[Official] - Xeon X5660-X58 Review & Discussion [and Xeon L5639 benchmarks inside] - 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 #1 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 07:41 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
Steam: Xeon_Kana_Maru
Origin: Xeon-Kana-Maru

Updates:
[Dec. 11th 2014] - Moved a large portion of my review to another website. All info will be there.
http://www.overclock-and-game.com/hardware/computer-tech-reviews/28-x5660-review
[Nov. _6th 2014] - Added a new section "X5660 Power Usage Charts and Results"
[Oct. _5th 2014] - Added Middle Earth Shadows of Mordor Benchmarks 1440p & 1600p.
[Aug. 28th 2014] - Added SSD & HDD Benchmarks. Revised PC specs.
[Jun. 25th 2014] - Added Gaming Rig Pictures.
[Jun. 19th 2014] - Added Watch Dogs 1080p &1440p Ultra Settings /w Unlocked Graphic Mods.
[Jun. 16th 2014] - Added NEW 3DMark Fire Strike & 3D Mark 11 results. Broke previous record.
[Jun. 13th 2014] - Added 3500x1800p Gaming Benchmarks for BF4 100% and Tomb Raider.
[Jun. _9th 2014] - Added 6 new HWBOT Comparisons to the result chart.
[May 29th 2014] - Added a result chart instead of text to the HWBOT Comparisons.
[May 19th 2014] - Added BRAND NEW CPU Benchmarks and HWBOT Comparisons
[May 10th 2014] - Added BF4 1440p Real-Time Benchmarks and Updated CPU Benchmarks.
[Apr. 27th 2014] - Added DDR3-1600Mhz vs 1900Mhz vs 2000M Mhz Gaming Comparisons.
[Apr. 18th 2014] - Added Battlefield 4 1600p Real-Time Benchmarks.
[Mar. _4th 2014] - Added RealBench Thief 1080p Very High Benchmarks Stock vs OC.
[Feb. 19th 2014] - Added RealBench V2 Results to the GPU Benchmark Section.
[Feb. 13th 2014] - Added Star Swarm Stress Test 1080p CPU Stock vs OC Results.
[Feb. 11th 2014] - Added 5.2Ghz CPU-Z results.
[Feb. _8th 2014] - Added Total War: Rome II 1080p CPU Stock vs OC Real-Time Benchmarks.
[Feb. _2th 2014] - Added categories to the thread. Everything should be easier to find now.
[Jan. 29th 2014] - Added GTA IV with mods maxed @ 1600p.
[Jan. 27th 2014] - Added Cinebench R11.5 - 4960X & 3970X 4.8Ghz results.
[Jan. 26th 2014] - Added Battlefield 3 - 1600p Real-Time Benchmarks @ Stock CPU settings.
[Jan. 25th 2014] - Added Battlefield 3 - 1600p, 1080p and 720p Real-Time Benchmarks.
[Jan. 24th 2014] - Added Gaming Benchmarks and Real-Time Benchmarks.


Original Post:
It was suggested to me that Intel’s best platform to date could be the X58-LGA1366. From the looks of it, that suggestion may have been correct. Moving into its sixth year in the market; the legacy X58\Tylersburg is still alive and kicking. There appears to be plenty of life in the platform now that high-end server microprocessors are more affordable. This review is mainly for those who are on the fence and thinking about upgrading to X79 or possibly the X99. I also understand that Haswell-E is right around the corner, but some users might not want to upgrade unless they absolutely have to. Some users can’t always buy the latest and greatest. Personally I can, but only if I feel as if I’m getting a lot more than what I already have.

To most X58 users Intel’s X79 felt like a “side-grade” instead of an upgrade. I’m not saying X79 doesn’t offer a lot, but is it worth the price at this point? The architectures are obviously different. However, the X58 now has upgrades that cost less than $150-$200 that can easily even up the playing field a bit. Hex-cores are available and more affordable now. Unlike Intel latest Xeons [Sandy & Ivy Xeons], which have locked straps, LGA1366 has the ability to overclock Xeons by increasing the BLCK and\or CPU ratio. I’m sure many users are hoping to add as many years to the awesome X58 platform as possible. Many will tell others to upgrade, but not so fast. I’ve taken the time to compare my Xeon X5660 and L5639 to Intel’s latest and greatest high end CPUs.

