to take them. I simply posted this review to compare to other high end X79 CPUs, not Quad cores, hence the like for like clocked i7-Extreme Edition speeds that I could find. They [Quads] are there to give certain users an idea of their performance just in case some were wondering. I've said it at least 35 times right smile.gif
> I'd gladly lose 3% single core score for a large and affordable overall performance any day of the week. Also if you want to prove your point with the single core that's fine and we all already understand this, but I've noticed a huge increase while using my PC and several programs I've used for some time now.

Regarding your Formula 1 comparison......Your name is RX7, so lets say you MS3 which get's 263 horsepower, but only gets 18 in the city and 25 on the highway at stock. Fast car except the mpg sucks big time. You add your own aftermarket parts to the car and make it even more powerful. Just because you are making it faster doesn't mean you are losing miles on the mpg. The intake could [actually will] allow more airflow which could increase mpg well past 15%+ if you are willing to pay for it. Some people also flash their ECUs as well for air/fuel ratio benefits. So lets say you are now pushing 315hp and getting 30 on the highway from modifications, but it's not 35-40mpg like everyone else. In "YOUR" mind that's a loss of performance. Well who cares because you have a fast sports car that's decently efficient for your mpg needs and the overall performance is much better than a lot of the other cars. If your needs are more focused on low mpg then get the low end car. My point is just because something is much faster overall doesn't mean it can't be just as efficient with small decrease certain areas. -3% in a single core test isn't going to take away all of the benefits the Xeons have over your i7-920 Quad

The Xeon L5639 losing an extremely minor 3%. 3% isn't [or shouldn't] be a moot point if you are getting so much more overall, so I can't even begin to understand your argument or logic. Do you think you are really going to notice the difference in everyday applications when it comes to single core performance at a 3% difference? You'll definitely notice the multi score difference instantly for programs that are CPU heavy [and high end gaming].
Quote:
-RX7-2nr-
I put an offer in on an X5650 on ebay. The first guy sent me a counteroffer for $1 less than his original buyout, I declined. I put in another offer to another seller and have not heard anything back yet, it's been almost a day..

From the way you speak about Hexa cores why are you even looking into buying one lol. Seems like you'd rather stick with the extremely slightly more powerful single core i7-920. Since you'll see no benefits from everyday tasks eh? If I can't get you to realize that 3% is absolutely nothing in the real world then I don't know what to tell you. I can easily tell you that 48% and 55% will show you a big difference.
Quote:
-TheReciever-
I think your missing also the added allowable overhead it can handle due to the 2 extra physical cores which allows the utilized cores to work at full capacity.

There we go. Gaming wise this allows for the GPU to render more frames which leaded to a more pleasant experience. I witnessed no GPU bottlenecking even at stock settings. Overclocking them was simply money since it allowed more frames to be rendered in the same amount of time, which increased the overall frames rate. So it's pretty much a win win especially if you can find them at a affordable price.
Edited by Kana-Maru - 4/4/14 at 9:27am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #472 of 7890
Update: Prime 95 failed about 35m in to the blend test so the cpu isn't totally stable yet. I ended up having to run the ram under clocked with tighter timings as it would fail out when overclocked. Found the c-states control in bios and now get a 24x multi which drops to 23x when I start prime or ibt. With the 24x multi I'm at almost 4.2 ghz (4190mhz) so that's faster than my i7 930 was running. I have to work 8am-10pm tonight so unsure if I'll touch it later but will probably tweak a bit to get it dialed in. Even when I set vcore to 1.30 in BIOS cpu-z reports 1.25-1.26 in Windows so I'm thinking it may need a little more juice. RAM is at 1422mhz 8-8-8-24 timings which is lower than it's rating. Temps only go to 52c under ibt. Thinking I'm having a harder time tuning this because I left turbo, c-states off on my i7 so there were less variables.
post #473 of 7890
Thread Starter 
Your Xeon at stock was faster than your i7-930 so that's nothing to worry about. You might have to take the long way around to overclock since the quick and dirty way didn't work out for you. Determine your highest BCLK that you can boot with. If you have already figured that you you need to lower your RAM speed and shoot for 3.6Ghz with a set multiplier or in other words don't set the multiplier\CPU ratio to Auto. with no EIST\Turbo or C-states enabled for testing purposes]. If it passes then increase the voltage along with he multiplier. If you RAM can't handle the higher overclock [1600+] then you'll be better off running it a bit lower than usual or at least for testing purposes. Once you pass the 4Ghz-4.1Ghz mark the voltage really goes up. To hit 4.2Ghz most users have to run 1.3+........from what I've seen 1.335v or higher for 24/7 runs. You'll just have to keep testing it to see.
Edited by Kana-Maru - 4/4/14 at 4:09pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon 5660 @ 4.8Ghz [Highest OC 5.4Ghz] ASUS Sabertooth X58 AMD Fury X 24GB - 1600Mhz Triple Channel 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - B Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C Seagate Barracuda 7200 1TB RAID 0 - C 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 128GB RAID - A SSD 256GB  Antec Kuhler H2O 620 [Pull] 
OSMonitorPowerOther
Windows 10 Professional  Dual 24-inch Monitors EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W x2 Delta FFB1212EH-F00 Fan 4,000rpm  
Other
x4 Scythe Gentle Typhoon D1225C12BBAP-31 Fan 54... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #474 of 7890
Why do you keep getting so defensive? It seems like you still just don't understand why I'm asking this. I asked you for some single core results to see how these server CPUs stack up against regular desktop CPUs. You have omitted single core from your review entirely. I felt that you omitted it because the 12 thread performance looks so much impressive than single. This is plain and simply biased and misleading. As you said, "3% difference single, 55% difference multi"

