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 576

Poll Results: Was my review helpful?

 
  • 95% (240)
    Yes
  • 4% (11)
    No
251 Total Votes  
post #5751 of 7853
Kana-Maru, I have to thank you for your great review of the X5660. You are the reason I spent all this money for two beast X58 systems biggrin.gif

They even beat my i7 4790k! And I love overclocking with the X58 chipset, it reminds me of the time I had a LGA775 system as my main rig, and pushed a Q6600 to 3.8Ghz with a vCore of 1.6V xD
Laniakea
(23 items)
 
Crappy
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Z87-Pro R9 290 HyperX Genesis 8Gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda Kingston HyperX 3K Samsung Spinpoint EK Supremacy Gold CPU-Block 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK R9 290 GPU-Block Bitspower Reservoir Phobya 1080 Radiator Phobya DC-12 260 Pump 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
9x Coolermaster Sickleflow EK R9 290 gold Backplate Windows 7 Home Premium Asus VS248H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Medion Logitech G710+ Super Flower Leadex 80 Plus Gold 1300W Corsair Vengeance C70 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Mad Catz R.A.T.9 Roccat Sense Asus Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 MSI P35 Platinum Combo Gtx 560ti Oem 4Gb DDR2 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H55 NZXT G10 Thermalright Hr-02 Windows 7 Home Premium 
Case
Cardboardbox 
  hide details  
Reply
Laniakea
(23 items)
 
Crappy
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Z87-Pro R9 290 HyperX Genesis 8Gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Seagate Barracuda Kingston HyperX 3K Samsung Spinpoint EK Supremacy Gold CPU-Block 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK R9 290 GPU-Block Bitspower Reservoir Phobya 1080 Radiator Phobya DC-12 260 Pump 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
9x Coolermaster Sickleflow EK R9 290 gold Backplate Windows 7 Home Premium Asus VS248H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Medion Logitech G710+ Super Flower Leadex 80 Plus Gold 1300W Corsair Vengeance C70 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Mad Catz R.A.T.9 Roccat Sense Asus Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 MSI P35 Platinum Combo Gtx 560ti Oem 4Gb DDR2 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Corsair H55 NZXT G10 Thermalright Hr-02 Windows 7 Home Premium 
Case
Cardboardbox 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5752 of 7853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldrancer View Post

did anybody ever figure out or, have that problem where your sata2 write speeds with the sata 6g marvell x58 boards had 240mb writes on the intel sata2 ports, which is worse than my 775 board did on p35.

???? I've ran non-Raid and Raid 0 setups. The speeds were decent for everyday use. I wouldn't expect much out of SATA II performance when SSDs are so fast nowadays. You shouldn't bank on more than 300/MBs for a single drive anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by webhito View Post

If they were biased at all, must mean I ran into every single one of them. Every review said the same thing and lead me to choose the 980ti as the fury x was just not on par with it.

Would love to see your results though.

No every review did not. The obvious review sites did though. Fury X was definitely on par. and the Fury X is actually beating the 980 Ti on a few sites. Honestly I don't base my opinions solely around company reviews anyways and if that was the case I would've settled for the 980 Ti I was eyeballing. Well I could go back and find all of the results, but many have been updated and I'm not sure how long that would take. The obvious websites were usually biased while I read sites outside of the nation [USA] who told a different story. For instance 1080p was laughable to begin with especially for comparison because no one is spending $350+ [especially $650+] on a GPU of all things for 1080p performance. When I checked the 1400p\1600p\4K scores the Fury X and 980 Ti were pretty much even. Depending on the games they both had their strengths and weaknesses, but the weaknesses weren't "massive" loses in performance. However, they were painting the 980 Ti the king and winner, but forgetting Fury X strengths and wins at higher resolutions.

I seen a website that showed the Fury X performing much better than the obvious sites where.....the obvious being AnAnd[ugh], Guru3D etc. I guess it would be pointless to try and find the sites from last year since the Fury X is faster than the 980 Ti now from driver updates. Another issue that was left out was that the Reference 980 Ti had boost [Core=1000Mhz - Boost=1076Mhz ] while the Fury X ran solely at Core = 1050Mhz. However, when a lot of people like those guys on Youtube were sent a Fury X for reviews they were doing dumb stuff like comparing it to a highly overclocked aftermarket GTX 980 Ti cards [OCs upwards towards Core=1500Mhz] that costed much more than the Fury X at the time.