While I am speaking about the Xeon L5639 be sure to check my review here:

https://www.overclock.net/t/1442498/x58-in-2014-i-was-thinking-about-upgrading-to-x79-or-haswell-l5639-comparison-review

I cover the CPU benchmarks and gaming benchmarks. I also added something I like to call “Real-Time Benchmarks” which is for gaming. Instead of running a benchmark tool, I literally capture the frame times and frame rates from actual gameplay. I try to play at least 25 minutes or longer to give a good review, but sometimes I can't always hit the 25 minute mark [depends on the level and\or gamemode]. I also try to select the most demanding levels. For an example, my [email protected] struggled to play Crysis 3 maxed @ 1080p. There was constant micro stutter and bottlenecking. After I installed my L5639 and later the X5660, Crysis 3 is much more playable and runs at a smoother rate. I show the actual data from my play through. The differences are night and day

Moving on, I have made a brief chart comparing the X58 architecture to the X79 architecture.



Now you can see why a lot of X58 users felt like this platform was a side grade. PCI-E 2.0 still has plenty of bandwidth for high end cards. There have been a lot of reviews that proves that there is a minor difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0. X58 gamers can still enjoy high end gaming as usual. So hopefully my review will help X58 users that might want to make a minor upgrade to their existing system, rather than upgrading to a new build.

My PC Specs:
Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X58
CPU: Xeon X5660 @ 4.8Ghz
CPU Cooler: Antec Kuhler 620 Push/Pull
GPU: GTX 670 2GB 2-Way SLI - Reference Model
RAM: 12GB DDR3-1600Mhz [6x2GB]
SSD: x2 128GB RAID 0
HDD: x4 Seagate Barracuda 7,200rpm High Performance Drives [x2 RAID 0 setup]
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 1300W 80+ GOLD
Monitor: Dual – Res- 1080p, 1400p, 1600p
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Note: All test prior to July 2014 were performed with a 7,200 HDD containing the main OS.

Click Here for Pictures of my Gaming Rig Rig Pics (Click to show)

































Click Here for the CPU Benchmarks CPU Benchmarks (Click to show)
I had a decent SSD at one point that contained my OS. It died randomly one day and I’m sticking with traditional HDDs from now on or at least for a few more years. HDDs move plenty of data IMO.

HDDs does move plenty of data, but I've recently setup two SSDs in RAID 0. I purchased them at a price that I could refuse. TRIM has been enabled in RAID 0 on MB btw.

OLD HDD RESULTS: Click to view old HDD performance (Click to show)
HDD Benchmark: [no RAID]

NEW RESULTS:
SSD RAID 0


HDD RAID 0 Quick Test


4.8Ghz


----

5Ghz


----

5.2Ghz


It took awhile, but I finally hit 5.2Ghz. It only took me about 10 minutes to resolve all of my boot issues. I'm probably going to shoot for 5.4Ghz eventually. It will have to be on a cooler day.



I will admit that I was pretty excited when I first received my X5660. I only spent about $200 for it. I couldn’t find a lot of info on it. Some of the info I found was true and the other info was wrong. Finding info on this chip was much easier than my Xeon L5639. The X5660 is rated at 6.4 GT/s and I’ve personally pushed it all the way to 8 GT/s. It is a 32nm processor with 12MB a 95Watt Max TDP. There’s a lot of more info you can search and find. Now when I first installed the chip I was amazed at the low temps it maintained. The cores usually stayed below 23C in my room that was approx. 20C. Default voltage can get as low 0.88vCore. During 100% Loads the cores never went above 32c. Obviously I couldn’t wait to overclock this CPU and I’ll speak more on the overclocking below.

X5660 Stock clocks and minor BLCK overclock
I ran a few quick tests in Cinebench R11.5 after I first installed this chip. I scored a 7.71pts in Cinebench R11.5 @ stock clocks– 3.2Ghz [x24]. One of the impressive things about this chip is that the voltage was extremely low. What was even more impressive was the idle frequency. 1.6Ghz as the idle speed. So I performed a minor increase to the BLCK. I pushed it from 133 to 166. I only increased the BLCK and left everything else set to auto. I was able to hit 3980.50Mhz [x24] very easily or in other words 4Ghz. This only required 1.22vCore! I noticed the idle clock speed increased to 2Ghz [1990Mhz]..

Obviously the 4Ghz will down clock to 3.8Ghz after using more than two cores. @ 4Ghz [3.8Ghz -x23] I scored 9.64pts in Cinebench R11.5. Not too bad at all. At this speed the Xeon L5639 with a highly clocked BLCK @ 228 [and other settings] running @ 4.1Ghz is only 10% faster than the X5660 @ 4Ghz\3.8Ghz-BLCK 166. With a minor bump in BLCK and with ZERO other changes the X5660 was already looking better than my lovely L5639. If you were to compare my X5660 @ 4Ghz\3.8Ghz [x23] w/ BLCK 166-1600Mhz RAM to Intel’s i7-4960X @ stock clock, the difference in speed is only 14.8%. This is extremely minor if you are looking to upgrade from X58 to X79 and may not be worth it at this point if you don’t plan to heavily overclock. This CPU definitely has plenty of headroom. Continue reading more for the Cinebench R11.5 overclocked settings below.

L5639 RECAP+Xeon Info

Taking another look at the Xeon L5639 vs Several Intel Stock clocks

As the title suggest, I'm comparing an overclocked [email protected] to stock High-End Intel CPUs. The i7-4770K isn't "that" high-end, but I have seen people upgrading to Haswell. This should give LGA 1366-X58 users an ideal comparison to stock higher end CPUs. I personally like to compare my overclock CPU to Intel’s latest stock clocks. It really helps me decide if an upgrade is really worth it or not. Now does this mean the Xeon L5639 or Xeon X5660 would perform better clock for clock [?] of course not, due to the fact that the CPUs use different architectures to perform. Obviously people who still use their X58 as their main gaming and workstation platform will be looking to overclock the Xeon L5639 and the Xeon X5660. The highest constant overclock I could achieve with a reasonable vCore while using the Xeon L5639 was 4.1GHz. I've gathered several stock clock benchmarks from reputable review sites. So let's see how a overclocked Xeon L5639 compares to several CPUs.



Obviously the latest and greatest Intel CPUs will overclock better. They also cost over $800-$1000.00. While the L5639 [$70-$150] and X5660 [$150-$200] are affordable now. So the cheaper L5639 does pack a nice punch for those who are still running the X58. If you can manage to reach a high BLCK with the L5639 you’ll see that the i7-4960X [stock] is only 4.2% faster than the overclocked L6539. The Xeon X5660 has a higher x24 CPU multiplier which makes it easier to overclock. The Xeon L5639 has a x20 multiplier. The multiplier fluctuates [L5639 [x20]+X5660 [x24]-Xeons] with the amount of active cores.

For instance, using the Xeon L5639 as a example: Cores 1 & 2 will operate at x20. Once the 3rd OR 4th core becomes active the multiplier will drop to x19. When Core 5 OR 6 is active it will drop the multiplier to [x18] and so on. x16 is the lowest multiplier. Some motherboards can lock the CPU multiplier\CPU Ratio to x16 or x18. The following x19 and x20 can only be enabled if you have the C-state functions. So the x18 CPU Ratio should be your main focus. The only way to overclock this CPU is to increase the Ratio and the BCLK and various settings in the BIOS. With all of this being said, the 1366\2011 i7 "X or K" counterparts can and will be unlocked; allowing a much easier overclock. Therefore the L5639 takes some patients to overclock past BLCK 200-215 due to the low multiplier. From what I’ve read from several users; hitting 4Ghz is pretty easy for the average overclocker. I can easily tell you that the L5639 is pretty easy to overclock if you plan to use the C-States. Most X58 motherboards can move the BLCK upwards towards 200Mhz with minor issues. Which would put most around 3.8Ghz to 4.0Ghz with the x20 multiplier.

Overclocking the X5660 and Cinebench R11.5 results:

Click here for the results: X5660 Cinebench R11.5 Results (Click to show)



Before jumping right into the review about this benchmark section, I would like to point out my performance increase. Coming from the i7-960 I have seen a huge performance increase. The Bloomfield’s are pretty damn hard to OC past 4.2Ghz, mostly due to several limitations and voltage issues. It’s hard to get the i7-960 past 4.1-4.2Ghz without some serious cooling and high vCore [or the golden chip]. My performance gains in CinebenchR11.5 were a breathtaking 76.1% if you compare my old [email protected] to the [email protected] Now that’s what I call a upgrade.

X5660
The i7-4960X has a difference of 9% when compared to the [email protected] Remember that I’m only running DDR3-1600Mhz RAM. The Xeon X5660 is pretty impressive. At 1.36v I was able to hit 4.6Ghz. This voltage is right outside of Intel’s recommended max voltage of 1.35v. I was able to get a score of 11.89pts @4.6Ghz in Cinebench R11.5. This would put the i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz only 13% higher than the [email protected] When I pushed the BLCK to 209 and increased the vCore to a stable 1.43v, I was able to hit 4.8Ghz rather easily. This is outside of Intel’s max [only 0.08v], but safe enough for me to test and play games without worrying for hours. You’ll definitely want aftermarket cooling if you plan to overclock this CPU heavily.