This entire time you have played it as if I was trash talking the Xeon because I was asking for some single thread overclocked results. I'm not. I'm trying to get information that you have seemingly purposely omitted from your tests. You didn't even run single thread in your Cinebench screenshots.
post #475 of 7890
I like this thread and the amount of activity that has gone in it. Mostly the thread as gone above and beyond where a normal thread goes. I'd like to ask for the community that it's not derailed by the issue of single core performance.
post #476 of 7890
How it is considered derailed by discussing an aspect of these CPUs performance that has been utterly ignored?

* I too think it's a great thread and I like the information presented. I just don't understand the pushback and constant defensive attitude of the OP. I never once have said that these Xeons are inferior to an i7, but I've been accused by him 2 or 3 times now. There is no need to do that. There is also no need to try to make a big deal out of it when I ask why no single thread benches were ran, when they are equally as important as the multithread run.
Edited by RX7-2nr - 4/4/14 at 12:06pm
post #477 of 7890
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post

How it is considered derailed by discussing an aspect of these CPUs performance that has been utterly ignored?

* I too think it's a great thread and I like the information presented. I just don't understand the pushback and constant defensive attitude of the OP. I never once have said that these Xeons are inferior to an i7, but I've been accused by him 2 or 3 times now. There is no need to do that. There is also no need to try to make a big deal out of it when I ask why no single thread benches were ran, when they are equally as important as the multithread run.

Agreed, I would use the term called thread crapping to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post


This entire time you have played it as if I was trash talking the Xeon because I was asking for some single thread overclocked results. I'm not. I'm trying to get information that you have seemingly purposely omitted from your tests. You didn't even run single thread in your Cinebench screenshots.

When I read this, I am reading a jab thrown at the OP. While OP is not beyond reproach, your choice of words is quite poor.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
post #478 of 7890
Sure the x56xx is a catch if youre on a x58 system, but im sure a clocked i5 at 4.8-5ghz will perform better in most games using 4 or less cores. Many games still only use 1 core though.
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #479 of 7890
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

Agreed, I would use the term called thread crapping to be honest.
When I read this, I am reading a jab thrown at the OP. While OP is not beyond reproach, your choice of words is quite poor.

My choice of words is fine. If you read more into it than I typed, that's your issue. There are two tests, multi and single. Only multi, which the Xeons will obviously dominate on, was ran. I've felt like I was under attack from Kanu ever since asking about it. He's been completely defensive and acted as if I were trying to say the Xeons are bad processors or that an i7 is better. "If you just want to feel good about your 920" and stuff like that. It's completely unnecessary.

From the beginning I've said that I'm just trying to get info. Fact is a 4.8 ghz 12 thread synthetic benchmark result doesn't mean a lot in real world performance. It's an impressive number for sure, but it does not necessarily translate well to day to day use for the average user. If you use specific programs that can take advantage of it sure, heavy multitasking would also be very much improved as well. Day to day use was my reason for asking if he had single thread results, and I've stated this multiple times now. I'm not trying to prove that an i7 is better.
Edited by RX7-2nr - 4/4/14 at 4:40pm
post #480 of 7890
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX7-2nr View Post

My choice of words is fine. If you read more into it than I typed, that's your issue.

Case in point.

You are the one requesting information here, I dont know why being humble is such a commodity these days. You also might want to consider the amount of flak he may get for his purchasing decision, supplemented with the debilitating sense of professionalism here on OCN that seems to be widespread.

There are a great many references for you to choose from in this thread to compare to.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › [Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside]