[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 254 95.13%
No 13 4.87%
Voters: 267. 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 8251 (permalink) Old 12-18-2014, 07:14 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Trondster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Yes my answer is = Intel said so. I didn't design these CPUs I only learned about them sometime ago. After seeing a lot of wrong info being passed around I decided to at least give some clarity in my article. I can't speak for MB manufactures or other motherboards since I only have one. I can only tell you what Intel provides.
Great! Where do they say so? Where do they provide that information?
The technical documents are full of thick, hard to read technical lingo - could you show us where in the wall of documentation and information they say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Enabling LLC will do nothing to prevent negative and positive spikes.
I know - and that's exactly what I wrote, too: "LLC causes the idle voltages to be closer to the load voltages, but with increased risk of voltage spikes".
But - enabling LLC (again - as long as you also adjust the voltage accordingly) will enable a lower constant idle voltage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

The entire point of LLC was to address enthusiast who ******* and complained about voltage and stability. The game changed and everyone wasn't happy. Usually the high end boards were worth the extra money and included the future. Then again I can't remember if lower end boards had the feature.....I don't believe so. Also it depends on how you overclock your build. You can do it old fashion way around the net or Intels way. I chose Intel that's all. LLC disabled still gets me high overclocks with lower temps.
I'm still not sure you compared with and without LLC in the correct way - I'm not sure that you also reduced the voltage when enabling LLC - otherwise you weren't comparing apples to apples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I could easily and simply say "Prove me wrong".
If you still think that LLC won't give a lower constant idle voltage, then yes, regarding that specific tidbit, I will. Or rather - I will run my experiment and report the results, whatever the results may be. smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

I don't have as much time as I used to have so bear with me.
Word - I know of that one way too well.
Trondster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2412 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-18-2014, 11:49 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,173
Rep: 201 (Unique: 130)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trondster View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Great! Where do they say so? Where do they provide that information?
The technical documents are full of thick, hard to read technical lingo - could you show us where in the wall of documentation and information they say so?
I know - and that's exactly what I wrote, too: "LLC causes the idle voltages to be closer to the load voltages, but with increased risk of voltage spikes".
But - enabling LLC (again - as long as you also adjust the voltage accordingly) will enable a lower constant idle voltage.
I'm still not sure you compared with and without LLC in the correct way - I'm not sure that you also reduced the voltage when enabling LLC - otherwise you weren't comparing apples to apples.
If you still think that LLC won't give a lower constant idle voltage, then yes, regarding that specific tidbit, I will. Or rather - I will run my experiment and report the results, whatever the results may be. smile.gif
Word - I know of that one way too well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kana-Maru View Post

Now as far as voltages goes. I'll be discussing that on the other site. Perform all the test you like, but at the end of the day it's Intels CPU. There's no reason not to follow their guidelines and regulations. I've done the homework for you and the article will be updated soon. I don't have as much time as I used to have so bear with me.

Check the article for updates in the future as well.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #2413 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-18-2014, 05:44 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
TopicClocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,179
Rep: 305 (Unique: 194)
Hey!

From my research into Nehalem, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, it seems that to match the performance of an i7 2600K you would need an i7 920 at 4.0GHz, and to match the performance of a i7 3930K or 3960X you would need a Xeon X56xx at 4.0GHz, is that about right? I've gathered this from various i7 3930K/3960X reviews and i7 2600K reviews that also include the performance of these chips.
TopicClocker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2414 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-19-2014, 03:06 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Trondster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
Cheers, all.

I have tested a bit more. I previously had my computer stable at 150BCLK, 29x CPU (4350MHz), 10xSPD(1500MHz) 6-6-5-15-1T, Uncore 20x (3000MHz), QPI 36x(5400MHz), DRAM 1.600V, IOH Core 1.100V, QPI/Vtt 1.275V, LLC enabled and a DVID +0.11250V, resulting in max load (and max idle) voltages of 1.344-1.360V.

(Edit: new paragraph) I previously did a couple of tests with LLC enabled and LLC disabled and posted my findings, concluding that LLC enabled gave lower idle voltages (when you adjust the voltage accordingly) by 0.032V, but higher IBT VH load voltages by 0.016V. However - I had only checked stability with IBT VH, and hadn't checked stability with neither Prime95 nor IBT at Maximum, and hadn't enabled EIST nor C-states either, and this last part caused the idle voltages and CPU multiplier to run at full tilt all the time. How would LLC enabled/disabled work out with EIST/C-states enabled, and how would Prime95 and IBT Max stability be? I was sure I would have to go up with DVID to get IBT Max and Prime95 stable, but would load and idle voltages (for the lowest stable DVID voltage) be different depending on the LLC settings? Sure - the maximum idle voltage was higher with vDroop (that's the nature of the beast), but how would the idle voltages be when the CPU clocked down into lower power states and correspondingly lowered the voltage? That's what I wanted to find out.


So, I have tested a bit more. I have previously spent some time trying (and failing) to get the bloody IMC and RAM stable with all six sticks at 1600 (and the rated 1866) MHz, but discovered that I could get it seemingly stable at 1500 MHz with only 1.500V DRAM and a QPI/Vtt of 1.195V. Woot - lower voltages means lower temperatures. smile.gif
However, after running several tests, both with and without LLC, I found out that the voltage settings weren't Prime95 stable - I found out that my voltages were juuust a smidgen too low on QPI/Vtt. But after a bump up to a QPI/Vtt of 1.215V I was back in business - the LLC enabled settings were finally stable. I was now able to run new tests, making a true apples to apples comparison - try to find out which voltages and temps I would get with LLC disabled (and thus vDroop enabled) vs having LLC enabled (and vDroop disabled). smile.gif

I first ran this setup (with LLC enabled) with a DVID of +0.07500V (1.312-1.328V), but IBT (Intel Burn Test) failed at VH (Very High), so I ramped up to a DVID of +0.09375 (giving voltages of 1.328-1.344V), but Prime95 failed after 7hrs 34 minutes. So - I ramped up again to DVID +0.11250, and it was finally stable - Prime95 ran successfully for 11hrs 30minutes. (I knew this DVID voltage was going be stable; I had previously run the previous stable setup with QPI/Vtt 1.275V and DRAM 1.600V for 31 hours - it was now the CPU voltage that was the limiting factor.)

So - the setup:
(Edit: Hardware): Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5, Xeon W3690, 6x2GB Corsair Dominator GT (7-8-7-20-2T 1866, if you care).
I used the following settings:
Frequencies: 150BCLK, 29x CPU (4350MHz), 10xSPD(1500MHz) 6-6-5-15-1T, Uncore 20x (3000MHz), QPI 36x(5400MHz)
Voltages: DRAM 1.500V, IOH 1.100V, QPI/Vtt 1.215V, LLC enabled, DVID +0.11250V
C1, C3/C6/C7, EIST and Hyper Threading are all enabled (I'll reboot to BIOS and verify that later).

When switching LLC off/on, the only changes are the DVID voltage adjustment and the LLC Enabled/Disabled.

LLC ENABLED:
So - I started the computer. Idle voltages were 1.088-1.360V:

I ran IBT (Intel Burn Test v2.54) at Very High x10, giving load voltages of 1.344-1.360V and temperatures of 68/68/63/63/69/68 °C (and GFlops of 81.5-81.7).


As you can see, both the idle max and load max are at 1.360V - both idle and load voltages are 1.344-1.360V, due to the LLC being enabled. And - because I have EIST and the C-states enabled, the CPU often clocks down and goes down to a floor of 1.088V.


LLC Disabled:
I then disabled LLC. When I disable LLC, load voltage is going to be a lot lower with the same idle voltage, and thus I knew I would have to raise the voltage adjustment.
I started turning DVID up one notch - at +0.13125. This gave an idle voltage of 1.104-1.376V. I fired up Prime95, figuring that it would probably be the limiting factor, and sure enough, I got a BSOD 0x50. Up with the DVID.
I tried a DVID of +0.15000V, with idle voltages of 1.120V-1.392V. I ran Prime95 for 10 minutes, with Prime95 voltages of 1.328-1.344-1.360V. It ran OK, so I fired up 10x IBT VH, for load voltages of 1.328-1.344V - and it passed! I went on to Prime95, and it ran 19 hours 22 minutes stable (yaay!). But - when I fired up IBT at Maximum (10068MB) it failed already on the second go. So - the voltage would have go up even one more notch.

I then went for a DVID of +0.16875V, giving idle voltages of 1.136V-1.408V. I ran IBT Maximum (9936MB) x10, giving load voltages of 1.360-1.376V and temps of 66/66/63/62/67/67 °C:

As you can see here, the load voltages are markedly lower than the max idle voltages - that's how vDroop works.

Edit II: pictures of the completed run - GFlops scores of 57.9-58.4 GFlops:



To check the max temperatures and load, I ran IBT VH x10, giving load voltages of 1.344-1.360V and temps of 68/68/64/64/69/70 °C (and GFlops of 81.3-81.7) - essentially the same voltages and temps (and GFlops) I got with my stable settings of LLC enabled.