So once again the [email protected] vs the X5660 @ 4.8Ghz difference is only 9%. I’m only running DDR-1600Mhz RAM. So I’m sure if you run faster RAM with tighter timings you can make the 9% even smaller, possibly 7% or less. I can say I’m pretty impressed. Between the [email protected] vs the [email protected], the different is roughly 17%; easily making the X5660 the better choice for X58 users who don’t want to spend a lot on legacy technology.

L5639
Now let's even up the playing field a bit. I have included some overclocked examples to give you a better representation of the “Locked” L5639. The i7-4960X @ 4.4GHz is 27.1% faster than the L5639 @ 4.1Ghz while running DDR3-1333Mhz. 27.1% might not be enough to make a ton of X58 users to run out and spend approx. $1,059.00 for the latest and greatest CPU plus more for the latest platform MB. Most L5639 users should be able reach 4Ghz rather easily with the x20 multiplier and low vCore. For those who manage to reach 4Ghz or 4.1Ghz with the x18 multiplier; you’ll definitely get great results while playing games. Those who can reach 180Mhz-200Mhz [BLCK] will be just as happy. This CPU definitely gets the job done. Just be sure to leave the C-States enabled.

Cinebench R11.5: Clock for Clock - 4.8Ghz Comparison

After a recent request was made I decided to post the clock for clock comparisons. Instead of comparing the [email protected] to the lower clocked Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E; I have posted the clock for clock comparisons @ 4.8Ghz for the i7-4960X, i7-3960X and the X5660 in Cinebench R11.5. Remember that the i7-4960X and the i7-3960X have faster RAM, newer architecture and faster single core speed. It took awhile to find the [email protected] so it must pretty rare. I threw the Quad [email protected] in the mix to give those running Bloomfield’s below that clock speed an idea of the potential upgrade percentage. Getting Bloomfield’s pass the 4.0-4.2Ghz can be a challenge.



[email protected] + DDR3-1866Mhz = 14.58 [-17.7%]
[email protected] + DDR3-2134Mhz = 13.82 [-11.6%]
X5660 @4.8Ghz + DDR3-1600Mhz = 12.38 [0.0%]
i7-920 @4.4Ghz + DDR3-1600Mhz = 7.41 [+67%]

I originally I wrote the Cinebench 11.5 review for the L5639 comparison and added the X5660 results. This should provide a better comparison for those looking to upgrade to the X5660. The X5660 still holds it’s ground. Clock for clock coming within 11.6% of the highly clocked 3970X is pretty damn good. The 3970X was taken from HWBOT as well. The i7-4960X increased from 13% to nearly 18%. The X5660 is still within 17.7% of the i7-4960X. The comparison is still a bit one sided since I’m running legacy tech and using lower memory speed. I’m still impressed with the X5660. The X5660 is 67% faster than the [email protected] You don’t find a lot of i7-920 running 4.8Ghz without nearly ruining the chip. The i7-4960X is a whopping 96.7% faster than the i7-920. Even if the i7-920 was running 4.8Ghz I’m sure the 4960X would still stomp it by at least 80%. With all of that being said I hope this answers more unasked questions.

Cinebench R15:

Click here for the results: X5660 Cinebench R15 Results (Click to show)

i7-3970X @ 4.9Ghz = 1252 cb
Xeon X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 1110 cb
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 965 cb

There are a lot of Cinebench R15 scores available. Cinebench loves faster RAM. I chose the i7-3970X that is ranked on HWBOT. The i7-3970X is 12.8% faster than my X5660. The i7-3970X is running DDR3-2423Mhz and once again I’m running 1600Mhz with my X5660. Cinebench loves fast RAM so those numbers can easily change for both processors. It’s hard finding units that match my RAM setting so I went with the processor speed.

The 3970X is roughly 30% faster than the L5639 running DDR3-1333Mhz. For only $70 [L5639] that’s pretty damn good for nearly 6 year old technology. The i7-3970X processor retailed for $1,039.99 and currently $700-$900. The numbers look good, but the performance increase is what really matters to me. 12.8% [X5660] increase isn’t going to make me run out and upgrade my PC. You’ll have to also add the price of the new MB and CPU. Not to forget to mention coolers and other things needed when changing platforms\MBs. obviously enthusiast will always have that upgrade itch. Maybe the X5660 can ease the pain for a little longer.

Cinebench R10: - [!!! Updated!!!]

