Xeon E5-2690 vs i9-9900k - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Xeon E5-2690 vs i9-9900k

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-13-2019, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
Свет
 
XLifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,246
Rep: 37 (Unique: 36)
Xeon E5-2690 vs i9-9900k

My view of Xeons E5-2690/E5-2689 vs modern i9-9900k

Just amazement in general, because even running on ECC Registered ram at 1333mhz (in Quad channel of course) produces about 15 fps difference in 1080p.

I own E5-2689, E5-2690, and i9-9900k rigs. All of which are amazing. You can not expect E5-2690 to do so good against top echelon Intel cpu for gaming.
The main thing is the L3 cache in 2690/2689 at 20 megabytes, vs 16 megabytes on 9900k

Funny enough even E5-2680 beats out i9-7900X in gaming.
I did a benchmark to demonstrate how little of the difference there is in gaming. I also did GTA 5 test that yielded stronger victory for 9900k, but the advantage is of course the speed of the processor at 5.0 ghz at this point too. IPC is stronger, but not much.

The smoothness of frame times also amazed me on Xeons, both E5-2690 and E5-2689. I have just shifted my GPU in that rig and been playing, without noticing much difference


Here is the video that got me to buy E5-2689/E5-2690 platforms

XLifted is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-18-2019, 11:28 PM - Thread Starter
Свет
 
XLifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,246
Rep: 37 (Unique: 36)
Another test

Systems
E5-2690 (stock)
32 GB 1866mhz DDR3 [Quad Channel] Non-ECC

i9-9900k (5.0 ghz)
32 GB 3200mhz DDR4 [Dual Channel] Non-ECC

XLifted is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 01:16 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Nammi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 58
Rep: 6 (Unique: 6)
You're gpu bound which is skewing the results. Just look at the min fps, 9900k is clearly crushing it when things get cpu intensive. You should also do multiple runs and discard the outliers, to make the data somewhat accurate.
I went from a [email protected] ddr3 2400cl11 to [email protected] ddr4 4133cl16 and the difference was massive as the 4930k wasn't close to being able to push the 2080ti.
Nammi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 01:36 AM - Thread Starter
Свет
 
XLifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,246
Rep: 37 (Unique: 36)
Quote: Originally Posted by Nammi View Post
You're gpu bound which is skewing the results. Just look at the min fps, 9900k is clearly crushing it when things get cpu intensive. You should also do multiple runs and discard the outliers, to make the data somewhat accurate.
I went from a [email protected] ddr3 2400cl11 to [email protected] ddr4 4133cl16 and the difference was massive as the 4930k wasn't close to being able to push the 2080ti.
I ran several tests, all was within about 2-8 fps difference. Average

It will bottleneck within this game, and remember this is 1080p. Siege came out in 2015
This is real life test. The only way to prevent the cpu bottleneck in this game is to run at 1440p, or 4k. which GTX 1080 is okay with first, but not the last.

Of course I saw the minimum, I didn't say they are the same
I said Xeon is amazing. Xeon is limited at 3.3 ghz, while I run 9900k at 5.0

The test is not a competition, it's a testament to how strong old Xeon is, and to the average user the difference is there, but not very noticeable. I know because I play this game all the time. 9900k will produce smoother results, but QUAD channel produces faster response in game (mouse movement is more responsive), and I know this for the same reason. Too much aiming and noticing the difference.

I didn't say Xeon won, I said E5-2680 Xeon beats i9 7900X, i9-9900k wins even against the strongest Ryzen when it comes to average and highest fps. Ryzen produces higher minimums from what I read, but still cannot beat 9900k, 9900k is KING of gaming currently

I am not speaking subjective, but objective by benchmarks I watched.
XLifted is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 02:33 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Nammi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 58
Rep: 6 (Unique: 6)
Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
I ran several tests, all was within about 2-8 fps difference. Average

It will bottleneck within this game, and remember this is 1080p. Siege came out in 2015
This is real life test. The only way to prevent the cpu bottleneck in this game is to run at 1440p, or 4k. which GTX 1080 is okay with first, but not the last.

Of course I saw the minimum, I didn't say they are the same
I said Xeon is amazing. Xeon is limited at 3.3 ghz, while I run 9900k at 5.0

The test is not a competition, it's a testament to how strong old Xeon is, and to the average user the difference is there, but not very noticeable. I know because I play this game all the time. 9900k will produce smoother results, but QUAD channel produces faster response in game (mouse movement is more responsive), and I know this for the same reason. Too much aiming and noticing the difference.

I didn't say Xeon won, I said E5-2680 Xeon beats i9 7900X, i9-9900k wins even against the strongest Ryzen when it comes to average and highest fps. Ryzen produces higher minimums from what I read, but still cannot beat 9900k, 9900k is KING of gaming currently

I am not speaking subjective, but objective by benchmarks I watched.
Ok, you ran multiple tests. Are you going to present that info? I assume the goal here is inform people with older cpus that they're still fine for gaming.
Older cpus can manage just fine in my opinion aswell. It's just that if someone is looking to upgrade from their old xeon or equivalent cpu and they come across your comparison, they'd end up being mislead to believe that the 9900k is slower than it actually is.

Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
I did a benchmark to demonstrate how little of the difference there is in gaming.
I should've been more specific, the bold parts are where I disagree. Fps drop from the avg of 140fps to 92fps vs 60fps would be quite jarring to most players playing a fps, especially if you're playing in a competitive setting(PvP). Even the drop that the 9900k has, is quite bad if smooth mouse movement is what you're after.

Now I don't want to be too nitpicky here, but saying that an fps drop from 140 to 90 is barely noticeable by most and then saying that you can feel the difference between dual channel and quad channel memory in mouse movement where we're talking about nanoseconds is a bit contradictory. Especially as going from dual channel to quad channel actually increases latency.

Last edited by Nammi; 10-19-2019 at 02:49 AM.
Nammi is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 03:26 AM - Thread Starter
Свет
 
XLifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,246
Rep: 37 (Unique: 36)
Quote: Originally Posted by Nammi View Post
Ok, you ran multiple tests. Are you going to present that info? I assume the goal here is inform people with older cpus that they're still fine for gaming.
Older cpus can manage just fine in my opinion aswell. It's just that if someone is looking to upgrade from their old xeon or equivalent cpu and they come across your comparison, they'd end up being mislead to believe that the 9900k is slower than it actually is.



I should've been more specific, the bold parts are where I disagree. Fps drop from the avg of 140fps to 92fps vs 60fps would be quite jarring to most players playing a fps, especially if you're playing in a competitive setting(PvP). Even the drop that the 9900k has, is quite bad if smooth mouse movement is what you're after.

Now I don't want to be too nitpicky here, but saying that an fps drop from 140 to 90 is barely noticeable by most and then saying that you can feel the difference between dual channel and quad channel memory in mouse movement where we're talking about nanoseconds is a bit contradictory. Especially as going from dual channel to quad channel actually increases latency.

Question is how often it happens, not if it does at all. FPS drop can happen even with the strongest CPU if you game long enough, because server also affects it.

I don't understand with what are you disagreeing, where was I arguing with you?

Presenting several tests ran over and over in the same video is redundant to me, so no, I won't be :-)
My purpose of this benchmark is to show one benchmark, and not spend days testing this, and then adding into 1 video a ton of the same benchmarks running over and over (no one does this in the videos of any benchmarks). If I ran 3 benchmarks in the row and the difference is within a margin of error (how you put yourself), I would not put videos back to back for 2 more tests in same video. I would choose 1 without preference and upload.


9900k is king when it comes to smoothness, at 830% of the cost of E5-2690, that's the fascinating part of it. With cheaper ram I might add.

My purpose is not to convince you that E5-2690 is better, it is not. :-)

I think you missed the point of the benchmark.

Never in my post I said E5-2690 is stronger than 9900k, if people can read and look at the numbers here, they would not assume such thing. Maybe you didn't read the first post, or didn't see the numbers.

I would say if you own x79 and wanted to stick with it, I would just buy the strongest x79 Xeon, and that's it. Until later point when you are ready to drop $500 on 1 cpu.

Never in my posts did I even vaguely said that Xeon from 2012 is better than 9900k.

Where do you find this path of thinking in anything that I posted so far?
XLifted is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 05:57 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Nammi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 58
Rep: 6 (Unique: 6)
I think we have a language barrier between us, English isn't my primary language.
Anyway let me try again. =D

Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
Question is how often it happens, not if it does at all. FPS drop can happen even with the strongest CPU if you game long enough, because server also affects it.
Agreed, however to figure this out you'd have to change the rate of polling to real time or as close to it as possible. Afterburner by default uses 1000ms interval polling if I remember correctly.

Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
I don't understand with what are you disagreeing, where was I arguing with you?
I'm simply disagreeing with your statement "that there's only a small difference between the cpus".

Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
Presenting several tests ran over and over in the same video is redundant to me, so no, I won't be :-)
My purpose of this benchmark is to show one benchmark, and not spend days testing this, and then adding into 1 video a ton of the same benchmarks running over and over (no one does this in the videos of any benchmarks). If I ran 3 benchmarks in the row and the difference is within a margin of error (how you put yourself), I would not put videos back to back for 2 more tests in same video. I would choose 1 without preference and upload.
I'm not asking you to video record all the test runs, a plot graph or something similar of the results would add alot more credibility to the end results. But this is obviously my preference. If I was looking to make an informed decision about keeping or purchasing a new cpu to play some Siege and I came across your video, I'd go look somewhere else. How would I, the viewer, know that this wasn't just a single run, or a biased run towards one or the other cpu?

Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
9900k is king when it comes to smoothness, at 830% of the cost of E5-2690, that's the fascinating part of it. With cheaper ram I might add.