They failed to realized that those higher clocked GTX 980 Ti increases [sometimes 35% and more] over the stock Fury X weren't significant enough to justify the high price point after viewing the performance gains [oh wait 3DMark FireStrike Performance Test e=peen makes it worth it >_>....no]. AND yeah 980 Ti's aftermarket cards were going for $700-$1,050. Ridiculous prices for sure since they went about the Titan X. Those higher aftermarket overclocks also didn't result in a demanding lead during actual gameplay benchmarks. Fury X held it's ground AT STOCK core clock. For me it was sickening since I support both companies equally, but there was a lot of one sided conclusions going on. So of course I couldn't wait to retire my GTX 670s SLI and get my hands on a Fury X.

Now if you want to read my Fury X review you can check it out here:

http://www.overclock-and-game.com/hardware/computer-tech-reviews/40-amd-fury-x-review

It was uploaded last year using the Catalyst 15.7.1 Drivers dated 7/29/2015. Earlier I posted my performance increases in Crysis 3 and FireStrike. I'll probably get around to running more in-game benchmarks and updating the article. I focus more on actual gameplay benchmarks than synthetic anyways since that's what ultimately matters at the end of the day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by marcchep View Post

Kana-Maru, I have to thank you for your great review of the X5660. You are the reason I spent all this money for two beast X58 systems biggrin.gif

They even beat my i7 4790k! And I love overclocking with the X58 chipset, it reminds me of the time I had a LGA775 system as my main rig, and pushed a Q6600 to 3.8Ghz with a vCore of 1.6V xD

No problem man thumb.gif I'm glad that you checked out my review and I'm glad that I was able to help you make a great decision. Overclocking these bad boy Xeons are nice, just be careful because they can't take a long beating like older processors. However, if the temperature is right and you know what you are doing you reach some fairly impressive clocks.

Edit:

I would like to point out something in my Fury X review. Please remember that I'm running a 1st generation X58 + Hexa core + PCIe 2.0 vs an extreme 4th generation OCTO CORE Haswell-E + X99 + PCIe 3.0.

So the results will be more in favor of the the 980 Ti with the more up to date setup [DDR3-2133Mhz etc]. Still I think the Fury X and X58 does well. thumb.gif
Edited by Kana-Maru - 1/28/16 at 4:25pm
    
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 #5753 of 7853
problem is is that it wont reach the same speeds as a ich9r chipset does. no matter what drivers or even different bioses with different option roms and any combination of drivers or the newest for that release, newer, older or anyting wont do it. heres what it looks like,
Before so you get an idea of what it does do, but it doesnt do. see it. thats before and im talking about the one on the right. or either but, this is 2 ssds on sata2 intel ich9r. now the write side on this board wont go past 244~MB speeds now. pretty significat and im sure youd be here night and day if it didnt work posting..

anyway, the IDE doesnt work either which is controlled by the marvell controllers. sort of makes me think their related since intel and microsoft neither one can code anything but write out pay me money for my sign of a driver ooh like microsoft is some big security people that i give a crap about. maybe they can learn to code, or just plain code. nah forget all that. right.

anyway, dont care what you think go back to your overclocking threads. 245mb is way under what it should be able to do, and its slower getting there. i dont have a screenshot but where looking at 15-20%.. performance loss. with a case of maybe trim who knows if it works does intel or microsoft even describe what it is or are they too busy spying on people. and my ssds maybe taking damage. but dont worry about a 10-20% perfomance loss. please make some more overclock threads for me if you think 240mb is ok for sata2. 133mb was a speed for pata ata 133 drives. we arent even doubling that and tell me again why i should care about a ssd, a newer comptuer than socket 775 or any crappy games trying to make you use more computer power. code to me.