Click here for the results: X5660 Cinebench R10 Results (Click to show)

NEW Multi-Core


OLD Multi-Core


Single-Core



Xeon X5660 Performance Increase [+] \ Decrease [-]

Multi-Core - Overclocked:
i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz = 42967 [-12.5%]
i7-3970X @ 4.6Ghz = 41359 [-8.3%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 38162 [0.0%]
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 36644 [+4.1%]
i7-3770K @ 4.8Ghz = 32738 [+15.1%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 32627 [+16.5%]
i7-920 @ 4.4Ghz = 25143 [+52%]


Singe Core - Overclocked
i7-4770K @ 4.6Ghz = 9288 [-33.5%]
i7-3770K @ 4.8Ghz = 8467 [-21.7%]
i7-4960X @ 4.4Ghz = 8037 [-15.5%]
i7-3970X @ 4.6Ghz = 7699 [-10.7%]
X5660 @ 4.8Ghz = 6953 [0.0%]
L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 5862 [+18.6%]


Cinebench R10 is pretty old, but still useful. Well the Open GL isn’t that useful for me, but the CPU benchmark scores are. In the Multi-core test the Xeon L5639 actually does pretty well. The i7-4960X is 31.7% faster than the Xeon L5639 @ 4.1GHz and 71% faster than the i7-920 @ 4.4Ghz. The i7-4770K [Quad-Core] clearly outperforms the other CPUs core for core in Cinebench R10 Single Core. The i7-4960X is only X5660 12.5% better in the Multi-Core benchmark. I7-920 and i7-960 users will definitely see a lot of performance gains if they choose to upgrade to the X5660 or the L5639.

WinRar v4.20: - [!!! Updated!!!]

Click here for the results: X5660 WinRar v4.20 Results (Click to show)

NEW Results


OLD Results

Moving on to the WinRar v4.20 benchmark, I’m comparing the X5660, L5639, and the i7-960. The results were amazing if you consider my i7-960 results I only ran my X5660 @ 4.6Ghz during this test. Here is the breakdown:

Xeon X5660 @ 4.6Ghz = 16,458
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 12,441
i7-960 @ 4.2Ghz = 8,519

Read the entire article in the link below.

Read the rest of the benchmarks by clicking here: X5660 Full Review
http://www.overclock-and-game.com/hardware/computer-tech-reviews/28-x5660-review
Kana-Maru is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 07:42 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
Ladies and gentlemen, with all of that said I will post more benchmarks as I complete them.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #3 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 07:43 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
RushiMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 756
Rep: 37 (Unique: 32)

I like this post. It is like the most fun I have had reading about CPUs in months.


Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
-S.R. Hadden


RushiMP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 07:45 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 RushiMP View Post

I like this post.

That was fast. Lol thanks.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #5 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 07:53 PM
I miss my OCN!!
 
ssgtnubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Muddy water somewhere in East Tennessee
Posts: 2,196
Rep: 80 (Unique: 72)
nice to see comparison's to newer tech to our good ole' 1366. I've been eyeing a 980 a bit to jump from my 950 just because of the fact that you have to upgrade 3 components instead of one if you go to a new chip design.

Semper Fidelis to all those who served before me, those that served with me and those that continue the fight.



ssgtnubb is offline  
post #6 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 10:28 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
DarthMuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 569
Rep: 8 (Unique: 6)
Nice but according to Intel on X79 the Max DMI2.0 bandwidth is 51.2GB/s
DarthMuse is offline  
post #7 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 10:39 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
jlhawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Wa.
Posts: 4,849
Rep: 238 (Unique: 195)
thank you for this. I knew there was a reason I decided not to build a new system every time I thought about it.
I am keeping my good ol Sabertooth X58 and i7 970 6 core. smile.gif
I built my system in 2010 and it has been perfect with never a problem.



jlhawn is offline  
post #8 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 10:53 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
avesdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 488
Rep: 42 (Unique: 38)
Well. . . now I'm thinking about a hex core upgrade to replace my 950. Crap. I was unaware the L5639 or X5660 would run in an x58 sabertooth, and now I want to do it.

EDIT:
I love the review, but can I ask how you monitored temps?
Quote:
The cores usually stayed below 20C in my room that was approx. 23C.

Cores can't be below ambient. Could be a problem with software used to monitor the sensor.



avesdude is offline  
post #9 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-22-2014, 11:03 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
mechwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 105
Rep: 2 (Unique: 2)
hi Kana-Maru love the topic have an I7 920 @4 with 2x gtx 670, was thinking of upgrading to haswell-e this year. really looking forward to
the real word tests and of course the game test.
Would you recommend upgrading this year or wait for broadwell? not sure what AMD have coming?
thanks again for starting this thread.

mechwarrior is offline  
post #10 of 8147 (permalink) Old 01-23-2014, 07:39 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
rezax58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 102
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
I've been building PC's since 1999 and my X58 has been my favourite thus far; Also it's the first time that I'm confident that truly Softwares are behind now and not the Hardware!

Thanks for taking the time to do this OP. Very much appreciated!

rezax58 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