Again we see that when IBT has finished, the max voltage jumps back up from 1.344-1.360V and up to 1.408V.


But - would my previous configuration with LLC enabled also be stable in IBT maximum?

LLC Enabled pt II:
I reenabled LLC and reduced the DVID back to +0.11250V. Idle voltages were 1.088-1.360V, with several dips down to 1.072V. I fired up IBT Maximum (10068MB), and as always with my LLC (at a given DVID) I got load voltages of 1.344-1.360V. The temps were 65/66/63/63/67/67 °C - the same as I got with LLC disabled.

..Oh yes it was stable. smile.gif
Edit II: With GFlops scores of 57.4-58.2.


Conclusion
So - there you have it, apples to apples: On my computer and my CPU, overclocked to 4350MHz, I need the same load voltages at the most extreme load (with IBT VH) to get my three tests (IBT VH x10, IBT Max x10 and Prime95 for many hours) stable, both with LLC enabled and LLC disabled - I get the same kind of GFlops score, the same temperatures and the same IBT VH load voltages.
But - this also means that the idle voltages differ. The idle voltages were 1.136-1.408V with LLC disabled (and vDroop enabled), but only 1.088-1.360 (occasionally 1.072) with LLC enabled - a whopping 0.048V (to 0.064V) difference! And - the IBT Maximum (and presumably Prime95) ran mostly at one notch higher with LLC disabled - at 1.360-1.376V, versus 1.344-1.360V with LLC enabled.

Edit II: The IBT Max GFlops scores were slightly higher with LLC disabled than with LLC enabled - this could be to circumstances (I have several times experiences higher/lower scores of up to +/- 1 GFlops on different reboots with the same settings), or it could be because the load voltage is slightly higher with LLC disabled during IBT Max runs.

So - you get the same load voltages when running the very most extreme test (IBT VH), but when idle or at lower loads, disabling LLC will give higher voltages - up to a difference of 0.048-0.064V at idle. And that is quite a bit!


So - certain forum members claims that enabling LLC will cause voltage spikes of up to 0.05V. Does it? And if so - is it dangerous? I don't know. I want to find out, though.
I do know, however, that for my overclock on my CPU and my motherboard I can choose between enabling LLC, and maybe risk potential spikes of 0.05V when going down to a lower idle load - or disable LLC, and get a voltage 0.05V higher at idle all the time.
Do I want a potential extra spike of 0.05V, or do I want a surefire constant idle voltage delta of +0.05? For me that question is simple to answer. Your mileage may vary - your answer may be different than mine, or it may be the same. Or - maybe your CPU and/or motherboard behaves differently. I do not know - I have only got this one X58 motherboard. smile.gifWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When Intel has stated that the max voltage for my CPU is 1.4V - do I want to run my CPU at 1.344-1.360V, which maybe may get an occasional spike up to 1.4V - or do I want my idle voltage to frequently and for longer periods go up to 1.408V - all the time? I'll leave it up to the reader to guess as to what my own answer to this particular dilemma might be.


But anyway - when enabling LLC - do remember to lower your voltage at the same time - the same idle voltage will give a higher load voltage when LLC is enabled, and thus you must reduce it to get the same load voltage.


And thus - as long as you adjust the voltage accordingly when enabling/disabling LLC (for my overclock it was a difference of 0.048V measured in Windows and 0.05625V chosen in the BIOS), enabling LLC will give you lower voltages.


(Edit: specifying obvious conclusion:) And yes, due to the danger of potential voltage spikes, I will of course tolerate higher idle voltages with LLC disabled than with LLC enabled. Idle voltages of 1.408V with LLC enabled? I don't think so! Not on my rig, anyway! Higher idle voltages than 1.408V with LLC disabled? Nope. Don't want it. Even 1.408V is a bit too high.


So - any comments/questions to (the results of) my little test? smile.gif


Cheers,
Trondster



Some background information:
- When Windows has started, my motherboard and software reports CPU vCore voltages in steps of 0.016V. As the BIOS has voltage steps of 0.00625V, I usually go up and down three of those BIOS steps at a time, giving steps of 0.01875V, which is the closest I can get to the 0.016V measured steps. If I find that a step of 0.01875V takes me two 0.016 steps up when checking the voltages in Windows, I usually reboot and try a smaller step instead. But - this happened not to be the case in the tests above.
- On my computer, IBT at VH (Very High) generates the most amount of heat - it generates more heat than IBT at Maximum. So - that's why IBT VH gives the lowest voltages with LLC disabled and generates the highest temps.
- I have found that IBT gives lower GFlops scores when I have just ran Prime95 for many, many hours, so in my tests I always boot after a Prime95 run, to keep all the scores and results more consistent.
- Both CPU-Z and EasyTune6 report the correct voltages, but they have different polling intervals. When taking screenshots I have tried to get shots of one showing the lowest idle voltage and the other one showing the highest idle voltage, to get both in several screenshots. The voltages do vary all the time when idle... wink.gif
Trondster is offline  
post #2415 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-19-2014, 03:17 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
KingT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sarajevo
Posts: 4,626
Rep: 478 (Unique: 306)
Here's my i7 4930K @ 4.2Ghz in Cinebench R15:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Maybe you can compare it to your system.