ok made a quick bench pic.
reads are average 5% slower and writes between 5-12% slower. 271-245, i cant count. 26. thats over 10% loss in performance in writing speed for the same thing. its broke. and the IDE controlled by marvell who controlls, sata speed in the sata controller is also limited and ive not seen any driver or firmware that lets the marvells sata3 plugins go over 245mb speed on write. Seems like they are related.
Edited by ldrancer - 1/28/16 at 5:29pm
post #5754 of 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldrancer View Post

problem is is that it wont reach the same speeds as a ich9r chipset does. no matter what drivers or even different bioses with different option roms and any combination of drivers or the newest for that release, newer, older or anyting wont do it. heres what it looks like,
Before so you get an idea of what it does do, but it doesnt do. see it. thats before and im talking about the one on the right. or either but, this is 2 ssds on sata2 intel ich9r. now the write side on this board wont go past 244~MB speeds now. pretty significat and im sure youd be here night and day if it didnt work posting..

anyway, the IDE doesnt work either which is controlled by the marvell controllers. sort of makes me think their related since intel and microsoft neither one can code anything but write out pay me money for my sign of a driver ooh like microsoft is some big security people that i give a crap about. maybe they can learn to code, or just plain code. nah forget all that. right.

anyway, dont care what you think go back to your overclocking threads. 245mb is way under what it should be able to do, and its slower getting there. i dont have a screenshot but where looking at 15-20%.. performance loss. with a case of maybe trim who knows if it works does intel or microsoft even describe what it is or are they too busy spying on people. and my ssds maybe taking damage. but dont worry about a 10-20% perfomance loss. please make some more overclock threads for me if you think 240mb is ok for sata2. 133mb was a speed for pata ata 133 drives. we arent even doubling that and tell me again why i should care about a ssd, a newer comptuer than socket 775 or any crappy games trying to make you use more computer power. code to me.

I'm sorry if this sounds elitest but I'm going to state facts for you.

No matter what you do, onboard Intel SATA-II / 3 Gpbs (What ever you want to cal it) can only do 240 - 255 MB/s write, maybe 270 - 280 reads if you're lucky. MAXIMUM, forever, that is all.

It doesn't matter if you put 2 modern SSD's in raid-0 on either ICH9R, or ICH10R, or 4, or 6 SSD's on it. It will not go above that.

That is fundamentally the maximum performance you can get out of onboard raid on the motherboard on x58 and 775 motherboards.

Even if -ANY- motherboard for x58, or 775, or any of that series have "Sata 6 Gbps" onboard, this is always (for this era of system) a secondary, add-on controller chipset on the motherboard, running over PCI-Express 1x.

There is no Intel motherboard older than Sandy Bridge that has Sata-III / 6 Gbps onboard, native, through the chipset. Which is the only thing that can get above the 255 MB/s barrier in storage performance.

I've owned multiple x58 (and 775) motherboards, P45, P35, x38, x48, 780i, 790i, etc, and tried them with a pair of Samsung Pro 128 GB SSD's and could not get performance higher than 240 - 255 MB/s until I went with a P67 socket 1155 motherboard that has 2 x 6 Gbps ports native through the chipset.

The Only thing I've ever been able to do to get faster was use a Dell PERC 6/i raid controller on a x58 motherboard and 8 x scsi 15k-rpm hard drives and got 560 - 630 MB/s.
Edited by kithylin - 1/28/16 at 5:31pm
post #5755 of 7853
maybe you should try looking at the picture, and some math. i cant go over 245 right? and noone else can too. well boy oh boy my 775 is the best. board is for sale for 1000$ if anyones intersted. man can abit code. bye
post #5756 of 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldrancer View Post

maybe you should try looking at the picture, and some math. i cant go over 245 right? and noone else can too. well boy oh boy my 775 is the best. board is for sale for 1000$ if anyones intersted. man can abit code. bye

So you have one screenshot showing what, 280 MB/s ? That's.. still Sata-II limitation. I'm not sure what you're expecting but you're not going to get 500+ on those systems, has to be something newer. Sandy bridge era can get 1000+ MB/s on the onboard chipset.
post #5757 of 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by kithylin View Post

So you have one screenshot showing what, 280 MB/s ? That's.. still Sata-II limitation. I'm not sure what you're expecting but you're not going to get 500+ on those systems, has to be something newer. Sandy bridge era can get 1000+ MB/s on the onboard chipset.

