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 750

Poll Results: Was my review helpful?

 
  • 95% (243)
    Yes
  • 4% (12)
    No
255 Total Votes  
post #7491 of 7923

I don't have a motherboard you see, this one right now is my parents', have to return it soon. Got a spare 3930K and a deal on a Rampage IV Gene, while also considering a 10 core haswell xeon but afraid it won't be able to push a 1060 let alone a 1070 at 3.2 GHz. The rig is not for gaming, it's mostly for programming but I play some battlefield from time to time and want to have the highest frame rate possible with a given GPU. 60 FPS is not enough for goos hitreg, need 120 or more. I don't quite believe there is no difference with a GTX 1070, to be honest, when some people even attribute CPU bottleneck to a 4930K with Pascal GPU's.

post #7492 of 7923
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrain View Post

My unigine heaven scores were only 100 below the average from an i7 6700 with 1070. My game benchmarks are +/-5% more or less compared to reviews with the cpu above.

Minimum FPS might have been lower than with a newer CPU, did you check that as well? In near-competitive gaming, minimum FPS matters more than average.

post #7493 of 7923
I'm seriously skeptical a 4930K would bottle neck anything. I wouldn't hesitate to put my titan x in a 3930k rig. A 10 core xeon I'd want to push to something close to 4ghz, which would need some pretty intense cooling.
Main Gaming
(8 items)
 
Workstation
(6 items)
 
SO gaming PC
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 4790K Asus Maximum Gene VII Titan X Pascal  Corsair H105  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCase
EK Titan XP waterblock XPSC Bay pump thermaltake pacific rl420 Corsair Spec 03 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5650 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD Pro Duo Kingston Hyper X 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H80 ASUS PB287Q 28" 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5680 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD R9 Nano G skill Ripjaws 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech CPU waterblock XPSC GPU waterblock Black Ice Stealth 280mm Radiator XPSC 480mm Radiator 
Cooling
XPSC Photon Pump and Resevior  
  hide details  
Reply
Main Gaming
(8 items)
 
Workstation
(6 items)
 
SO gaming PC
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 4790K Asus Maximum Gene VII Titan X Pascal  Corsair H105  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCase
EK Titan XP waterblock XPSC Bay pump thermaltake pacific rl420 Corsair Spec 03 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5650 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD Pro Duo Kingston Hyper X 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H80 ASUS PB287Q 28" 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5680 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD R9 Nano G skill Ripjaws 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech CPU waterblock XPSC GPU waterblock Black Ice Stealth 280mm Radiator XPSC 480mm Radiator 
Cooling
XPSC Photon Pump and Resevior  
  hide details  
Reply
post #7494 of 7923
Frequency isn't the be-all-end-all for processors. Ten Haswell cores at 3.2 GHz each wouldn't have a problem "pushing" a GTX 1060 or 1070. Frame rates certainly would certainly be better with a higher frequency, but then why would you want so many cores? If you're looking for the best balance between cores and frequency, get a hexacore.
post #7495 of 7923

Yep, Ive been considering pretty much everything here but it looks like I'll be getting the R IV Gene since it's sort of my dream board and then maybe swapping for a 4930K, and adding a Pascal GPU on top of that.

post #7496 of 7923
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

Frequency isn't the be-all-end-all for processors. Ten Haswell cores at 3.2 GHz each wouldn't have a problem "pushing" a GTX 1060 or 1070. Frame rates certainly would certainly be better with a higher frequency, but then why would you want so many cores? If you're looking for the best balance between cores and frequency, get a hexacore.

I guess i should have clarified. I'd want to push 4.0ghz, but it's not necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNightOwl View Post

Yep, Ive been considering pretty much everything here but it looks like I'll be getting the R IV Gene since it's sort of my dream board and then maybe swapping for a 4930K, and adding a Pascal GPU on top of that.

I've loved all of the Gene motherboards so far, I don't think you can go wrong
Main Gaming
(8 items)
 
Workstation
(6 items)
 
SO gaming PC
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 4790K Asus Maximum Gene VII Titan X Pascal  Corsair H105  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCase
EK Titan XP waterblock XPSC Bay pump thermaltake pacific rl420 Corsair Spec 03 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5650 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD Pro Duo Kingston Hyper X 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H80 ASUS PB287Q 28" 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5680 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD R9 Nano G skill Ripjaws 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech CPU waterblock XPSC GPU waterblock Black Ice Stealth 280mm Radiator XPSC 480mm Radiator 
Cooling
XPSC Photon Pump and Resevior  
  hide details  
Reply
Main Gaming
(8 items)
 
Workstation
(6 items)
 
SO gaming PC
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
I7 4790K Asus Maximum Gene VII Titan X Pascal  Corsair H105  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCase
EK Titan XP waterblock XPSC Bay pump thermaltake pacific rl420 Corsair Spec 03 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5650 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD Pro Duo Kingston Hyper X 
CoolingMonitor
Corsair H80 ASUS PB287Q 28" 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5680 Asus Maximum Gene III AMD R9 Nano G skill Ripjaws 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Swiftech CPU waterblock XPSC GPU waterblock Black Ice Stealth 280mm Radiator XPSC 480mm Radiator 
Cooling
XPSC Photon Pump and Resevior  
  hide details  
Reply
post #7497 of 7923
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNightOwl View Post

I don't have a motherboard you see, this one right now is my parents', have to return it soon. Got a spare 3930K and a deal on a Rampage IV Gene, while also considering a 10 core haswell xeon but afraid it won't be able to push a 1060 let alone a 1070 at 3.2 GHz. The rig is not for gaming, it's mostly for programming but I play some battlefield from time to time and want to have the highest frame rate possible with a given GPU. 60 FPS is not enough for goos hitreg, need 120 or more. I don't quite believe there is no difference with a GTX 1070, to be honest, when some people even attribute CPU bottleneck to a 4930K with Pascal GPU's.