BTW great thread. thumb.gif

CHEERS..

It can run Crysis..
(13 items)
CPU
i7 4930K @ 4.37GHz / 125 BCLK (1.31V LOAD)
Motherboard
Asus Rampage IV Formula
GPU
EVGA GTX 1080 Founders Edition
RAM
G Skill Ripjaws Z 4x4GB @ 2333MHz, CL10
Hard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB SSD
Hard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB SSD
Hard Drive
2x Seagate Barracuda 500GB [7200.12] @ RAID 0
Optical Drive
Samsung DVD
Power Supply
Cooler Master V1200 Platinum
Cooling
Noctua NH-D14
Case
Cooler Master HAF 932
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Monitor
DELL UltraSharp U2412M 24"
Keyboard
Logitech G110
Mouse
Roccat Kone MAX (rev.2)
Mouse
N/A
Audio
Logitech G430 headset
CPU
E6750 G0 @ 3.3GHz (1.25V LOAD)
Motherboard
Asus P5KPL-VM G31
GPU
GeForce 8500GT @ 700/1600/445
RAM
Apacer 2x1GB 800MHz
Hard Drive
Hitachi Deskstar 160GB (7200,8MB)
Optical Drive
LG DVD
Power Supply
Cheap stuff
Case
Linkworld crappy/modded
Operating System
Win 7 Ultimate 64bit build 7601
Monitor
LG 19"
Keyboard
5$ keyboard
Mouse
SmartBox cheap
Mouse
N/A
▲ hide details ▲
KingT is offline  
post #2416 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 03:26 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Trondster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
(Updated my little "test article" above with a couple of paragraphs and corrected a few typos. See what you think! smile.gif )
Trondster is offline  
post #2417 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,173
Rep: 201 (Unique: 130)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingT View Post

Here's my i7 4930K @ 4.2Ghz in Cinebench R15:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Maybe you can compare it to your system.

BTW great thread. thumb.gif

CHEERS..

Thanks. I'm sure that will help some users who are wondering about their CPU performance. From my benchmarks there seems to be approx. 9%-10% performance difference.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #2418 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 07:57 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,173
Rep: 201 (Unique: 130)
Edit:

Dang Double Post. mad.gif
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #2419 of 8251 (permalink) Old 12-20-2014, 02:04 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
KingT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sarajevo
Posts: 4,626
Rep: 478 (Unique: 306)
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..

It can run Crysis..
(13 items)
CPU
i7 4930K @ 4.37GHz / 125 BCLK (1.31V LOAD)
Motherboard
Asus Rampage IV Formula
GPU
EVGA GTX 1080 Founders Edition
RAM
G Skill Ripjaws Z 4x4GB @ 2333MHz, CL10
Hard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB SSD
Hard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB SSD
Hard Drive
2x Seagate Barracuda 500GB [7200.12] @ RAID 0
Optical Drive
Samsung DVD
Power Supply
Cooler Master V1200 Platinum
Cooling
Noctua NH-D14
Case
Cooler Master HAF 932
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Monitor
DELL UltraSharp U2412M 24"
Keyboard
Logitech G110
Mouse
Roccat Kone MAX (rev.2)
Mouse
N/A
Audio
Logitech G430 headset
CPU
E6750 G0 @ 3.3GHz (1.25V LOAD)
Motherboard
Asus P5KPL-VM G31
GPU
GeForce 8500GT @ 700/1600/445
RAM
Apacer 2x1GB 800MHz
Hard Drive
Hitachi Deskstar 160GB (7200,8MB)
Optical Drive
LG DVD
Power Supply
Cheap stuff
Case
Linkworld crappy/modded
Operating System
Win 7 Ultimate 64bit build 7601
Monitor
LG 19"
Keyboard
5$ keyboard
Mouse
SmartBox cheap
Mouse
N/A
▲ hide details ▲
KingT is offline  
post #2420 of 8251 (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  
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