[Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside] - Page 242 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

View Poll Results: Was my review helpful?
Yes 251 95.08%
No 13 4.92%
Voters: 264. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2411 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 02:39 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
TopicClocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,179
Rep: 305 (Unique: 194)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingT View Post

Here's 4930K @ 4.2GHz in Cinebench R 11.5, it outperforms X5660 @ 4.8GHz. (score 12.61 vs 12.38)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


CHEERS..

That's cool! How does that CPU perform at stock against an overclocked X5660?
How high does the Xeon have to be overclocked to come close to matching it?
TopicClocker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2412 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 05:08 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingT View Post

Here's 4930K @ 4.2GHz in Cinebench R 11.5, it outperforms X5660 @ 4.8GHz. (score 12.61 vs 12.38)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


CHEERS..

Actually my highest was 12.40 pts for the highest with only 1670Mhz CAS9.

Also since you brought more i7-4930K [X79] results in the topic I'll add my own data from HWBOT to give X5xx and potential users more X58 performance comparisons:

wPrime 32m:
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2400Mhz = 3.727 sec [3.16%]
4930K @ 4.6Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2183Mhz = 3.720 sec [3.36%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 3.854 sec [0.0%]

wPrime 1024m:
4930K @ 4.838Ghz[1.53v] DDR3-2669Mhz = 1min 40sec 281ms [7.9%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 1min 48sec 290ms [0.0%]
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2400Mhz = 1min 48sec 326ms [-0.03%]

X5660 beating a highly clocked 4930K [above] is weird and hilarious at the same time. It was only by 0.03%.


WinRar 4.20v:
4930K @ 4.829Ghz[1.64v] DDR3-2576Mhz = 17,099 KB/s [3.89%]
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 16,458 KB/s [0.0%]

IIRC that's WinRar 4.20v #1 in the world by the way.

HWBOT Prime:
4930K @ 4.86[n/a] DDR3-2134Mhz = 7441.92 pps [12.94%]
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.58v] DDR3-1866Mhz = 7283.57 pps [10.5%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 6588.69 [0.0%]

FryBench:
4930K @ 4.748[1.472v] DDR3-2667Mhz = 2min 37sec 0ms [8.43%]
4930K @ 4.86[n/a] DDR3-2137Mhz = 2min 38sec 0ms [7.98%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 2min 57sec 0ms [0.0%]

So yes for $50-$80 I feel that everyone X58 user could potentially benefit especially at high OCs. Every CPU is different and X79 is a side grade anyways. The performance jump isn't enough to make me run out and spend $500+ on a 3930K\4930K. Let's not for about the RAM and MB. That's the money I was planning to spend on my GTX 970s right there lol. I've since decided to keep my GTX 670s

Now for gamers.

Realbench V2:
4930K @ 4.9[1.50v] DDR3-2400Mhz + 2x GTX 780 Ti OC 1270Mhz = 109,250 points [19.6%]

X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz + 2x GTX 670 2GB Ref. OC 1006Mhz = 91,312 points [0.0%]

I'm pretty sure if I would've thrown 2 overclocked GTX 970's in my build I would change the 91,312 pretty quickly. Since the GTX 670 is still doing great I've decided to keep them a little while longer. That's my own RealBench V2 test by the way. I haven't re-tested with the latest drivers. I still feel this is enough info for anyone wondering.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #2413 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 08:08 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
justinyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 84
Rep: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Actually my highest was 12.40 pts for the highest with only 1670Mhz CAS9.

Also since you brought more i7-4930K [X79] results in the topic I'll add my own data from HWBOT to give X5xx and potential users more X58 performance comparisons:

wPrime 32m:
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2400Mhz = 3.727 sec [3.16%]
4930K @ 4.6Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2183Mhz = 3.720 sec [3.36%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 3.854 sec [0.0%]

wPrime 1024m:
4930K @ 4.838Ghz[1.53v] DDR3-2669Mhz = 1min 40sec 281ms [7.9%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 1min 48sec 290ms [0.0%]
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.47v] DDR3-2400Mhz = 1min 48sec 326ms [-0.03%]

X5660 beating a highly clocked 4930K [above] is weird and hilarious at the same time. It was only by 0.03%.


WinRar 4.20v:
4930K @ 4.829Ghz[1.64v] DDR3-2576Mhz = 17,099 KB/s [3.89%]
X5660 @ 4.6Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 16,458 KB/s [0.0%]

IIRC that's WinRar 4.20v #1 in the world by the way.

HWBOT Prime:
4930K @ 4.86[n/a] DDR3-2134Mhz = 7441.92 pps [12.94%]
4930K @ 4.8Ghz[1.58v] DDR3-1866Mhz = 7283.57 pps [10.5%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 6588.69 [0.0%]

FryBench:
4930K @ 4.748[1.472v] DDR3-2667Mhz = 2min 37sec 0ms [8.43%]
4930K @ 4.86[n/a] DDR3-2137Mhz = 2min 38sec 0ms [7.98%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz = 2min 57sec 0ms [0.0%]

So yes for $50-$80 I feel that everyone X58 user could potentially benefit especially at high OCs. Every CPU is different and X79 is a side grade anyways. The performance jump isn't enough to make me run out and spend $500+ on a 3930K\4930K. Let's not for about the RAM and MB. That's the money I was planning to spend on my GTX 970s right there lol. I've since decided to keep my GTX 670s

Now for gamers.

Realbench V2:
4930K @ 4.9[1.50v] DDR3-2400Mhz + 2x GTX 780 Ti OC 1270Mhz = 109,250 points [19.6%]

X5660 @ 4.8Ghz[1.46v] DDR3-1670Mhz + 2x GTX 670 2GB Ref. OC 1006Mhz = 91,312 points [0.0%]

I'm pretty sure if I would've thrown 2 overclocked GTX 970's in my build I would change the 91,312 pretty quickly. Since the GTX 670 is still doing great I've decided to keep them a little while longer. That's my own RealBench V2 test by the way. I haven't re-tested with the latest drivers. I still feel this is enough info for anyone wondering.

Since I do not bench much, I'm only interested in the gaming performance tongue.gif
Also, I think the X-565x is already a darn good cpu considering it is a product introduced all the way back in year 2010, while the 4930K was introduced not long ago at 2013.
justinyou is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2414 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-21-2014, 11:47 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
nievz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 100
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
I got 971 points on C15 on an [email protected] with HT ON. with HT off, 770 pts.

My advice for gaming, turn off HT. Physical cores are always better than logical threads. I get more FPS with HT off.

nievz is offline  
post #2415 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-22-2014, 12:52 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
nievz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 100
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I've seen otherwise personally. My bro went up to 105 - 106Mhz and killed his on-board audio. During another high X58 overclock going above 105 killed his SSDs. I've personally had PCI-E experiences and none of them were good. I leave it alone on my OCs

Can you explain why and link to any technical review or documents? It doesn't make sense overclocking 10% killing an hardware. I've been running 110 for a week and not a single crash playing COD, BF4, ACU, FC4. Moreover, it's not overvolted. Anything i can find on the web is inconclusive + Asus doesn't give a warning in the bios for this setting. Also i have had no sign of instability on my peripherals.

nievz is offline  
post #2416 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-22-2014, 01:05 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Trondster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
I haven't seen technical documents about overclocking the PCI-E bus, but have read several warnings all over the net.
https://www.overclock.net/t/653075/overclocking-pcie
https://www.overclock.net/t/1344748/pcie-frequency-overclock
https://www.overclock.net/t/914546/who-is-overclocking-pcie-frequency

You did report some instability over the network - did you overclock your PCI-E at the time?
Trondster is offline  
post #2417 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-22-2014, 01:19 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
nievz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 100
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
No, I had that issue for a while. The network instability wasn't due to PCIE lane oc'd. I just needed to lower my oc to 4.2ghz and it never reoccured after 3x trying to unpack the same file over the network. Somehow, 4.4ghz corrupts network transfers, i'm sure it's something in my settings that i haven't figured out yet. At 4.4, i experimented up to 1.412vcore and the problem still occurs, but at 4.2 at 1.32 it's stable. I am now keeping that particular file on the network indefinitely for testing stability. It is an highly compressed file (35GB in a one 12GB file).

nievz is offline  
post #2418 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-22-2014, 12:52 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
BasTijs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 8
Rep: 0
I've tried to install a X5675 in a X58 MSI Eclipse SLI but no luck, not getting any beeps frown.gif It all works fine with my 920...
Does it need a microcode update or something? And is someone able to do this?
BasTijs is offline  
post #2419 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-22-2014, 02:00 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
nievz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 100
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
In terms of Cinebench R15 scores, mine is as fast as a 4770K @ 4.7ghz at 4.2ghz https://www.overclock.net/t/1431032/top-cinebench-r15-cpu-scores

nievz is offline  
post #2420 of 8142 (permalink) Old 12-23-2014, 07:24 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
BasTijs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 8
Rep: 0
I solved my MSI eclipse motherboard problem by inserting the microcodes for the x5675 with MMtools. I also noticed there was a newer/beta bios version on a german msi forum that had the microcodes in it when comparing it to my own (that should have been the latest acc. to msi live update software).

http://valid.x86.fr/73vbuq
BasTijs 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