look i just posted here to see if anybody could help me not argue with you over wether 10% is better on an overclocking forum or that its not worthwhile. its broke. unless you think its bad then buy my crap and stop arguing at me over yoru new crap that i dont care about. you still get beat in any game by me. or anything else.
post #5758 of 7853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldrancer View Post

problem is is that it wont reach the same speeds as a ich9r chipset does. no matter what drivers or even different bioses with different option roms and any combination of drivers or the newest for that release, newer, older or anyting wont do it. heres what it looks like, [IMG Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
ALT=""]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2695295/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Before so you get an idea of what it does do, but it doesnt do. see it. thats before and im talking about the one on the right. or either but, this is 2 ssds on sata2 intel ich9r. now the write side on this board wont go past 244~MB speeds now. pretty significat and im sure youd be here night and day if it didnt work posting..

anyway, the IDE doesnt work either which is controlled by the marvell controllers. sort of makes me think their related since intel and microsoft neither one can code anything but write out pay me money for my sign of a driver ooh like microsoft is some big security people that i give a crap about. maybe they can learn to code, or just plain code. nah forget all that. right.

anyway, dont care what you think go back to your overclocking threads. 245mb is way under what it should be able to do, and its slower getting there. i dont have a screenshot but where looking at 15-20%.. performance loss. with a case of maybe trim who knows if it works does intel or microsoft even describe what it is or are they too busy spying on people. and my ssds maybe taking damage. but dont worry about a 10-20% perfomance loss. please make some more overclock threads for me if you think 240mb is ok for sata2. 133mb was a speed for pata ata 133 drives. we arent even doubling that and tell me again why i should care about a ssd, a newer comptuer than socket 775 or any crappy games trying to make you use more computer power. code to me.

ok made a quick bench pic.
reads are average 5% slower and writes between 5-12% slower. 271-245, i cant count. 26. thats over 10% loss in performance in writing speed for the same thing. its broke. and the IDE controlled by marvell who controlls, sata speed in the sata controller is also limited and ive not seen any driver or firmware that lets the marvells sata3 plugins go over 245mb speed on write. Seems like they are related
.

As I said above you are using a Single SSD and you'll be lucky if you get near 300MB/s, That's pretty much it for you on the SATA II ports. Remember that these are OLD platforms. I had to remind a few people about that. The SSDs were nowhere close as powerful and fast as they are today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kithylin View Post

It doesn't matter if you put 2 modern SSD's in raid-0 on either ICH9R, or ICH10R, or 4, or 6 SSD's on it. It will not go above that.

Ok now that's not necessarily true. I've ran RAID 0 and got 530+MB/s on SATA II.
    
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 #5759 of 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

As I said above you are using a Single SSD and you'll be lucky if you get near 300MB/s, That's pretty much it for you on the SATA II ports. Remember that these are OLD platforms. I had to remind a few people about that. The SSDs were nowhere close as powerful and fast as they are today.
Ok now that's not necessarily true. I've ran RAID 0 and got 530+MB/s on SATA II.
just buy me that new board you talk about then. since im sure it will run sata3 at sata3 but im running this on sata2. snice my board is broke and you care so much to tell me about new boards not being broke buy me that board. thanks.
still, doesnt answer my question though
post #5760 of 7853
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldrancer View Post

just buy me that new board you talk about then. since im sure it will run sata3 at sata3 but im running this on sata2. snice my board is broke and you care so much to tell me about new boards not being broke buy me that board. thanks.
still, doesnt answer my question though

The thing though is, a 10% drop in performance can be any number of a hundred variables that effect it. Differences in manufacturing processes between different motherboard families (ICH9R vs ICH10R is a big leap in tech), may be the difference. That and if you're using cheaper SSD's in raid-0 on those chipsets, you don't get trim support any more. And perhaps (And all this I'm just guessing here) maybe your SSD's do rather bad internal garbage collection without TRIM support and degrade faster than you think.

I have a pair of Patriot Blaze series 64GB SSD's in raid-0 on my x58 system and they used to do 225 MB/s when I first bought them last year in that system but now about 8 months later they only do 165 MB/s over there. Probably because no TRIM and they were $33 SSD's.

There's a lot of different factors.. and you have to remember SSD's in general do degrade over time. They will never be as fast as the day you bought them.

Now, Samsung Pro series SSD's are one of several that "lead the field" in garbage-collecting performance, TRIM or not, and hold up high speeds longer over time before degrading vs others. Part of why they're expensive.
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]