My purpose is not to convince you that E5-2690 is better, it is not. :-)

I think you missed the point of the benchmark.

Never in my post I said E5-2690 is stronger than 9900k, if people can read and look at the numbers here, they would not assume such thing. Maybe you didn't read the first post, or didn't see the numbers.

I would say if you own x79 and wanted to stick with it, I would just buy the strongest x79 Xeon, and that's it. Until later point when you are ready to drop $500 on 1 cpu.

Never in my posts did I even vaguely said that Xeon from 2012 is better than 9900k.

Where do you find this path of thinking in anything that I posted so far?
That part you made perfectly clear, that the xeon is not better. What bothers me is the GPU bottleneck that is present in your video. Objectively there's clearly a measurable difference, which would change were you not gpu bound.

Lets say I'm on the edge between upgrading and not.
Scenario 1: I come across your video and see, oh the 9900k is only about 6 fps better on average. This would make it seem(mislead) as a pointless upgrade.
Scenario 2(without a gpu bottleneck): 9900k is 50(arbitrary) fps better on average. Now whether this is enough or not to justify an upgrade is a whole different story.

Do you now see what I mean with misleading?... That it's not an accurate representation of what the newer cpu is capable of. Even the xeon could stretch its legs a little further with a stronger gpu or lower settings.
I like looking at comparisons between older and newer hardware. Just got a little thrown off by the limited test configuration, if you change some of your testing methodology it could gain you some viewers/followers if that's something you're after.

Last edited by Nammi; 10-19-2019 at 08:44 AM.
Nammi is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
Свет
 
XLifted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,246
Rep: 37 (Unique: 36)
Quote: Originally Posted by Nammi View Post
I think we have a language barrier between us, English isn't my primary language.
Anyway let me try again. =D


Agreed, however to figure this out you'd have to change the rate of polling to real time or as close to it as possible. Afterburner by default uses 1000ms interval polling if I remember correctly.


I'm simply disagreeing with your statement "that there's only a small difference between the cpus".


I'm not asking you to video record all the test runs, a plot graph or something similar of the results would add alot more credibility to the end results. But this is obviously my preference. If I was looking to make an informed decision about keeping or purchasing a new cpu to play some Siege and I came across your video, I'd go look somewhere else. How would I, the viewer, know that this wasn't just a single run, or a biased run towards one or the other cpu?


That part you made perfectly clear, that the xeon is not better. What bothers me is the GPU bottleneck that is present in your video. Objectively there's clearly a measurable difference, which would change were you not gpu bound.

Lets say I'm on the edge between upgrading and not.
Scenario 1: I come across your video and see, oh the 9900k is only about 6 fps better on average. This would make it seem(mislead) as a pointless upgrade.
Scenario 2(without a gpu bottleneck): 9900k is 50(arbitrary) fps better on average. Now whether this is enough or not to justify an upgrade is a whole different story.

Do you now see what I mean with misleading?... That it's not an accurate representation of what the newer cpu is capable of. Even the xeon could stretch its legs a little further with a stronger gpu or lower settings.
I like looking at comparisons between older and newer hardware. Just got a little thrown off by the limited test configuration, if you change some of your testing methodology it could gain you some viewers/followers if that's something you're after.

To be fair though, not many people will be gaming above 1080p with E5-2690, so why force a non-realistic scenario just to alleviate gpu bottleneck. Considering that they run at same settings. I don't even play at 1440p on 9900k, I am still playing at 1080p

Because then it becomes a conversation of, why not 1080ti, why not RTX 2080, but what about RTX 2070 super? There is no whys really, it's a test with same settings on 2 different platforms. No variance, besides of CPUs and RAM
XLifted is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-19-2019, 08:32 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
speed_demon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,483
Rep: 85 (Unique: 68)
This is just a single Xeon E5-2690, right?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


speed_demon is offline  
post #10 of 12 (permalink) Old 10-20-2019, 01:07 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Nammi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 58
Rep: 6 (Unique: 6)
Quote: Originally Posted by XLifted View Post
To be fair though, not many people will be gaming above 1080p with E5-2690, so why force a non-realistic scenario just to alleviate gpu bottleneck. Considering that they run at same settings. I don't even play at 1440p on 9900k, I am still playing at 1080p

Because then it becomes a conversation of, why not 1080ti, why not RTX 2080, but what about RTX 2070 super? There is no whys really, it's a test with same settings on 2 different platforms. No variance, besides of CPUs and RAM
Alright, clearly you're satisfied with the end results and here I am, shouting into the wind. We'll probably never see eye to eye over this matter, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote: Originally Posted by m4fox90 View Post
We must also consider the desk and chair; gaming or no?
If the house doesn't have gaming wiring, then it's all invalid testing anyway... =p

Last edited by Nammi; 10-20-2019 at 01:26 AM.
Nammi is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off