In that case, since you already have a 3930k, just get the mobo for that as x58 mobos are still on the high side coz of the westmere surplus.

The pcie 3.0 should futureproof you if or when the pcie 2.0 bottlenecks on gpus happen. 5 years of pcie 3.0 and recent tests on gpus still dont net any huge difference in frames vs pcie 2.0. Only time pcie 2.0 shows its bandwidth bottleneck is when using a pcie 3.0 nvme drive.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/pci_express_scaling_game_performance_analysis_review

I can't find a 1070 tested with your cpu but I found this i7 930 oced to 3.8 that doesn't have any bottlenecks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4oiba9/gigabyte_gtx_1070_g1_benchmarked_on_6_year_old_pc

What game/s did you see a 4930k bottleneck with pascal? Was it oced?

As for 1080p 120fps, the 1060 won't be able to reach that, even with skylake/broadwell-e. It was built with 1080p60 in mind. Ive personally reached 1080p144 ultra 8xaa, 1440p75 dsr ultra 8xaa and 4k60 dsr ultra 2xAA with my 1070 in nba 2k16.
Edited by shadowrain - 10/1/16 at 7:53am
post #7498 of 7923

Hmm, well, with my GTX 460 right now at 1080p it's more or less 60 FPS on all lows in BF4, at 720p it can do 90 steady, 120 with a few dips here and there, so seeing how the 1060 is roughly 4x as powerful as the 460, shouldn't be a prob unless all highs? Other than that, yeah, I recall people in the game chat bragging they had 300 FPS with 1070 on highs. But you know, I also pay attention to the GPGPU capability, and it looks like the 1070 stomps on the 1060 in that regard.

 

On topic, you know, I've been suspicious about X58 and high-end GPU's ever since I saw in the PassMark database that 4790K owners had higher 3D graphics scores than X58 hexacore owners with NVIDIA 9** series. Got me wondering if their overclock wasn't complete (e.g. QPI or uncore were at stock) or X58 had reached its limit.

 

One more reason why I prefer X79 to X58 is the real SATA III and the ability to build an array of two cheap SATA III drives, e.g. Crucial MX200's. Of course a decent NVMe drive will outperform that but at twice the cost!


Edited by CrazyNightOwl - 10/1/16 at 8:52am
post #7499 of 7923
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNightOwl View Post

Hmm, well, with my GTX 460 right now at 1080p it's more or less 60 FPS on all lows in BF4, at 720p it can do 90 steady, 120 with a few dips here and there, so seeing how the 1060 is roughly 4x as powerful as the 460, shouldn't be a prob unless all highs? Other than that, yeah, I recall people in the game chat bragging they had 300 FPS with 1070 on highs. But you know, I also pay attention to the GPGPU capability, and it looks like the 1070 stomps on the 1060 in that regard.

On topic, you know, I've been suspicious about X58 and high-end GPU's ever since I saw in the PassMark database that 4790K owners had higher 3D graphics scores than X58 hexacore owners with NVIDIA 9** series. Got me wondering if their overclock wasn't complete (e.g. QPI or uncore were at stock) or X58 had reached its limit.

One more reason why I prefer X79 to X58 is the real SATA III and the ability to build an array of two cheap SATA III drives, e.g. Crucial MX200's. Of course a decent NVMe drive will outperform that but at twice the cost!

Oh you meant BF4. Yeah the 1060 may be able to go 100+fps @ultra there, as my 680 was at 60-70fps Ultra when I last played that game. The 1060 for 60fps ultra I mentioned is for current gen games, like the upcoming BF1.

Yes 4790k's on some games and benchmarks will be faster than the Westmeres. During my Intel Burn Tests, the stock 4790K has a 5 Gflops advantage vs my X5660@4.3ghz. Still the difference in framerates in games is still minimal.

As for the Westmeres being at the limit with high end GPU's, IMO it's still far from it. I managed to dig up my best userbenchmark score with my X5660 @4.3 and with the Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme with only +100 core and +300 vram OC, still far from it's max OC. Still Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1543459
post #7500 of 7923

Hmm interesting data, gotta run that bench too if it's free! See I cant install 3DMark here, for some unknown reason :D But screw that, will run Heaven instead once the GPU is here.

 

Well to be honest there's a bunch of users running around screaming "bottleneck!!!1111" at anything other than Skylake and that's really confusing. Heck in another thread right here at OCN a person encountered a CPU bottleneck in Overwatch at 1080p with a Westmere and a 1080 or 1070! But on the other hand how is 85 GFLOPS not enough to run a game? Improper parallel implementation seems to be all there is to it. Or is a game engine inherently sequential?

 

Beware of AVX and AVX2 when comparing Westmeres with Sandy and above, it can easily get confusing taking into account the core count difference as well as the varying frequency. Need to make sure the bench is pure SSE first! And even then, I can tell that SAndy e.g. is going to have an advantage, because its FPU will happily run the SSE instructions in parallel to a certain extent.


Edited by CrazyNightOwl - 10/1/16 at 10:02am
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]